Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
ironworks soundlabs

Why is O'ism against environmentalism?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I just want to make sure I know that the contents of my food, air, soil, water and natural resources are safe.

How do you know they are safe anyway? How safe is "safe"? Also, which air, soil, water and natural resources are yours? When you say "yours", you imply ownership.

what (objectivist approved) mechanism is in place to monitor or counter this values problem if we don't trust the agencies/government?

First, Objectivist has a big "O". Second, what "would be" or "could be" in place would be the better question than "is in place" since we don't have a Capitalist government right now. To answer what could be or would be in place, the market, the courts, private "watchdog" agencies, and private testing facilities could be formed to certify certain types of products if consumers wanted some kind of added assurance as to the quality of that product. Also, what could be in place (perhaps by necessity) is a more informed and responsible consumer (as opposed to one who had relinguished their own responsibilities to the government). Just because the government can make something easier for an individual doesn't mean it falls under the proper role of government. Smart businessmen could very well see the value of having some products "certified" as safe. However, some of these things do not function very well when they have to compete with similar government provided services. Removing this government safety net merely places more responsibility on the individual to produce, buy and consume products more wisely.

One of the main philosophical issues here is that using the government for this function is using the end result (belief that products are safer) to justify the means (regulating business practices and establishing certain product "standards") of achieving that goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most posts on this topic are just anti environmentalists but don't offer an alternative solution.
There is a very good reason for that. If you think that there is "a problem" which environmentalism addressed, then you are necessarily addressing an anti-scientific anti-man philosophy. If you want to address a specific problem such as how to increase crop yields in the Iringa highlands with economically feasible methods which don't result in permanent increase in soil pH, then that addresses something which is central to Objectivism, namely that we consider benefits from the long range perspective, not just the short range perspective. If you have a specific, real problem, you might want to use the search function to see what has been proposed here previously. There have been a number of threads on the topic of civil remedies to pollution, but they wouldn't be applicable if your concern were, say, on product safety; similarly, we've had a number of discussions on the great outdoors in a free society, but the solutions to those problems are different from the problems of establishing property rights with respect to migratory animals. The concept of environmentalism as a broad concept presupposes a particular statist ideology, which is why threads here on environmentalism tend to focus on the fact that the green-whackos are anti-man lunatics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The modern environmentalist movement arose out of the New Left of the late 1960's, when it was called the ecology movement. That term was coined at the beginning of the movement in the mid-1800s by the German Hegelian biologist Ernst Haeckle, who attributed a reality to 'ecosystems' as an organic whole with intrinsic value.

Environmental science and engineering is not environmentalism. People enjoyed nature, checked their water and avoided poison completely independently of the viro movement, which cashes in on that in a package deal to promote their ideology. Environmental science is a legitimate field of study but is infested with viros corrupting the science as a handmaiden for their agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The modern environmentalist movement arose out of the New Left of the late 1960's, when it was called the ecology movement. That term was coined at the beginning of the movement in the mid-1800s by the German Hegelian biologist Ernst Haeckle, who attributed a reality to 'ecosystems' as an organic whole with intrinsic value.

Environmental science and engineering is not environmentalism. People enjoyed nature, checked their water and avoided poison completely independently of the viro movement, which cashes in on that in a package deal to promote their ideology. Environmental science is a legitimate field of study but is infested with viros corrupting the science as a handmaiden for their agenda.

The latest eruption of Gia nonsense started with Rachel Carson -The Silent Spring- in 1962. She put the knock on DDT which saved hundreds of thousands of lives following WWII by killing fleas and body lice on the wretched folk of Europe. Without DDT there might have been another widespread outbreak of Plague. But the anti-capitalists seized on the incidental damage caused by DDT and the rest, as if oft said, is History.

When in doubt blame the Capitalists. And when that does not suffice blame America.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are any doubts about how evil some of the branches of the Environmentalist movement can get, you need to look no further than the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Basically, they want everybody to voluntarily stop having children so that the Earth can be restored back to its "natural" order.

This is even sillier than the fruiterians who only eat fruits or vegetables that were harvested without killing the plant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The latest eruption of Gia nonsense started with Rachel Carson -The Silent Spring- in 1962. She put the knock on DDT which saved hundreds of thousands of lives following WWII by killing fleas and body lice on the wretched folk of Europe. Without DDT there might have been another widespread outbreak of Plague. But the anti-capitalists seized on the incidental damage caused by DDT and the rest, as if oft said, is History.

This is a very good example. Rachel Carson was one of the major influences on the rise of the New Left viros and her 1962 Silent Spring is a classic example. It was filled with scientific errors yet its ideology had an enormous political effect. In addition to the historic role of DDT mentioned by Bob, it continued to save millions of lives from malaria worldwide; the banning of DDT brought about by the viros has killed millions.

For recent documentation see Paul Driessen's book Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death at Amazon.com and the book's home page. Also, http://www.rachelwaswrong.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are interested, there is a nice speech on the ARI website that pretty much explains the Objectivist "party line" on this issue. It also contains my favorite quote:

Now, please bear in mind that when I talk about environmentalism, I do not mean a movement that seeks clean air and litter-free roads. That is not what environmentalism is. Any rational human being understands how such conditions are desirable because they are beneficial to him. One would not enshrine the environment if one were simply opposed to dirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another reason to dislike enviros...

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/monkey-m...-at-ucla/16986/

Granted, these are the extremists, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of main streamers approve and just don't voice it.

On a more humorous note, I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said, "I LOVE GLOBAL WARMING!" :o I thought I would like to have one of those, but ELF would probably vandalize my SUV as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a more humorous note, I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said, "I LOVE GLOBAL WARMING!"

Having endured 44 straight Northeastern Ohio winters--and lacking enough sense to move south--not only am I a supporter and advocate of global warming, I contribute to the cause wherever and whenever I can. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having endured 44 straight Northeastern Ohio winters--and lacking enough sense to move south--not only am I a supporter and advocate of global warming, I contribute to the cause wherever and whenever I can.
On behalf of everybody who had to endure the weather this week, let me say thanks a horking load :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if stuff like the data mentioned here, is actually available to the public for dissemination, and if so, if there are also independent websites showing an independent examination of the data?

It's just that, when arguing this topic with people, it is very difficult to keep up with every new claim backed up with every new bit of data from the IPCC, since it takes time for something like the Hockey-Stick graph to be realised for the big phoney it is.

So, does anyone know where one can find an up-to-date criticism of the current Environmentalism debate? A kind of Talk.Origins for this debate?

Edited by Tenure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone know if stuff like the data mentioned here, is actually available to the public for dissemination, and if so, if there are also independent websites showing an independent examination of the data?

That article is pure hype, and pure B.S.. It's worthless. In fact, that was written around the time Gore said the debate was over, and all hell broke loose, when countless contrarian's came out of the wood work.

It's just that, when arguing this topic with people, it is very difficult to keep up with every new claim backed up with every new bit of data from the IPCC, since it takes time for something like the Hockey-Stick graph to be realised for the big phoney it is.

So, does anyone know where one can find an up-to-date criticism of the current Environmentalism debate? A kind of Talk.Origins for this debate?

Hmmm, there is a lot to relate here. First, let me tell you what I've done is read a great deal by atmospheric scientists. I've seen the temperature graphs over long time periods, and over relatively short time periods. I've seen temperature graphs done using satellite, balloon, surface level measurements, and proxy data. The satellite data is the most accurate, but it also covers the shorts time period. Balloon data is almost as accurate. The surface level data is loaded with confounding factors. Proxy data allows you to look at 10,000 years stretches. This website shows many of the graphs http://www.john-daly.com/ Some of the data comes from NOAA, others from NASA, etc.

If you've seen "The Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary, you've seen many of those graphs. I also recommend the documentary "Doomsday Called Off", which gives you a break down of the ice core data, and the 10,000 year temperature record. Pay attention to that one. The first ten minutes is especially interesting.

If you want to get it from an authoritative source then you can't go wrong Googling these names: Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer. All of them are top notch atmospheric scientists. There are many other scientists, but those are three of the big ones I often reference.. Lindzen is my favorite, because he's brilliant and sometimes damned fun, because of his sardonic wit.

Web sites:

www.junkscience.com - for junk science generally, but he also has lots of links to other sources

www.sepp.org - Fred Singer's organization. Good for dealing with global warming.

debunkers.org - This has a forum, with a section devoted to global warming. There are some knowledgeable posters there on this issue, especially Jeff Norman.

Hope that gives you something solid, Tenure. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British Courts have ruled that there are nine significant errors in Al Gore's movie.

I like this part;

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let us take the example of the choice of life. Can you say that animals can choose between life and death?

They cannot because they are programmed by nature to do all that is necessary for their survival.

Not true. There are numerous examples where animals CONSCIOUSLY put themselves in harms way (and I'm not talking trained police dogs or anything like that) to protect humans and other animals. That's a very blanket statement made that you can't back up.

Recently, there was a story on yahoo about a Chihuahua who jumped in front of an infant (family dog) to take a rattlesnake bite. If the animal were a pure automon as you suggest, the dog would merely have run and allowed the child (other species) to die.

There have also been NUMEROUS studies showing a (at the very least) basic consciousness (decision-making) level in animals.

Just google Animal sentience and you'll come up with a ton of scientific studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true. There are numerous examples where animals CONSCIOUSLY put themselves in harms way (and I'm not talking trained police dogs or anything like that) to protect humans and other animals. That's a very blanket statement made that you can't back up.

No, it is you who are wrong - anthropomorphizing again. Just because animals are programmed by nature to put themselves in harm's way under certain circumstances does NOT mean that they possess free will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(like Microsoft and Walmart)
because he is a hack that uses eminent domain to cheat people out of their property. The Vera Coking incident is one such incident where Donald Trump wanted to build a parking garage on her property, but she wouldn't give it up, not for a million dollars. He went to the government to try and have her property seized for the greater good of the city, saying that the streets would be less crowded. Luckily for her, the case got alot of attention which painted Trump as the bully he really is, so he backed down. When John Stossel confronted him about it, he got huffy and stormed out of the building. So not only is he a crook, but he denies the reality that he is in fact one.
Right, and Bill gates didn't do anything immoral or shady building Microsoft. I get sick of people talking about Wal-Mart as some Objectivist giant, too. They sell the lowest common denominator crap to the lowest common denominator people. The are the ultimate Wynand industry.Like your second example though, I think that Alternate Mode (an electronic percussion creator) is MY ultimate Objectivist business. They make a powerful, unique, and practical instrument (product). You don't have to buy a NEW one every two years, because they can update the original machine for much cheaper. The constantly seek to IMPROVE their product and they have outstanding customer service. To ME, anyways, that's the true definition of an Objectivist business, but I understand there are those who disagree.
No, it is you who are wrong - anthropomorphizing again. Just because animals are programmed by nature to put themselves in harm's way under certain circumstances does NOT mean that they possess free will.
Huh? Why are you redefining it? Either their sole purpose is survival (an automon) or they can make a choice. You want it both ways? Can you prove your claim? I've posted the studies several times on here backing up mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, and Bill gates didn't do anything immoral or shady building Microsoft.
So tell us what immoral things Gates did by building Microsoft. Don't forget to inform us why producing useful products as opposed to useless ones is immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To ME, anyways, that's the true definition of an Objectivist business, but I understand there are those who disagree.

In my opinion, the true definition of an Objectivist business is one that trades honestly with its customers, suppliers and employers while attempting to maximize its profit in making those transactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So tell us what immoral things Gates did by building Microsoft. Don't forget to inform us why producing useful products as opposed to useless ones is immoral.

http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/

and a whole book on the things he did to get that kind of power

http://www.amazon.com/Pride-Before-Fall-Tr...t/dp/0066621178

Look, I really don't care. I thought what Gates did with his will was kind of cool. He's rich, and I admire that, but I just don't fool myself about how he got there.

Anyways, I just wanted to make a couple points, not really worth pursuing the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/

and a whole book on the things he did to get that kind of power

http://www.amazon.com/Pride-Before-Fall-Tr...t/dp/0066621178

A link is not an argument. Either make the argument, or retract the claim.
Look, I really don't care.
Then you will probably want to explicitly retract the claim.
Anyways, I just wanted to make a couple points, not really worth pursuing the discussion.
Me too. My point is that you made an unsubstantiated and indefensible claim. So now your only choices are to retract the claim, or substantiate the claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A link is not an argument. Either make the argument, or retract the claim.Then you will probably want to explicitly retract the claim.Me too. My point is that you made an unsubstantiated and indefensible claim. So now your only choices are to retract the claim, or substantiate the claim.

I provided a couple sources, how does that not substantiate my claim?

Not really in the mood to go into this... I've said my piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? Why are you redefining it? Either their sole purpose is survival (an automon) or they can make a choice. You want it both ways? Can you prove your claim? I've posted the studies several times on here backing up mine.

Redefining?

Bees die when they sting. But they'll do so, to protect the hive. Does this prove that they can make a choice? Absolutely not! Your statement, "Either their sole purpose is survival (an automon) or they can make a choice" is utterly false.

Clearly, what constitutes "survival" for a creature in this context is more complex than simple, physical survival. Animals do a lot of suicidal things - sometimes because their automatic programming is insufficient to deal with conditions and sometimes because natural selection favors suicidal behaviors under certain conditions.

Citing studies proves nothing if you fail to understand them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I provided a couple sources, how does that not substantiate my claim?

Not really in the mood to go into this... I've said my piece.

Critics, on the other hand, claim that Gates has engineered a stranglehold over the entire industry with his ideas and products. He and Microsoft have faced numerous allegations of unethical business practices, copyright infringement and monopolistic tendencies. Even now, Gates and Microsoft are the subjects of an ongoing legal battle with industry competitors and the U.S. Justice Department.

Criticism

Main article: Criticism of Microsoft

Corporate

Since the 1980s, Microsoft has been the focus of much controversy in the computer industry. Most criticism has been for its business tactics, often described with the motto "embrace, extend and extinguish". Microsoft initially embraces a competing standard or product, then extends it to produce their own incompatible version of the software or standard, which in time extinguishes competition that does not or cannot use Microsoft's new version.[83] These and other tactics have led to various companies and governments filing lawsuits against Microsoft.[84][44][16] Microsoft has been called a "velvet sweatshop" in reference to allegations of the company working its employees to the point where it might be bad for their health. The first instance of "velvet sweatshop" in reference to Microsoft originated from a Seattle Times article in 1989, and later became used to describe the company by some of Microsoft's own employees.[85][86]

Free software proponents point to the company's joining of the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA) as a cause of concern. A group of companies that seek to implement an initiative called Trusted Computing (which is claimed to set out to increase security and privacy in a user's computer), the TCPA is decried by critics as a means to allow software developers to enforce any sort of restriction they wish over their software.

“ Large media corporations, together with computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make your computer obey them instead of you”

Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation[87]

Advocates of free software also take issue with Microsoft's promotion of Digital Rights Management (DRM) and total cost of ownership (TCO) comparisons with its "Get the facts" campaign. Digital Rights Management is a technology that allows content providers to impose restrictions on the methods by which their products are used on consumer hardware; and subsequently, detractors contend that such technology is an infringement on fair use and other rights, especially given that it inhibits legal activities such as re-mixing or reproduction of material for use in slide shows.[88] The "Get the facts" campaign argues that Windows Server has a lower TCO than Linux and lists a variety of studies in order to prove its case.[89] Proponents of Linux unveiled their own study arguing that, contrary to one of Microsoft's claims, Linux has lower management costs than Windows Server.[90] Another study by the Yankee Group claims that upgrading from one version of Windows Server to another costs less than switching from Windows Server to Linux.[91]

Microsoft admitted in its 2006 Annual Report that it was a defendant in at least 35 patent infringement lawsuits. [2] The company's litigation expenses for April 2004 through March 2007 exceed $4.3 billion: over $4 billion in payouts, plus $300 million in legal fees.[11] Another concern of critics is that Microsoft may be using the distribution of shared source software to harvest names of developers who have been exposed to Microsoft code, as some believe that these developers could someday be the target of lawsuits if they were ever to participate in the development of competing products. This issue is addressed in published papers from several organizations including the American Bar Association and the Open Source Initiative.[12][13]

Government anti-trust suits

In the 1990s, Microsoft adopted exclusionary licensing under which PC manufacturers were required to pay for an MS-DOS license even when the system shipped with an alternative operating system. Critics allege that it also used predatory tactics to price its competitors out of the market and that Microsoft erected technical barriers to make it appear that competing products did not work on its operating system.[25] In a consent decree issued on July 15, 1994, Microsoft agreed to a deal in which, among other things, that the company would not make the sale of its operating systems conditional on the purchase of any other Microsoft product. A Microsoft purchase of Intuit was also scuttled in 1994 due to antitrust concerns that Microsoft would be purchasing a major competitor.[26]

After bundling the Internet Explorer web browser into its Windows operating system in the late 1990s (without requiring a separate purchase) and acquiring a dominant share in the web browser market, the antitrust case United States v. Microsoft was brought against the company. In a series of rulings by judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the company was found to have violated its earlier consent decree and abused its monopoly in the desktop operating systems market. The "findings of fact" during the antitrust case established that Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC desktop operating systems market:

Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows. (III.34)[27]

The findings of fact goes on to explain the nature of the "barrier to entry":

The fact that there is a multitude of people using Windows makes the product more attractive to consumers. The large installed base… impels ISVs (independent software vendors) to write applications first and foremost to Windows, thereby ensuring a large body of applications from which consumers can choose. The large body of applications thus reinforces demand for Windows, augmenting Microsoft's dominant position and thereby perpetuating ISV incentives to write applications principally for Windows… The small or non-existent market share of an aspiring competitor makes it prohibitively expensive for the aspirant to develop its PC operating system into an acceptable substitute for Windows. (III.39–40)[27]

The proposed remedy (dividing Microsoft into two companies) was overturned on appeal. While new penalties were under consideration, the Clinton administration ended and the Bush administration took office. The new administration announced that in the interest of ending the case as quickly as possible, it would no longer seek to break the company up, and that it would stop investigating claims of illegal tying of products.[28] Five days later, terrorists attacked the Pentagon and World Trade center. Eighteen days later, Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the justice department and Microsoft to "engage in discussions seven days a week, 24 hours a day."[29] The judge cited the events of September 11, 2001 in her direction to begin settlement talks but did not explain the linkage between the two.[30][31][32] Attorney General Ashcroft, however, denied that the events of September 11 had any effect on the outcome.[33] Microsoft subsequently reached a settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and some of the states which brought suit against it. Several class-action lawsuits filed after the conviction are still pending.

In early 2002, Microsoft proposed to settle the private lawsuits by donating $1 billion USD in money, software, services, and training, including Windows licenses and refurbished PCs, to about 12,500 underprivileged public schools. This was seen by some as a potential windfall for Microsoft, not only in educating schoolchildren on Microsoft solutions but also in collecting additional license fees if the schools ever wanted to upgrade. After protests from Apple Inc. (at the time Apple Computer, Inc.), which feared further loss of its educational market share, a federal judge rejected the proposed settlement.[34]

In 2003–2004, the European Commission investigated the bundling of Windows Media Player into Windows, a practice which rivals complained was destroying the market for their own products. Negotiations between Microsoft and the Commission broke down in March 2004, and the company was subsequently handed down a record fine of €497 million ($666 million) for its breaches of EU competition law. Separate investigations into alleged abuses of the server market were also ongoing at the same time. On December 22, 2004, the European Court decided that the measures imposed on Microsoft by the European Commission would not be delayed, as was requested by Microsoft while waiting for the appeal. Microsoft has since paid a €497 million fine, shipped versions of Windows without Windows Media Player, and licensed many of the protocols used in its products to developers in countries within the European Economic Area. However, the European Commission has charactized the much delayed protocol licensing as unreasonable, called Microsoft "non-compliant" and still violating antitrust law in 2007, and said that its RAND terms were above market prices; in addition, they said software patents covering the code "lack significant innovation", which Microsoft and the EC had agreed would determine licensing fees.[35] Microsoft responded by saying, that other government agencies had found "considerable innovation".[36][37] Microsoft has appealed the facts and ruling to the European Court Of First Instance with hearings in September 2006, and a decision expected in September 2007.[38] Microsoft also has the ability to make a final appeal, strictly on the basis of law, to the Court of Justice, which is expected in 2009.

Microsoft also faced competition law in South Korea and was fined $32 million in December 2005 and ordered to unbundle instant messaging, Windows Media Player and Windows Media Service, or let competitors' products take their place.[39] Microsoft noted in their October 2005 SEC filing that they may have to pull out of South Korea, although they later denied fulfilling such a plan.[40] Microsoft's 2006 appeal was struck down; they have another appeal pending.

U.S. fines Bill Gates $800,000

Government cites world's richest man for violating antitrust waiting period for stock purchases.

May 3, 2004: 2:35 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) - It may just be pocket change for the richest man in the world, but Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has been fined $800,000 by the federal government for violating an antitrust rule.

Will the world's richest man feel an $800,000 fine?

The technical incident has nothing to do with the government's massive antitrust battles with Microsoft (MSFT: Research, Estimates).

Gates, whose fortune has been estimated at more than $40 billion, ran afoul of the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department's Antitrust Division for his purchases of stock in a drug company and a waste-hauling firm.

The Justice Department said Gates has agreed to pay the civil penalty to settle a charge that he violated "premerger reporting requirements."

In a civil suit filed in federal court in Washington Monday, the department said Gates' error stemmed from his acquisition of more than $50 million in voting stock in ICOS (ICOS: Research, Estimates), a drug maker, in May 2002.

The government said Gates did not qualify for an exemption to federal notification requirements because he intended to participate in the business decisions of ICOS through his long-standing membership on that company's board of directors.

The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976 imposes notification and waiting period requirements on individuals and companies over a certain size before they can complete acquisitions of stock or assets valued at more than $50 million, the Justice Department said.

"The case filed today is not related Gates' position in Microsoft Corp. or the department's antitrust litigation with the company," the department said in a statement.

The Federal Trade Commission said it had warned Gates about a similar reporting infraction when his personal investment trust bought shares of Republic Services Corp. (RSG: Research, Estimates) in November 2001. The acquisition brought his stake to more than 10 percent of the outstanding shares of the waste-hauling company.

Antitrust rules require that entities must file with the government when their holdings exceed 10 percent of a company's stock.

Want more?

Bees die when they sting. But they'll do so, to protect the hive. Does this prove that they can make a choice? Absolutely not! Your statement, "Either their sole purpose is survival (an automon) or they can make a choice" is utterly false.

Bees aren't higher functioning animals like cats and dogs. You seem to see everything in black and white, and it isn't. Though, I would be interested in further insect study.

Clearly, what constitutes "survival" for a creature in this context is more complex than simple, physical survival. Animals do a lot of suicidal things - sometimes because their automatic programming is insufficient to deal with conditions and sometimes because natural selection favors suicidal behaviors under certain conditions.

The same would be true of humans, then. It doesn't take away from choice, though. Remember, I'm not advocating some kind of full consciousness or animal rights. I'm just saying that BASIC choice making and consciousness ARE there and it's been proven (for higher functioning animals, at least).

Citing studies proves nothing if you fail to understand them.

Right back at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...