Animal rights and sexuality discussion (no connection)

[cowsmanaut]

Interesting discussions cut from welcome thread, in reply to thread this post - b.

I tried celibacy once, worst 20 seconds of my life seriously though, definitely hard choices for life. I have given up a few things, beef, wheat, and a few other items, wheat and dairy mostly because of my wife, and beef because of the number of things that can go wrong with as well as negative things in it. Not nearly as hard to give up as sex though. Did you know that men who have sex regularily have a higher life expectancy than those who don't, that is unless they're castrated. I think it's perhaps related to our internal mating cycle, similar to what ferrets have, ie when a female ferret goes into heat she can only survive 3 such instances without being mated before she dies. So she must be mated or fixed. What a life eh?

.. and speaking of animals.. I would have to say that I'm not against animal rights activists, but I would say some go to extremes without first thinking about the animals needs. Animals are not humans and need to be treated as their own kind will treat them as that is part of their own social structure and treating them like humans can lead to neurosis. Other than that I think there are a number of people who do a lot of good towards helping animals. Cesar Milan being the current popular one

Anyway, always nice to see another new member. Welcome!

[Sealtiel]

That's not the first time I've been told that, you know. Meaning the higher life expectancy thing. I personally don't buy it. Doesn't make sense that just because of something like that, you have zero chance of having the lifespan of someone that chooses to have sex. Still, I'm not the type of person that condemns sex as a concept. According to wikipedia, I'm what's called an "antisexual" which simply means a person that does not have a sex drive towards anything. As weird as it may seem, that's the truth. As a result, I can't claim myself as any kind of sexual orientation; which is a little odd. Still, it's my decision; and it really doesn't concern me one way or the other when someone else would try to condemn me for it.

I've been a vegetarian for almost 10 years now, and I've never regretted it. When I made the change, I also really got into a lot of physical activity. I actually put on weight since I stopped eating meat, as a result of an intelligent diet & proper exercise. My friends generally refer to me as a "monk" (think D&D terminology), in that there's a lot of things I "deny myself the enjoyment of". I don't look at it like that, but that's how they describe it anyways. Still, I find it flattering; and I take it as a compliment. I've never really considered any of it as a difficult life choice, maybe it's just what I'm used to by now.

Oh, and I completely agree that there's a lot of animal rights activists that simply go too far. Meaning in the sense that they do fail to keep the animals' true needs in mind when protesting. It usually just degenerates into a "holier-than-thou" argument, and that just gives vegetarians a bad name. The world hates idiots like PETA for a reason. Most of the time it's the wrong reasons, but there are plenty of good ones to hate them too. I think the problem is that, at this point; people assume that anyone talking about animal rights is a moron and won't even give them the time of day. So, in trying to talk logically & make some sense; you just succeed in pushing them further away. It shows closed-mindedness on both sides, as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't be any good at a rally anyways, nobody much listens to sign language; and engaging in conversation is not easy for me. It requires undivided attention, so that I can take the time to read lips; then respond appropriately. I've been told that I talk perfectly normal, but I have trouble figuring out if I'm talking too loud or soft; & that tends to give me away.

[Gambit37]

Hi Chris, welcome to the forums and thanks for your insightful and interetsing bio. It's amazing the variety of people we have on here! I was interested in your story about your deafness; while I'm not deaf at all, I've never heard very well in my right ear and I get constant other ear problems due to Eustachian Tube Dysfunction in my left ear. I find that annoying enough so I can't imagine what it must be like to have no hearing at all.

As for animal rights; I think it's cool that people care about it and it's important that animals are treated well, but it sometimes bothers me the amount of energy that some animal rights activists put into their cause, yet don't give a stuff about human rights. Animals will always come second in my book and I think anyone who sees it the other way round has their priorities a little confused... but hey, just my opinion and I'm not saying that about you personally. I'm curious about your views on this?

I have a friend who I think is antisexual. I've always found it hard to understand since I'm very sexual myself. He'll be 40 in a few years, same as me, he had one very brief relationship many years ago and is still a virgin. For the last few years he's been doing online dating, but after seeing about 50 different women with "no luck", I'm pretty certain he's only dating because he thinks he should rather than really wanting to. When we've talked before about that side of life, what kind of women he finds attractive, etc, there just isn't any real interest there. I didn't know there was an actual term for that but it sounds like he may well be antisexual. Unless of course he's gay and in denial!

I never put on any weight and I eat tons of meat. Maybe I should become a veggy too!?

[Ameena]

Ooh, weird, I think I must be antisexual too - never had any interest toward that kind of thing, boyfriends, etc...just can't be arsed with the emotional hassle and stuff, really. I'd been thinking of it as "asexual", but if that's the term then I'll start using that instead (not that it ever really comes up in conversation) .
I'm well up for "animal" rights too, though I don't really like referring to non-humans as "animals", because it seems to imply in some way that we're not (animals, I mean). When we are. For lack of a better term I tend to just avoid it altogether or say "non-humans" or "other animals" or something. Meh .

[Sealtiel]

Ameena, that's a great point; and I'm glad someone besides me brought it up. Humans are animals, nothing more and nothing less. People will even argue with that if they're feeling like they just want to disagree with you, though. Still, we are animals; so it seems a little creepy to me that some people have no problem with the horrible things other animals are going through just to provide food. Especially when that food isn't really necessary. I don't want to open a can of worms or anything, but it's a simple fact. People will always want to argue over it, but that's not my problem if someone is that closed-minded.

To MasterWuuf: I remember that mummy too. Thankfully I had figured out how to have light at that point by watching my dad play first. Otherwise, that mummy would've had his way with me right at the start. I even learned something in his little chamber. Don't try to build up your wizard levels in a tiny room with a portcullis for a door, because too many fireballs will blow them apart; then monsters can get it. Which is bad, because you just chunked 89273458920345 fireballs at the door; and your characters aren't going to be making any melee attacks any time this year until you rest. You're probably out of mana too, by this point. Yeah, good times.

To Gambit: I'm afraid I don't have much idea what Eustachian Tube Dysfunction does, exactly. I never paid much attention to this kind of thing until it was too late. I'll do some research on it a bit later, but I do know that ear infections are the most painful thing in the world. I've broken almost every bone in my body at some point, but nothing hurts like an ear-ache. And if you're wondering, yes; deaf people do get ear infections and they still hurt just as bad.

I can see where you're coming from about the human rights vs. animal rights issue, but I can't say I'm on the same side of the fence about it. I think that since humans are the ones causing such delightful things as rapid deforestation, global warming and assorted other pleasantries; it should be our job to take care of both ourselves and the other creatures that we're harming along the way. That random bear sitting in the forest chowing down on a salmon isn't hurting anybody, and he really shouldn't have to worry about not having a home a few days from now because we think we need another 5-star hotel. Humans are by our nature selfish creatures, and I think for the most part we have enough people worrying about us. Non-human animals (You're welcome, Ameena) don't have that luxury, and they don't even get to stay in that hotel.

Then, there's the super-fun racism issues humans have. Over here in the states, people love to get up-in-arms when supplies are sent to civilians in a foreign country. Everyone seems to think we should mind our own business, but at the same time it's perfectly ok to blow the crap out of a nation (out of "patriotism", of course) & take their natural resources. Seems more than a little hypocritical to me. This puts a serious strain on "human rights" because everyone's view is different. There are people who think that you shouldn't have rights just because your skin is a different color. It makes no sense to me, but unfortunately that's how it is. If we could evolve past such ridiculous things as racism, sexism, and prejudice in general; human rights might stand a real chance. But as it is, our own large-scale stupidity is holding us back; and it's killing the planet as a side project. Go humans, right?

[Ameena]

I'm perfectly happy just being friends with people. I wouldn't want it to go any further than that, because I'm selfish and I just want to worry about me, rather than thinking that I'm obliged to spend extra time with someone just because I'm "with them". Going out with a friend every now and then is fine though - I was out with my friend today in fact (just got back about 20 mins ago...we had a Harvester, nom! But she's just got a job in Linconlshire, up near Skegness, so she'll be gone in a couple of weeks, for at least a month but probably much longer). I have had a few male friends and have never "felt" anything for any of them, not past just being friends (phew). I'm rather glad, though - I wouldn't want to go toward the physical side of things because I am sure I would be completely crap at it.
Anyway...back to a subject I much prefer - cute furry things. Yes, I don't get this attitude most humans have toward them. Stuff like "Omg, foxes are thieving little bastards breaking into dustbins and stealing the food, and pigeons are filthy and crap everywhere!"...umm, well, actually, if we didn't build our ugly brick-and-concrete blocks everywhere and lay down tarmac, they'd actually have their natural homes to live in - as it is they're just having to make do in the nooks and crannies of the crap we put in the way. Does that mean they have no right to try and survive by whatever means they can? And if we're gonna totally smeg up the ecosystems, of course populations are gonna get all fooked up. It's the human population that is the most fooked, I'd say. The numbers are out of control, but what can we do about it? Build houses forever until there is no space left and we're all living in our own refuse? Unless we manage to terraform Mars or something, it looks like things might well end up that way. Well, you know, unless we manage to nuke ourselves and thereby hand over the world to the cockroaches before then .
Interesting that you mention racism a bit there, Seal. Something I don't really get - particularly views toward those who originate in Africa - "Omg black African, scummy slave person" or whatever. Maybe peopel with that attitude should do a little research into the geographical area of the world in which homo sapiens originally evolved...

[Sophia]

That random bear sitting in the forest chowing down on a salmon isn't hurting anybody

Except the salmon, of course.

Humans are by our nature selfish creatures

Along with every other animal.

Really, though I'm pretty down on the human race, too (I agree with your basic point that "our own large-scale stupidity is holding us back; and it's killing the planet as a side project") I do have to add, in some small defense of us-- we are the one species that does seem to care at least a little about what we kill and eat. Most animals don't care one bit.

[Sealtiel]

Actually, Sophia's totally right. The difference in the case of the salmon, is that the bear eats the fish because his body requires meat; in some form or another. There are herbivorous bears, but this one in question isn't. Humans have no biological "need" to eat meat at all. People will always argue that it's "healthier" or whatnot, but that's typically just another way of saying "I'm too narrow-minded to every consider doing anything outside of my comfort zone, and I refuse to admit that I might be mistaken."

You also make a really good point in that we are not the only selfish creatures on the planet. Still, humans (generally speaking) like to have a superiority complex regarding our brethren of the animal kingdom. Just because we have vocal chords that function and opposable thumbs doesn't make us really any better than them. Another favorite argument of mine is "overpopulation". You know, "If we don't hunt/kill/eat them, they'll get overpopulated & that's even worse." Well, that really wouldn't be an issue if the predator/prey system wasn't being sabotaged by people with firearms that feel the need to prove their dominance over other animals. Then there's the fact that mother nature can fix that problem just fine. Overpopulation occurs=not enough food=starvation=population control. Most people immediately use extinction as an argument to that, but let's seriously consider what the odds are that every single of the same animal type would starve at the exact same moment. Not too likely.

Maybe it's morbid, but I'm actually very down on the human race. We don't really contribute much to the planet, we just take away from it. We hurt the other denizens of earth along the way, plus we have a superiority complex about the whole thing. I'm just waiting for the dolphins to grow thumbs & feet so they can flop onto the shores & vaporize us. Disagree if you want, but it would probably be the best thing that could happen to this world. I'm pretty sure every single other creature in the (non-human) animal kingdom would agree.

Oh yeah, and I also have to agree about how other animals don't care at all what they're killing for food. But again, these creatures (let's use giant cats such as lions as an example) have a physiological requirement to consume meat. If they ate nothing but plants, they would die. Their bodies can't derive the proper sustenance from that. I like to think of that as mother nature's safety net against overpopulation.

And now to answer beowuuf. I always speak around the same volume whenever I start a conversation, but there's no real "norm" when it comes right down to it. Everyone's sense of hearing is different, and some people need you to speak louder or softer. I have noticeable trouble adjusting properly, and that's what tends to give me away. Back when I could hear, I was frequently told that I spoke pretty loudly; so I have a tendency to blow people up with sonic waves when I first meet them. It's something I try not to do, but I also don't speak too much. It's (obviously) not very comfortable for me to do, but I refuse to depend entirely on sign language. Just because I lost my hearing doesn't mean everyone else should have to cater to me, so I try to accommodate where I can.

And now about the whole sex thing, and this part is what people tend to worry about even more than the sex itself. I really don't feel emotional attachments at all, much like Ameena. Not only do I not feel sexual attraction, I don't feel anything outside of simple friendship. Maybe it's because I'm selfish too, but I honestly can say I don't want a relationship. The whole idea of it is just beyond me. Oh yeah, Ameena you made me laugh to myself. After I read what you said, it got me thinking that I'd probably be the worst lay in the sack ever. It would be all-around a miserable experience for everyone involved, so I'll just add that on as another reason to avoid it altogether.


By the way Sophia. I'm really sorry if it seems like I'm snapping at you or trying to put you down. Believe me, I'm not. Today was not a good day, and I'm in a crummy mood. If I offend you, I'm sorry. Please don't stop making awesome dungeons. Pretty please. With sugar on top.

[Trantor]

You mention the people with a superiority complex over animals, but let's not forget the other ones who have the same complex, only the other way around. Being a human does not make you better than an animal, but it does not make you worse either. I think those people are funny who say that humans are simply animals, too, but then come up with the oversimplified "humans = bad, nature = good" equation - so humans are animals, but don't belong to nature? Riiiight... I don't have too high regards of the human race myself, but I don't think animals are actually any better. As Sophia said, we at least can make conscious decisions to actually care about others.

I'm just waiting for the dolphins to grow thumbs & feet so they can flop onto the shores & vaporize us. Disagree if you want, but it would probably be the best thing that could happen to this world. I'm pretty sure every single other creature in the (non-human) animal kingdom would agree.

First of all, I don't think this will ever happen. If there were another "intelligent" species on this planet (I don't want to go into details about the meaning of the word intelligent; you know what I mean), there would be war until one of them is extinct. Look at the Neanderthaler - evolution has no space for more than one "intelligent" species. And since humans have a head start in weapon technology, I think they would win. But it seems we agree that there would be war anyway.

But if the dolphins win the war, I strongly disagree that it would be the best thing ever. What would happen then? The dolphins would simply take the place of humans.They would want to have their lives as comfortable as they can, and they would change the planet to fit their needs. It's only natural - humans already displayed this behavior.

[beowuuf]

Repost from other thread:

About the astenence stuff, and the 'denying enjoyment' etc, my mum is a Mormon so especially when I was younger and being more associated by peers with that behaviour, you would get the oddest questions about things you wouldn't do and how people can't understans why, which is stupid, as any enjoyment thing is always transitory. If you aren't doing something 24/7. then you can understans being in a state of not doing it for the sake of something else or just because you don't do it.

I'm not saying I have the greatest self control, I've just never understood people's inability to empathise with restrain, or even with a lack of desire. Infact, I'm even more amused and saddened that sometimes people even seem threatened by another's choice in some odd way!


Animal rights stuff is weird. I agree assigning humans some odd superior status just because of one biological quirk is irritating, I also an annoyed when people take the contrary stance and personify all animals even if no actual real interaction is achieved with the animal. To me that stance taken by an animal rights activist is the other side of the coin to the other argument. As Ameena says, humans are animals too really. Every species has its own unique view in the world, its own unique place (except for the copying sloth of mosambique, which copies the unique copying sloth of barbados) and we're lucky that we can have meaningful two way interactions with some of them.

@Ameena - heh, if I ever have a daughter, can you teach her this asexual stuff so that I don't have to lock her in a basement for fourty years? You can't trust men dammit!


@the whole sexuality debate thingiemagigger (who was a multi of trantor, so I banned that account). I have no clue how much sexual preference/labido is tied in to emotional needs. So, if the libido is taken out of the equation, if people still feel the need to couple, and if so would it be with a different type or person or a different gender from what you would choose with a libido (of any magnitude). Infact, if gender is mostly a artifact of our biological role as a human, then does gender really matter as much if you take yourself out of that equation?

It seems sad, Ameena, you say because of the lack of interest in sex you also lack interest in relationships and that emotional side aswell. Matt, does your friend really seek companionship? If so, then this would an interesting example of the opposing end. Its easy to explain why it wouldnt' work with online dating. After all, anyone with a libido has both the physical needs to sate but also when they enter a relationship they get it hard-wired in to their emotional lexicon. So if someone cannot commit to meeting another person in that manner, I think there are alot of people who would feel that is two avenues of connection denied. Especially as the physical connection does seem to be the fast track many people use to meet and couple up in the first place!

[beowuuf]

Hope no-one minds, I split the discussion from the 'say hello' thread since the two topics under discussion could easy flood that other thread. As you were with a clear conscience people!

[Gambit37]

Jeepers, there's some very anti-human sentiment in this thread.

I find it pretty depressing that so many of you ultimately think humans are "no more than animals". The human capacity to imagine, to feel emotions and to create, is something that virtually no other animals share. Whatever the evolutionary spark that made us this way, it's pretty sad not to believe in the capabilities of the focussed human mind. Yes, humans are also capable of incredible acts of selfishness, destruction, stupidity and downright evil, but you have to take it all together and on the whole I really believe that most humans want to live a good life in harmony with their fellow man.

As a whole, Sealtiel is probably right to say the human race causes a lot of problems and that we don't add much to the planet. We are certainly short sighted, selfish and our own personal desires often outweigh common sense or global needs, and we can see the effects of that everywhere. But there is good stuff too...

I place value on things such as art, music, literature and science. The ability for humans to learn, to question, to share and to work together is exceptional and rare. Gorillas might look up at the Moon with curiosity, but we built a rocket, stuck some humans in it, sent them there and they walked on it. I think that's pretty amazing.

Some of the previous comments suggest that some of you think all this stuff is either meaningless or worthless. Given the nature of most of us here (there's a large body of creative people here), I find that very hard to believe. Perhaps in the cosmic scale of things, art *is* meaningless, but for an individual it can be the most meaningful thing to them. Our lives become meaningful by the value we place on the things we do and if we ignore that, or rubbish it, why do any of us even bother trying to create stuff? Might as well just give up and do nothing but hunt and shag (or not, as the case may be.)

Regarding sexuality / friendships / selfishness. I'm trying to understand some of the views here but find it hard to relate. Humans are social animals. Sure, we're driven by a biological imperative to reproduce, but for those humans who have no desire to reproduce (for whatever reason) I find it really hard to understand that you still don't want any form of close affectionate relationship with another person. In my view, a close meaningful relationship with someone that you care for and want to share your life with, is the most valuable thing in the world. And I'm not being old fashioned and traditionalist about this; I'm not talking about marriage for example, just the basic human need of wanting to love and be loved. Of course, we then get into the whole thing about "love" just being a label for a biological connection that drove two people together to reproduce, but I honestly believe there is more to it than that.

I'm trying to understand Ameena's comments in particular: It's very honest to say that you're selfish and that's fair enough, but you made a comment that you don't want to feel "obliged" to spend time with someone simply because you're "together". That's what I don't get -- it's not an obligation, you do it because you want to. If you feel "obliged" about it, then it's probably not the right person to be spending time with. I'm not having a go at your choices -- that's up to you, but I do wonder if maybe you simply haven't met anyone yet that you feel that way about? It doesn't mean it won't ever happen -- though if you've already decided that you're happy to be alone, then maybe no-one will ever convince you otherwise. I'm currently "alone", have been for some time and I sometimes despair at the thought of remaining that way -- the few relationships I've had over the years were amazing, if too brief, and I don't want to die not having experienced that again.

@Beo: My friend I think is indeed just seeking companionship and that's why I've told him several times that he needs to stop the dating because it already comes loaded with it's own expectations. And given that he has no interest in having kids or dating anyone with kids, it makes the whole thing doubly daft because of the age he's now at -- the women that he's dating either have children and want more, or haven't had any yet and feel they are "running out of time" and are looking for their "last chance" partner!

[Jan]

That's an interesting discussion evolving here, I don't have much time here to read it through all now, but I'd like to make a few points about animal rights. I'm doing some research on agriculture and I was always close to farming, although I'm not a farmer myself; and my former girlfriend was doing some research on animal rights (animal welfare), and she was working for a grassroots organisation (as a volunteer) taking care of lonely dogs and these sort of things (actually she was "over-enthusiastic" about it, she was over-doing it a bit...).

I think it is important to think about how the animals live and consequently feel in modern "industrial" society and about their "rights" (or whatever you call their "welfare"). Although I don't like an extreme approach, I have to admit that we have a tendency to consider animals just "things", especially when related to agriculture and human consumtion of animal products.

The way in which animals are treated in modern agriculture is really unacceptable for me in many instances, especially regarding poultry. Chickens and hens are kept in totally appaling conditions; and so do many cows and pigs. But there are large differences. When an animal is kept on pastures, outdoors, has a lot of space and freedom, it feels good - and I have no problem eating it's meat (and other products). I also have no problem eating deer meat (I mean meat of wild animals generally) - I know they are cute and I feel terrible when I thing about the way in which they were killed (and obviously I prefer watching them alive than eating them) - but, on the other hand, they lived a free and happy life, running anf living freely in the wilderness.
But when an animal is kept in tiny cages, on a concrete floor, when it can not even turn or move; it's horrible - it feels stressed and has no joy - it's not a real life. And than I DO have problems eating it's products. I think it's a question of what life the animal had (pasture / cage, to simplify it). Therefore, I also support organic farming and even non-organic, but small-scale (family) farming, where the animals are kept in more natural conditions. The worst thing are the large "industrial" production units.

There are some nice Austrian movie documents on this, I was watching it with my students, very interesting, like Unser täglich Brot (Our daily bread - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unser_t%C3%A4glich_Brot), or We feed the World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_feed_the_world), I can only recommend this.

But I have to admit that the conditions in which agricultural animals are kept (and the way in which they are kept) has improved dramatically in the Czech Republic after the fall of communism. During communism, the large stables and other facilities were a real nightmare.

Obviously, in a modern world, we have to find a compromise between two extremes - animals are totally equal with humans (and they should share the same rights) x animals are totally inferior tu humans (they are just things we use, just slaves). In finding this compromise, all the activists and grassroots organisations are highly needed - but there are some people just overdoing it, who are too extreme and do not see the need to compromise their extreme view in modern "industrial" world.

I hope this discussion will continue here - I'm looking forward to your comments, arguments, ideas (and criticisms of what I wrote here).

[beowuuf]

Actually, that's an interesting point to make regarding the other conversation about what it is to be human: generally, only humans will go out of their way to help another in danger or distress. Compassion is rare if completely absent in all other animals.

Animal compassion:
http://www.squidoo.com/heroicanimals
http://www.seekbooks.com.au/book/Heroic ... 257138.htm


There is a very circular argument regarding life. Unless you have some further spiritual belief, just because we possess this biological quirk called life as a species, as a set of species, and on this planet doesn't necessarily make it important on any absolute scale except to us. To therefore rate any other species as being greater or lesser than us because of the supposed quality of this aspect also seems a little silly.

We might have intelligence and be able to create art and make many technological and logical and spiritual and psychological advances, but they are all simply in reaction to our quirk of biology that gives us our perception of the world. They don't have any intrinsic value to any other species that we can determine, and only have value to us to assuage us having our intelligence in the first place.

Creativity comes from dissatisfaction - the more technical aspects from a dissatisfaction from the realities the world operates. The more nebulous arty creations mostly seem to come from a disattisfaction with ourselves and our personal situations forcing us to constantly imagine the world as being different, which in turn pushes our brain to make unusual connections etc. Quite marvellous, but it seems to more often than not come from a less than glowing start.

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you on the humaist scale, you are right, we give our lives meaning and choose to keep creating and enjoying what people can be and that's special. But it is a bit much to assume that has any absolute moral relevance. I mean really, why should animals be given the dis-service of a different mormal code to what we do? Humans have the power to alter other human's perceptions, and create alternate foodstuffs, etc, why should predators kill non-predators if humans shouldn't? Is there really anything wrong with a small farming community where animals would be kept under care, and killed humanely every so often. Better than driving herds of animals around in fear of you and picking them off savagely as a predator would do perhaps.

I think we can agree that the money-oriented system under which we consume what we don;'t need to, and where the only consideration is to get as many animals killed as quickly as possible, is pretty horrific and of course leads to all sorts of fun in terms of disease back to us anyway.

Gorillas might look up at the Moon with curiosity, but we built a rocket, stuck some humans in it

This is probably one of the greatest statements of the tragedy of the human race but inspirational nature of us too!

[Ameena]

Regarding huamns-as-animals, I was meaning it simply in the terms of biological classification. We're not plants or micro-organiasms. We're animals. Mammals, to be specific. Hominids, to be even more specific. I just don't like when people speak of another species (dogs, cats, hamsters, lions, moqsuitos, whatever) and refer to them as "just an animal". We're animals too. We've just evolved enough to sort of overtake everything else and manage to control our environment (well, mostly) rather than being controlled by it. I generally don't really get on with humans as a species in general, really (never have done), and much prefer to spend time with something cute and furry .
Which kinda brings me neatly into the sex/friendship thing. I have no objection to having friends I can do stuff with every now and then. I'm sort-of friends (or at least, on good terms) with pretty much everyone I know at work. I have one friend I see outside of work (she's not a work friend - we've known each other since Infant school), but as I think I mentioned elsewhere, she's moving to Lincolnshire to start her new job in a couple of weeks so we won't exactly be able to do stuff any more. But that's okay, it means I get to spend more time arsing about on the computer and stuff .
I get what you mean about humans being a social species, Gammy - I know that myself. With a few exceptions (hermit-types who voluntarily live away from the rest of the world and do their own thing), humans tend to like the company of other humans every now and then, if not more often. I'm still living at home (tried moving out a couple of years back but it didn't work out so we came back again, lol), and I suppose I could just go and look for a place for myself but I don't really want to end up living by myself (well I won't be completely by myself because as soon as I have the space I will be getting rats again, but I was referring to human company). So I just, sort of, carry on as I am, lol.
With regards to relatinoshippy-things, I'm not discounting the possibility that it could ever happen. It might. I mean, I might meet someone I really really like more than a friend. I have no clue. But really, I don't want to go anywhere near the physical side of things. I am well aware that several zillion people enjoy it but I'd rather avoid all the stupid awkwardness and messiness and stuff, and I have a whole bunch of reasons why I don't want kids, so why take the risk?
Humans are such a complicated species .

[beowuuf]

Wow, you are quite the onion...

much prefer to spend time with something cute and furry Which kinda brings me neatly into the sex/friendship thing

Let's leave that particular bit unpeeled shall we!

[Jan]

Just a side-note (not directly related to the things above):

One of my friends is a biologist, specialised in plant cells and plant genetics, and he's studying the phenomenon of feelings of plants - i.e. of the fact that not only the humans, not only the animals, but also the plants can actually FEEL. Now that would be interesting if some plant-rights activists emerged.

[beowuuf]

That reminds me of a 'taleso f the unexpected' tv episode waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back where a man invented some sensative audio equipment and could heard odd noises, and it turned out to be hearing plants 'speaking'

[Jan]

Actually, this is not far from the truth. Plants obviously can't speak in human sense, but they have capabilities of "forwarding" information among themselves. I don't remember the details, and I think the research is still at the beginning, but it was found that somehow the plants can inform each other (on very short distances) e.g. about a fire or other danger coming.

The problem is that everytime my friends biologists start talking about this, they seem to speak latin, I feel like a total idiot, I don't understand a word, and my head starts aching. But that's an interesting topic. That friend of mine should come in a few weeks from abroad and we should go on a hiking trip in July, so I'll ask him about everything (hoping I won't get mad).

[Sealtiel]

Oh boy. If it turns out that plants actually are capable of feeling pain, I'll be in a world of trouble with myself. It's a known fact that it's impossible to live without harming other living creatures. Even just walking from room to room crushes countless tiny things that we can't even hope to see. Still, it's just part of living and we deal with as best we can. Nature's a very cruel mistress and it shows in the way the world works. There are some who pay more attention to the suffering of others than most, then there are those who don't. Either way is fine. People are going to live their lives how they see fit, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not the type of vegetarian who will glare at you across the table while you chow down on a burger, hoping that my malicious gaze will make you combust. I save that for the people who like to tell me how stupid and/or misguided I am.

In any case, Trantor's post made me realize something. After re-reading my posts, it does seem like I'm awfully anti-human; a lot more than I think I'm comfortable with. It worries me. I'm not a person who thinks every human should fall into the sun (although I can name a few who probably should). It seems that I really hate it when others judge me based on my lifestyle decisions, but at the same time I'm condemning others (subconsciously) for being different. Ugh, I'll need some time to think that over. It confused me enough just typing it, reaching a conclusion will be a nightmare. Maybe I'll get some chinese food & just obey the fortune cookie.

Moving along, I'd like to address Gambit's post. It may seem awful, but I really don't consider humans anything less or more than the others animals in the kingdom. Sure, we can do things they can't; but fish can breathe water and we can't do that. See? Balance in nature. I don't believe there's any proof that animals aren't capable of imagination or emotions on the same scale as humans. Parents protect their young, and wolves mate for life. They find a partner and stick with him/her until death takes them. That says a lot, and it just seems to me that people overlook little things like that. We're all brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom, but humans are the only ones going out of their way to destroy the planet & take all the other members down with us. It doesn't seem right, as far as I'm concerned. Of course humans want our lives to be as comfortable as possible, but it really shouldn't come at the expense of certain things. The planet and it's denizens, for instance.

Also, Jan brings up a whole new ballgame. The conditions that some animals are raised in. PETA has gone over this time and again. It's about the only useful thing they've done. I'm sure there's a lot of people that just don't know what goes on in those factory farms. Those creatures are born into filth and torture, experience nothing but anguish until they are eventually slaughtered. By the thousands. Cows and chickens are suspended for days upside down by their legs, which frequently causes them to break; but nothing is done for this. They just hang there, until their turn comes and they are cut open from neck to groin & left to bleed out. Doesn't seem like a friendly way to treat our cuddly neighbors, if you ask me.

I can't say I support, but I also don't condemn people that hunt for their food. It's your life, and you live it the best way you want to. But I do have a problem with people that hunt for sport. More specifically, it makes me sick. I mean, people really need to assert dominance over an herbivore by covering themselves in deer urine, waiting in a bush (or deer-stand) for a few hours, then blowing it's head off with a firearm? Yeah, good work; you're a real man now. I'm sure everyone is impressed. After that, the meat and other useful parts are discarded and the antlers are mounted on a wall. Good job, you just murdered something that didn't deserve to die for no reason other than to make yourself feel better. Tragically, it's illegal to shoot the people that do this. It seems counterproductive to me. We're the ones reproducing way too fast, and causing the real overpopulation; but you can't even shoot the people that really suck to help thin the herd.

Sorry if I offend anyone in these posts, but I tend to get pretty into it once I get started. I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful to anyone, so please don't take any offense. Just my opinions, nothing more. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some serious inner turmoil going on. I'm going to go try to figure out if I'm a hypocrite or not. Feel free to share input if you like.

[beowuuf]

A wise woman once said to me 'everyone is a hypocrite about something', and so far I believe she has been right.

[Sealtiel]

Oh, and thanks beo. Feels kinda neat to have spawned a whole new discussion from my introduction post. I'll take moralistic controversy for $200, Alex.

[Sophia]

Humans have no biological "need" to eat meat at all.

One of the reasons that humans are so prolific throughout the planet is that we (by the standards of most animals, anyway) can eat pretty much anything. While many other animals have very specialized diets, we can put all sorts of things into our mouths and derive nutrition from them. This allowed humans to travel all of the place and find something to eat just about anywhere. The evolutionary flip side of this is that human nutritional requirements are rather diverse, too. There are things like iron and vitamin B12 that are rare or absent in many plant sources. Of course, nowadays, soy and milk (and soy milk, if you prefer) can provide these essential nutrients too, but soy requires too much processing for non-agricultural people to be able to get any use out of it and the microevolutionary adaptations that let humans digest lactose after infancy are also seemingly only as old as agriculture. This means our early ancestors wouldn't have had any of these alternative sources, and would have -needed- to eat meat. That's why we have those sharp canine teeth, though they're a bit blunted compared to the fangs most true carnivores have.

So, I don't think it's proper to say there is "no biological need," when one thinks in terms of the long-term evolution of the human race. However, nowadays we do have alternative choices, so those who would prefer not to can still have a nutritionally complete (or mostly; there have been some studies saying that children must eat certain amount of meat to ensure proper brain development) diet without it.

Just because we have vocal chords that function and opposable thumbs doesn't make us really any better than them.

No, but being smarter than all of them does, at least by the law of the jungle.

I'm just waiting for the dolphins to grow thumbs & feet so they can flop onto the shores & vaporize us. Disagree if you want, but it would probably be the best thing that could happen to this world.

What's to say they won't be just as bad, if not worse?

If they ate nothing but plants, they would die. Their bodies can't derive the proper sustenance from that.

And my point above was to make the argument that neither could humans, at least talking about early humans living in a "natural state."

By the way Sophia. I'm really sorry if it seems like I'm snapping at you or trying to put you down.

No, it doesn't. I disagree with quite a bit of what you've written, but it seems to be quite civil. I'm certainly not going to try to track you down and beat you up for what you believe-- maybe there's hope for our species after all.

I place value on things such as art, music, literature and science. The ability for humans to learn, to question, to share and to work together is exceptional and rare. Gorillas might look up at the Moon with curiosity, but we built a rocket, stuck some humans in it, sent them there and they walked on it. I think that's pretty amazing.

Oh, me too. I hope you didn't put me in the group that thought humans were pretty much worthless and whatnot, because that's not my view at all. For me, seeing these great things that humans are able to accomplish makes it all the more disappointing that for the most part we still seem unable to overcome our petty squabbles and assorted racism, sexism, and other bigotry, and put all that effort towards accomplishing the great things that we are capable of when we actually put our minds to it. If we (collectively) spent as much effort learning about each other and the world, universe, and so on as we spent in destroying all of those things, we (collectively) would be a lot better off already.

[Sophia]

Oh, and new responses, so I'll have to double post...

It seems that I really hate it when others judge me based on my lifestyle decisions, but at the same time I'm condemning others (subconsciously) for being different. Ugh, I'll need some time to think that over.

The way out of this (at least for me) was to realize that it's just fine to be biased against people who are biased for no good reason-- because they're the ones with the problem, not you. I'm all for religious freedom and diversity, but I have a real problem with people who think that they can impose their religion on us all to the detriment of science and progress. I'm all for racial equality, but that means -equal-, not being racist against a certain group of people now because they were historically the ones who were racist against others in the past. Things like that.

Basically, being intolerant of intolerance is ok.

I do have a problem with people that hunt for sport. More specifically, it makes me sick. I mean, people really need to assert dominance over an herbivore by covering themselves in deer urine, waiting in a bush (or deer-stand) for a few hours, then blowing it's head off with a firearm?

Yeah, I never saw the point of it, either.

Granted, there's a feral part of all of us that thinks killing is fun. Otherwise, why do we savor fireballing the dragon to death so much? We're just evolved enough to do it in a way that nobody really gets hurt.

[Sealtiel]

Haha. I have to agree with a few things. There's nothing saying that the dolphins wouldn't be any better than us, but that was a pretty unrealistic scenario in the first place.

However, I need to disagree with the "meat" of Sophia's post. Haha, meat. See what I did there? Anyways, the fact is that we don't need to eat it anymore. Perhaps at one time in the distant past there was, and I'm definitely not saying that we can't. Still, we don't need to. Sure, there are specific nutrients and vitamins that are hard to find within the confines of the plant kingdom, but they are out there. I, for example, do not take any sort of vitamin supplements; but I eat a healthy diet containing a wide variety of plants. Which isn't fun, because it's pretty expensive. Still, it's a choice I made and I'm ok with paying for it. Oh, and if anyone here hasn't tried soymilk; go do it now. It's delicious. I got my friends into replacing their regular milk with it, and they're not vegetarians in the least.

Oh, and I remember reading (can't remember where though, I'll search for it) that there's no proof at all that humans are more "intelligent" than dolphins. The article I read stated that if dolphins were equipped with thumbs & the desire to build like humans have; they would certainly be intelligent enough to do just that. That's not to say they wouldn't put holes in the ozone layer, but it's an interesting thought. I can't help but disagree about humans being "better" than any other animals, either. Even if we are the "smartest", that doesn't make us any more deserving of life. Yes, I realize you never said that; but I'm trying to make a point. I just don't see how some people can think what happens to animals in terms of cruelty is fair. To be honest, however, the same can be said of humans in many cases. There's an insane amount of cruelty that happens to humans around the world every day, and that's no less sickening than the animal cruelty. In both cases, it takes a special kind of idiot to willfully inflict torture upon something else that obviously is experiencing anguish.

Maybe I'm alone on this one, but art has never really done anything for me. Some art is beautiful to look at, sure; but I don't believe the world would be a worse place without it. I used to really enjoy music, but obviously that's not the case anymore. Literature and science are fascinating, and anyone that would disagree with that...well, I just think they're crazy. At least I think we can all agree on that. By the way, I remember there was a big controversy over whether or not a human ever really set foot on the moon. Was that ever conclusively settled? I never believed it, but I'd like to know what other people think about it.

[Sophia]

Anyways, the fact is that we don't need to eat it anymore. Perhaps at one time in the distant past there was, and I'm definitely not saying that we can't.

I'd shift the emphasis there: we definitely did in the past. I'm not sure about your "fact," either: how can we really be so certain it's an absolute fact that it's not necessary for everyone, even now? Young children, for one. And, really, dietary needs vary depending on a lot of factors related to the person in question. I'm not sure how well the topic of meat eating been studied, and especially studied by people without an agenda one way or the other. The constant controversies over diets and whether certain foods are good or bad for you and whatnot show how incomplete our understanding of nutrition is often is.

I can't help but disagree about humans being "better" than any other animals, either. Even if we are the "smartest", that doesn't make us any more deserving of life. Yes, I realize you never said that; but I'm trying to make a point. I just don't see how some people can think what happens to animals in terms of cruelty is fair.

Well, sure, but according to the law of the jungle, the smarter creatures (along with the stronger, faster, and otherwise superior ones) are the ones the most deserving of life, because they survive. Like you said, and I agree with, "Nature's a very cruel mistress." The natural world isn't some happy, harmonious place where everything works together. It's a vicious wilderness full of suffering and senseless death. Of course cruelty isn't fair, but there is no notion of "fair" in this world. Animals kill other animals for their own selfish reasons all the time-- we humans are just the best at it. The good news is that we've at least got enough sense to (sometimes) feel some remorse about it and attempt to change.

In both cases, it takes a special kind of idiot to willfully inflict torture upon something else that obviously is experiencing anguish.

That's also not unique to humans. Orcas have been observed to kill for revenge or simply for sadistic pleasure.

By the way, I remember there was a big controversy over whether or not a human ever really set foot on the moon. Was that ever conclusively settled? I never believed it, but I'd like to know what other people think about it.

I think it was conclusively settled before it even started in the minds of all but a small group of crazy idiots who will probably never believe the truth.

[beowuuf]

Remember that more and more people are actually reacting badly to more foods these days aswell, whether it is an increased ability to diagnose these food allergies is another matter. Lactose intolerance ad grain based intolerance and other severe food allergies even to things like soy (my ex housemate has been steadily getting worse in recent years, she could not have potatoes nor kiki, etc, but in recent years has even found soya products and soya milk give her a bad reaction.

If the footage of the moon landings is ever proven to be faked, then all it will prove would be the footage was faked. I can well believe that after getting to the moon, and finding the damn broadcasting equipment failing, that the government would push NASA to do that. Fake the attempt and the success itself? Nah.

[Jan]

Regarding hunting - although I occasionally eat deer meat (that is given to me by friends), I'm no hunter, I just wouldn't be able to kill a cute animal, I always prefer to watch them in wilderness. I was not even able to kill a rabbit at my parent's place (we kept them before, and the hens and chicken) - I could gut it, but I was never able to kill it, to take the stick and bash it into the neck - never had a stomach for these things, couldn't look into their eyes and kill them - so my father always had to kill them and then I gutted them. The same thing happened with fishing (I cought a fish and then let it go... I mean swim).

Hunting is needed, because the natural enemies (wolves and bears and so on) of deer and other wild animals disappeared from our forests, so deer populations tend to grow, they damage forests and overgraze grasslands - simply, the ecosystem is out of balance and the balance cannot be restored because some its parts (i.e. most of the predators) are missing. Hunters regulate the ecosystem - I mean, they should do it, and its the positive role they have. On the other hand, I know many people who do hunting for their own delight, some of them are brutal, heartless and aggressive, and they behave like idiots in the forests with their rifles - and that's disgusting. I have many stories about these brutal hunters (shooting small piggies or deer from agricultural machines in the same way we kill screamers in DM etc.). Disgusting and awful. I think some of these people are mentally ill.
(on the other hand, there are many funny stories connected with hunting, especially with totally drunken hunters not able to shoot anything or shooting themselves etc.)

[Ameena]

Someof this conversation reminded me of something I saw on the Net, aaaages ago. It was a picture of our galaxy with a little square highlighting a teeny, tiny little area, and there was a caption saying something along the lines of "This square highlights where our sun is in this great big huge galaxy. The third planet orbiting the sun might be the only planet in the whole galaxy with intelligent life on it, but that species spends its time killing each other and fighting over areas of this teeny, tiny planet or killing each other over religious beliefs, etc". It was something like that, basically saying how for all we know, we're the only sentient species in the whole galaxy right now (or even that ours is the only planet with life on it) and instead of doing wonderful things and getting out there exploring, we're fighting amongst ourselves over stupid little things.

[Jan]

It reminds me Inconvenient Truth.

By the way, do you know the new documentary movie "Home" by Yann Arthus-Bertrand? It popularises ecology and is based on aerial shots of the Earth done from a helicopter with a high-definition Cineflex camera (originally for army). It's fantastic! You can watch it in high-res on http://www.youtube.com/homeproject - I can only recommend it.

@Sophia: Dressed for summer? It's getting hot, isn't it?