Judging Life Forms?

[Pa'li Makto]

I think because it is like a debate and debates aren't allowed in the new threads.

[apache_blanca]

^^right...^

[Pa'li Makto]

Mmmmmm

[Eltu]

Nothing is a debate as long as nobody wish it to be.

And I think this thread has been very respectful so far.

[Pa'li Makto]

Very true but I hope it keeps civil.

[Eltu]

I'll make sure of that.

[apache_blanca]

Originally Posted by Pa'li Makto

I remember when I did studies of religion back in high school we looked at the bible and the message was contradictory. On one hand humans were to be shepherds of the land and animals and care for them as they are all created and loved by God. However on another passage it was said that God gave humanity the dominion over the land and the creatures on the earth. ....

you know what, I thought about it and if "dominion" means "to take care" (if a man is supposed to be in charge) - there would be no contradiction then!. Dominion shouldn't mean "take what you want (and don't bother about the consequences cos you're too important to clean your own mess)." Dominion should mean responsibility for one's actions & taking care of "the family"; at least keeping the "greed - need" factor in mind and not grabbing more than necessary! The Na'vi kill animals too - but at least they recognize their part in the balance of things & are decent enough to say "thanks, you're giving us food with your body - your death is keeping us alive".
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be the case with the humanity

We - all beings - depend on each other; we live in one "home" here.
I heard that if flies disappear from the face of this planet very soon the balance of life will shift cos flies form a very important part in the food chain. However, if human beings disappear... wild life will prosper!
Just to think about it - what sort of "dominion" are we exercising?

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Clarke

Genericism. Adaptability. "Everything you can do, I can do better." We are at the top of the food chain because, given enough time, we can duplicate and surpass all other feats in nature.

Adaptability is also more or less just one strategy among many. Some species are very successful because they are specialists and not generalists.
Also I would be very careful declaring anything to be on top of a food chain. The "food chain" exists only by our own definition, just as the definitions of sentience and superiority of humans do. They are all just working within the framework of human perception, of civilized human perception or even only of scientific civilized human perspective.

For an dolphin it may be much more important to play and swim fast than owning a car. It may not even have interest in having a car if it would know about cars. A tree might not at all be interested in cellphones because it is much more important to enjoy the sunlight. All species set up their own value system

For many indigenous peoples, community is more important than posessions and for many it seems more or less crazy to wreck the planet like "civilized" people do to get these posessions. They may regard themselves superior because their cultures managed to continue without degrading their environment for tens of thousands of years.

So it is a matter of what one values most and if you judge other ways of life or life forms by that standards that you set yourself in your own context, it is very likely that ones bias will put oneself in a top category there.

Back to the "food chain" - often it is seen as a pyramid with a top and a bottom. But in fact in the end all life goes in circles, "all energy is only borrowed" and the predator will in the end be food for worms or parasites or bacteria. Did you know that humans are comprised to a large part of bacteria? They actually live from us/ with us /inside of us. To put a hierarchy on foodwebs is a human perspective because we somehow are more impressed by predators maybe but in reality it really is a web and not a chain or even a pyramid. There is no "top of the food chain". Instead what humans do is to displace others.

So I guess civilized humans think they are so special because they can create very complex tools, unlike the tools other animals create. Mostly I guess humans are special because they can have abstract thinking. But again, this may be unique, but it does not imply a hierarchy.

I would also agree to that sentience derives from sensing and being aware of the surroundings and that this is very well present in many if not all other life as well.

And I definitely agree that all life has value, and that this implies a respect that should be given to that life - Obviously we are subjective and place more value usually on our own kind, on relatives, on kinship than on more distant ones - so personally I would probably rather kill a fly than a human (well except if it was a gorgeous fly and the human in question would be Hitler or something like that - which already shows the limits of this statement). But in the end the point is that all life has value and that to assign different value to different life is a matter of subjectivity and as such should be considered thoughtful. So I would say to show respect to that fact and respect to that life (and respect to the nonliving things that are connected to that life) is very much a thing to strive for.

Greetings

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Adaptability is also more or less just one strategy among many. Some species are very successful because they are specialists and not generalists.
Also I would be very careful declaring anything to be on top of a food chain. The "food chain" exists only by our own definition, just as the definitions of sentience and superiority of humans do. They are all just working within the framework of human perception, of civilized human perception or even only of scientific civilized human perspective.

Which things are capable of eating other things would appear to be a matter of biology, but I can see why the idea of a linear chain is problematic.

For an dolphin it may be much more important to play and swim fast than owning a car. It may not even have interest in having a car if it would know about cars. A tree might not at all be interested in cellphones because it is much more important to enjoy the sunlight. All species set up their own value system

For many indigenous peoples, community is more important than posessions and for many it seems more or less crazy to wreck the planet like "civilized" people do to get these posessions. They may regard themselves superior because their cultures managed to continue without degrading their environment for tens of thousands of years.

You're perfectly right that obviously, different individuals will have different values, but IMO, you've missed my point. Pick an arbitarary goal, whether it be gathering food, hunting ability, gathering sunlight, or something else. I can virtually guareentee you that a human would be able to surpass all non-humans in achieving that goal.

Even in the case of the indigineous community, it would be disingenous for them to condemn "civilised" humanity for environmental destruction while ignoring the vast community that they have constructed. The Internet can put me in contact with tens of thousands of people for any topic I wish to discuss, with a latency measured in milliseconds. That's arguably just as much "community" as a single tribe of a few hundred people.

So it is a matter of what one values most and if you judge other ways of life or life forms by that standards that you set yourself in your own context, it is very likely that ones bias will put oneself in a top category there.

Again, feel free to pick an arbitarary goal. Although I agree that ranking things with a subjective context in mind will give you the results you're expecting, when you consider all possible contexts you could rank them in, there are non-subjective trends that you can analyze.

Back to the "food chain" - often it is seen as a pyramid with a top and a bottom. But in fact in the end all life goes in circles, "all energy is only borrowed" and the predator will in the end be food for worms or parasites or bacteria.

Assume a simplified one that lumps all the components of a given ambulatory organism together, then.

Did you know that humans are comprised to a large part of bacteria? They actually live from us/ with us /inside of us. To put a hierarchy on foodwebs is a human perspective because we somehow are more impressed by predators maybe but in reality it really is a web and not a chain or even a pyramid. There is no "top of the food chain". Instead what humans do is to displace others.

IMO, you seem to be leaving out mitigating circumstances. While it is technically correct to say that a vulture could eat a lion, it can only do that if the lion dies. All the various bacteria responsible for decomposition can't do a thing to me while I'm still alive and my immune system still works, as another example. If you compared them all in equal circumstances, I think you would get sometihng approximating a pyramid.

So I guess civilized humans think they are so special because they can create very complex tools, unlike the tools other animals create. Mostly I guess humans are special because they can have abstract thinking. But again, this may be unique, but it does not imply a hierarchy.

Personally, I think we're special because we embody, "Everything you can do, I can do better." Genericism works in more cases than any one speciality does, and so, ...well, here we are.

I would also agree to that sentience derives from sensing and being aware of the surroundings and that this is very well present in many if not all other life as well.

I don't think anyone could argue it wasn't present, but IMO, it'd be silly to say they have it to the same degree as us.

And I definitely agree that all life has value,

Does life itself have value, or only its design? I don't actually know. To steal the metaphor from the anti-privacy DVD ads, is a panda or a chimp still valuable if I can download it?

But in the end the point is that all life has value and that to assign different value to different life is a matter of subjectivity and as such should be considered thoughtful

Yay!

...Except you mean, "thoughtfully," don't you?

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Clarke

Pick an arbitarary goal, whether it be gathering food, hunting ability, gathering sunlight, or something else. I can virtually guareentee you that a human would be able to surpass all non-humans in achieving that goal.

Survive lifelong in 80°C, in a very confined space or in the dark. Survive without energy use for a prolonged time. I think there are many examples, though I guess your point is that given enough energy and the support of a whole civilization of industry, technological means can make some of the things possible for a few (though I doubt for all). Also of course people will just go insane or suffer even if it is possible in some conditions. One thing that civilized humanity is not really good at as well is to actually not "**** where you eat", or in other words live truely sustainably and keep the world in a state that actually can support humans for a long long time. A lot of these abilities you mention are based on exploitation and force. But that means that these are not sustainable. If a lifestyle is based on the depletion of nonrenewable "resources", all abilities and power is only temporary. A very potent virus may be extremely powerful and dangerous and outcompete all others and (if he could) think that he is the king of the world, but in the end once everyone is infected and dies, it becomes obvious that that power was only borrowed.

Even in the case of the indigineous community, it would be disingenous for them to condemn "civilised" humanity for environmental destruction while ignoring the vast community that they have constructed. The Internet can put me in contact with tens of thousands of people for any topic I wish to discuss, with a latency measured in milliseconds. That's arguably just as much "community" as a single tribe of a few hundred people.

I'd argue that this is communi-cation, not communi-ty.
Even disregarding for a moment the cost of all that (obviously a lot of electricity and metals for the infrastructure - with the attached consequences for poor or incidentially indigenous peoples) - There is very much a difference between these forms of relationship with others. It would take me too long now to explain, but I hope you are recognizing that a friend I meet in real life is something very different from a "friend" on facebook.
Again quantity does not by default surpass quality!

Although I agree that ranking things with a subjective context in mind will give you the results you're expecting, when you consider all possible contexts you could rank them in, there are non-subjective trends that you can analyze.

non-subjective means objective and this is what I say is something that is hard to claim especially in terms of assigning value. You can maybe objectively say that a brick falls to the floor, but when it comes to more complex things like life forms, it gets subjective. What is on the higher rank - the species that is so "powerful" that it can outcompete all others? Is that virus I mentioned then of a higher rank? If some animal is really really good at hunting - is that a good thing if it kills off all its prey and then dies? Or is stability and sustainability maybe a good way to rank life forms? Where are civilized humans on that scale then?

IMO, you seem to be leaving out mitigating circumstances. While it is technically correct to say that a vulture could eat a lion, it can only do that if the lion dies. All the various bacteria responsible for decomposition can't do a thing to me while I'm still alive and my immune system still works, as another example. If you compared them all in equal circumstances, I think you would get sometihng approximating a pyramid.

At best, you'd get something like an hourglass maybe. But really it is not a simple shape.
And yes, a vulture can only eat the lion if the lion dies, the lion also can only eat the antelope if the antelope dies. Everything dies and get eaten, just in some cases it dies because of a larger lifeform killed it (like the lion) and in some cases because a smaller lifeform killed it (like a virus) and maybe sometimes it dies because of an accident or even because of old age.
Oh and the bacteria I mentioned that make up a huge part of a human being - most of them are symbionts actually and live off some of the food or waste products of cells that are in the same body but have human DNA.

Personally, I think we're special because we embody, "Everything you can do, I can do better." Genericism works in more cases than any one speciality does, and so,

Actually usually genericism in all other species works in a way that says "you may be really good in this one task, but I can do many more even if none of that as good as the specialist". To have a species that would not only be able to do all these tasks but do all of them better than anyone else is (if it would be so) something else then.
In Nature if something like this happens on a smaller scale, that species destroys other species and is called an "invasive species" and people rip these plants out to prevent them from spreading...

I don't think anyone could argue it wasn't present, but IMO, it'd be silly to say they have it to the same degree as us.

That is ranking again - and subjective. "the same degree as us" means that there is a higher degree and a lower degree when I would say that in life, there is no such thing , just "different ways".

Does life itself have value, or only its design? I don't actually know. To steal the metaphor from the anti-privacy DVD ads, is a panda or a chimp still valuable if I can download it?

I do not know what you mean by downloading a Panda, but yes, all life itself has value. And yes, a movie that I download would still have a value. It would be a good story that is told maybe - so it has a value of course. But it is de-comodified. We have become too used to equating value with commodification. Something has a value if it has a value to us, if it has a monetary value or economic value. If a movie is downloaded the producers do not earn money. That may or may not be a bad thing, but it does not change the value that movie has. So if a species does not have any value for humans - if it is neither cute or beautiful or useful for meat or its horns - if it does not provide any services dead or alive - there seems to be no gain and thus nothing to loose if it is gone. But nevertheless it is life, it has in it all the wonders of life and it does not give a damn if it is beautiful to us or if it can provide us with a service.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Survive lifelong in 80°C, in a very confined space or in the dark. Survive without energy use for a prolonged time. I think there are many examples, though I guess your point is that given enough energy and the support of a whole civilization of industry, technological means can make some of the things possible for a few (though I doubt for all).

The "for all" is just a question of economics.

One thing that civilized humanity is not really good at as well is to actually not "**** where you eat", or in other words live truely sustainably and keep the world in a state that actually can support humans for a long long time.

I'm not sure how much impact that this would actually have.

A lot of these abilities you mention are based on exploitation and force. But that means that these are not sustainable. If a lifestyle is based on the depletion of nonrenewable "resources", all abilities and power is only temporary. A very potent virus may be extremely powerful and dangerous and outcompete all others and (if he could) think that he is the king of the world, but in the end once everyone is infected and dies, it becomes obvious that that power was only borrowed.

I'd argue that this is communi-cation, not communi-ty.
Even disregarding for a moment the cost of all that (obviously a lot of electricity and metals for the infrastructure - with the attached consequences for poor or incidentially indigenous peoples) - There is very much a difference between these forms of relationship with others. It would take me too long now to explain, but I hope you are recognizing that a friend I meet in real life is something very different from a "friend" on facebook.
Again quantity does not by default surpass quality!

Of course not; but the man you pass on the street on your way to work is not the same as your friend either. You can make real friends on the Internet just as much as in RL, and you get far more opportunities on the internet.

What is on the higher rank - the species that is so "powerful" that it can outcompete all others?

That would be the most sucessful one, yes. If you want to rank by reproductive sucess, then it will obviously be the best.

Is that virus I mentioned then of a higher rank? If some animal is really really good at hunting - is that a good thing if it kills off all its prey and then dies? Or is stability and sustainability maybe a good way to rank life forms? Where are civilized humans on that scale then?

Whether the virus is higher rank depends on your criteria for ranking. Similarly, the ultra-hunter's rank depends on how you rank "survival." You could rank it by longest time spent alive, or by largest instantaneous population, and you get different answers each way.

At best, you'd get something like an hourglass maybe. But really it is not a simple shape.
And yes, a vulture can only eat the lion if the lion dies, the lion also can only eat the antelope if the antelope dies. Everything dies and get eaten, just in some cases it dies because of a larger lifeform killed it (like the lion) and in some cases because a smaller lifeform killed it (like a virus) and maybe sometimes it dies because of an accident or even because of old age.

Well, yes, they can be killed by things, but not everything can kill everything... except humans. We can kill absolutely everything, but there are very few things that can ever succeed at even harming us. The "potential prey" set of any creature is vastly smaller than that belonging to humans.

Oh and the bacteria I mentioned that make up a huge part of a human being - most of them are symbionts actually and live off some of the food or waste products of cells that are in the same body but have human DNA.

I was delibrately disregarding this sort of thing because it's just another specialisation. It's a very nice and effective one, but it's just another niche.

Actually usually genericism in all other species works in a way that says "you may be really good in this one task, but I can do many more even if none of that as good as the specialist". To have a species that would not only be able to do all these tasks but do all of them better than anyone else is (if it would be so) something else then.

We can do everything everything else can do to a degree, and we surpass the skill of the specialist in the vast majority of such tasks.

In Nature if something like this happens on a smaller scale, that species destroys other species and is called an "invasive species" and people rip these plants out to prevent them from spreading...

(We're irrational like that. )

That is ranking again - and subjective. "the same degree as us" means that there is a higher degree and a lower degree when I would say that in life, there is no such thing , just "different ways".

...Except we're talking about skill about a specific thing, surely? There are different ways of being generic, and possibly at being "intelligent," but there's only one way to be similar to a human.

I do not know what you mean by downloading a Panda, but yes, all life itself has value. And yes, a movie that I download would still have a value. It would be a good story that is told maybe - so it has a value of course. But it is de-comodified. We have become too used to equating value with commodification. Something has a value if it has a value to us, if it has a monetary value or economic value. If a movie is downloaded the producers do not earn money. That may or may not be a bad thing, but it does not change the value that movie has.

In that case, the value of the movie is in its design; the fact it is this movie, as opposed to another. The movie's physical form is the bits it occupies on your HD, and they are not nearly as valuable.

How valuable is a panda if I know enough to simply grow another one on a whim? And why?

So if a species does not have any value for humans - if it is neither cute or beautiful or useful for meat or its horns - if it does not provide any services dead or alive - there seems to be no gain and thus nothing to loose if it is gone. But nevertheless it is life, it has in it all the wonders of life and it does not give a damn if it is beautiful to us or if it can provide us with a service.

You seem to contradict yourself: "neither cute or beautiful..." vs. "...has in it all the wonders of life..." Is it wonderful or not?

[Theorist]

Originally Posted by Mune

DISCLAIMER: [Because this thread was moved into General and then moved back]

The reason that this is in the spiritual section is because I want this topic to be discussed from a non-scientific point of view. This thread is basically regarding the meaning of life in terms of how we look at the rest of the entities on this planet.

I've recently moved from the 12th year of my school to the 13th, and got a new teacher at the same time. Her views heavily collide with mine, and I couldn't be more happy as I've got a new series of perspectives to debate with, and perhaps further gain views.

However, there is one thing that she said whilst we were discussing the value of what is called 'sentience' and placing humanity above animals. I mean no offence to organised religious texts as this is purely my opinion. I do not mean in any way that this is *fact*, but I personally believe that every life form on this planet is equal.

It sounds cliché, doesn't it. Striving for equality. But honestly, I've always found it hard to understand how one can see another life form on this planet as lesser, when there are no objective set of rules. As humans, we end up making our own. The reason I'm placing this in the spirituality section is because often 'spirit' and sentience seem to coincide some way or another in discussion.

I want to quote Einstein. This doesn't make my belief any more valid at all, but he gives a good example of what I'm trying to say.

http://api.ning.com/files/jXAMZVLJgB...C/Einstein.jpg

As humans, we *defined* sentience. We were the ones who said that *We have control. We can watch television instead of looking for a mate. Ergo, we have free will and are greater."

I disagree. What is the value of sentience? We are "better", because we have the passive ability, almost from birth. But we seem to have decided this as the *core decider*.

What about the creatures that can see Infra-red, a different form and frequency of light itself? Do we simply ignore their *born with it* ability?

If we judge an animal by it's ability to make free-willed choices, of course we're going to seem greater. We've already made sure that we are *in* the parameters.

I'm not sure how to make my views clear, but I hope this short post has gotten some form of the point I was trying to portray across. After all, this is the debate I will be taking to my teacher the next time I see her. If I can't make it understandable through text that is easily deleted and rewritten, then I don't know how I will through set-in-stone speech. : p

I've thought about this too. I like to think all organisms, plant and animal are equal. That it was wrong to say humans are better than dogs, or trees, that our needs should come before a forests' is wrong. But when I get to bacteria, and think of micro-organisms, I must say I value a human over a bacteria. Partly because there are so many bacteria compared to humans, but something else didn't seem right. So I started thinking, is there some point where life of one kind is worth more than another? Like once it can have emotion and empathy is it worth more? I'm still not sure about this personally as to where I stand on it.

[Moco Loco]

I believe that a being with consciousness is more valuable than a being without it. That said, I think my answer would depend on what life is being judged for. Everything has an equal right to live, I think, at least on the species level.

[Theorist]

I like that idea moco, but i worry about being able to tell where consciousness begins.