|
|
|
|
|
| | The chickens AND the eggsPage 6 of 8 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) | therein lies the rub....
how many Dodo eggs does it take to make an omelette for the modern nuclear family?....
and what the hell would it taste like?... | |
|
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/4/2009 5:13:15 AM | So my fresh thoughts are inconveniently combining with what you've described and I am now trying to rid myself of a mental image of my sweet girls with their brains half removed. Begone image!
The idea is not to remove their brains the would just not have a cerebral cortex they would hatch out of eggs in the normal way and look no different to any other chicken they would as it were be born in a vegetative state. The farming methods would I expect remain the same in every other respect as would the eggs and meat produced.
The idea which is also used in the “Restaurant at the end of the Universe” probable comes from “Mike the Headless Wonder Chicken” who in 1945 in Colorado had his head cut off and continued to live with just a part of his brain stem. His owner feed him with an eyedropper and he appeared at sideshows throughout the United States until he chocking to death two years later at which time he weighed six pounds more than he had the day he lost his head. Apparently he would spend his day happily preening and pecking for food with his neck. It would appear that the faculties that a chicken does have are not necessarily to a life in captivity. I suspect that there would be more than a few people who love chickens who would be disappointed if they found that they couldn’t tell the differenced between “decerebrated chickens” and “real” chickens. Who knows?
Scary reasoning there Scholar. If we call something into existence, there is no ethical issue with doing whatever you want to them thereafter? Different context, but...some abusive parents fall back on similar reasoning.
Yes I agree I should have said that using genetic engineering in this case does not introduce any additional ethical issues above and beyond those encountered if this was done using selective breeding. There are clearly examples of things that dog breeders have done to dogs which have resulted in breads of dogs that are born with defects that reduce their quality of life and or cause them pain all in the name of wining ribbons at shows; to call their behaviour disgusting would be generous.
I'd have to be sure we were really talking no awareness, no anything, etc...but if it were true, then unchickens would be great news for chickens and I would fully support it.
Well at this stage this is just a thought experiment so we can say they have no awareness and clearly “Mike the Headless Wonder Chicken” could not have had any awareness of anything given he had no head at all. It would be great news for the very few “real” chickens that existed perhaps on hobby farms and in zoos and I would normally be the first to jump at an engineering solution to a problem like this but I am not sure I am not missing something; it could just be the company I keep. 
One advantage is I think that if the chicken industry went this way, it would emphasise that cruelty to farmed animals is an important issue generally and it is not likely that this could be done with many other larger animals.
On the down side the “decerebrated chickens” would look exactly the same as real chickens and those that were being intensively farmed may look worse than the do now and it is how they look that appeals to our sympathy rather than some real measure of their present pain and suffering so I am wondering if doing this could serve to further desensitise us to the suffering of animal. | |
|
Naamah
| | Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 128 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/4/2009 6:32:32 AM | The idea is not to remove their brains the would just not have a cerebral cortex they would hatch out of eggs in the normal way and look no different to any other chicken they would as it were be born in a vegetative state.
Yes I understand that. I was merely trying to explain that it is hard for me to disassociate from my own familiarity with chickens to get a grip on what an unchicken would be like.
Apparently he would spend his day happily preening and pecking for food with his neck.
This worries me. Preening indicates self-awareness to my mind. From my observations they preen consciously, as a choice, and whilst I am sure it is instinctive on some level, I can say that they also do it because it feels nice. I would explain why I think that, but it would involve descriptions of the early sensory delights a hen and chick mutually draw from rubbing faces, and of hens blissing out momentarily during preening, and of watching hens exchanging soft sounds and looks whilst being preened by another hen, and it would sound foreign and would take too long and require a way with words I probably don't possess to describe it properly to someone who has not seen or known it despite having undoubtedly looked at chickens ... akin to when Arthur Dent tried to explain to the ship's computer about tea by explaining history and ritual and sensation and emotion but being entirely unable to communicate what it is really like... seeing as HHGTTG had entered this thread anyway. I also know that when one of my girls is feeling unwell, the preening goes out the window. I would think if the unthinking part of the brain takes care of preening then it would not stop regardless of having a sniffle. I am very wary of this concept of a chicken who does not have self awareness and yet preens.
I suspect that there would be more than a few people who love chickens who would be disappointed if they found that they couldn’t tell the differenced between “decerebrated chickens” and “real” chickens. Who knows?
I would be worried if I couldn't tell the difference. I would figure I was being conned, and that it was merely a cure for justifiable compassion rather than for cruelty.
am not sure I am not missing something; it could just be the company I keep. Perhaps the aspect you are struggling with is respect. Respect for a sentient being. Because the thing is...ok, even if it's an unchicken, if you respect chickens as chickens, there is a voice somewhere inside that says it seems wrong to reduce them to unchickens. The only reason I would support it is because it is probably the only relief humans are ever going to offer chickens ( and possibly because of a sneaky feeling that humans don't deserve real chickens anymore after what they do to them), and as I said before, only if I was sure we were talking carrot level of awareness. But for those who don't respect chickens much, or at all, then for them to feel that same reservation perhaps they might need to imagine if we do this to humans. Imagine we make an unhuman...looks like a human, but brain stem only. And we make them for spare parts, or perhaps to do the jobs nobody else wants to do if they have some level of unconscious function. (In fact there are babies born like this now...remember LULT gave a link on the abortion thread...and the mothers argue that they must have some awareness because of how they act etc.) So, I would imagine most people would be up in arms at the idea of making new humans like this on purpose, for whatever purpose...because they respect humans/human life... being human themselves and all. So if you happen to be a human capable of feeling respect for a species other than your own, then the issue of respect might niggle. Might even show you haven't totally lost touch with the earthiness/nature thing, despite an inclination to roar through it at a rapid rate on a noisy machine.
it is how they look that appeals to our sympathy rather than some real measure of their present pain and suffering
For me it's in their eyes. And despite the fact that humans are well aware that responses and emotions can be communicated in human eyes I know from experience what percentage scoff at the idea that the same can be said of another species, so despite the fact that I know otherwise ... again, it would be like trying to explain tea to the ship's computer... and at the end you would be left with an impression of what I was trying to describe that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea. | |
|
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/4/2009 7:04:39 AM |
I am very wary of this concept of a chicken who does not have self awareness and yet preens.
Well this chicken quite literally had no head, but you could be right in that we have some control over our reflexive actions, of brain stem regulates our breathing but that doesn’t stop us from sighing. He was a very famous chicken at the time so there just might a film.
Perhaps the aspect you are struggling with is respect. Respect for a sentient being.
Yes just as I suspected it is the company I am keeping.
For me it's in their eyes. And despite the fact that humans are well aware that responses and emotions can be communicated in human eyes I know from experience what percentage scoff at the idea that the same can be said of another species
Now that is an interesting point, if these chickens had no cerebral cortex even if they had eyes they would be blind; there would be nothing to process the imagines.
I do agree that dogs can communicate emotions through their eyes but in a very real sense all living dog are the descendants of dogs that where selected because they could interact in a way we recognised and could understand.
Might even show you haven't totally lost touch with the earthiness/nature thing, despite an inclination to roar through it at a rapid rate on a noisy machine.
Actually a motorcycle is exactly how I experience this earthiness/nature thing, wind, rain, temperature changes, fear and exhilaration at taking your life into your own hands, or as Colonel Lawrence put it:
When my mood gets too hot and I find myself wandering beyond control I pull out my motor-bike and hurl it top-speed through these unfit roads for hour after hour. My nerves are jaded and gone near dead, so that nothing less than hours of voluntary danger will prick them into life...
T. E. Lawrence cited in Gend Zanetti (2002) “She is a bad motorcycle”.
Of course we don’t mention the allegedly noisy motorcycle that I might occasionally ride; the fact that it was accidently fitted with after-market mufflers while I wasn’t looking, will not stop LULT thinking it is poo-headed. | |
|
Naamah
| | Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 130 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/4/2009 7:12:39 AM |
all living dog are the descendants of dogs that where selected because they could interact in a way we recognised and could understand
Imagine the species we could select to give a damn about if only we could extend our recognition and understanding.  | |
|
acorn
| | Joined: 9/17/2009
Msg: 131 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/5/2009 10:17:59 AM | How about we start engineering humans with the part of the brain which allows the capacity for cruelty , removed.Make it a genetically dominant mutation..send 'em out into the world and let them procreate their heads off.We wont tell anyone...we'll just know that in the future,cruelty on any level will no longer play any part in who we are.
It's a dream..
Cruelty to animals as a result of the unethical supply of demand is a table that needs to be turned.I'm not sure that genetically engineering animals in the manner you describe is a turn in the right direction.It's not natural and it just does'nt sit right.And where will it stop!!What lengths will we go to to keep the wheels of industry and the flow of money going to supply a demand that only exists because we created it??
No doubt ,most of us would wish that we could snap our fingers and have it all stop...now!!I cant help feeling though,that we're a long way from home and as long as we can still turn a blind eye to genocide,the poor old animals are as good as fukced. | |
|
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/5/2009 11:41:03 PM | The title of this thread “The Chicken and the Egg” brought to mind the question which came first “the chicken or the egg” to which I suspect the answer is that there will once have been an egg out of which hatched something closer to being a chicken than the creature that laid the egg in question. This process would have continued, taken more than a little time and more than a few generations before a chicken hatched out of an egg that had been laid by a chicken both of which were a different species from the creature that laid the first egg mentioned; so the answered is, I think, the egg.
Anyway the interesting thing about contemplating chickens and eggs is that there is probably no better example of how the metaphorically selfish genes of every living thing are in a figurative sense primarily “concerned” with their own survival rather than the health, happiness or welfare of the creatures they create to transmit themselves to the next generation. In a very real sense, as Samuel Butler put it, “A hen is just an eggs way of making another egg”. All modern chickens are the descendants of a pheasant native to Thailand called Gallus gallus gallus or the Red Jungle Fowl and now there are now about 52 billion of them, about one for every nine people in the world. From the perspective of the genes in the eggs, the fact that five thousand years ago they use to ride through the generations in a pheasants that laid eggs that humans liked the taste of and could be domesticated has been a fabulous success which has made them the most numerous bird on the face of the earth. Of course from the perspective of most of the chickens in the world this success probably doesn’t seem much like something you would want to crow about. Applying this idea to humans is an interesting an illuminating idea for anyone that is interested in their bazaar mating and dating behaviour.
Anyway we were discussing that fact that “decerebrated chickens” would be blind and as it turns out this is likely to be one of the things that appeals to the industry about this idea because chickens unlike, for example bulls, hippos and owls which are all colour bind, can unlike dogs which can only distinguish between blue and yellow, see red and they don’t like it. When one chicken bleeds the others are likely to peck it obsessively and this cannibalistic behaviour leads to a substantial proportion of the injuries that battery hens suffer. The traditional solution has, I think, been to blunt their beaks with something like a hot knife however about twenty years ago there was a major trial of red contact lenses fitted to battery chickens which made everything look red. The chickens fought less, were less active and therefore ate less but still laid the same number of eggs. In an industry that operates on a profit margin of something like 1.5 % this would have made a real difference to the chickens and to profits which is the only kind of solution ever likely to fly; unfortunately the lenses proved fiddly and labour-intensive, bad from the industries perspective and painful and distressing to the chickens, because they dried out their eyes, though I doubt that anyone cared that much about the chickens perspective. So it would seem that “decerebrated chickens” might not only solve the cruelty problem it might just do it at a reduced cost.
However as good an idea it seems I am still not sure I want to buy eggs in a carton that says laid by brainless chickens though it might just be a sentimental hangover from childhood. I was telling my sister about this earlier today and she was reminding me that when we were kids and our father would bring home live chickens to be killed and plucked we would put all “our” chickens which were kept for eggs and which she assures me all had their own individual personalities, into their shed and she would climb up into the shed and guard them until the wild killing spree being conducted by the savage tribe she was unfortunate enough to be a part of was over. I of course left her to do the guarding, being about eight years old and inherently poo-headed I wanted to do the killing though I am sure I always said “look there is a butterfly” before I swung the axe. | |
|
Naamah
| | Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 133 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/6/2009 4:41:35 AM | This process would have continued, taken more than a little time and more than a few generations before a chicken hatched out of an egg that had been laid by a chicken both of which were a different species from the creature that laid the first egg mentioned; so the answered is, I think, the egg.
Clearly yes, there was a non-chicken that laid an egg from which hatched a chicken, But the answer to which came first actually depends on whether an egg is defined by what produces the egg, or what hatches out of it. Is it a chicken egg because it was laid by a chicken, or is it a chicken egg because a chicken does/can hatch out of it? If you think of crossing breeds...if a Black Australorp hen mates with a rather handsome red Pekin Bantam rooster...the resulting chicken will be a mixed breed, in fact a rather pretty hen with her mother's glorious black/green feathers and her dad's short stature and fluffy legs and feet. A new type of bird compared to what existed before. Was the egg a mixed breed egg because of what hatched out of it, or was it the egg of a Black Australorp?
see red and they don’t like it
Most breeds have bright red combs and wattles, so if that was true they would all engage in constant face attacks, which they don't. Blood is a liquid and it moves/gleams/sparkles, all of which will attract pecking. Shiny painted toenails, belt buckles, buttons, and teeth attract the same attention. :laugh: Plus, birds have a survival instinct to kill a sick bird so as to protect the rest of the flock from infection, or to avoid putting the flock at risk from predation. Plus, cram birds in together and they will be bored and will peck at each other...there will be more sick ones...and then the sparkly trickle will probably attract more pecks. I doubt they have an issue with the colour red. Those contact lenses (and bloody hell I'd never heard about that before) would have just reduced their ability to distinguish anything much.
And by the way, I have had blind chickens who adapted and survived with their disability just fine...as long as nobody moved them and caused them to lose their bearings.
she assures me all had their own individual personalities
Naaah, all chickens are called Betty, and they are all exactly the same. Best we keep our understandings of the world simple... and what possible purpose would letting go of some of our egocentricity serve?
How about we start engineering humans with the part of the brain which allows the capacity for cruelty , removed.
The short answer is...Love it. :)
The long answer can be found in a book called The Philosopher and the Wolf by Mark Rowlands. | |
|
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/6/2009 5:26:15 AM |
The title of this thread “The Chicken and the Egg” brought to mind the question which came first “the chicken or the egg” to which I suspect the answer is that there will once have been an egg out of which hatched something closer to being a chicken than the creature that laid the egg in question. This process would have continued, taken more than a little time and more than a few generations before a chicken hatched out of an egg that had been laid by a chicken both of which were a different species from the creature that laid the first egg mentioned; so the answered is, I think, the egg.
Yeah . . look, I reckon you're both over-thinking this one and I'm fairly sure we covered it somewhere or other.
Anyway, the answer to the question of which came first, “the chicken or the egg”?
. . is of course . . the Rooster !  | |
|
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/6/2009 5:59:02 AM |
Clearly yes, there was a non-chicken that laid an egg from which hatched a chicken
No that is exactly what didn’t and couldn’t have happened. It is a continuum and we are talking about species not breads which are by definition of the same species. Every chick that hatched would have hatched out of an egg laid by a bird that was the same species as itself but at some point the chick that hatches will be a different species from its own great great great great etc grand Nana. So I was arguing that the process begins with the first egg, perhaps one out of a clutch of eggs that has some tiny little variation that is passed on and after generations and numerous variations becomes a new species. The trouble with this is that modern chickens are probably the same species as the Red Jungle Fowl in that you could probably still mate them with each other; humans can create new variations, new breads by artificial selection but I can’t think of an example of humans creating a new species, dogs are for example all the descendents of wolves and they can be cross bread with wolves so strictly speaking dogs and wolves are the same species. The trouble is that there is more than one definition of “species” and some would say that if dogs and wolves would not mate naturally in the wild then they are different species or at least subspecies even though they could theoretically be interbreed. As for your example I think it is the egg because it is the first egg that can create the kind of chicken that comes out of it, into a world were that bread of chicken has never been seen before. I think.
Naaah, all chickens are called Betty, and they are all exactly the same.
Strangely when I assured her that you would agree she didn’t seem to find it that at all reassuring.
I doubt they have an issue with the colour red. Those contact lenses (and bloody hell I'd never heard about that before) would have just reduced their ability to distinguish anything much.
I don’t know either but I have a reference for it this.
http://www.colormatters.com/optics.html
The long answer can be found in a book called The Philosopher and the Wolf by Mark Rowlands.
Oh god I know that book, very dangerous in the wrong hands, I just hope someone wasn’t irresponsible enough to give you a copy of it. People really need to learn to consider the suffering that their actions might inadvertently cause other. 
I guess we are all going to have to suffer now; I am off to talk to attractive women about the modern uses of boolean algebra while life still feels like it is worth living. | |
|
Naamah
| | Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 136 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/6/2009 7:46:50 AM | No that is exactly what didn’t and couldn’t have happened. It is a continuum and we are talking about species not breads which are by definition of the same species. Every chick that hatched would have hatched out of an egg laid by a bird that was the same species as itself but at some point the chick that hatches will be a different species from its own great great great great etc grand Nana.
Yes Scholar, it's a continuum, but unless you subscribe to the biblical notion that god made a chicken... or unless the first chicken was made in a laboratory by a self-appointed god ...if you are even asking yourself the question of when a chicken became a chicken, then you are acknowledging that there was a point when the first true 'chicken' existed. Before that, was a bird that was almost but not exactly a chicken, and before that a bird that was a sliver less almost a chicken. The point is, that in spite of the continuum there was a bird that first met the true species definition of a chicken, and I certainly wasn't thinking anyone would interpret my comments as implying that a chicken suddenly and inexplicably hatched from an egg laid by a parrot and subsequently went on to become a great disappointment to its parents. The first true chicken came from the egg of a bird that was almost but not exactly a chicken. So was that egg a chicken egg, or a not-quite-a-chicken egg. Is the egg defined by who laid it or who hatches out of it?
As for your example I think it is the egg because it is the first egg that can create the kind of chicken that comes out of it, into a world were that bread of chicken has never been seen before. I think.
So even if you see a particular type of bird, say a pelican, lay an egg, you can't define it as being a pelican egg until a pelican hatches out of it? And if it isn't fertilised, is it destined to be an egg of no fixed breed? In my example, the egg was the egg of an Australorp, but it contained the genetic material of a mixed breed chicken, which was born as the first mixed breed chick of its type. Other eggs from the same pairing could have resulted in a red chicken without feathered legs, but were still the eggs of an Australorp. Had the egg been eaten before the genetic material it contained had a chance to develop, it would have been the egg of an Australorp and if anybody cared, and were there a market for it, and were there labeling laws about such things, then that's how it would have been labelled. I think.
Oh god I know that book, very dangerous in the wrong hands
Indeed. | |
|
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/6/2009 8:34:32 AM |
Is the egg defined by who laid it or who hatches out of it?
I don't know and now my head hurts. | |
|
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/6/2009 8:38:33 AM | The first true chicken came from the egg of a bird that was almost but not exactly a chicken. So was that egg a chicken egg, or a not-quite-a-chicken egg. Is the egg defined by who laid it or who hatches out of it?
I always thought the first chicken was hatched from an egg laid by a very surprised reptile. And the rest is history. | |
|
Naamah
| | Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 139 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/6/2009 8:47:27 AM | | ^^^ Sadly that one was eaten by its own mother. Bit of a fifth Beatle in the transcripts of evolution really. | |
|
acorn
| | Joined: 9/17/2009
Msg: 140 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/10/2009 4:28:05 AM |
seeing as HHGTTG had entered this thread anyway.
Ummm.....what does HHGTTG mean?  | |
|
Naamah
| | Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 141 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/12/2009 7:39:51 PM | ^^^ Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.
My ex-battery girls are currently standing out the back trying to work out why the sky is dropping water on them all of a sudden, but probably feeling a lot cooler than they did half an hour ago. What a glorious range of sensations this planet offers its beings when they are allowed out of humanity's cages.
Lara, Jocelyn, Pearl and Beatrice...no longer 'production units', but ... chickens! 
PS. Big thanks to Gemini (Gem n Al) for helping find a new home for some more of the released prisoners. Much appreciated! | |
|
acorn
| | Joined: 9/17/2009
Msg: 142 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/12/2009 10:42:59 PM | ^^^Ohhh..thanks.Trying to figure that out has been driving me nuts!!!Arthur Dent...yes...it's all coming back to me now..
What a glorious range of sensations this planet offers its beings when they are allowed out of humanity's cages.
What a glorious range of sensations this planet offers it's human beings when they can bare witness to someone taking such joy at seeing other beings experiencing the glorious range of sensations this planet has to offer.You,and others like you,are a credit to the human race. | |
|
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/13/2009 7:24:41 AM | There they are brains the sizes of planets and no one listens...which is probably why Marvin should have been born a headless chicken...so much easier and less depressing...from the thoughtless chicken's point of view and bugger anyone else. Sheesh unchickens, chickens, eggs, reptiles, parrots, absolutely fascinating and I have no insight to offer so.....I am going to quote a poem that this all triggered...by Leunig.
Since I lost my pendulum
my life is all eractic,
my parrot who was cordial,
is now transmitting static.
The carpet died,
the palm collapsed,
the cat keeps doing poo.
The only thing that keeps me sane
is talking to my shoe.
As for removing the parts of the brain to eliminate violence. For a start all these ideas of right brain and left brain thinking are rapidly being debunked...along with several areas thought to control certain things that now don't or do in conjunction with something else. Labotomies etc do make people more docile, it also drastically reduces their overall cognitive functions including the ability to feel love etc....so can't be hateful but also cannot feel being loving etc. Eliminating the bad side of violence is actually a dangerous and stupid concept, because it also means eliminating the healthy aspects...ambition, refusal to accept things as is, competition, self preservation etc. A sorta chicken and egg situation all over again. | |
|
acorn
| | Joined: 9/17/2009
Msg: 144 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/13/2009 10:25:49 AM | Hey Red.Really enjoy reading your posts...but this one seems to have gone a little askew??
As for removing the parts of the brain to eliminate violence
Not violence...cruelty.
Labotomies etc do make people more docile I was thinking more along the lines of a genetically induced modification..
Eliminating the bad side of violence is actually a dangerous and stupid concept
Ouch!!...
because it also means eliminating the healthy aspects...ambition, refusal to accept things as is, competition, self preservation etc.
I hear what you're saying and I agree,however I feel those apects of human nature are fuelled more by agression than violence...a subtle difference.
The suggestion of genetically engineering a human brain devoid of the capacity for cruelty,which I think can only exist in the absence of empathy and compassion,was really a tongue in cheek solution to fast tracking to a stage in our evolution where heightened levels of awareness,empathy and compassion would make it impossible for any human being to harbour the capacity for cruelty.
For now though I would be happy enough to see acts of cruelty at any level, a crime ..punishable by death | |
|
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/13/2009 5:10:33 PM | arghh bally puter....am going to perpetrate an act of cruel violence if it doesn't stop repeating everything I type.
^^ thank you but again I disagree.
There is a saying 'cruel to be kind" and it is not there without merit. I have had to be or felt extremely cruel to my children. One child had severe burns and had endure without doubt some horrendously cruel (despite the drugs which don't do much at that level of pain) procedures in order for his leg to heal into the remarkably untoffeed, smooth skin he has now. Thank you staff and Dr Fiona Woods for suspending empathy in order to heal him.
Again eliminating cruelty especially via your method of DEATH...strikes me somewhat of the chicken and the egg....genetically modifying the race smacks of arian selection at it's scariest. What is the positive side of cruelty (see above) that we will also lose. | |
|
acorn
| | Joined: 9/17/2009
Msg: 146 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/13/2009 8:32:37 PM | I'm not seeing an upside to cruelty.If you have to be cruel to be kind then your focus is surely on the kindness.I'm very happy that your son has healed so well and sorry that he had to endure such suffering to get there.I dare say that the doctors and staff took no pleasure in administering those painful procedures that were necessary to effect your son's total recovery and took every concievable measure to keep his suffering to a minimum.I assert however that they were operating out of courage and compassion,not cruelty ,and that there focus never faltered from acheiving the greater good for the being in question...your son.
Cruelty itself affords no such qualities and to subject another being,human or animal,to an act of cruelty would suggest no sense or consideration of what it must be like to be on the receiving end,(empathy),or any placement of value on the life or experience of the being,(compassion), to the point where an awareness that cruelty is at play doesn't itself, exist.
Treating hens in the manner described by Naahmah,the senseless slaughter of whales and dolphins as described by others,the abhorrent conditions to which livestock are subjected, which add up to the unethical supply of a senseless demand, not to mention the acts of genocide being perpetrated globally, are the types of cruelty that I would suggest have no interest in the greater good of the beings in question and can only exist in the complete absence of empathy and compassion.
Of course I'm not serious about genetically engineering a better human brain or making acts of cruelty a crime punishable by death.It's just that the more I learn about what's going on in the world with regard to senseless acts of cruelty,the more tangible the suffering of these beings becomes and I wonder,as I'm sure many of us do,how long will it take to effect a real solution...how much more suffering will our humans and creatures have to endure before we get it right...and I get a little impatient. | |
|
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/13/2009 9:55:17 PM |
Of course I'm not serious about genetically engineering a better human brain
Oh bugger cos I could do with one..this one keeps going off topic and is far too opinionated | |
|
Naamah
| | Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 148 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/14/2009 3:35:05 AM | and to subject another being,human or animal,to an act of cruelty would suggest no sense or consideration of what it must be like to be on the receiving end
I just wanted to add something to this bit ^^^ of what you were saying Acorn. It's a snippet from the book I mentioned earlier, The Philosopher and the Wolf.
Imagine there is a group of you and you have just ordered a pizza. How do you make sure everyone gets a fair slice? Here's an easy way. Let one person slice it, but also make sure that he or she gets their slice last. If they don't know which slice they are going to get, then they can't arrange things in their favour. They have no option but to slice the pizza fairly.
Now imagine the pizza is society. How do you ensure that the society you live in is a fair one? Just as we ensured the fair slicing of the pizza by making sure that the person who sliced it didn't know which slice they were going to get, so we could ensure a fair society by allowing a person to choose how it is to be organised, but by making sure that when they choose this they don't know who they are going to be in this society. This imaginative device was originally developed by the Harvard philosopher, the late John Rawls. He called it the 'original position'.
~snip~
You don't know if you are going to be male or female, black or white, rich or poor, intelligent or stupid, and so on. Nor do you know if you are a religious person or an atheist, selfish or altruistic etc.
Rowlands goes on to say that Rawls's rules here were that you did know that in this society you would be human, and rational....but that Rowlands thinks to make it truly fair, those paramaters would have to be removed too...therefore the roles you decide for each member will also include "animals, infants, the senile, the insane etc. In short; the weak."
So you can decide that it's Ok to give shock treatment to the insane...that Christians should be thrown to the lions...that women should all be shot...and that battery hens are perfectly fine...whatever you like. As long as you understand, you might get to be one. You get the last slice. So the individual starts asking themselves, what would I consider unacceptable treatment of other beings if I knew there was a real chance of being on the ugly end of it? Of any of those things ending up being your lot in life.
I daresay it's probably about then that people might realise, hey, you really can care about righting wrongs against animals and people. :)
This is a means of exploring our thoughts about the roles/experiences of others through fresh eyes.... a long-winded version of, 'walk a mile in their shoes'. But of course there will be plenty of those who are either not capable, or not willing, to ponder the world in this way...those who don't want to review their thinking who will just scoff, or claim that they could do a stint as a battery hen on their ear or something equally glib, simply because ... it is just an intellectual exercise rather than ever being a possible reality....and exercising intellect is not compulsory.
Thanks for your comments earlier too...and yes, I do take immense joy in their joy. And I feel so proud of them, and protective towards them, and it's just such a pleasure to watch their reactions. Some say they get to see the world anew when seen through the eyes of a child discovering it for the first time. I feel it when I get to see it through the eyes of a wretched and discarded creature who has somehow survived 2 years of horrific deprivation. | |
|
acorn
| | Joined: 9/17/2009
Msg: 149 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/14/2009 7:08:04 AM | Of course I'm not serious about genetically engineering a better human brain
Oh bugger cos I could do with one..this one keeps going off topic and is far too opinionated
Sorry!!New brains only available to those who harbour the capacity for cruelty.I see no evidence that you are so afflicted...NEXT!!
This is a means of exploring our thoughts about the roles/experiences of others through fresh eyes
I love it!!What a shame that this concept is so far from being a possible reality....but perhaps not totally impossible.Wouldn't it be great if this type of interlectual excercise could somehow be incorporated into the school curriculum??...instead of algebra Perhaps our youngn's would be more receptive to this method of seeing things...God knows they'll be running things around here soon enough.
Thanks for the heads up on "The Philosopher and the Wolf".I looked for it straight away on the net and ,although I'm not much of a reader,I'll be reading that one.
Always a pleasure to see a response from you Naahmah and thanks for going to such lengths to share. | |
|
acorn
| | Joined: 9/17/2009
Msg: 150 | |
| The chickens AND the eggs
Posted: 12/14/2009 7:19:22 AM | | ^^^oops!!!I meant intellectual.(looks like I might be needing a new brain myself.) | |
|
|
|
|
Page
6
of
8 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
|
|
Home
login 
