Animals as food and sexual partners

[ptgatsby]

But is our engineering really flawed? I don't have any problem knowing that I grew up being taught that, and continuing to think that way myself.

It is subjective. There are a lot of things that might of been normal as animals that we wouldn't accept anymore. Rape may very well be among them, just not with other species.

In essence, you don't NEED to eat animals to live, this is true. Based on pure necessity, neither are up there. But it's natural for us to eat other animals to survive. It's not as natural for us to have sex with other species.. so our brains are engineered to think this way for the most part.

That's what the difference is, in a nutshell (it's what I posted originally).

However, evolutionary efficiency is blind. As a society, we have emergent attitudes to things like this, but it is not based on principles. It is, in fact, the other way around. We justify wholesale slaughter of living beings because of this bias, while condemning others. It is the foundation of our principles, these biases.

It is a logical double standard, if we wish to believe we are more than mere animals. Otherwise a naturally formed society would be... very animalistic.

 

[Kora]

Stupid sexy goats.

(?)

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think that humans can't live without doing harm to animals. It is simply how things work.

Maybe we could live without eating meat but we need proteins. What means that you will need to rely on dairy products that were created by animal abuse.


There is one more question that can go to this domain.


What is more amoral- killing of 10 plants for one meal or killing only one animal for 10 meals?

Question is simplified.

 

[Jack Flak]

Ummm, is this INTP Central?

 

[kyuuei]

It is subjective. There are a lot of things that might of been normal as animals that we wouldn't accept anymore. Rape may very well be among them, just not with other species.



That's what the difference is, in a nutshell (it's what I posted originally).

However, evolutionary efficiency is blind. As a society, we have emergent attitudes to things like this, but it is not based on principles. It is, in fact, the other way around. We justify wholesale slaughter of living beings because of this bias, while condemning others. It is the foundation of our principles, these biases.

It is a logical double standard, if we wish to believe we are more than mere animals. Otherwise a naturally formed society would be... very animalistic.

>.o I think I see what you're saying. I understand.. Mayhap I'm just very cold hearted then. If I take an animal as a pet, and animals in the wild, I don't want them harmed or abused.. I love animals, actually. But I still want to buy my meat prepared for me in a store.

 

[Synarch]

What about designing an intelligent (human level) female humanoid robot which we have created with software that dictates they will "desire" to copulate with human males? Is it taboo to have sex with same? The desire is not innate but manufactured and dictated by the underlying software.

 

[Oleander]

Why female for male? Don't we already have sex toys mainly for women because they prefer their sensations without the constraint a relationship might put on them? Men at least like to pretend some human connection by hiring a prostitute and thinking of sex toys and 'wankers' as something to look down on.