I think it comes down to higher levels of self-awareness. If it's an animal that possesses higher orders of thinking (as elephants, dolphins, and chimps seem to), or if it's a robot that actually...
I think it comes down to higher levels of self-awareness. If it's an animal that possesses higher orders of thinking (as elephants, dolphins, and chimps seem to), or if it's a robot that actually thinks for itself, then it should have similar rights. (Not identical. I don't think anyone's arguing that Dumbo, Flipper, and Cheetah should be able to go to the DMV and get a driver's license.) I think non-aware animals should have some rights, and I think plant species and ecosystems should have protections, but I don't think a carrot should have the same rights as the thinking.
Posterity Edit: this used to be titled "Should animals, plants, and robots have the same rights as you?" Should animals, plants, and robots have rights? Yes. Should animals, plants, and robots...
Posterity Edit: this used to be titled "Should animals, plants, and robots have the same rights as you?"
Should animals, plants, and robots have rights? Yes. Should animals, plants, and robots have the same rights as me? No. I don't want my cucumber plant to vote; that's dumb.
But wait, that's not what this article is about! It's about the concept of the moral circle which is a super interesting thing to talk about. Very briefly it means "the things that we consider worthy of moral consideration", and it's interesting that as we grow together as society, our tendency is to include more things in the list of things that is important. If that interests you, then I think you should surely read this article (which was pretty good) and then try to forgive the click bait that some editor probably decided to throw in there for a title. (not blaming you at all @alyaza as you copied the title from the article)
If this is the case then this is a fairly clickbaity title and I am frustrated to have fallen for it. Maybe @Deimos can edit it so that it is more descriptive.
If this is the case then this is a fairly clickbaity title and I am frustrated to have fallen for it. Maybe @Deimos can edit it so that it is more descriptive.
This sets up a whimsical Kilgore Trout type story that I'm too lazy to write: With great pressure from animal rights groups, a country passes an omnibus living rights bill. Vegetarians are elated,...
This sets up a whimsical Kilgore Trout type story that I'm too lazy to write: With great pressure from animal rights groups, a country passes an omnibus living rights bill. Vegetarians are elated, although the Plant Life Coalition is waiting for their turn. A week later, scientists find a gene, found only in cockroaches or perhaps shrimp, that when expressed allows only those creatures to live forever.
Despite tremendous suppression of this news, in another country a lab technician secretly breeds a strain of such cockroaches, or perhaps shrimp, with the misguided idea of solving world hunger.
A wonderful story similar to this, if you're interested, was written by Earl Conrad. It's in his book of stories, The DaVinci Machine .
I think it comes down to higher levels of self-awareness. If it's an animal that possesses higher orders of thinking (as elephants, dolphins, and chimps seem to), or if it's a robot that actually thinks for itself, then it should have similar rights. (Not identical. I don't think anyone's arguing that Dumbo, Flipper, and Cheetah should be able to go to the DMV and get a driver's license.) I think non-aware animals should have some rights, and I think plant species and ecosystems should have protections, but I don't think a carrot should have the same rights as the thinking.
Posterity Edit: this used to be titled "Should animals, plants, and robots have the same rights as you?"
Should animals, plants, and robots have rights? Yes. Should animals, plants, and robots have the same rights as me? No. I don't want my cucumber plant to vote; that's dumb.
But wait, that's not what this article is about! It's about the concept of the moral circle which is a super interesting thing to talk about. Very briefly it means "the things that we consider worthy of moral consideration", and it's interesting that as we grow together as society, our tendency is to include more things in the list of things that is important. If that interests you, then I think you should surely read this article (which was pretty good) and then try to forgive the click bait that some editor probably decided to throw in there for a title. (not blaming you at all @alyaza as you copied the title from the article)
If this is the case then this is a fairly clickbaity title and I am frustrated to have fallen for it. Maybe @Deimos can edit it so that it is more descriptive.
Gave it a shot based on some of the alternate titles/subtitles it already had and what it seemed like it was discussing from a quick look.
Thanks a lot!
This sets up a whimsical Kilgore Trout type story that I'm too lazy to write: With great pressure from animal rights groups, a country passes an omnibus living rights bill. Vegetarians are elated, although the Plant Life Coalition is waiting for their turn. A week later, scientists find a gene, found only in cockroaches or perhaps shrimp, that when expressed allows only those creatures to live forever.
Despite tremendous suppression of this news, in another country a lab technician secretly breeds a strain of such cockroaches, or perhaps shrimp, with the misguided idea of solving world hunger.
A wonderful story similar to this, if you're interested, was written by Earl Conrad. It's in his book of stories, The DaVinci Machine .