New Testingstan

No...

I think that living inevitably involves interference against other beings. I advocate for something that reduces that as much as possible, ideally in a way that involves no permanent harm to other beings at all.

I could buy plants having some level of awareness

But I very much doubt it's on the same level as a cow, or even a fish

It also strikes me as more arguable that plants have awareness. With things like cattle you can point to features of the nervous system that are homologous to human ones. With plants you're guessing what the cognition of something without a nervous system looks like.

It also seems to me if you're going to argue that plants are aware you could also argue that bacteria and many artificial machines are aware. They sense and react to their environments, after all.

I'm a level seven vegan. I don't eat anything that casts a shadow.

that was a good episode
from before the simpsons became lolrandom monkey spunk

evilsoup wrote:that was a good episode
from before the simpsons became lolrandom monkey spunk

That may have been the last good episode. The last memorable one, anyway. I cannot remember he last time I watched that show, but I could go for some You Only Move Twice.

Ahh yes, the hammock district.

Jung wrote:But I very much doubt it's on the same level as a cow, or even a fish

i would argue that a) this is unknowable and more importantly, b) it is irrelevant.

It is unknowable because maybe the plants have souls or something. The abstract concept of "me" isn't something I think you can find in a microscope in humans, so really, who knows?

Furthermore, must the subject experience this soul, for lack of a better word, itself? I give some special meaning to my plant, as opposed to any one of the other members of its species. Despite them being the same anatomically, my plant is still an individual entity that I can see distinct from the many others like it. If it died, I could replace it, but I'd still know it isn't the same plant. (At the same time, it might replace every cell in its body with new ones, and it'd still be the same plant. This isn't about the physical being.) Doesn't that abstract existence count for something, even if it is in my mind instead of its own?


A fun sci fi exercise btw is also to think of a plant that does fit into the traditional 'thinking' game, albeit probably at a slow pace. It responds to changes with its growth, which puts everything at a much longer timescale than animals, but if you fast-forward the tape, some higher level stuff definitely emerges... you could go really nuts and say its roots are like a computer tape, running a simulation of some mathematical universe. At first glance, it looks like it is just taking a path of least resistance through the soil, but then the mathematician looks at it and cracks the code: 'my god, it's full of dreams'

sci-fi cuz an individual plant like that, who knows. But I'd say the ecosystem as a whole does kinda fit that bill. It makes 'choices' to adapt to changing situations, exercised through things like natural selection, if you zoom out and fast forward enough, that arguably counts. What's a thought process if not a bunch of ideas that randomly emerge in our head then get filtered down?


* * *

And the awareness question is irrelevant because it is possible (and imo, desirable) to construct your own ethics that doesn't have an eligibility cutoff. Consider this simple idea: "I'm going to make my choices such that I have the smallest (unwanted) impact [on everything]".

Whether plants have the same level of awareness as cows thus doesn't matter, you'll try to minimize your interference with their existence anyway. This is an amazingly robust concept, and simple enough for non-omniscient humans to actually use.

Glass Fort MacLeod wrote:SDN is premised entirely on conflict, so its not terribly surprising you're going to get someone who tries to 'stir the pot' by presenting some sort of 'counter-view'. The problem is in how its done - in the Ramsey example it tries to create an artifiical distinction where none really exists by taking an overly singular view of 'Heroism', and one that is merely based on an opinion that is NOT presented as an opinion.

I find that there are many on internet forums who conflate 'opinion' with 'fact', whether its because they think simply having evidence means their viewpoint is infalliable and totally neglects the interpretive aspect of evidence. It's not unlike how the concept of criticism gets conflated with 'insult' to the point where the two are automatically synonymous in many people's minds (this is another problem with SDN - too many people see criticism as an 'attack' and treat it as such, but there are also people who don't really know the right way to frame criticism, either.)

I just realized that this is about the fifth time in the last three weeks that you have made this exact same post. We get it. You don't like SDN or SW anymore. Nobody here does, except maybe me and Rogue. You know what? I think adr was right when he called for a moratorium on SDN bitching. It really comes across as taking pot shots at people behind their back. I know i'm guilty of it at times as well, but if you've got issues with what they're saying over there, go over there and tell them that.

Also:

Glass Fort MacLeod wrote: Gundam.

Yeah you're right about the SDN thing. The irony is I keep trying to hammer that point as a response to the bitching, but its easy to get repeittive. I'll try to watch that in the future (edit: Although in my experience there are lots of people who need to be told the same thing repeatedly, even after they say they 'get' it, because thinking a certain way can become very habitual.)

Is it okay to bitch about spacebattles repetitively instead?


And hey, Gundam is pretty cool. Its one of the reasons I've reawakened a deep passion for 40K for one thing. If I can enjoy fiction with giant robot shaped starfighters there's nothing in 40K that can bother me.

I have a philosophical perspective that defends traditional points of view, and I apologize for getting aggressive, Straha. I don't think we can ever approach each other on this issue, and I regret making the post, because, it just seems silly now to even try to have a conversation about it. I will continue to eat meat according to my standards for the harvesting of meat which make it ethical, until the day I die, because I hold essentially identical value to plant, animal, and my car -- all have a kami, if you will, deserving of respect (which is to say I treat my cars like loyal horses, not the other way around, I hope I can be clear). Basically I see the definition of life we work with itself as being artificial, and regard myself and humans generally as agglomerations of cells working as collectives.

Honest question, how do you reconcile the fact that every animal killed for food requires a tremendously higher number of plants get damaged/killed than if the plants were eaten by us instead?

How do you reconcile yourself with the fact there are starving, impoverished people in the world when you yourself have a much better lot in life? I mean we all have the choice/power to give of ourselves to make someone's lives better. Or what about things like discrimination (EG against the LGBT)?

I don't consider myself a bad person, yet I buy and consume meat that is probably raised inhumanely (So it is cheap), I don't give nearly as much to charity as I could or probably should, and I probably don't act nearly as proactive enough on issues like LGBT rights. Does that make me a horrible person, or just less horrible than the people who might actively oppose or restrict those things?

There are no absolutes in life, and we often have to make choices and compromises that may be less than ideal, and we have to deal with them, but there are no easy, simple, clear cut choices, because every choice has a tradeoff/risk attached, and we have to accept the consequences whatever they may be. Personally I always find that a tricky course ot navigate, but it also means I don't feel I am in a position to judge another's choices and life options.

Oh I meant just from a "plants are as valuable as animals" perspective. I feel there's definitely some moral arguments for omnivory such as in a potential ecological sense or ensuring the world's poor can get as much nutrition as they can, but Marina's argument seemed to have an issue I didn't know how she works around.

Darksi4190 wrote:You don't like SDN or SW anymore. Nobody here does, except maybe me and Rogue.

I lost a lot of my interest in SW when they so cruelly kicked TCW to the curb.

I'm pretty much going to be SW Free until 2015, looks like.

Unless Timothy Zahn writes something new between now and then.

Bend over, let me see you shake your tailfeather

Because the collectivity of it all is that we're all occupying parts of the ecosystem. Humans have a responsibility (that we're failing massively at) to tending that, but in most of our environments we're actually apex predators. Note that I think that meat consumption in the US should be limited to what can be brought out of ecosystem in a sustainable fashion. For example -- corn fed meat is inherently wrong since it's about taking plants from an area optimized to growing them and stuffing them into animals to fatten them that never actually graze. Meat animals should only be raised on grazing land, naturally grazing off of it, that is /only/ suited for grazing. The only decent way to raise cattle off of Wisconsin and Iowa cornfields would be to let them revert to forest and then hunt the deer in the forest. Nebraska, the Dakotas, and Montana are in many places quite another matter--one where growing wheat, let alone maize, is actively destructive to the land whereas herding is beneficial.

I think the only completely sustainable meat harvesting industry in the US, one where your can eat comfortably rather than picking and choosing individual examples around the edges, is lobster fishing in Maine. The Alaskan Salmon catch is usually okay, at least from the Copper--as long as a giant new mine isn't built whose tailings could wreck it, of course. It would be nice if this changed but don't count on it.

magic princess wrote:I hold essentially identical value to plant, animal, and my car -- all have a kami, if you will, deserving of respect

amen

It is seriously a good way to teach yourself to be gentle and respectful of the needs of all things without exception. Most people treat cars terribly, and in doing so cause huge amounts of unneeded pollution because the ignoring oil/transmission lubricant changes, neglecting the air filter, failing to keep tyres properly inflated, not checking the exhaust system, etc, etc, leads to increased rates of pollution per fuel unit, and even increases the fuel unit consumption, as well as cause excess wear on the vehicle, driving the replacement of the vehicle, which also has a very high cost in energy and environmental degregation in manufacturing.

Likewise computers should be kept as long as possible, replacing individual components that fail and making systems upgrades to improve performance rather than throwing them out and buying a new one, because it is less inherently destructive.

In short, starting with an attitude of "everything has a little machine spirit you should take care of like a pet" is a pretty good attitude for being environmentally friendly.

so with the charles ramsey stories something that bugs me is almost all of them say some variant of "the man who rescued amanda berry"

and it bugs me because while he certainly helped and the importance of that shouldn't be ignored, i mean don't get me wrong, he did the right thing, it just seems to drop berry's own actions, rendering her as just a damsel in distress. and that really bugs me right now

i guess i'd just prefer it if they said something like "the man who helped amanda berry escape", so both their roles are acknowledged

magic princess wrote:It is seriously a good way to teach yourself to be gentle and respectful of the needs of all things without exception. Most people treat cars terribly, and in doing so cause huge amounts of unneeded pollution because the ignoring oil/transmission lubricant changes, neglecting the air filter, failing to keep tyres properly inflated, not checking the exhaust system, etc, etc, leads to increased rates of pollution per fuel unit, and even increases the fuel unit consumption, as well as cause excess wear on the vehicle, driving the replacement of the vehicle, which also has a very high cost in energy and environmental degregation in manufacturing.

Likewise computers should be kept as long as possible, replacing individual components that fail and making systems upgrades to improve performance rather than throwing them out and buying a new one, because it is less inherently destructive.

In short, starting with an attitude of "everything has a little machine spirit you should take care of like a pet" is a pretty good attitude for being environmentally friendly.

I've had that vague idea in my head for as long as I could remember. I could never ram my toy cars into one another, or anything like that. Hell, I can't even be less than a model leader in games like Civ. As a result, I never throw things out, and I CANNOT handle Xmas at all. I have to avoid everything for weeks.

It's made me kind of a wreck at times.

RogueIce wrote: Unless Timothy Zahn writes something new between now and then.

according to the TFN lit forum, he's been frozen out of doing SW books until 2015. EA's not doing their first game until late 2014 either.

It looks like Disney/LFL wants at least a partial freeze on SW material so the market isn't as saturated when the first sequel comes out. The only things they're allowing to go forward are the ones that had an iron-clad contract with another company before the sale that would cost money to break. Dark Horse has the license for another 12 issues of the new Legacy and 12 issues of the new Star Wars annual comic, and they might be going forward with the book series that focuses on Jaina Solo. Whatever's either done or mostly done will be getting released through the end of 2013, but there probably won't be much SW material out there in 2014.

magic princess wrote:
In short, starting with an attitude of "everything has a little machine spirit you should take care of like a pet" is a pretty good attitude for being environmentally friendly.

Do you treat your guns like this by chance?

magic princess wrote:In short, starting with an attitude of "everything has a little machine spirit you should take care of like a pet" is a pretty good attitude for being environmentally friendly.

magic princess wrote:everything has a little machine spirit you should take care of like a pet

magic princess wrote:machine spirit

The Adeptus Mechanicus would approve.

Yes, Aaron, I do. ..Speaking of which, I should clean them this weekend.


And I suppose that's accurate, Jung.

Darksi4190 wrote:

RogueIce wrote: Unless Timothy Zahn writes something new between now and then.

according to the TFN lit forum, he's been frozen out of doing SW books until 2015. EA's not doing their first game until late 2014 either.

It looks like Disney/LFL wants at least a partial freeze on SW material so the market isn't as saturated when the first sequel comes out. The only things they're allowing to go forward are the ones that had an iron-clad contract with another company before the sale that would cost money to break. Dark Horse has the license for another 12 issues of the new Legacy and 12 issues of the new Star Wars annual comic, and they might be going forward with the book series that focuses on Jaina Solo. Whatever's either done or mostly done will be getting released through the end of 2013, but there probably won't be much SW material out there in 2014.

I think that's a good thing, really. Give people a bit of a break from SW, build up the anticipation and all that. Plus it keeps them from the thorny issue of, y'know, not creating more post-RotJ EU that'll probably get rendered null and void by the new movies. Though granted they could just hang out in the TOR era (CW is pretty saturated; guess OT could get some love but if the extra movies are OT-era I can see them not wanting that, either).

Plus the practical issue of, you know they want to market the shit out of the new trilogy but they can't be releasing plot details a good two years or so before the movie. So there's that.

It still annoys me they shitcanned TCW and a game that looked semi-promising, but whattya gonna do?

You got some details on those Jaina Solo books you mentioned? I've always liked the character so I'm curious. Hopefully they don't fuck it up. For all that it matters as the new movies may or may not render her non-canon anyway.

magic princess wrote:Yes, Aaron, I do. ..Speaking of which, I should clean them this weekend.


And I suppose that's accurate, Jung.

Oh good, I'm not the only one.