I hope the human race ends ASAP (serious, no trolling)

And then you go and post this load of crap:

drews wrote:

. . . I don't give much of a crap about non-human animals. Sure, the animals feel some pain, but they don't suffer like we do. Screw them, we're the real tragedy. We didn't choose to come into existence.

Just when I thought I had found someone really special, it turns out you don't know your ass from a hole in the wall. Thanks for nuthin'.

echi wrote:

And then you go and post this load of crap:

drews wrote:

. . . I don't give much of a crap about non-human animals. Sure, the animals feel some pain, but they don't suffer like we do. Screw them, we're the real tragedy. We didn't choose to come into existence.

Just when I thought I had found someone really special, it turns out you don't know your ass from a hole in the wall. Thanks for nuthin'.

I'm glad you responded to that, echi-- I was so depressed after I read that that I couldn't even say anything; but I feel a bit better knowing that at least one other person thought it was crap.

Animals feel 'pain' b/c they have nervous systems as well, but unlike humans they don't have a surplus of awareness that makes suffering a million times worse. If you lock a dog in a cage for 10 years, it'll just lay there; lock a human up in a cage for 10 years, he'll moan and yearn for his family, and when you let him out he'll fall to his knees like andy in shawshank. that's the difference between human suffering and animal suffering- we suffer a million times worse, b/c we're so aware of our suffering, and we have such a capacity to love, to imagine, to yearn for better things.

But yes, animals do suffer- which is why we should make all 10 million animal species go extinct- no more sufferign for any species. That's the best thing to do.

Happiness is very relative, but I think the brain is wired to feel happy most of the time.

Chumly--
Okay...Clearly aka was anthropomorphizing. But does that necessarily make his argument fallacious?

Echi, more to the point can you quickly sum what you believe akaMechsmith's argument is as it pertains to your question (my brain is running on sadness)?

Drew,

Human "surfeit of awareness" is simply a result of a surfeit of intelligence.
We have more brains as a species than we know what to do with.

With the ability to feel pain also comes the ability to feel love With the ability to see ugliness comes the ability to see beauty With the ability to make medicines comes the ability to make bombs.

IMO we should be able to use our intelligence for other purposes than killing others of our own or other species, and destroying our Earth whilst we are about it.

Second point is that humans and their societies are largely governed by a set of stimuli that is very similar in actions and results to that of the so called lower animals. Those that deny this simple fact have their heads in the sand and cause a horrific amount of avoidable pain and suffering to all species that have are able to appreciate it.

We, the great unwashed, must demand better from our preachers and politicians and other leaders.

But Drew, instead of attempting to kill off this great experiment in evolution with all its promise, I would prefer to attempt to channel it or (shame it) into acting intelligently. We have the brains for it.

I may be on a "fools errand" It may be impossible for a species that IMO has evolved from clay to ever reach for a star. but I can hope that it is not.

So far as we can tell, Fire Ants are not sentient, nor do they suffer.

Sentience refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".

If we make 'feel pain' a short-hand for whether or not an insect can be annoyed by interference, the answer is almost certainly yes (although they probably don't feel /annoyed/ in the human being sense). They are capable of responding quite negatively (if you've been stung by a bee, you already know this) to averse stimuli that they have cognized as 'interference', a physical threat to their well-being, etc. This doesn't mean the insect thinks about it, debates the morality, etc., or is even capable of 'if this things keeps bugging me, then I will sting it'. It's much more rudimentary (but how much more rudimentary is a good question, which brings us to the next possible definition).

If we make 'feel pain' a short-hand for whether or not an insect is able to cognize massive damage to itself as a result of averse/painful stimuli, the answer is yes. Put a lobster in a boiling pot of water, rips a bees wings off, it doesn't make them very happy. Unlike bacteria, which are also capable of responding to averse stimuli, insects are clearly capable of entertaining the proposition that considerable, unwanted harm is being done to them.

Anyhow, the gist of which is that operational definitions come into central play when we try to answer the question 'do insects feel pain'? These definitions are often coloured by anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism unavoidably.

And, the questions themselves often require a background in biology (do the nerves respond and how do they connect?), ethology (what do animals do 'normally', and what makes a particular response to a particular behaviour noteworthy), cognitive science (what propositions/thoughts/feelings/etc., if any, is species A capable of experiencing?) and to a certain degree, philosophy of mind (although I look forward to philosophy dropping out of the equation eventually).

Anyways: until our species dies, millions of 'good' people will continue to suffer and die horribly, and millions of 'bad' people' will continue to prosper. I care an inordinate amount about the suffering of the good, and I know that it really won't end for good until extinction occurs. Yes, I know that many 'good' people are also happy in life, but the suffering of the other good people is more important to me.

Thanks, Chumly.
If I understand correctly, your position is that there is insufficient evidence to make a judgment either way.

But, since this question applies to everyday life (for some, at least), we still are forced to decide which is more likely true. For example, I accept the label "atheist", not because I know for sure that there are no gods, but because I live my life according to the belief that there are no gods. Likewise, whenever I am faced with the decision to either kill an insect or not kill an insect, I choose to not kill.
Come to think of it, is it not the same for every belief?

if one was to have a life (or perhaps some portion thereof) in which that aspect was in full neutrality that would by your stance be nonexistence.