Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
No, I'm not talking about potatoes. xD I'm talking about the inevitable killing of undeniably sentient life in order for us to grow and eat -anything-. Some people try to argue that the killing in the case of veganism is indirect but for me that is irrelevant so long as I'm aware that it inevitably happens.
I'm not sure which but of my various explanations above you don't get Deshy:)
Are pigs more sentient than ants?
How can we do anything but speculate on this? I personally cannot stand killing bugs needlessly. Can you? If no, why not, if they're not sentient? This isn't about some great law of "Dharma" for me. It's that, if something is even potentially capable of experiencing pain as we do, I would not be willing to take a chance in killing it or harming it for no reason. The difference between algae and an ant is a nervous system. In fact I would rather kill the larger pig for food, which would feed more than killing a thousand ants for the same purpose. But really, there are so many variables, that I just don't care. It's impossible to determine, and as I said, every goes about reducing suffering in the best way they know how.
No, I'm not talking about potatoes. xD I'm talking about the inevitable killing of undeniably sentient life in order for us to grow and eat -anything-. Some people try to argue that the killing in the case of veganism is indirect but for me that is irrelevant so long as I'm aware that it inevitably happens.
I'm not sure which but of my various explanations above you don't get Deshy:)
Are pigs more sentient than ants?
It's a simple question based on your comments ThickP. Based on what moral grounds do you think killing insects is better than killing a pig? Because you think pigs feel more than ants/worms? Because you think ants and worms don't feel pain?
It's a simple question based on your comments ThickP. Based on what moral grounds do you think killing insects is better than killing a pig? Because you think pigs feel more than ants/worms? Because you think ants and worms don't feel pain?
Please can you just answer the question, it is pretty simple and not contentious:) This way we may be able to get at least a benchmark for where we both are relative to the debate.
Please can you just answer the question, it is pretty simple and not contentious:) This way we may be able to get at least a benchmark for where we both are relative to the debate.
Do you think pigs are more sentient than ants?
namaste
No. I see what you are getting at though. You are trying to say that pigs feel/experience more than insects so pigs are more sentient than insects so killing pigs is more unethical than insects. Am I right?
No. I see what you are getting at though. You are trying to say that pigs feel/experience more than insects so pigs are more sentient than insects so killing pigs is more unethical than insects. Am I right?
Yes you are right, yet, if you believe something different to what you said, you are very wrong;)
I think The Buddha would agree, HHDL, My mum, my neighbour, George Bush and anyone who isn't a very radical follower of Janeism!:)
I accept that you see the current meat market as Evil with a capital(istic) E.
You're being dramatic and have the mind of an activist, which reminds me of me from 15 years ago. I didn't wear any leather, would use no products that had been tested on animals, ate no mammals or birds (I admit I ate some fish from time to time, especially at family gatherings to be polite) and would call other people evil quite readily for the behaviors that were counter to my own.
You're not provoking a fight, but you are exposed as a hypocrite. You are surrounded by suffering, on all sides... from the wood in the home that was chopped and hacked out of a tree that was minding its own business; to the clothes you wear that were made for pennies in a china slave shop; the product you clean yourself with that was tested on animals; the toilet you poop on constructed out of clay and other aggregates that were mined, tearing apart the ecosystem of the land; the water you drink cleaned by bacteria harvested as slaves, bred only to serve...and countless other objects, born out of a collective earthen suffering. Yet, you're only open to the dead animals on a plate? And you call yourself awake to compassion?
You're sleeping, friend, and to actually awaken you need to realize that humankind is in a difficult spot at the moment, and by dealing with what you see more skillfully you can help further love and wisdom. Don't waste your time decrying things as evil, but sit and see. I didn't decide to abandon veganism to eat meat, when I outgrew the hypocrisy, meat felt like the right choice, and I ate it.
With warmth,
Matt
i may be arguing this more than needed, but i just wana say, i never said i was the perfect example to follow. im doing what i can to move more and more away from all of that, and weather or not there is some hypocracy, that is no reason why i should eat meat. 1 less thing i contribute to suffering is a good thing.
the house, i cant help(for now) the clothes are, again, out of my control till i have decent finances. i buy cruelty free when i can, and the toilet thing is another thing out of my grasp of helping for now. we use well water, any bacteria in there are there on their own accord.
i am not and will never be perfect. i accept this, but it is no reason not to do my damnedest to do what i can to repel the darkness of suffering that surrounds me. i do not only care of the animals, however this thread is about dietary needs, and cannibalism hasn't been brought up yet. i care for all things, big and small, good and even bad, however i feel for animals in particular because a person can generally help themselves, animals are a bit more helpless(yes i understand there is slavery and such but they have help and strong compassion for others, while animals can be killed without the thought of most.)
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Do you think killing hundreds of insects is better on moral grounds than killing pigs?
Yes
If so why?
Because insects are not sentient, emotive, spiritual, moral, mental or any other of the vast panoply of emergent properties exhibited by higher mammals.
Now pigs may not be all of those things, but they are certainly more of those things than ants.
Now pigs may not be all of those things, but they are certainly more of those things than ants.
lol
perhaps you have chosen the worse example of the insect world.
ants build extremely sophisticated colonies, structured and organized, filled with rooms for different purposes, capable of understanding projected cause and effects, even raise other animals like we raise cows or pigs...
capable of planning wars for the purpose of gaining resources and slaves, but also capable of understanding that if they destroy the enemy's colony completely, they will not be able to attack them again and capture their resources again so they make sure of not hurting the enemy too much...
ants are fascinating, the perfect monarchist society
ps: pigs don't do much of these fancy behaviors...
so how do you think they figure all of that stuff up in a group but are completely dumb alone? how would that make sense?
what is your theory? You think that somehow their tiny brains connect themselves so to increase the number of neurons?
ants are programmed to behave in a society, obviously an ant is not going to build a colony all by itself, just like you are not going to build a skyscraper all by yourself, doesn't make you a dummy.
thanks for the condescending remark, I use these for my Buddhist practice.
It's not condescending, you suggested I watch TV. Incidentally I dont mean take a degree in animal intelligence, just go read about this stuff, its clearly very relevant to dharma.
It's not condescending, you suggested I watch TV. Incidentally I dont mean take a degree in animal intelligence, just go read about this stuff, its clearly very relevant to dharma.
well then, convince me by answering my last question and I may do just that.
Because insects are not sentient, emotive, spiritual, moral, mental or any other of the vast panoply of emergent properties exhibited by higher mammals.
Now pigs may not be all of those things, but they are certainly more of those things than ants.
Is that clear?
namaste
Hmm thick several posts back you said
An amoeba (or potato) has no neurons and cannot be sentient.
An Ant has 10 thousand neurons and probably isn't very sentient if at all.
A dog has 160 million neurons and is probably pretty sentient.
A human has one hundred billion neurons and is sentient.
Now you're saying in a definitive way that ants aren't sentient. Which is it? To me if an ant is probably sentient then it's just as sentient as a pig - they both feel, regardless of how much, therefore killing either of them is just as bad.
Arguing over this is just as stupid and meaningless as starting these threads as they always degenerate into "meat eaters = heartless killer and vegan = morally superior"
This thread has descended into an unskillful debate over something even the Buddha would not enter into. This is PROBABLY why he refused to make vegetarianism mandatory when requested (by Ananda I believe, though I may be wrong).
So disheartening to learnt of this bad turning point. Faith is not as easy. The challenge of conquering ourselves is not as easy as many thought of. All humans love their body as much as animals love theirs. Both humans and animals are living beings as well and all living beings shared the same Buddha or dharma body. Having an excuse to cause them harm for your sake or merely harm them for social gathering is not wise to both yourself, animals and the well beings of its nature. Once harm is caused towards them, where living beings are sharing the same dharma body, do you think that you still can achieve enlightenment, and wholesome harmony still can prevail for yourself. Human beings should interact with loving mind, this is the only way for the long term harmony of "earth beings" (karma brought together)
Amitabha
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
In the context of my father, I asked myself this: What furthers the ideals of compassion and loving kindness more? Setting aside the meat product, thus avoiding any connection to the suffering of the animal? Or, taking the food, reverently accepting that the suffering occurred, and my father used that fruit to offer me his love through his food?
i am just now going back to vegetarianism after two years of meat eating. i was previously a vegetarian for about 3 years and only went back to eating meat because of certain situations in my life/work (i can elaborate for the truly curious). my desire for vegetarianism is a combination of health reasons and compassion. i am not decided on whether or not eating meat is inherently wrong, but i do have a strong dislike for the meat industry and i personally feel quite uneasy/disgusted by eating meat in general.
this time around, i have not decided how strict a vegetarian i want to be. thus far it has been a few months of NO meat at all, with a few months of the occasional meat. the "occasional meat" resulted from situations such as the one you describe above. being a strict vegetarian, i hated when i would show up at a family gathering only to find out nobody told my great-aunt (or whoever was preparing the meal) that i was a vegetarian and she looks around in dismay and horror at the realization that there is little food i can eat. this wasn't often, but let's just say frequent enough to make a memory.
i do, however, believe that every little thing we do can affect the environment. i saw a documentary once that discussed the concept of every purchase being a "vote". for many stores and restaurants, money talks. your choice is your vote. for each item purchased, the store has to replace it. you don't have to contribute to the meat industry and all of the environmental pollution that goes along with it if you don't want to. now, this doesn't really apply to the "family meal" situation where someone has already purchased meat in your place, but you could also argue that perhaps you not partaking would mean more meat for a meat-eater and less purchases on their behalf. most meat-eaters i know tend to view a meal as incomplete without some sort of meat.
I used to be a hardcore militant vegan activist. "Meat is Murder" type of stuff. But, after I encountered Buddhism, all of that changed. I'm going to practice correct speech and not comment on this thread.
ps: pigs don't do much of these fancy behaviors...
They are smarter than dogs though. They just don't give a shit, kinda like cats.
I think at the end of the day, pain and consciousness is relevant. Each organism experiences life a little differently. It really seems as though most people assume we have the same neuron system as animals do, but really we have little to know idea.
its probably a very strong chance that smaller less developed creatures dont have full consciousness, recall past events, and do not think about the consequences of their actions. Many insects might get by solely on instinct.
I think that most Buddhists on here would agree, that it is certainly more beneficial to hold all organisms to the same standard and try to refrain from harming them.
I think with 10,000 neurons ants probably are not sentient. I cant make sense of the idea that they are.
Now you're saying in a definitive way that ants aren't sentient. Which is it?
Its both, it doesn't matter, they are probably not sentient. They are certainly less sentient than a moneky.
Remember these emergent concepts like sentence are vague terms (in the technical sense).
To me if an ant is probably sentient then it's just as sentient as a pig - they both feel, regardless of how much, therefore killing either of them is just as bad.
That's fine for you. To me that's illogical. Would you say that a man with receding hair is just as bald as a man with no hair?
Also, you dont know ants feel. What we can know is that with so few neurons its nonsensical to assume they can relate to their sensations in thye way we do.
Arguing over this is just as stupid and meaningless as starting these threads as they always degenerate into "meat eaters = heartless killer and vegan = morally superior"
So don't join in, this is an internet forum:) Clearly lots here like to "argue" this.
This thread has descended into an unskillful debate over something even the Buddha would not enter into.
You don't know that. The Buddha had he had acces to things like modern biology may well have found it interestingt to discuss.
Remember these emergent concepts like sentence are vague terms (in the technical sense).
A convenient answer. Where does the Buddha say that? I'd like to read up on it to correct my misunderstanding.
That's fine for you. To me that's illogical. Would you say that a man with receding hair is just as bald as a man with no hair?
They're both bald, one moreso than the other but still bald/balding. Once again you use an argument/example that is not the same as the original one. But I'll still answer it.
Also, you dont know ants feel. What we can know is that with so few neurons its nonsensical to assume they can relate to their sensations in thye way we do.
Yes and you don't know ants DON'T feel so *shrugs* You're assuming they can't relate to sensations like us. I can't recall being an ant so I can't say for sure. Can you?
So don't join in, this is an internet forum:) Clearly lots here like to "argue" this.
Pfft!
You don't know that. The Buddha had he had acces to things like modern biology may well have found it interestingt to discuss.
Once again my friend, you don't know either. He may very well have told people to either ignore it or debate it, we'll never know.
If you dont like it, leave it:)
(Didnt we have a chat about this before?)
Aaah marching orders, great checkmate my friend. I don't recall a chat about that on the threads and I can't see any.
A convenient answer. Where does the Buddha say that? I'd like to read up on it to correct my misunderstanding.
I didn'tsay the Buddha said that. Though he was the greatest thinker who ever lives, others have also thought new things since his death.
Vagueness is a very important philosophical concept, one that is pertinent to the very philosophical issue of the emergence of abstract concepts such as sentience and intelligence.
They're both bald, one moreso than the other but still bald/balding.
There you go, so do also you agree that a monkey is more sentient than an ant?
Yes and you don't know ants DON'T
feel so *shrugs*
[/QUOTE]
There are certain brain features that are indisputably connected with sensation, eg, C-fibers (Gawd this is a blast from the past). I would wager that ants dont have those.
At best they will have features for avoidance, as do bacteria etc.
So I can say with a pretty scientific certainty that ants don't feel pain unless there is a whole new and hidden system of biology/neurology that science is unaware of.
You're assuming they can't relate to sensations like us. I can't recall being an ant so I can't say for sure. Can you?
I am pretty sure thermostats dont feel pain. And plants. And bacteria. And prions and smartphones and by the same reasoning, ants.
They don't have the required systems to feel pain. Pigs do. Fish, its quite a debate as to fish.
Aaah marching orders, great checkmate my friend. I don't recall a chat about that on the threads and I can't see any.
It's actually quite simple. You don't have to argue about, what or who is sentient.
Just be mindful of your actions.
If your actions are causing suffering, they are probably not very skillful and you would be better off without those.
For example eating some plant doesn't cause suffering (feelings of pain or stress) to the plant, 'it's fine with it'.
But on the other hand raising an animal (usually in a very stressful artificial environment) and then killing it to eat it causes a lot of suffering.
I think the only time it's totally fine to eat meat, is when it would go to waste otherwise.
I myself don't buy any meat products, but since I live with my parents at the moment, who eat meat, I eat it sometimes too.
Because insects are not sentient, emotive, spiritual, moral, mental or any other of the vast panoply of emergent properties exhibited by higher mammals.
Now pigs may not be all of those things, but they are certainly more of those things than ants.
I am interested to know where the Buddha has said that insects are not so sentient as pigs and sympothy should be distributed according to the level beings are sentient; so it is better to kill less sentient beings than more sentient beings. :eek:
According to your argument, it is ok to kill an infant who displays less "emotive, spiritual, moral, mental or any other of the vast panoply of emergent properties" you describe rather than killing a cow who shows more of those properties than an infant? This sounds like TP's theory of "the most deserving to die".
There are certain brain features that are indisputably connected with sensation, eg, C-fibers (Gawd this is a blast from the past). I would wager that ants dont have those.
According to this "pain theory", it should be ok to kill pigs in painless manner don't you agree? Like first drug them into sleep and then kill them instantly with an electric shock or something so there is no pain?
I am interested to know where the Buddha has said that insects are not so sentient as pigs and sympothy should be distributed according to the level beings are sentient; so it is better to kill less sentient beings than more sentient beings. :eek:
The buddha said that we should not harm sentient beings.
I dont believe he said its ok to harm nonsentinet beings. Ideally we shouldn't harm anything.
If you have to kill any kind of being, say, to survive, then its best to kill a nonsentinet being as opposed to a sentient one. Thats what i think and what I imagine the buddha and any rational buddhist would say.
According to your argument, it is ok to kill an infant who displays less "emotive, spiritual, moral, mental or any other of the vast panoply of emergent properties" you describe rather than killing a cow who shows more of those properties than an infant?
You misconstrue me and missrepresnt my "argument".
We should not kill anything, even ants. If I saw an ant run across my desk and I killed it I would feel horrible and know that it would be a karmically significant action to me. So please don't make out I have some league table of killing.
As for your specific attempt above, no, of course not, for many reasons from the inately emotive (we evolved to see infants as supreamly precious) to the more bar fly philosophical; eg potential versus actual. And in between is the reality of an infanats mentality which I am guessing is far more senteint than a cows.
This sounds like TP's theory of "the most deserving to die".
According to this "pain theory", it should be ok to kill pigs in painless manner don't you agree? Like first drug them into sleep and then kill them instantly with an electric shock or something so there is no pain?
Deshy - if you keep ignore the salient points I make in response to you, and then criticize me as if i hadn't made those points, you show yourself up to be a bit of a nonpayattentioner, which is a new word I made just for you:)
.As for your specific attempt above, no, of course not, for many reasons from the inately emotive (we evolved to see infants as supreamly precious) to the etc etc...
And in between is the reality of an infanats mentality which I am guessing is far more senteint than a cows..
What if the kid is mentally handicapped, unable of any mental growth due to sickness and will depend on the society for the rest of his life? Would you rather kill it than killing a cow?
I don't undetsand on what basis you say insects are nonsentient. could you elaborate more
What if the kid is mentally handicapped, unable of any mental growth due to sickness and will depend on the society for the rest of his life? Would you rather kill it than killing a cow?
Read what I said above.
I don't undetsand on what basis you say insects are nonsentient. could you elaborate more
]There you go, so do also you agree that a monkey is more sentient than an ant?
Yes I do agree with that, I have NEVER disagreed with that. My whole point is that it doesn't matter what degree of sentience ants have, IF they still have it then you are still killing a sentient being. That has been my main point all along (the sarcasm was added free of charge).
Bottom line is you think if a being has "semi sentience" or not a lot of sentience, it's ok to kill them because they aren't as sentient as a pig or a human. I disagree.
And I'm sick of going around in circles so end of story. We agree to disagree.
Yes I do agree with that, I have NEVER disagreed with that. My whole point is that it doesn't matter what degree of sentience ants have, IF they still have it then you are still killing a sentient being.
And my point is that sentience, like all emergent mental phenomena, is part of a vague transition. That is the whole point:)
Bottom line is you think if a being has "semi sentience" or not a lot of sentience, it's ok to kill them because they aren't as sentient as a pig or a human. I disagree.
No, I dont believe "semi sentience" makes sense. In the same was as half bald or "half a heap" doesn't.
You might like to read about the sorities paradox, which is very pertinent here:)
so how do you think they figure all of that stuff up in a group but are completely dumb alone? how would that make sense?
what is your theory? You think that somehow their tiny brains connect themselves so to increase the number of neurons?
ants are programmed to behave in a society, obviously an ant is not going to build a colony all by itself, just like you are not going to build a skyscraper all by yourself, doesn't make you a dummy.
thickpaper, you still haven't answered this because you can't?
Sorry, I thought my answer of collective behavior was enough!:)
They follow very simple rules that are the product of evolution. These rules, in combination with other simple features like chemical signalling between ants, govern the emergent group behaviors and allow them to produce super complex structures in their nests, signal for food, defend, attack etc etc...
There is loads of stuff on this you can go and find out about online. I suggest check out some videos of swarm behaviour, both natural, simulated and artifical, really amazing stuff, but by no means suggesting any agent in the group is in any real sense intelligent, sentient, planning etc.
Recently they worked out how spiders make their webs, its all in their leg muscles, the rules, not even in their "brains". Yet when you look at a spiders web it is very compelling to think that there is not only an intelligence at work but a sense of the aesthetic:) There isn't, of course.
you could say as much for humans, and all mammals.
You might, I would not, nor would most people who had even a cursory look at this very well known natural phenomenon, which, frankly you couldnt have done in the few minutes since I posted.
You clearly don't want a discussion or it seems to even think about this,
What does ability to communicate and build complex structures individually or in groups have to do with sentience?
For me, the potential or possibility that something can experience pain and the potential or possibility that something can experience and value its life is what sentience means to me.
Edit - lol I see a passive-aggressive smiley war coming on between patbb's 's and thickpaper's 's. My money's on 's. XD
Still they feel and they have awareness so they are sentient. Whether or not they are less sentient than pigs is a different matter and we are certainly not in a position to come to judgments like "since they are less sentient killing them is better". If that argument is true, then someone can argue that killing that mentally handicapped infant should be better than killing a full grown cow.
Point is, killing is killing whether it is killing insects or killing pigs. Animals die due to us eating meat as well as eating veges directly or indirectly
well then,
As i now believe that your understanding of human behavior is insufficient to make comparisons with the insect/animals world, i would suggest to you that you should study human behaviors.
which you could grasp the basics fairly easily on the internet and has much to do with the Dhamma.
Comments
I'm not sure which but of my various explanations above you don't get Deshy:)
Are pigs more sentient than ants?
How can we do anything but speculate on this? I personally cannot stand killing bugs needlessly. Can you? If no, why not, if they're not sentient? This isn't about some great law of "Dharma" for me. It's that, if something is even potentially capable of experiencing pain as we do, I would not be willing to take a chance in killing it or harming it for no reason. The difference between algae and an ant is a nervous system. In fact I would rather kill the larger pig for food, which would feed more than killing a thousand ants for the same purpose. But really, there are so many variables, that I just don't care. It's impossible to determine, and as I said, every goes about reducing suffering in the best way they know how.
Then sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying,
namaste
It's a simple question based on your comments ThickP. Based on what moral grounds do you think killing insects is better than killing a pig? Because you think pigs feel more than ants/worms? Because you think ants and worms don't feel pain?
Please can you just answer the question, it is pretty simple and not contentious:) This way we may be able to get at least a benchmark for where we both are relative to the debate.
Do you think pigs are more sentient than ants?
namaste
No. I see what you are getting at though. You are trying to say that pigs feel/experience more than insects so pigs are more sentient than insects so killing pigs is more unethical than insects. Am I right?
Edit - sorry that was directed at thickpaper, not you Deshy. You snuck that in as I was posting. :P
Yes you are right, yet, if you believe something different to what you said, you are very wrong;)
I think The Buddha would agree, HHDL, My mum, my neighbour, George Bush and anyone who isn't a very radical follower of Janeism!:)
have fun
i may be arguing this more than needed, but i just wana say, i never said i was the perfect example to follow. im doing what i can to move more and more away from all of that, and weather or not there is some hypocracy, that is no reason why i should eat meat. 1 less thing i contribute to suffering is a good thing.
the house, i cant help(for now) the clothes are, again, out of my control till i have decent finances. i buy cruelty free when i can, and the toilet thing is another thing out of my grasp of helping for now. we use well water, any bacteria in there are there on their own accord.
i am not and will never be perfect. i accept this, but it is no reason not to do my damnedest to do what i can to repel the darkness of suffering that surrounds me. i do not only care of the animals, however this thread is about dietary needs, and cannibalism hasn't been brought up yet. i care for all things, big and small, good and even bad, however i feel for animals in particular because a person can generally help themselves, animals are a bit more helpless(yes i understand there is slavery and such but they have help and strong compassion for others, while animals can be killed without the thought of most.)
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Do you think killing hundreds of insects is better on moral grounds than killing pigs? If so why?
You still did not give a clear answer to that
Yes
Because insects are not sentient, emotive, spiritual, moral, mental or any other of the vast panoply of emergent properties exhibited by higher mammals.
Now pigs may not be all of those things, but they are certainly more of those things than ants.
Is that clear?
namaste
perhaps you have chosen the worse example of the insect world.
ants build extremely sophisticated colonies, structured and organized, filled with rooms for different purposes, capable of understanding projected cause and effects, even raise other animals like we raise cows or pigs...
capable of planning wars for the purpose of gaining resources and slaves, but also capable of understanding that if they destroy the enemy's colony completely, they will not be able to attack them again and capture their resources again so they make sure of not hurting the enemy too much...
ants are fascinating, the perfect monarchist society
ps: pigs don't do much of these fancy behaviors...
Quite the contrary I think....
Ants exhibit amazing collective/swarm behavior, but an individual ant is very unintelligent.
you, need to watch discovery channel and bbc world more.
relative to potatoes, yes.
In ten years they will have nanorobots smarter than ants.
You should try study;)
so how do you think they figure all of that stuff up in a group but are completely dumb alone? how would that make sense?
what is your theory? You think that somehow their tiny brains connect themselves so to increase the number of neurons?
ants are programmed to behave in a society, obviously an ant is not going to build a colony all by itself, just like you are not going to build a skyscraper all by yourself, doesn't make you a dummy.
It's not condescending, you suggested I watch TV. Incidentally I dont mean take a degree in animal intelligence, just go read about this stuff, its clearly very relevant to dharma.
Hmm thick several posts back you said
Now you're saying in a definitive way that ants aren't sentient. Which is it? To me if an ant is probably sentient then it's just as sentient as a pig - they both feel, regardless of how much, therefore killing either of them is just as bad.
Arguing over this is just as stupid and meaningless as starting these threads as they always degenerate into "meat eaters = heartless killer and vegan = morally superior"
This thread has descended into an unskillful debate over something even the Buddha would not enter into. This is PROBABLY why he refused to make vegetarianism mandatory when requested (by Ananda I believe, though I may be wrong).
Respectfully,
Raven
Amitabha
i am just now going back to vegetarianism after two years of meat eating. i was previously a vegetarian for about 3 years and only went back to eating meat because of certain situations in my life/work (i can elaborate for the truly curious). my desire for vegetarianism is a combination of health reasons and compassion. i am not decided on whether or not eating meat is inherently wrong, but i do have a strong dislike for the meat industry and i personally feel quite uneasy/disgusted by eating meat in general.
this time around, i have not decided how strict a vegetarian i want to be. thus far it has been a few months of NO meat at all, with a few months of the occasional meat. the "occasional meat" resulted from situations such as the one you describe above. being a strict vegetarian, i hated when i would show up at a family gathering only to find out nobody told my great-aunt (or whoever was preparing the meal) that i was a vegetarian and she looks around in dismay and horror at the realization that there is little food i can eat. this wasn't often, but let's just say frequent enough to make a memory.
i do, however, believe that every little thing we do can affect the environment. i saw a documentary once that discussed the concept of every purchase being a "vote". for many stores and restaurants, money talks. your choice is your vote. for each item purchased, the store has to replace it. you don't have to contribute to the meat industry and all of the environmental pollution that goes along with it if you don't want to. now, this doesn't really apply to the "family meal" situation where someone has already purchased meat in your place, but you could also argue that perhaps you not partaking would mean more meat for a meat-eater and less purchases on their behalf. most meat-eaters i know tend to view a meal as incomplete without some sort of meat.
Sounds to me like he was in his own way, just as you do in yours.
They are smarter than dogs though. They just don't give a shit, kinda like cats.
I think at the end of the day, pain and consciousness is relevant. Each organism experiences life a little differently. It really seems as though most people assume we have the same neuron system as animals do, but really we have little to know idea.
its probably a very strong chance that smaller less developed creatures dont have full consciousness, recall past events, and do not think about the consequences of their actions. Many insects might get by solely on instinct.
I think that most Buddhists on here would agree, that it is certainly more beneficial to hold all organisms to the same standard and try to refrain from harming them.
So, hows that poll coming?
I think with 10,000 neurons ants probably are not sentient. I cant make sense of the idea that they are.
Its both, it doesn't matter, they are probably not sentient. They are certainly less sentient than a moneky.
Remember these emergent concepts like sentence are vague terms (in the technical sense).
That's fine for you. To me that's illogical. Would you say that a man with receding hair is just as bald as a man with no hair?
Also, you dont know ants feel. What we can know is that with so few neurons its nonsensical to assume they can relate to their sensations in thye way we do.
So don't join in, this is an internet forum:) Clearly lots here like to "argue" this.
You don't know that. The Buddha had he had acces to things like modern biology may well have found it interestingt to discuss.
If you dont like it, leave it:)
(Didnt we have a chat about this before?)
Namatse
A convenient answer. Where does the Buddha say that? I'd like to read up on it to correct my misunderstanding.
They're both bald, one moreso than the other but still bald/balding. Once again you use an argument/example that is not the same as the original one. But I'll still answer it.
Yes and you don't know ants DON'T feel so *shrugs* You're assuming they can't relate to sensations like us. I can't recall being an ant so I can't say for sure. Can you?
Pfft!
Once again my friend, you don't know either. He may very well have told people to either ignore it or debate it, we'll never know.
Aaah marching orders, great checkmate my friend. I don't recall a chat about that on the threads and I can't see any.
Namaste back at ya,
Raven
I didn'tsay the Buddha said that. Though he was the greatest thinker who ever lives, others have also thought new things since his death.
Vagueness is a very important philosophical concept, one that is pertinent to the very philosophical issue of the emergence of abstract concepts such as sentience and intelligence.
There you go, so do also you agree that a monkey is more sentient than an ant?
feel so *shrugs*
[/QUOTE]
There are certain brain features that are indisputably connected with sensation, eg, C-fibers (Gawd this is a blast from the past). I would wager that ants dont have those.
At best they will have features for avoidance, as do bacteria etc.
So I can say with a pretty scientific certainty that ants don't feel pain unless there is a whole new and hidden system of biology/neurology that science is unaware of.
I am pretty sure thermostats dont feel pain. And plants. And bacteria. And prions and smartphones and by the same reasoning, ants.
They don't have the required systems to feel pain. Pigs do. Fish, its quite a debate as to fish.
Sorry it must have been someone else, my bad.
Just be mindful of your actions.
If your actions are causing suffering, they are probably not very skillful and you would be better off without those.
For example eating some plant doesn't cause suffering (feelings of pain or stress) to the plant, 'it's fine with it'.
But on the other hand raising an animal (usually in a very stressful artificial environment) and then killing it to eat it causes a lot of suffering.
I think the only time it's totally fine to eat meat, is when it would go to waste otherwise.
I myself don't buy any meat products, but since I live with my parents at the moment, who eat meat, I eat it sometimes too.
I am interested to know where the Buddha has said that insects are not so sentient as pigs and sympothy should be distributed according to the level beings are sentient; so it is better to kill less sentient beings than more sentient beings. :eek:
According to your argument, it is ok to kill an infant who displays less "emotive, spiritual, moral, mental or any other of the vast panoply of emergent properties" you describe rather than killing a cow who shows more of those properties than an infant? This sounds like TP's theory of "the most deserving to die".
Ohh, that figures
According to this "pain theory", it should be ok to kill pigs in painless manner don't you agree? Like first drug them into sleep and then kill them instantly with an electric shock or something so there is no pain?
The buddha said that we should not harm sentient beings.
I dont believe he said its ok to harm nonsentinet beings. Ideally we shouldn't harm anything.
If you have to kill any kind of being, say, to survive, then its best to kill a nonsentinet being as opposed to a sentient one. Thats what i think and what I imagine the buddha and any rational buddhist would say.
You misconstrue me and missrepresnt my "argument".
We should not kill anything, even ants. If I saw an ant run across my desk and I killed it I would feel horrible and know that it would be a karmically significant action to me. So please don't make out I have some league table of killing.
As for your specific attempt above, no, of course not, for many reasons from the inately emotive (we evolved to see infants as supreamly precious) to the more bar fly philosophical; eg potential versus actual. And in between is the reality of an infanats mentality which I am guessing is far more senteint than a cows.
That's because you want it to;)
Deshy - if you keep ignore the salient points I make in response to you, and then criticize me as if i hadn't made those points, you show yourself up to be a bit of a nonpayattentioner, which is a new word I made just for you:)
What if the kid is mentally handicapped, unable of any mental growth due to sickness and will depend on the society for the rest of his life? Would you rather kill it than killing a cow?
I don't undetsand on what basis you say insects are nonsentient. could you elaborate more
Read what I said above.
OK, but first tell me what senteince means to you
Yes I do agree with that, I have NEVER disagreed with that. My whole point is that it doesn't matter what degree of sentience ants have, IF they still have it then you are still killing a sentient being. That has been my main point all along (the sarcasm was added free of charge).
Bottom line is you think if a being has "semi sentience" or not a lot of sentience, it's ok to kill them because they aren't as sentient as a pig or a human. I disagree.
And I'm sick of going around in circles so end of story. We agree to disagree.
Namaste
And my point is that sentience, like all emergent mental phenomena, is part of a vague transition. That is the whole point:)
No, I dont believe "semi sentience" makes sense. In the same was as half bald or "half a heap" doesn't.
You might like to read about the sorities paradox, which is very pertinent here:)
have fun
Sorry, I thought my answer of collective behavior was enough!:)
They follow very simple rules that are the product of evolution. These rules, in combination with other simple features like chemical signalling between ants, govern the emergent group behaviors and allow them to produce super complex structures in their nests, signal for food, defend, attack etc etc...
There is loads of stuff on this you can go and find out about online. I suggest check out some videos of swarm behaviour, both natural, simulated and artifical, really amazing stuff, but by no means suggesting any agent in the group is in any real sense intelligent, sentient, planning etc.
Recently they worked out how spiders make their webs, its all in their leg muscles, the rules, not even in their "brains". Yet when you look at a spiders web it is very compelling to think that there is not only an intelligence at work but a sense of the aesthetic:) There isn't, of course.
Life is amazing!
but it isn't all sentient.
namaste
communicating with each other.
you could still say the same about humans.
The driving forces behind most of our behaviors is the same.
you did not explain anything.
You might, I would not, nor would most people who had even a cursory look at this very well known natural phenomenon, which, frankly you couldnt have done in the few minutes since I posted.
You clearly don't want a discussion or it seems to even think about this,
'nuffsaid.
I think sentient means capable of feeling and being aware. So on what basis do you think insects are not capable of feelings and having awareness?
What does ability to communicate and build complex structures individually or in groups have to do with sentience?
For me, the potential or possibility that something can experience pain and the potential or possibility that something can experience and value its life is what sentience means to me.
Edit - lol I see a passive-aggressive smiley war coming on between patbb's
They don't have enough neurons.
Still they feel and they have awareness so they are sentient. Whether or not they are less sentient than pigs is a different matter and we are certainly not in a position to come to judgments like "since they are less sentient killing them is better". If that argument is true, then someone can argue that killing that mentally handicapped infant should be better than killing a full grown cow.
Point is, killing is killing whether it is killing insects or killing pigs. Animals die due to us eating meat as well as eating veges directly or indirectly
As i now believe that your understanding of human behavior is insufficient to make comparisons with the insect/animals world, i would suggest to you that you should study human behaviors.
which you could grasp the basics fairly easily on the internet and has much to do with the Dhamma.
Not true. They dont have the neurons
So you don't eat plants? You don't kill mould?
Your in the land of the absurd here:)