Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[value]

How many cows are in the field? Just 1 in 180,000 according to genetics!

While there are 9 million cows in the USA, from a genetic perspective, there are just 50 cows alive.

Quote:

"Chad Dechow – an associate professor of dairy cattle genetics – and others say there is so much genetic similarity among them, the effective population size is less than 50. If cows were wild animals, that would put them in the category of critically endangered species.

“It's pretty much one big inbred family,” says Leslie B. Hansen, a cow expert and professor at the University of Minnesota. Fertility rates are affected by inbreeding, and already, cow fertility has dropped significantly. Also, when close relatives are bred, serious health problems could be lurking."

(2021) The way we breed cows is setting them up for extinction
https://qz.com/1649587/the-way-we-breed ... extinction

Selective breeding is a form of eugenics that resides on the essence of inbreeding, which is known to cause fatal problems.

I've been philosophically questioning the nature of GMO and eugenics for decades and my first consideration around 2009 was that GMO as human food would be a form if incest that results in a situation by which humanity figuratively speaking would stick its head into its anus.

Summarized view: “An attempt to stand above life, as being life, logically results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.”

The fact that today cows are critically endangered due to eugenics confirms this view.

With eugenics, one is moving 'towards an ultimate state' as perceived from an external viewer (the human). That is opposite of what is considered healthy in nature that seeks diversity for resilience and strength.

A quote by a philosopher in a discussion about eugenics:

blond hair and blue eyes for everyone

utopia

-Imp

An intellectual problem...

The topic animal-eugenics seems to receive fairly little attention from animal rights activists, while the impact of GMO on animal welfare is extreme.

My primary question and reason for this topic: why is the topic animal eugenics neglected by thinkers in animal rights advocacy?

In 2021, the scientific establishment in the form of organizations such as American Council on Science and Health, Alliance for Science and Genetic Literacy Project stated that "the GMO debate is over" and that anti-GMO activism was fading away for good.

"While the GMO debate has been percolating for nearly three decades, data indicate it's now over. The anti-GMO movement used to be a cultural juggernaut. But as time goes on, the activist groups that once held so much sway seem increasingly irrelevant. Though we still hear some moaning and groaning it primarily comes from a small group. Most people simply aren't concerned about GMOs."
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/05/18/3- ... -out-15523

In February 2022 I founded the website https://gmodebate.org/ to provide arguments to indicate that the GMO debate is not over.

Screenshot 2023-09-30 at 12-17-01 GMODebate.org Morality and GMO.png (113.4 KiB) Viewed 3944 times

Is the GMO debate over?

Were the science organizations right in their assertion that the opposition for GMO is fading away?

The Western anti-GMO movement seemed to have been predominantly driven by the financial interest of the $250 billion USD organic food industry, which indirectly caused a re-enforcement of the fundamental arguments for GMO by scare mongering for GMO based on arguments for human health and food-safety, while the GMO industry directly competes on arguments for human health and food-safety. That might explain partly that anti-GMO activism faded away. The scare mongering propaganda was a losing battle that was directly fuelling the GMO industry from a political perspective.

While this financially incentivized scare mongering propaganda situation might explain why from a public perspective, the GMO debate faded away, this cannot be the whole story. I recently posted a shorter version of my question on PhilosophicalVegan.com and received zero replies until now.

It seems difficult to think about eugenics and GMO, and perhaps one does not even want to start thinking about it because an error might do more harm than good.

As with consciousness, what is at stake when it concerns eugenics and animals might not be enclosed in language. This indeed would make it difficult to think about the effects of eugenics.

American philosopher William James once said the following

Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons.

Shortened: the moral good is 'more' than the scientific truth and truth is not independent of the moral good.

This might explain the true issue of eugenics. Language is an anthropocentric limit that can corrupt nature (animal well-being etc).

Pure language might not be able to protect animals from eugenics IF needed. And that consideration should be alarming for animal rights activists!

An example:

astronauts decades long failed attempt to teach humanity about 'something beyond words' provides an example. The astronauts are believing in something that is 'virtually impossible to describe'. And because science cannot explain their meaningful experience, almost nobody today knows about it, despite decades of attempts by astronauts to inform the public about it.

First we should understand why we don't already know of this profound experience, despite decades of astronaut reports.

Widely known in the space community as the Overview Effect, it is little known by the general public and poorly understood even by many space advocates. Phrases like "strange dreamlike experience", "reality was like a hallucination", and feeling like they had "come back from the future", occur time and again. Finally, many astronauts have emphasized that space images do not come close to the direct experience, and may even give us a false impression of the real nature of the Earth and space. "It is virtually impossible to describe... You can take people to see [IMAX's] The Dream Is Alive, but spectacular as it is, it's not the same as being there." - Astronaut and Senator Jake Garn.

(2022) The Case for Planetary Awareness
overview-effect.earth

(2022) The Overview Institute
There's more to the pale blue dot than we know.
overviewinstitute.org

The story of the astronauts provides a good example since the astronauts are scientists themselves. Some are even a US senator. They have done everything in their power to communicate their experience, with the above organizations being an example, and failed!

If science cannot grasp and explain the meaningful experience of astronauts, they cannot do so for animals. It is therefore not responsible to leave the question of eugenics to politics! A matter of importance when it concerns animal well-being in the face of eugenics might not be able to be 'written down'!

As for a philosophical approach to protect animals from eugenics:

To facilitate a due respect for animals and plants the boundary of language needs to be broken.

The book ☯ Tao Te Ching by Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) was written as a poem to unlock philosophical insights into a concept that cannot be spoken of. The book starts with the following:

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

What is the meaning of an insight that language would attempt to unlock (an insight into the origin and purpose of existence itself) when the insight that it unlocks cannot be said?

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

Science is fundamentally neglecting the moral good and eugenics is therefore theoretically based on the mistaken idea that the scientific truth is separate from the moral good, while, as William James (the father of psychology) mentioned, truth is a facet of the moral good.

Therefore it can be concluded that animal well-being is neglected when it concerns animal eugenics and that animals urgently need intellectual protection that is currently missing!

While big industrial animal farms might cause severe hurt to animals, eugenics and GMO can affect billions of animals at once and cause harm on levels that surpass that of local farms, hurting complete natural environments and systems of which the human might never know that it existed.

To give an example. Morality isn't just human! Insects and plants live in a complex symbiosis! Only fairly recently in 2019 a group of students from several Universities in Israel discovered that plants 'talk' to insects in ultrasound.

(2019) Plants scream in ultrasound when stressed
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180973716/

In GMO corn that is intended to protect against root worms, it is seen that the worms become resistant to the GMO protection and in the process they become 'more aggressive' towards the plant. That is a moral issue!

The plant remained behind weak, hiding behind a temporary artificial dam that cannot stand the test of time, while the insects needed to fight against that dam and, from their perspective, an 'attack' on them by the plant.

The plant has a period of easy time without the enemy... But when the artificial GMO dam breaks ... the plant faces a stronger and 'more aggressive' enemy that results in a disaster. The moral balance between the plant and the insect was disrupted by GMO.

Corn Rootworms Poised to Stage a Comeback as Bt Resistance Spreads
https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/a ... e-comeback

It is similar to antibiotic resistant bacteria. A few years ago - just before the corona pandemic - doctors officially warned that bacteria had already broken the last barrier and it was waiting for a disaster.

Antibiotic resistant superbugs pose a global threat after breaking through last line of defence, doctors warn
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 40166.html

The artificial dam provided by GMO logically results in accumulating weakness in time.

GMO is fundamentally an 'escape' attempt, while of life it might be said that the overcoming of problems is vital and results in strength in the face of time.

What is your opinion on animal eugenics or GMO on animals? Did you give its effects on animals serious consideration? If so, since when and by what motivations?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

[LuckyR]

I would draw a distinction between wild and domesticated animals, in the sense that one is a commodity that it would be perfectly acceptable to go extinct if, say laboratory grown meat were to take off, which, morally would be a good thing. While the other is a normal animal without the need for humans.

[Pattern-chaser]

Our treatment of all living things seems to say that wild and enslaved animals are treated similarly. Plants too, and fungi. We take what we want, and nothing can oppose us. If animals are located inconveniently, we take the land and exterminate the animals. If the animals prey on our enslaved animals, we kill them. Enslaved animals we eat instead. Forests we level, to use their wood, and to grow cash crops on de-tree-ed soil that won't support them for long. We mine metals and minerals, poisoning the ground. The list goes ever on. Short-term profit; no thought for consequences; consumption; extinction is forever.

To the rights activists, everything is under threat. Choose the species you want to fight for, any species you like, or choose the land itself. The risk to all is the same — death by human.

[Thomyum2]

How many cows are in the field? Just 1 in 180,000 according to genetics!

While there are 9 million cows in the USA, from a genetic perspective, there are just 50 cows alive.

...

Selective breeding is a form of eugenics that resides on the essence of inbreeding, which is known to cause fatal problems.

I've been philosophically questioning the nature of GMO and eugenics for decades and my first consideration around 2009 was that GMO as human food would be a form if incest that results in a situation by which humanity figuratively speaking would stick its head into its anus.

Summarized view: “An attempt to stand above life, as being life, logically results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.”

The fact that today cows are critically endangered due to eugenics confirms this view.

With eugenics, one is moving 'towards an ultimate state' as perceived from an external viewer (the human). That is opposite of what is considered healthy in nature that seeks diversity for resilience and strength.

…

The topic animal-eugenics seems to receive fairly little attention from animal rights activists, while the impact of GMO on animal welfare is extreme.

My primary question and reason for this topic: why is the topic animal eugenics neglected by thinkers in animal rights advocacy?

….

What is your opinion on animal eugenics or GMO on animals? Did you give its effects on animals serious consideration? If so, since when and by what motivations?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

Hello value,

Your ideas on the forum are always interesting, and I think that you and I probably have a lot in common in our philosophies. Unfortunately, I find that you bring up so many different issues at once and pull in so many unrelated ideas that it makes it very difficult to respond to your posts because it’s difficult to try to untangle it all. With clarity of thought being a necessity for a good philosophical discussion, I’ll just offer a few thoughts on what seem to be the main points of your post here. As I see it, you’re addressing and somewhat conflating several different controversial topics, each of which presents its own distinct set of moral questions. Perhaps it would be helpful to separate these out and look at each one individually:

The first issue I see is that of loss of biodiversity, which is the concern articulated in the article about cows. To start with, some fact checking is in order: the figure of 9 million cows in the USA isn’t correct (it’s actually closer to 90 million) as the article is only speaking only about dairy cows (and in particular the Holstein breed) and it’s not clear that these finding can be generalized to the entire species. Though I agree with the article’s premise that loss of diversity does pose potential risk to a species’ survival, they aren’t saying here that there are 'just 50 cows alive', but rather that the gene pool (of Holsteins in the US) is the genetic equivalent of 50 individuals. In other words, there not saying that cows are ‘critically endangered’, but only that breeding practices are potentially setting them up for that. And the article isn’t arguing anywhere for eliminating selective breeding – by my reading of it, it’s actually advocating for a better, improved method of selective breeding based on new scientific research, per the quote from Dechow that closes the article.

All that aside, loss of biodiversity is an extremely important moral issue, and really applies to all the species that humans have domesticated for food supplies, not just cows. Selective breeding has been successfully practiced for thousands of years but has become a concern now, not because selective breeding is necessarily problematic per se, but because the way it is being practiced in modern times as mass production of only certain genetic lines has led to ‘monocultures’ and the elimination of diversity.

(As a side note, I’d just point out too that the current world population of cows, which is in excess of one billion, is a man-made and unnatural thing that is a huge burden on the planet’s resources, contributing to factors that accelerate climate change and cows can hardly even be considered a natural part of the ecosystem at this point in time. Echoing what LuckyR said above, an extinction event or large reduction in their population could arguably serve to improve the situation for the natural world rather than represent a harm to it.)

Another issue you raise is that of the ethics of GMO, which I think is a bit of a different story. Unlike selective breeding, it is a newer technology with consequences that are less well understood. If offers some apparent benefits in potentially making food supplies less expensive and more abundant. But because its potential for long term negative effects is unknown, and because of the genetic changes once introduced can’t easily be removed again from the populations, it raises a different kind of moral question, namely that of how much and what kinds of risks can be accepted in order to obtain certain known benefits, and how can we go about making these decisions.

A third issue you introduce is that of eugenics, which is a term that normally applies only to humans, not animals, although you’re correct in noting that it’s essentially the same thing as selective breeding. The moral questions that arise from eugenics, however, are very different because they involve activities of the state to regulate and enforce reproduction among humans, such as through forced sterilization of individuals designated as undesirable to the genetic pool. Because these activities may infringe on personal freedoms and personal consent requirements that are unique to human societies and aren’t a consideration in the animal or plant world, the moral implications are quite different. Selective breeding of animals, which has been practiced for many centuries, does not raise these same concerns: as an example, sterilization of domestic animals is actually advocated by some animal rights organizations as an important tool for controlling animal populations, thereby reducing the potential suffering that is created when animal populations go unchecked, but this same approach would be rightly considered diabolical if applied to humans.

Of course, that really leads to a fourth and altogether separate moral question, which is what then are the rights of animals? What constitutes ‘harm’ to animals – is it limited to just the infliction of pain and suffering, or do we believe that animals have certain rights in common with humans beyond just that? It’s too big a question to try to tackle here. But you ask why the topic of ‘eugenics’ is neglected by animal rights activists, and I think therein lies your answer. In my experience, animal rights activists are usually concerned with humans' treatment of animals as individuals, in terms of eliminating unnecessary killing and pain, meeting basic needs, ensuring humane living conditions, etc. That is what they are most passionate about - preventing animals from suffering. Selective breeding does not necessarily have to involve the suffering, so as long as it is done in a humane manner, I imagine most people don’t consider it a priority from an animal rights standpoint.

I’ve already gone on too long here so in the interest of brevity, I won’t address the other issues you’ve mentioned –the GMO debate, the role of language, the experiences of astronauts, the philosophies of William James and Lao Tzu – all of these are interesting topics and worthy of discussion but seem to be getting too far off the main topics here. But if you’ve read this far, I thank you for your attention and hope to continue the discussions in the future!

[Sea Turtle]

very interesting topic.

If it is true that in the past we had 60 or 100 million Bison that are two or three... times larger than cow. Now we have only few bison.
Is it a fair trade of resources, Bison for Cow?

A related idea, do we really need 30 million deer? Should that number be lower to make room for steak and cheese producing cows?

[Pattern-chaser]

A related idea, do we really need 30 million deer?

Your question illustrates the core idea here, perhaps? Why do we — humans — need deer? Or any other species? Do we really think that animals are here because humans 'need' them? Yes, it's true that we 'need' all the other living things, but only because the ecosystem 'needs' all of the life that comprises it. Our human-centric view of the universe — that the world is there for our use or abuse — is the problem?



...



A related idea, do we really need 8000 million humans?

[Sea Turtle]

A related idea, do we really need 30 million deer?

Your question illustrates the core idea here, perhaps? Why do we — humans — need deer? Or any other species? Do we really think that animals are here because humans 'need' them? Yes, it's true that we 'need' all the other living things, but only because the ecosystem 'needs' all of the life that comprises it. Our human-centric view of the universe — that the world is there for our use or abuse — is the problem?



...



A related idea, do we really need 8000 million humans?

You point out the exact thing that is the real issue.

[value]

I would draw a distinction between wild and domesticated animals, in the sense that one is a commodity that it would be perfectly acceptable to go extinct if, say laboratory grown meat were to take off, which, morally would be a good thing. While the other is a normal animal without the need for humans.

You say that wild animals don't need humans, but isn't it so that humans and those animals share a world?

Do you believe that it is potentially possible for the human to fly off into deep space independent from the earth-world, on a space ship with a meat growing laboratory and other artificially human-created GMO food?

[value]

Hello value,

Your ideas on the forum are always interesting, and I think that you and I probably have a lot in common in our philosophies.

Thank you for your reply! I've read your posts always with great interest.

Echoing what LuckyR said above, an extinction event or large reduction in their population could arguably serve to improve the situation for the natural world rather than represent a harm to it.)

What happens and what is intended to happen are two very different things in my opinion. Some argue that the human population should be 90% reduced.

Elon Musk responded with the following to a viral video on Twitter in which primatologist Jane Goodall argued that it would be best for the planet when the human population would be 90% reduced.

Elon Musk on Twitter
elon-musk-jane-goodall.png (207.2 KiB) Viewed 3542 times

In 2019 a group of over 11,000 scientists argued that eugenics can be used to reduce world population.

(2020) The eugenics debate isn't over – but we should be wary of people who claim it can reduce world population
Andrew Sabisky, a UK government adviser, recently resigned over comments supporting eugenics. Around the same time, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins — best known for his book The Selfish Gene — provoked controversy when he tweeted that while eugenics is morally deplorable, it “would work.”
https://phys.org/news/2020-02-eugenics- ... eople.html

(2020) Eugenics is trending. That's a problem.
Any attempt to reduce world population must focus on reproductive justice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... s-problem/

When one starts to think about an intended result, e.g. reduce the population of cows in the face of resources or ideas about climate change, one enters the field of ethics and politics, and morality (what is actually good and wise) can be undermined by that.

Philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas - an icon of Western philosophy that is researched by dedicated scholars today - wrote the following in his moral philosophy named Totality and Infinity, which is commonly referenced to as "Ethics as First Philosophy".

"Politics is opposed to morality, as philosophy to naiveté. ... Morality will oppose politics in history..."

An intended result (within the scope of communication) is language bound history. That is the problem.

Unfortunately, I find that you bring up so many different issues at once and pull in so many unrelated ideas that it makes it very difficult to respond to your posts because it’s difficult to try to untangle it all. With clarity of thought being a necessity for a good philosophical discussion, I’ll just offer a few thoughts on what seem to be the main points of your post here. As I see it, you’re addressing and somewhat conflating several different controversial topics, each of which presents its own distinct set of moral questions. Perhaps it would be helpful to separate these out and look at each one individually:

Thank you for your critical perspective!

My OP simply intended to do two things:

1. Ask the primary question why the topic animal-eugenics seems to be neglected by thinkers in animal rights advocacy.
   
   The OP cites scientific organizations that were claiming in 2021 'the GMO debate is over' which is indicative that there has been scientific data to support the idea that attention for GMO was fading away, making the 'why' question extra important.
2. The OP attempts to suggest that an answer to the asked 'why' question seems to be that it is difficult or almost impossible to break the anthropocentric boundary of language, and cites the story of a decades long failed attempt by astronauts to publicly communicate their experience of 'interconnected euphoria', to show that an aspect may be of relevance that 'cannot be spoken of' (cannot be enclosed in language).

Another issue you raise is that of the ethics of GMO, which I think is a bit of a different story. Unlike selective breeding, it is a newer technology with consequences that are less well understood.

Selective breeding might be different from GMO, but the core essence may be the same. The human practices genetic modification for an intended result outside the scope of time.

That is what I meant with the assertion that GMO as food would result in a situation similar to incest (inbreeding) because the output of science is history and were the human to base its feed on that, it would feed itself by figuratively sticking its head (its face into the future) into its anus (the output of science).

Food is logically more than what is empirical. The fight to survive by individual beings, within a scope of respect within a greater shared world, results in wisdom in time and my assertion is that food is about that wisdom when it concerns successful genetic evolution in time.

That a human may survive a bit on artificial lumps of laboratory grown meat doesn't prove anything. There are microbes and insects that can remain alive when spending some time unprotected in space. That doesn't mean that the situation is sustainable and 'ought' for successful (optimal) progress, which is ultimately what it is all about.

I recently commented the following to African pro-GMO campaigners: "good cannot come from what's already there as if empirical greed got it there. good comes from within."

The first issue I see is that of loss of biodiversity, which is the concern articulated in the article about cows. ... All that aside, loss of biodiversity is an extremely important moral issue...

In my opinion the true issue with regard biodiversity is not empirical of nature. It is not the diversity that matters and should respected but 'that what is required for existence'.

When it concerns biodiversity it doesn't concern empirical diversity. One should not forget the scope of respect by which biodiversity is possible in the first place, and it is then seen that biodiversity cannot be seen as an independent concept as if random diversity would suffice to create the resilience and strength that nature needs for health.

Securing biodiversity, that what the human has observed to be key to health in nature, concerns the 'why' of an animal or 'beyond an animal' (what humans might never know).

My philosophical idea is that respect is the foundation of all that is good in the world and that it is the origin of intelligence and consciousness. In a way space and time are a form of respect a priori to the world.

Respect for animals and plants should be provided for a priori to their existence, in order to secure the vital aspect of what the human empirically has observed as biodiversity. It is not about creating diversity. It is about the potential for biodiversity to come about.

... that really leads to a fourth and altogether separate moral question, which is what then are the rights of animals? What constitutes ‘harm’ to animals – is it limited to just the infliction of pain and suffering, or do we believe that animals have certain rights in common with humans beyond just that? It’s too big a question to try to tackle here. But you ask why the topic of ‘eugenics’ is neglected by animal rights activists, and I think therein lies your answer.

In my experience, animal rights activists are usually concerned with humans' treatment of animals as individuals, in terms of eliminating unnecessary killing and pain, meeting basic needs, ensuring humane living conditions, etc. That is what they are most passionate about - preventing animals from suffering. Selective breeding does not necessarily have to involve the suffering, so as long as it is done in a humane manner, I imagine most people don’t consider it a priority from an animal rights standpoint.

Yes, the suffering expressed by an animal is empirical and can be enclosed in language to spur propaganda and activism while with eugenics, it concerns aspects that may be a priori to the animal, the 'why' question of the animal in the first place.

However, while I can understand that some people are passionately driven by emotions and their emotional connection with animals, I would think that some might care for animals from a pure theory perspective and would be interested to defend them using philosophy and theory. Eugenics and GMO simply affect animals on a massive scale so it is important to that there are people at the forefront to prevent harm to animals when needed.

My OP intended to make a case for the idea that a true intellectual defence against GMO and eugenics might not be possible using 'written down' language.

What if animals need protection from eugenics to secure their prosperity and well-being? What if the human has an intellectual responsibility for the animals?

[value]

I’ve already gone on too long here so in the interest of brevity, I won’t address the other issues you’ve mentioned –the GMO debate, the role of language, the experiences of astronauts, the philosophies of William James and Lao Tzu – all of these are interesting topics and worthy of discussion but seem to be getting too far off the main topics here. But if you’ve read this far, I thank you for your attention and hope to continue the discussions in the future!

In my opinion the cited subjects are vital to address as a whole to support the assertion that:

1. Animals need protection against eugenics and GMO
2. Intellectual protection might not be possible using 'written down' language and what is at stake may be a priori to the animal (the 'why' or 'beyond' of the animal)

I provided an example to make a case for the idea that morality applies to the relation between insects and plants.

In GMO corn that is intended to protect against root worms, it is seen that the worms become resistant to the GMO protection and in the process they become 'more aggressive' towards the plant. That is a moral issue!

The plant remained behind weak... the moral balance between the plant and the insect was disrupted by GMO.

rootworm
rootworm.png (54.08 KiB) Viewed 3538 times

Corn Rootworms Poised to Stage a Comeback as Bt Resistance Spreads
https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/a ... e-comeback

It is similar to antibiotic resistant bacteria...

The artificial dam provided by GMO logically results in accumulating weakness in time.

Another example are bollworm in India.

Monsanto introduced GMO Bt Cotton illegally in India in 1998. Well-known Indian eco-feminist philosopher Dr. Vandana Shiva filed a case at the supreme court at the time.

The bollworm became a superbug and became resistant, stronger and more aggressive (harm causing) to the plant while the plant became weaker in time.

From the perspective of the plant, it experienced a sort of sudden dam break event while it had been sleeping, i,e, while it had been developing weakness in time.

While this reasoning might be considered utilitarian (the human would intend to use this information to prevent aggression and a dam break event that would cause a disaster), a lot more is at stake.

The moral balance between a plant and insect is far more complex and the greater effects of that balance within a natural system are far more profound than a human may be able to 'see' using scientific knowledge.

astronauts decades long failed attempt to teach humanity about 'something beyond words' shows what might be at stake at a greater level.

What astronauts observe from space is described by them as being 'interconnected euphoria'. In my opinion that (happiness at a grand scale) is the after-effect of morality.

What is observed by the astronauts cannot be put into words, but the story of the astronauts and the inability of science until today to explain their experience, shows that there may be 'an aspect' that should be taken into account when it concerns GMO despite that it cannot be spoken of. And that aspect would apply to the moral relation between animals, insects and plants.

The problem is really related to the idea that anything that is potentially of relevance to the human can be put into language.

That is what my OP was about. It intended to show that protection of animals and the natural world may be urgently needed and that a core problem for the ability of that protection is the anthropocentric limit imposed by language and humanity's cultural belief that anything can be put into language.

Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein ended his book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus with the proposition "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" which means that there are limits to what can be expressed through language, and that 'some aspects' are beyond the scope of language.

Wittgenstein: "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.". It describes the root of the problem of anthropocentrism (what Pattern-chaser described as 'human-centric view of the universe').

To facilitate a due respect for animals and plants, the boundary of language needs to be broken. This is a great challenge and may explain why there has been silence in my topic about animal eugenics on Philosophical Vegan, a philosophy forum where many animal rights advocates are active.

[Pattern-chaser]

Our treatment of animals encompasses many different practices. Most of them are morally ... dubious. Our 'domesticated' animals are born into captivity, and lead an enslaved life, concluded by us killing and eating them. During their lives, we do anything and everything that we choose to do to them, without a thought of whether such conduct is acceptable, to us, or to the animals concerned. I am particularly upset by the way we treat horses as beasts of burden. There are enslaved, as cows and sheep are, and we force them to wear a sort of corset that restricts their breathing and movement, and to carry us around. We put metal gags into their mouths, to dominate and control them. I find this difficult to justify...

[value]

During their lives, we do anything and everything that we choose to do to them... I find this difficult to justify...

Are you a vegan? And have you been involved with animal rights advocacy or activism?

Sy Borg once told me that she regretted to not have dedicated her early philosophical study and career to the protection of animals and hopes to inspire people on this forum to defend animals.

Our treatment of animals encompasses many different practices. Most of them are morally ... dubious.

Wouldn't the word deplorable be applicable? What would make you say that it is dubious? Do you see an argument by which some of the referenced practices are morally defensible?

With regard the morality of horse riding. That perspective is interesting. Friedrich Nietzsche once came to the rescue of a horse when it was beaten by its owner on the street. Nietzsche threw himself towards the animal and embraced it, breaking into tears and slumping to the floor. Nietzsche expressed his opposition to animal cruelty and exploitation but to argue that it is morally wrong to ride horses goes a step further.

On Philosophical Vegan is a topic about the morality of owning a cat, since, according to the topic, it isn't natural to domesticate and own cats.

I don't really understand how owning cats can be considered vegan. Veganism is based on the idea that owning animals, even if we think consequences will be good, is wrong, right?

https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4858

In the case of holding a parrot, it is seen that a parrot can bond with a human on a sort of 'true love' (life partner) level in which the parrot could even commit suicide (stop eating) when it loses its human partner. A parrot is naturally monogamic and spends a life time (100 years) with just one partner, and a parrot can see a human as his/her life partner.

Is it moral to hold a parrot?

I personally would argue that parrots belong in their natural habitat but when the love and care between a human and an animal is mutual, perhaps the 'domestication is unnatural' argument does not apply.

In the Turkish documentary film Kedi, that shows the life of cats in the city Istanbul, it is seen that cats are a natural part of the life in the city and cats in that city choose their own owner. Cats are respected and are welcomed to join the human in their lives at their chosen moment in time, and the cats are left free to leave again whenever they want. That shows that domestication of cats might not be a wholly human thing and cats themselves play a role in their relationship with the human as well.

https://www.kedifilm.com/ (you can find the movie for free via Google, e.g. here)

As for riding horses. There are movements in the horse riding community that would share your perspective but that advocate for 'free riding' (without any gear) and becoming one with the horse, which is named natural horsemanship. It seems obvious to me that the human and horse can establish a special bond and that bond may not be only in the interest of the human.

What would be your opinion on natural horsemanship?

[Sy Borg]

The figures about relate to only the USA. Many nations are far less organised and their cattle would be more genetically varied. I suppose we could say that certain strains of "US cows" might go extinct but I would say the species is doing much better than many others.

Interesting information, though. My jaw dropped after reading that 9 million cows are clones of 50 cows. So each cow is one of approx 180,000 identical siblings. Reminiscent of an Amish family.

;)

[Sea Turtle]

What would be your opinion on natural horsemanship?

If the human and the horse are both free to stay or leave the arrangement at there own choice then it is a partnership.

Same for human to human partnerships, while in either case, human to human or human to horse if one is not free to stay or leave then it is some form of slavery.

If either side believe that survival is dependent on the other, then it is slavery..

Slavery vs symbiotic.
--

In the current world that is controlled by humans, can the horse survive without human help? In most cities a horse would die without human help due to starvation or collision with vehicles.

[LuckyR]

I would draw a distinction between wild and domesticated animals, in the sense that one is a commodity that it would be perfectly acceptable to go extinct if, say laboratory grown meat were to take off, which, morally would be a good thing. While the other is a normal animal without the need for humans.

You say that wild animals don't need humans, but isn't it so that humans and those animals share a world?

Do you believe that it is potentially possible for the human to fly off into deep space independent from the earth-world, on a space ship with a meat growing laboratory and other artificially human-created GMO food?

Yes, everyone knows both wild animals and humans are located on planet Earth. Your point?

And if humans leave the earth on spaceships, they will not be bringing farm animals along to provide sustenance.