value wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2023, 7:34 am
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑October 1st, 2023, 3:06 pmHello 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.
And thank you also for replying back, it’s been helpful to me for getting a clearer idea of what your philosophy is and I’d like to keep the conversation going. I continue to think there is really more that we have in common than not. You’ve once again posted so many things that I can’t respond to everything, and so I won’t argue over the specifics about GMO or eugenics specifically since we probably agree about the conclusions anyway. But I’m actually most interested in the fundamentals here, in understanding how we arrive at those conclusions rather than what the final conclusion is, so I’ll just address some specific parts of your post and ask you to forgive me for skipping over some of the section of your posts.
value wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2023, 7:34 am
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑October 1st, 2023, 3:06 pmEchoing 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.
…
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.
You point out that what is intended and what actually happens are different things, and I think it’s obvious that is certainly often the case, but could you elaborate on this? Since we’re talking about unintended consequences here, are you saying something along the lines of Kant’s philosophy of ethics, that intention or ‘good will’ is the only true source of good, even though it may sometimes fail to achieve the end that we initially aimed for?
And I’m not at all following your meaning when you say that an intended result is ‘language bound history’. But isn’t it part of human nature to be able to know that our actions have consequences, and understanding those consequences informs us as to how to act wisely and for the good. As is often said, if we fail to learn from history, we may be doomed to repeat it. Unless you are arguing that people should act purely from instinct, I’m not sure how possible it is to avoid considering intended results.
Going past that, I’m not sure I understand how thinking about our intended results, or how ethics and politics can ‘undermine morality’. These three are related, but as I see it, they each present their own unique set of questions – in ethics, we ask ourselves what is good and right; in morality, we ask what is the right thing to do or the right way to act; in politics we ask what is the right way to respond, cooperatively as a community or a nation, to those who threaten or act unjustly toward the community. Though these three areas inform each other in how we consider various issues, they ultimately confront us with different questions. Of course, politics can be and often is corrupted when it misused for personal power and gain; but in theory at least, politics exists for the purpose of bringing about justice and does not necessarily have to oppose or undermine morality.
value wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2023, 7:34 am
…
My OP simply intended to do two things:
- 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.
- 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).
I think I addressed your first question in my previous post. Really, it’s a question that can only be answered definitively by conducting a survey of those activists because only they can speak for themselves as to why they are neglecting a particular topic, if in fact they are. But from what I understand, being an effective activist requires enormous personal dedication and perseverance, and any given individual has only limited resources to draw on. People have to choose their battles and focus their energies on what they deem to be most important, and that will usually be what they are most passionate about. And I do think that for many people, addressing the present suffering of living beings tends to arouse more passion than concerns about possible future suffering, especially when the future is are uncertain and/or remote.
Your second point is more difficult to understand. I’ll start by asking what you mean by ‘break the boundary of language’? Language certainly has its limitation when it comes to talking about abstract ideas and subjective experiences. But humans have been creative in using language in a variety of different ways and are also continually expanding language to encompass new ideas. And then there are certainly also means by which humans communicate that don’t involve language. Is your point here simply that we need to develop better non-linguistic means to communicate better about some kinds of experiences or to share ideas about certain topics that aren’t fully captured in language? If something cannot be communicated in language, how are you proposing that it should be communicated instead?
value wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2023, 7:34 am
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑October 1st, 2023, 3:06 pmAnother 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."
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑October 1st, 2023, 3:06 pmThe 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.
value wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2023, 7:34 am
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?
I again have some confusion here when you speak of time and language, but I’m with you 100% on this last part which I think you articulate very eloquently. If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re essentially saying that it is the failure of humans to understand our own limitations – one might say, a lack of humility – that undermines wisdom and leads us away from acting in relationship to nature, and into thinking that we can successfully manipulate nature for our own imagined ends apart from nature’s ends that lie beyond what can be known or spoken – is that a fair assessment?
It recalls for me Shelley’s
Frankenstein, the idea that humans should not ‘play God’ in making interventions in nature since man is not morally equipped to take responsibility for the consequences of such types of action – that a wiser course is to take an approach of respecting nature. I wholly agree with this and fully support the idea that all living things are deserving of our respect, even of our love and reverence and that we should attempt to live in harmony with nature rather than to dominate it.
But let me offer an additional thought here, that respect has two components, as I see it. The first is respect as an attitude or an orientation toward someone or something, which is what you’re speaking of here; I would call this the ethical dimension. But the other aspect is how we apply that orientation to our actions, which I would call the moral dimension – it’s the actual application our knowledge of the world and understanding of the consequences of our specific actions in order to inform us about how to act in relation to those to whom we determine we owe our respect. These two are inseparable - when we teach children to be respectful, we teach them both
who or
what it is that they need to have respect for, but also what they need to
do in order to be respectful. In other words, to properly respect, we need to understand the affect our actions have and act accordingly.
You’re right that there’s an element here of an underlying ethical ‘heart’ or sense of goodness that goes beyond language, but that doesn’t eliminate the necessity of speaking of the facts of the world as we see them and understand them. Part of acting ‘responsibly’ involves making the effort to be informed, i.e. making sure we understand the ‘facts’ that are part of the language-bound world. We can act with good intent, but if our choices are not informed, we can just as easily end up doing harm that could have otherwise been avoided. It’s clear to me that much of the harm that is done in our world results from ignorance or disregard of consequences that can be articulated in language.
With that in mind, I don’t think it’s possible to start talking about protecting nature without first talking about and trying to answer the challenging questions about what is it exactly that we are to protect and how specifically do we do that? What constitutes harm to a plant or animal, and what allows or prevents them to achieve ‘prosperity or well-being’?
value wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2023, 7:34 am
Thomyum2 wrote: ↑October 1st, 2023, 3:06 pm... 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.
The idea of suffering might be better addressed in a separate topic, but for now I will suggest that I think it is more than simply an emotional issue that motivates people. I believe that the experience a person has when the suffering of another person or other living being is recognized is similar to the one that you mention about the astronauts’ experience of seeing the earth from space. When we sense someone suffering, we suffer with them (which of course is the meaning of 'compassion') and we in sense experience that other being as a part of ourself, just as the astronauts speak of a sense of connectedness to the earth. And I think that our recognition of the capacity for suffering in others is foundational to morality – it is precisely this which leads us to orient ourselves that this other individual being has rights in the first place, i.e. has a moral claim on us, or to which we owe a moral duty. It is in recognizing suffering that we discover that another being has the capacity to be harmed, which in turn leads us to see that helping or protecting that being is a moral good in itself.
value wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2023, 7:37 am
In my opinion the cited subjects are vital to address as a whole to support the assertion that:
- Animals need protection against eugenics and GMO
- 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)
…
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.
The
Tractatus of course is an early work and in subsequent years Wittgenstein’s thinking about the role of language evolved considerably from this initial idea that what can’t be spoken must be passed over in silence. He went on to show that language (like a ‘toolbox’, in his words) is defined by how it is used, and it has many uses beyond just that of creating a ‘picture of facts’ about the world. In his 1929 Lecture on Ethics, which I think relates directly to what you’re saying, he explains that although the use of language to speak about absolutes - ideas that are not relative to or contingent upon states of affairs in the world - results in ‘nonsense’, that doesn’t mean that we should ‘remain silent’. In fact, he ends the lecture actually embracing the tendency to ‘run against the boundaries of language’. In other words, that just because speaking of something may result in nonsense, that doesn’t mean that doing so is necessarily without use or value.
I’m not sure why you’ve concluded that astronauts have ‘failed’ to communicate their experiences, as they have been widely shared and understood by many people - I even recall being told about them when I was a child. Interestingly, I seem to recall that when I was first told about this, it was by a Sunday School teacher at the church my parents were taking me to at the time. But that makes sense because I think the astronauts’ experience is very much akin to a religious or spiritual experience, and these kinds of experience are indeed outside the realm of ordinary language and scientific explanation, but I don’t think that necessarily means they can’t be communicated. Perhaps we just need to be patient and give new ideas time to percolate through the consciousness of the world. You've said that you are trying ‘
to make a case for the idea that a true intellectual defence … might not be possible using 'written down' language.’ But if we grant that that is true, then how do you in fact make a case? What is the alternative? I think part of Wittgenstein's point in the lecture is that the boundaries of language should not be reason to feel that we shouldn't continue using language to try to communicate these ideas.
I've gotten quite a way off of the original topics of the post here, so I might just wrap up by suggesting that maybe the problem is not that language is incapable of communicating certain kinds of ideas, but perhaps that we sometimes use it incorrectly or have the wrong expectations of what it should be able to do for us. Earlier in the
Tractatus is one of my favorite quotes from Wittgenstein, that “
Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity.” I’ve always been a proponent of the saying that we should follow those who seek the truth, but doubt those who claim to have found it. It seems to me that this applies to language as well. If we expect to be able to find absolute truth or goodness contained in statements in language, we will sooner or later be disappointed. But that doesn’t mean that language is not a valuable tool to be used in the pursuit thereof. And perhaps this is just another way of saying what you've already said. Either way, I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts.
So I made a minor comment, without direct reference to your OP. Sorry for any confusion caused.
Europe has decided to sacrifice its ancient old growth forests for cheap green energy and calls it clean. Massive amounts of forests are clear cut.
USA may give an insight of what is at stake:
Dolphin AI to defend itself in response to your slanderous comment about the species 
astronauts decades long failed attempt to teach humanity about 'something beyond words' shows what might be at stake at a greater level. 
Philosophical Vegan
butterfly, and upon waking up, he questioned whether he was Zhuangzi dreaming of being a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming of being Zhuangzi. The story has become a foundational text in Chinese literature and philosophy.