Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

New York Times: "Here I go overstating a vapid point again"

The easy part is pretending animals are like us, even if there's no rigorous reason to believe they are. The hard part is trying to figure out why the tiger isn't immoral for killing the gazelle.



You're going against the scientific consensus if you're suggesting animals don't have any emotions. Do you have any reason to believe that they don't?

Whether tigers hunting for survival is immoral seems entirely tangential to whether animals can feel.


> The easy part is pretending animals are like us, even if there's no rigorous reason to believe they are.

You should look into the work of Jaak Panksepp. Watch his TEDTalk [1] for a quick overview but the really mind altering information you will find in his books. I highly recommend "The Archeology of the Mind" to everyone who wants to learn more how the concept of SELF is being created into the brain and the role primary affect plays in complex enough organisms (mammals, some social reptiles/birds).

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65e2qScV_K8




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: