sir, Thank you very much.My simple point is that the Biosphere as a whole is one organism and that we are all limbs of that grand organism.The symbiosis among the cells in us constitutes us as a limb,the limb of the Biosphere.So healthy and happy Biosphere means the healthy you and me. Your enthusiasm and scholarship has made it so high brow and it is beyond me a border average from the below average blunderer. YM
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 8:08 AM Rajaram Krishnamurthy <[email protected]> wrote: > “Animal Liberation” may sound more like a parody of other liberation > movements than a serious objective. The idea of “The Rights of Animals” > actually was once used to parody the case for women’s rights. Equality is a > moral Idea, not an assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling > reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people > justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their > needs and interests. It is a defense which, if true, would allow us to do > anything at all to nonhumans for the slightest reason, or for no reason at, > all, without incurring any justifiable reproach. This defense claims that > we are never guilty of neglecting the interests of other animals for one > breathtakingly simple reason: they have *no *interests. Nonhuman animals > have no interests, according to this view, because they are not capable of > suffering. By this is not meant merely that they are not capable of > suffering in all the ways that human beings are-for instance, that a calf > is not capable of suffering from the knowledge that it will be killed in > six months’ time. That modest claim is, no doubt, true; but it does not > clear humans of the charge of spiesism, since it allows that animals may > suffer in other ways-for instance, by being given electric shocks, or being > kept in small, cramped cages that animals are incapable of suffering in any > way at all; that th y are, in fact, unconscious automata, possessing > neither thoughts nor feelings nor a mental life of any kind. Although, the > view that animals are automata was proposed by the seventeenth-century > French philosopher Renie Descartes, to most people, then and now, it is > obvious that if, for example, we stick a sharp knife into the stomach of an > unanaesthetised dog, the dog will feel pain. That this is so is assumed by > the laws in most civilized countries that prohibit wanton cruelty to > animals. > > Do animals other than humans feel pain? How do we know? Well, how do we > know if anyone, human or nonhuman, feels pain? We know that we ourselves > can feel pain. We know this from the direct experience of pain that we have > when, for instance, somebody presses a lighted cigarette against the back > of our hand. But how do we know that anyone else feels pain? We cannot > directly experience anyone else’s pain, whether that “anyone “is our best > friend or a stray dog. Pain is a state of consciousness, a “mental event,” > and as such it can never be observed. Behavior like writhing, screaming, or > drawing one’s hand away from the lighted cigarette is not pain itself; nor > are the recordings a neurologist might make of activity within the brain > observations of pain itself. Pain is something that we feel, and we can > only infer that others *are *feeling it from various external > indications. If it is justifiable to assume that other human beings feel > pain as we do, is there any reason why a similar inference should be > unjustifiable in the case of other animals? > > Nearly all the external signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans > can be seen in other species, especially the species most closely related > to us-the species of mammals and birds. The behavioral signs include > writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, > attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of > its repetition, and so on. In addition, we know that these animals have > nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically as ours do > when the animal is in circumstances in which we would feel pain: an initial > rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse > rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure. Although > human beings have a more developed cerebral cortex than other animals, this > part of the brain is concerned with thinking functions rather than with > basic impulses, emotions, an@ feelings. These impulses, emotions, and > feelings are located in the diencephalon, which is well developed in many > other species of animals, especially mammals and birds. > > We also know that the nervous systems of other animals were not > artificially constructed-as a robot might be artificially constructed- to > mimic the pain behavior of humans. The nervous systems of animals evolved > as our own did, and in fact the evolutionary history of human beings and. > other animals, especially mammals, did not diverge until the central > features of our nervous systems were already in existence. A capacity to > feel pain obviously enhances a species’ prospects of survival, since it > causes members of the species to avoid sources of injury. It is surely > unreasonable to suppose that nervous systems that are virtually identical > physiologically, have a common origin and a common evolutionary function, > and result in similar forms of behavior in similar circumstances should > actually operate in an entirely different manner on the level of subjective > feelings. It has long been accepted as sound policy in science to search > for the simplest possible explanation of whatever it is we are trying to > explain. Occasionally it has been claimed that it is for this reason > “unscientific” to explain the behavior of animals by theories that refer to > the animal’s conscious feelings, desires, and so on-the idea being that if > the behavior in question can be explained without invoking consciousness or > feelings, that will be the simpler theory. > > The overwhelming majority of scientists who have addressed themselves to > this question agree. Lord Brain, one of the most eminent neurologists of > our time, has said: I personally can see no reason for conceding mind to my > fellow men and denying it to animals. . I at least cannot doubt that the > interests and activities of animals are correlated with awareness and > feeling in the same way as my own, and which may be, for aught I know, just > as vivid. Finally, within the last decade, the publication of scientific > studies with titles such as Animal Thought, Animal Thinking, and Animal > Suffering: The Science of Animals are have made it plain that conscious > awareness in nonhuman animals is now generally accepted as a serious > subject for investigation. Some philosophers, including Descartes, have > thought it important that while humans can tell each other about their > experience of pain in great detail, other animals cannot. (Interestingly, > this once neat dividing *line *between humans and other species has now > been threatened by the discovery that chimpanzees can be taught a > languagei2) But as Bentham pointed out long ago, the ability to use > language is not relevant to the question of how a being ought to be > treated-unless that ability can be linked to the capacity to suffer, so > that the absence of a language > > Animals can feel pain As we saw earlier, there can be no moral > justification for re3gardmg the pain for pleasure) that animals feel as > less important than the same amount of pain (or pleasure) felt by humans. > But what practical consequences follow from this conclusion? To prevent > misunderstanding I shall spell out what I mean a little more fully. If I > give a horse a hard slap across its rump with *my *open hand, the horse > may start, but it presumably feels little pain. Its skin is thick enough to > protect it against a mere slap. If I slap a baby in the same way, however, > the baby will cry and presumably feel pain, for its skin is *more *sensitive. > So it is worse to slap a baby than a horse, if both slaps are administered > with equal force. But there must be some kind of blow-1 don’t know exactly > what it would be, but perhaps a blow with a heavy stick-that would cause > the horse as much pain as we cause a baby by slapping it with our hand. > That is what I mean by “the same amountof pain,” and if we consider it > wrong to inflict that much pain on a baby for no good reason then we must, > unless we are speciesists, consider it equally wrong to inflict the same > amount of pain on a horse for no good reason. Just as most human beings are > speciesists in their readiness to cause pain to animals when they would not > cause a similar pain to humans for the same reason, so most human beings > are speciesists in their readiness to kill other animals when they would > not kill human beings. We need to proceed more cautiously here, however, > because people hold widely differing views about when it is legitimate to > kill humans, as the continuing debates over abortion and euthanasia attest. > Nor have moral philosophers been able to agree on exactly what it is that > makes it wrong to kill human beings, and under what circumstances killing a > human being may be justifiable. Let us consider first the view that it is > always wrong to take an innocent human life. We may call this the “sanctity > of life” view. People who take this view oppose abortion and euthanasia. > They do not usually, however, oppose the killing of nonhuman animals- so > perhaps it would be more accurate to describe this view as the “sanctity of > *humnn > *life” view. The belief that human life, and only human life, is > sacrosanct is a form of speciesism. > > A chimpanzee, dog, or pig, for instance, will have a higher degree of > seIf-awareness and a greater capacity for meaningful relations with others > than a severely retarded infant or someone in a state of advanced senility. > So if we base the right to life on these characteristics we must grant > these animals a right to life as good as, or better than, such retarded or > senile humans. This argument cuts both ways. It could be taken as showing > that chimpanzees, dogs, and pigs, along with some other species, have a > right to life and we commit a grave moral offense whenever we kill them, > even when they are old and suffering and our intention is to put them out > of their misery. Alternatively, one could take the argument as showing that > the severely retarded and hopelessly senile have no right to life and may > be killed for quite trivial reasons, as we now kill animals. > > In general, though, the question of when it is wrong to kill (painlessly) > an animal is one to which we need give no precise answer. As long as we > remember that we should give the same respect to the lives of animals as we > give to the lives of those humans at a similar mental level, we shall not > go far wrong. The idea that it is also wrong to kill animals painlessly > gives some of these conclusions additional support that is welcome but > strictly unnecessary. Interestingly enough, this is true even of the > conclusion that we ought to become vegetarians, a conclusion that in the > popular mind is generally based on some kind of absolute prohibition on > killing. We do not take seriously the interests of other animals-practices > like hunting, whether for sport or for furs; farming minks, foxes, and > other animals for their fur; capturing wild animals (often after shooting > their mothers) and imprisoning them in small cages for humans to stare at; > tormenting animals to make them learn tricks for circuses and tormenting > them to make them entertain the audiences at rodeos; slaughtering whales > with explosive harpoons, under the guise of scientific research; drowning > over 100,000 dolphins annually in nets set by hlna fishing boats; shooting > three million kangaroos every year in the Australian outback to turn them > into skins and pet food; and generally ignoring the interests of wild > animals as we extend our empire of concrete and pollution over the surface > of the globe. ( animal protection symposium I remember long ago) KR IRS > 11223 > > On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 at 17:52, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> -- >> *Mar*Happiness, Symbiosis, Healing, Cure and Health from Animals >> >> >> >> We humans are the diseased part of the organism, the Biosphere. No other >> organism, tries to live or un-live by surrendering totally to technology, >> making the Robot and the logic of the machine without feelings and the >> natural connection to internal hormonal communication, like the human. The >> human now is trying to substitute the Bio-logic of Biology, with the >> Techno-logic of Technology. >> >> The basis of our living is the emotional symbiosis based on hormonal >> communications among the cells in us. We constitute as the grand Biosphere >> of cells as us. This society of cells, you, needs the emotional connect to >> every other organism of the biosphere. In the grand emotional symbiosis of >> all organisms of the Biosphere, ill health is impossible. The grand ocean >> of emotional symbiosis, the ocean of rapture and health, simply is not >> capable of creating sickness in any organism. >> >> The basis of health is the healthy cell. When it’s living and functioning >> is continuously enabled by the coordinating symbiotic hormones, the cell >> becomes the micro bit of rapture. >> >> The Biosphere as a whole is the grand macro mind, where there is the flow >> of trust and emotional connect among the organisms. The troposphere is the >> medium of the hormonal messages of the organisms. >> >> Even today, you can get the benefit of the grand emotional symbiosis of >> the Biosphere, by just establishing emotional connection to an organism. We >> call it pet. >> >> Even today, despite the monstrous mechanization, one gets relief from a >> pet animal. Every animal can be a pet.It need not be a cat or dog. Even >> Lions, Tigers, Rhinos, Hippos, elephants, crocodiles…can be pets, provided >> one musters courage and attempts to contact. The basic feature of nature is >> the potential for trust and love in every life form, and the relationship >> with any organism, will trigger the positive emotional hormone >> communication among the cells. In fact friendships create happy internal >> hormonal communication among the cells. >> >> Thick, lush and free forest with happy life forms in the forest can be a >> wonderful hospital. The waves of rapture which the air carries in a forest, >> engulfs every organism with health. No disease can survive. >> >> Nature has the fundamental right to create emotional symbiosis among the >> organisms. Unfortunately the rhetoric about fundamental rights in our >> political discourses, translates into the right to subject nature to one’s >> economic needs in our economic society. >> >> The very concept of fundamental rights to the Biosphere as a whole has >> become weird to us, the anthropocentric idiots. >> >> YM >> >> >> >> >> > -- *Mar* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLtTyj%3De4_%3DhqiWdvJeVLOn4DMUk5agYbO7oTsGhvbDpw%40mail.gmail.com.
