No sir. As you said you induce me my brain K R On Sat, Feb 11, 2023, 7:22 PM Markendeya Yeddanapudi < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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/CAL5XZoogNsBKz1AXYvHZm35gwGyX9Hkj9PJ2yMjBiK6vgBx%2BjQ%40mail.gmail.com.
