It's not about interpretation or an area of contention anymore. The book has been shut for quite some time. We have I think 7 equations describing quantum mechanics and they are deterministic, but because of the nature of the particles we could never design an apparatus sensitive enough to detect exact locations without sufficiently disturbing the system (heisenburg uncertainty).

No, for example both the Copenhagen interpretation (shown in 1997 to be the most commonly accepted interpretation of QM among physicists) and the objective collapse theories are indeterministic.

(for the record, I am skeptical of both of these interpretations, but it's hardly case closed)

You're probably correct though that post-Everett, the prevailing theories have been deterministic and I think decoherence theories like MWI are more likely than indeterministic ones based on wave function collapse.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 14 2014 12:35am

The bolded is some of the most frightening text I've read, do you actually think that manipulating the entire ecosystem would be the healthy answer? The natural chain of predators thinning the herds
of the old, sick and weak and in the process making the species stronger would be abolished. You would bring ruin to what's taken nature and evolution thousands of years to accomplish. All so that your sensibilities aren't bothered by what you consider "suffering" but is actually just natural selection.

I agree with Widow, zoos without cages are a good thing, zoos are responsible for keeping many endangered species from becoming extenict and actually bringing some down from the endangered list
they also serve to keep future generations vested emotionally in the endangered species.

I do agree that confinement raised meat dairy and eggs is morally wrong I think we have a moral duty to be good stewards to the animals we raise to eat, and the ones we use for milk and eggs, they should be treated with kindness and respect. That is how we've always tried to treat our livestock, both beef and dairy. but on the same idea if man didn't consume beef,pork and dairy there wouldn't be
any cows or pigs left. there simply wouldn't be any use for them.

What exactly is a 'full fled habitat zoo'? and nowhere did anyone mention the size of cage.

This post was edited by Scaly on Oct 14 2014 05:25am

Development of the ability to reason. Higher primates exhibit moral behavior and it is very likely our morality is just a natural occurrence with the development of intelligence and empathy.

http://books.wwnorton.com/books/the-bonobo-and-the-atheist/

There is an excellent book about this phenomenon, if you wanted to get the know the case for evolutionary ethics to go with evolutionary animals. There is actually moral behavior being demonstrated among bonobos, including families and tribal units pitching in to help mentally disabled/retarded members of the tribe, sharing when there is no real self-interested reason to (within their concrete operational minds), and eventually proves that empathy, morality, and altruism exist within nature. We always knew they did, because they exist within us and we're of the natural world, but there are people who disagree that altruism even exists despite the overwhelming evidence otherwise.

People say religion is responsible for morality. Its the other way around

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 14 2014 08:54am

A lion at a habitable Zoo is far different than housing animals inside cages.

Part of a Zoo:

(This is what Widow was referring too)

Caging:



You said:

"Caging is not allowed but zoos are ok? I think you have a different definition of 'caging' than most people."

So either, you're entitled to your opinion and can think both are wrong (Which is fine) but nitpicking is not.

And I'm being generous with those pictures.

This post was edited by HighschoolTurd on Oct 14 2014 08:58am

Well damn, finally someone gets it!

Given that bonobos are autonomous and moral agents, do you believe they should receive legal personhood?

He got you there Skinned

This post was edited by HighschoolTurd on Oct 14 2014 09:05am

No.

I personally think that all life is pretty much equal on an existential level and no law can or will affect that.

Maybe a future society will decide that animals fit within the social contract somewhere, maybe after the social contract evolves somewhere beyond its origin as mutual self-protection and cessation of the war against all. This isn't possible until we reach a post-scarcity economy (my opinion).

Right now, where we are, our conception of Rights, they just aren't there. We're still born the same way, live doing the same activities (eating, fucking, sleeping, working), and leave this world the same. We are still the same. Animals get butchered and so do humans.

Saying they or we can even have Rights seems kind of arbitrary in light of our true situation.

I'd like to see local governments where they live create laws preventing the hunting and eating of these creatures, in a perfect world. But if they don't it is a good opportunity to do some science to see if humans eating the bonobo exhibit some of the symptoms of cannibalism, so that we can explore that relationship a bit.

If they are moral agents that only proves that they are bound to follow the moral law, and it confers no expectation as to how one is going to be treated. Having a Right is having an expectation to be treated a certain way and that has nothing to do with moral agency and more to do with power relations.

/e grammar

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 14 2014 09:16am