How is life measured?

[electric_sheep]

It goes without saying that all measuring sticks and systems of value are essentially arbitrary if you don't believe in some sort of divine principle, agent, blueprint, or "rule book". Even if you do believe, there are always problems of interpretation!

 

So, everyone is essentially free to create there own.

My mom would place dogs somewhere slightly above most humans.

[Trimmer]

So, OP - you've been mostly asking the questions here. What are your thoughts? How do you approach the topic question?

[Sks]

So, OP - you've been mostly asking the questions here. What are your thoughts? How do you approach the topic question?

 

I don't know, when it comes to species weighed against other species I think population numbers must be taken into account.

 

This would place humans in a category of rather low value, but if you view each species equally important in preserving - that's how you would look at it.

[johan]

Here is a question that I will ask and I think it will get some answers that the OP was looking for:

 

If you had to choose between killing 50 elephants or 1 human, which would it be?

 

How about 500 elephants or 1 human?

 

1,000,000 elephants?

 

 

How about monkeys? Where do you draw the line?

 

Can you have the monkeys go after the elephants? Whatever the score is in the end is probably about the right tradeoff. Life is more difficult to process and less relevant a priori. A posteriori is the way to go.

[Geishawhelk]

I don't know, when it comes to species weighed against other species I think population numbers must be taken into account.

 

This would place humans in a category of rather low value, but if you view each species equally important in preserving - that's how you would look at it.

 

Look at how many times we've interfered with nature on the premise of trying to balance things up, and Foo-ed up miserably.

I fear, simple as it may sound, that the question actually is a very serious one..... and the assumption that as animals at the top of the food chain, we would have the automatic right to consider ourselves more essential, important or vital than others, is ultimately flawed.....

[disgracian]

I know that I value the life of my cats over at least half the people I know in life. Worth is relative.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Geishawhelk]

OK, well, that's cool... but let's just say we take your cats out of the equasion...

They're safe. Put to one side.... comfy room, radiator beds, food, water, kitty-litter, catnip and toys..... (man, these are spoiled kitties!)

 

OK...

 

Now what do you think..?

[Trimmer]

I don't know, when it comes to species weighed against other species I think population numbers must be taken into account.

 

This would place humans in a category of rather low value, but if you view each species equally important in preserving - that's how you would look at it.

So you're looking at it at the whole-species level, then? More like how to measure the imporance/worth/value of preserving one entire species vs. another? That's one approach to the question, but a different one from considering, if I have two individuals of different species in front of me, which one would I preserve if one were to be sacrificed.

 

The question takes on a different texture, if you are talking about whole-species vs. individuals.

 

Speaking of valuation by species population numbers, did you know that you - one person - have something like 100 Trillion bacteria in your gut? Like over 10,000 times more individuals than there are human beings on the earth?

[disgracian]

OK, well, that's cool... but let's just say we take your cats out of the equasion...

 

Now what do you think..?

Worth is still relative? There's no objective measure to it because to look objectively at life there isn't really any difference. Grazing in a field or working at a desk 9-5 are just different ways of moving through life until you breathe your last.

 

I write software for a living, but what does that ultimately mean in the grand scheme of things? Before I reach old age, my life's work will have been made obsolete and it will almost be as though I never did anything. Just like a cow eating grass, the grass grows back and will do so long after it dies. In both cases our lives' work has amounted to nothing in the long run. I have contributed nothing more of meaning or substance than the cow.

 

Meaning and value must be found elsewhere.

 

And on that note, I'm going to bed.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Geishawhelk]

I agree.

 

'Night 'night....

 

(have you got a clean hanky under your pillow....?)

[electric_sheep]

I know that I value the life of my cats over at least half the people I know in life. Worth is relative.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

I feel the same about my two cats.

 

Seriously though, this question is sort of meaningless if it's not anchored to one world view or another. Whether it be a philosophy or religion. Many religions clearly place more importance on human life than animal life. There is a nice clean distinction. A few don't though... namely those that came from the Indian subcontinent.

 

The big question really is whether there is a "right" answer or not. By "right", I mean an answer that has significance outside the sphere of human existence. Is the universe itself somehow invested in the answer to this question? If so, is the interested agent a supernatural being or beings? Or, is the "agent" a non-personal, non-conscious "force", like gravity? If it's non-conscious and non-thinking, how are the "rules" or "wishes" applied? Gravity seems to be applied rather universally without much leeway. From what I can tell, I haven't been able to discern any "rules" with regards to the relative value of life. If that's the case, why should we care whether we break the rules or not? Rules that have no consequences seem to be pretty meaningless. Of course, if you are Hindu, then you might think breaking the rules will cause you to come back as an ant or something! Thats a pretty serious consequence.

 

As for me, I don't believe the universe cares at all. Not one iota. This might be termed nihilism, but I'm not sure.

 

In fact, I don't think the universe cares one iota if any life at all even exists on this planet. I think we are simply a great orgy or party of matter gone haywire and somehow organizing itself and becoming aware of itself. Spectacular and miraculous, to be sure (from our perspective, anyway), but the Universe would just assume we go back to a simpler form.

 

So, the only thing invested in this planet of ours and it's various life forms is ourselves. Giving this, I would think we should share a bond with all life on the planet, considering they are our distant cousins in this whacked adventure of "matter gone wild". At the same time, turkey sure does taste good! If a turkey could chase me down and eat me, I wouldn't hold it against him. I think the best path is a middle path, making sure to keep the understanding that it's all quite arbitrary if you "zoom" your perspective out large enough. We don't live our daily lives in that "zoomed" out perspective though, of course.

[electric_sheep]

I just listened to an interesting lecture about precisely this same thing.

 

The Ford motor company, back in 1971, calculated the value of a human life to be precisely $200,000.

 

This value was used together with an estimate of the number of burn deaths that would result from their risky/faulty fuel tank in a cost/benefit analysis. The idea was to figure out whether or not they should use an $11 fire "shield" device around the tank.

 

The faulty fuel tank was installed in the Ford Pinto, for those that are too young to remember.

 

The cost of installing the "shield" device came out to be significantly larger than the estimated cost of payouts due to getting sued, so they decided not to install them.

 

$200,000 x 170 (deaths) + $68,000 x 210 (injury cases) = ???

 

$68,000 is how much they thought they would have to pay out for each injury case.

 

They actually underestimated though... over 500 people died because of the faulty tanks.

 

Kind of creepy. That's capitalism at work for you. Consummerism and the American dream.

[Trimmer]

As for me, I don't believe the universe cares at all. Not one iota. This might be termed nihilism, but I'm not sure.

 

In fact, I don't think the universe cares one iota if any life at all even exists on this planet. I think we are simply a great orgy or party of matter gone haywire and somehow organizing itself and becoming aware of itself. Spectacular and miraculous, to be sure (from our perspective, anyway), but the Universe would just assume we go back to a simpler form.

Oh, I really think you should check out a copy of that Hofstadter book I mentioned back in post #22. It makes a detailed and persuasive argument along these same lines.

[I Luv the Chariot OH]

and yes, vegetarianism and veganism also have collateral damage.

Could you qualify this in some way?

[disgracian]

I hope Geisha doesn't mind me (partly) answering that one on her behalf, but through the use of combine harvesters, pesticides, introduced predators, clearing of natural habitats for crop fields, the vegetarian diet is also responsible for a very large amount of animal suffering and death.

 

Not many studies have been done to quantify exactly how much damage this is, but it's accepted to be pretty big.

 

The fact is, unless you grow all your own food and are careful not to step on any bugs while you're at it, you are going to have to accept the fact that a lot of animals have died to bring food to your plate.

 

Cheers,

D.

[I Luv the Chariot OH]

I hope Geisha doesn't mind me (partly) answering that one on her behalf, but through the use of combine harvesters, pesticides, introduced predators, clearing of natural habitats for crop fields, the vegetarian diet is also responsible for a very large amount of animal suffering and death.

 

Not many studies have been done to quantify exactly how much damage this is, but it's accepted to be pretty big.

 

The fact is, unless you grow all your own food and are careful not to step on any bugs while you're at it, you are going to have to accept the fact that a lot of animals have died to bring food to your plate.

 

Cheers,

D.

I don't think that's a good comparison, because you can easily live a healthy lifestyle and have a healthy diet (in most cases, exponentially more healthy) without eating animals--but without grains/fruits/vegetables, it's impossible. Not that I condone the methods by which we mass produce, but we need to be realistic. Since we have to eat these things for survival, and the structure of society isn't changing any time soon, unless you have a really big backyard, you kind of have to suck it up, or, you know, die or scurvy.

[disgracian]

"Exponentially" is quite an exaggeration, and in a lot of cases vegetarianism isn't as healthy as you think. It's important also when making comparisons like this to factor out garbage like McDonalds and deal instead with fresh, lean meat.

 

The key, as always, is balance. I've tried vegetarianism a few times, followed all the nutritionists' advice and I still end up feeling very weak and listless after a month or so. A couple of nice steaks later and I'm back in the game.

 

Cheers,

D.