[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I have several non-human conscious beings in my garden. Four of them lay eggs every day and one keeps predatory conscious beings like thieves rats and foxes away. I treat them as I would wish to be treated and they look after me. No need to invent anything new. 

The problem is that they don't coordinate their actions effectively and efficiently to achieve a common goal. Humanity can do it better, but it's still not perfect. Hence, there is still opportunity for improvement. But it requires our willingness to make some changes.

[alancalverd]

Actually they do. The chickens move around the garden in a phalanx for mutual protection, warn each other of danger (birds of prey) and huddle together for warmth at night. One dog doesn't have much opportunity for collaboration but dogs in the local parkland and especially wild dogs go hunting in quite efficient groups, and working dogs collaborate with humans in all sorts of ways.

There is no common goal for humans. We collaborate in small groups to compete with other small groups - witness the Euroshambles over COVID vaccine! Having a goal in common (personal survival) is not the same as having a common goal - ants and bees are very different from humans.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Actually they do. The chickens move around the garden in a phalanx for mutual protection, warn each other of danger (birds of prey) and huddle together for warmth at night. One dog doesn't have much opportunity for collaboration but dogs in the local parkland and especially wild dogs go hunting in quite efficient groups, and working dogs collaborate with humans in all sorts of ways.

their effectiveness is very limited, especially when compared to modern human global civilization. They have no chance to survive giant asteroid impact.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is no common goal for humans. We collaborate in small groups to compete with other small groups - witness the Euroshambles over COVID vaccine! Having a goal in common (personal survival) is not the same as having a common goal - ants and bees are very different from humans.

What would you count as a common goal?

[alancalverd]

The common goal of hive populations is the survival of the hive, which takes precedence over survival of the individual. There's little evidence of such behavior in human society: self-sacrificing heroes are rare enough to make history, and the sacrifice is always for a small group - family or crew, not the entire human race.

[alancalverd]

their effectiveness is very limited, especially when compared to modern human global civilization. They have no chance to survive giant asteroid impact.

There are far more chickens than humans on the planet, and whilst many humans are devoted to looking after chickens, the converse is not true. The human population is fragile (almost totally dependent on having fresh water on tap) and self-destructive when stressed, but chickens are happy to forage in the dirt and drink from puddles.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The common goal of hive populations is the survival of the hive, which takes precedence over survival of the individual. There's little evidence of such behavior in human society: self-sacrificing heroes are rare enough to make history, and the sacrifice is always for a small group - family or crew, not the entire human race.

But that doesn't meant that it doesn't exist, nor that it will not exist in the future.
If we don't limit the sacrifice with ending of one's life, we can find some missions or actions close to that. Space explorations done by the like of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, or humanitarian projects done by Bill and Melinda Gates foundation are some closest examples. What they've sacrificed are their money, time and effort. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There are far more chickens than humans on the planet, and whilst many humans are devoted to looking after chickens, the converse is not true. The human population is fragile (almost totally dependent on having fresh water on tap) and self-destructive when stressed, but chickens are happy to forage in the dirt and drink from puddles.   

For now, until synthetic chicken meat becomes good enough and cheap enough which makes it well accepted and ubiquitous.
Modernity has made the world more tolerant to humans' flaws and limitations. But we can't deny that there are some humans with strong characters, real life heroes out there. Some of them are well documented, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Physikfreak59]

For now, until synthetic chicken meat becomes good enough and cheap enough which makes it well accepted and ubiquitous.

I agree, I think the only way for synthetic products to become mainstream is for them to be as affordable or more affordable than the Meat products. Maybe really only when they are more affordable because then people would have a bigger incentive, then if it would be "just" for the good of the animals, which is sadly sometimes not enough.

[alancalverd]

Way off topic, but synthetic meat isn't really necessary. Most of what we grow is inedible for humans: we throw away at least 60% of all the grass crops (wheat, corn, rice...)  and a fair bit of root vegetable leaf. All of that is consumable by insects, some of which are amazingly efficient at turning carbohydrates into fat and protein, and chickens turn insects and scrap leaves into very high quality protein. Pigs do a good job too. The only process that could be more efficient is the direct processing of insects to acceptable human food.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Way off topic, but synthetic meat isn't really necessary. Most of what we grow is inedible for humans: we throw away at least 60% of all the grass crops (wheat, corn, rice...)  and a fair bit of root vegetable leaf. All of that is consumable by insects, some of which are amazingly efficient at turning carbohydrates into fat and protein, and chickens turn insects and scrap leaves into very high quality protein. Pigs do a good job too. The only process that could be more efficient is the direct processing of insects to acceptable human food.

It is hard to argue against efficiency as a universal instrumental goal.

Coming Soon: A Post-Cow World - Precision Fermentation

We are on the cusp of a major disruption in how we feed ourselves. This video is a quick summary of a report from RethinkX on where agriculture is headed over the next decade, and it's mind blowing!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What Are You?

So. Are you your body? And if so, how exactly does this work? Lets explore lots of confusing questions.

Unexpected results come from false assumptions. Problems of morality becomes complicated if we can't let go erroneous assumptions which we are already comfortable with, such as individualistic point of view. They can prevent us from seeing the bigger picture.

You Are Two

Do You Really Have Two Brains?

Are you a left-brained person or a right-brained person? Spoiler: You're neither. Each of us uses both sides of our brain for most of what we do. But still, there are a number of brain functions that do show lateralization, where they are localized to one side or another. Why is this? And how does it influence our definition of consciousness? People with "split brains" can help us figure it out.

Split Brain Patient - Both Atheist & Christian!

Does the soul exist? Does science prove the soul or disprove it? Explore the oddest clinical cases in the world of neuroscience that raise some very interesting questions about the soul.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Causing unnecessary death is generally regarded as immoral. But we need to agree on the definition of death. It might be helpful to get some insight from observing the moment of death in a simpler form of life.

This Ciliate Is About to Die

It's time to explore a big question while we watch a ciliate go through its last moments.

Death is inevitable and mysterious, even in the microcosmos. Stentors, heliozoans, and yes, even tardigrades, experience death in many different ways.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Can You Answer These Tricky Moral Dilemmas?

Intro 0:00​
Question One 1:07​
Question Two 8:10​
Question Three 9:59​
Closing Thoughts 18:16​

Do you agree with the video host? Why or why not?

[alancalverd]

1. It is morally good to do stuff that you would like others to do to you or that you would do to your nearest and dearest. You can be prosecuted for failing to render obvious assistance to someone in immediate danger.  Problem with human rights legislation is that everyone's right is someone else's duty, which is why the EU is a Bad Thing. But whilst helping the obvious acute case is morally good, not intentionally seeking out people in distress is not morally bad because we quickly run into questions of judgement: what do we mean by "better off"? I have two televisions and a crippling mortgage, you have no TV but own your house: who pays whom? 

2. No question. Criminal activity is wrong by definition and failing to report a crime is a crime. Everyone is somebody's "brother", so there's no excuse!

3. Not seen

4. 10:1 may well apply in wartime, but the question is vague. How much harm? How much good?  If I can save a life by taking 1% of 100 people's income, that's very different from killing one to amuse another. It's a serious current question because we can expect a few fatalities from mass vaccination, so we look at the ethics from an individual "acceptable risk" perspective. If we take no precautions, there is a 4% probability that you will eventually die from COVID. That is not considered an acceptable risk by sane people, because there is no concomitant benefit. If you receive a vaccine there is a 1 in 10,000,000 chance that it will kill you. Most people consider that an acceptable risk because it reduces the risk of COVID death from 4% to "negligble" even if we ignore the societal benefit.

Nice guy, but the problems aren't particularly difficult.

 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

1. It is morally good to do stuff that you would like others to do to you or that you would do to your nearest and dearest. You can be prosecuted for failing to render obvious assistance to someone in immediate danger.  Problem with human rights legislation is that everyone's right is someone else's duty, which is why the EU is a Bad Thing. But whilst helping the obvious acute case is morally good, not intentionally seeking out people in distress is not morally bad because we quickly run into questions of judgement: what do we mean by "better off"? I have two televisions and a crippling mortgage, you have no TV but own your house: who pays whom?

Many moral research, test or survey consist of presenting the test subject into dilemmatic situations to reveal which value is viewed as higher priority by most people questioned. They are presented as possible real situations instead of simply asking which value do you think has the highest priority among some presented options. The real life examples can help us to imagine what are the consequences of each options we choose. They can be intended or unintended, immediate or long term.
But since the questionaires are usually presented in few sentences only, many details cannot be specified, hence they let the people to fill in the gap with their own assumptions. Thus the statistic results may be significantly affected by the common circumstances faced by the subjects, rather than the actual priority of moral values that they hold.
For example, the first question only tells about an emergency situation on the street. But the video host puts his assumptions about charity, and how easy it is to donate. He assumes that the risk of falling into scam is negligible. In reality, there are some terrorist organizations raising funds by disguising as charity. Even in the street situation, we have some risk of being the victim to a bait for robbery, or pranks of April fool.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Some other things seem to be missing in the video host's consideration are opportunity and urgency. In the street incident as depicted by the first question, only you have the oportunity to save the victim. If you delay your action, the opportunity would disappear.
Those things don't apply for charity. Anyone can make donation anytime. Delayed donation can still be useful for someone else in the need.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Nice guy, but the problems aren't particularly difficult.

Moral questions don't suppose to be difficult, as long as we've made up our mind on what moral standard to use, and what its terminal goal is.
Uncertainty and false assumptions can make our actions produce unintended or unwanted results.  But they are not usually seen as moral failure.

[alancalverd]

The difference between us seems to be that you are convinced there is, must be or should be a universal goal to which all actions should be directed, but I evaluate every action in terms of its first or second order effect on other living things i.e. the living environment "as is".

A shallow thinker may not see the difference, but whilst I would try to save a baby's life, you would worry about whether  it might survive to become the Duchess of Sussex or some other disgrace to our species.

[alancalverd]

Apropos death. It is an abstract noun and therefore probably impossible to define, like beauty.

We can however distinguish between a living thing and a dead thing, so death is what occurs between those states.

Having chosen our favored species, say homo sapiens, we feel justified in inflicting death on any species that would inflict death on our favorite if not killed first. "Let's do it to them before they do it to us".