RobokkuSat, May 10, 2008 This is a good topic to raise! I think it has much to do with the Branding the Species and Great Enhancement Debate projects. A note on the pig example in the post, though: If a human chooses not to eat another human, even though he has the ability to, is that showing respect? It goes some way in that direction, I think. So that hasn't convinced me about pigs...
I really like meika's idea that we can respect people by respecting animals, in many cases. However, I'm not sure I can see your point, Paranoid Mystic:
If "cells" are to sacrifice their selfish interests for the sake of group benefit, there is still a degree of selection involved - and so a degree of interference, regardless of what Star Trek taught you. Some cells should promote themselves: if every one gave up its most immediate drives then none would produce any benefit to itself or any other. That's plain to see in your model. You seem to recognise that cells have different roles within the groups they form: if something is "weathering the beatings on the external of the new body", then it is for the sake of the others' thriving. If we all say, "I want you to thrive", at the expense of thriving, then we will all be disappointed.
Your model also requires that the body has boundaries. The model therefore has exclusion and segregation built into it. Since it seems everyone agrees that there are these limits to the "body" (I suppose the "body" in your metaphor is meant to go at least as far as a society, and maybe to an ecosystem...?), the question raised by this post is, very roughly, Where are the limits? After meat, but before vegetables? Why? That's the point at which it starts to get interesting, and after which I can't see what you want to say.
This is a good topic to raise! I think it has much to do with the Branding the Species and Great Enhancement Debate projects. A note on the pig example in the post, though: If a human chooses not to eat another human, even though he has the ability to, is that showing respect? It goes some way in that direction, I think. So that hasn't convinced me about pigs...
I really like meika's idea that we can respect people by respecting animals, in many cases. However, I'm not sure I can see your point, Paranoid Mystic:
If "cells" are to sacrifice their selfish interests for the sake of group benefit, there is still a degree of selection involved - and so a degree of interference, regardless of what Star Trek taught you. Some cells should promote themselves: if every one gave up its most immediate drives then none would produce any benefit to itself or any other. That's plain to see in your model. You seem to recognise that cells have different roles within the groups they form: if something is "weathering the beatings on the external of the new body", then it is for the sake of the others' thriving. If we all say, "I want you to thrive", at the expense of thriving, then we will all be disappointed.
Your model also requires that the body has boundaries. The model therefore has exclusion and segregation built into it. Since it seems everyone agrees that there are these limits to the "body" (I suppose the "body" in your metaphor is meant to go at least as far as a society, and maybe to an ecosystem...?), the question raised by this post is, very roughly, Where are the limits? After meat, but before vegetables? Why? That's the point at which it starts to get interesting, and after which I can't see what you want to say.