I get it. Do we need rights for flies in order to have a consistent framework? I think allowing the indiscriminate killing of, say, orangutans would be inconsistent with our ideas about human rights. But it's pretty clear that there's a sliding scale of how we treat organisms: roughly, it's something like primates>monkeys>intelligent or cute mammals>intelligent or cute non-mammals>boring mammals>birds>reptiles and amphibians>fish>insects, as modified by, near as I can tell, 1) familiarity, 2) rareness, and 3) utility to humans (that is, we artificially give rights to species of which only 100 specimens remain, and we artificially take rights from things we can ride or eat).
I guess what I mean is... we *roughly* already order things based on cognitive ability. Flies have very, very little cognitive ability, it seems; the fact that they might have more than we thought doesn't change that.
Hmm... why am I discussing this? It's friggin' flies. You know what fly babies are? MAGGOTS. Eww. Kill 'em all.
I guess what I mean is... we *roughly* already order things based on cognitive ability. Flies have very, very little cognitive ability, it seems; the fact that they might have more than we thought doesn't change that.
Hmm... why am I discussing this? It's friggin' flies. You know what fly babies are? MAGGOTS. Eww. Kill 'em all.
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
