= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alexei comments on Richard Dawkins on vivisection: "But can they suffer?" - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (49)
I've been thinking about this issue and to answer you question: "So where do we draw the line?", I think the answer is the following:
Take a group of creatures (humans, dogs, etc...) and let them live in a rich environment for a very very very long time. Graph the intelligence of individual creatures over time. If it's not overall consistently increasing, then this creature isn't smart enough to worry about.
Some things I wonder about: do all humans (or creatures I would want to classify as humans) pass this test? What animals/non-humans pass this test?
Hold off on proposing solutions!
You provide an answer fully-formed with no account of how you arrived at it and without providing reasons for others to accept it. Even if you did come up with this through a valid procedure, you aren't providing evidence of having done so.