Re: good ... gods I hope you're not hoping that I'll give you a complete list of what things I consider to be good! I'd need a huge library, way more time than I'll ever have, and a post ridiculously longer than Polyamory.com's one-post limit, in order to accomplish that. Sorry, that's one request I just can't carry out. If you want me to "be specific" about what "good" means to me, I'll need you to be specific about what kind of specifics you have in mind. I guess I don't have some formulaic code I can use to automatically determine what's good. For the most part I just make judgment calls on a case-by-case basis. Unsatisfactory perhaps to some, but to me it seems to be adequately satisfactory for my own purposes.
Sure "good" is subjective. Oh well, back to the type of problem that morals and ethics present: We all have to guess at what constitutes good, and the best we can do is to try to educate ourselves about various people's philosophies in order to engage ourselves in deeper thought about the matter and hopefully improve our guesses. Well that's a shitty deal ... but unfortunately, it's all we've got.
Re: intelligence ... yep, most certainly comes in all shapes and forms. Is it possible that someone out there (especially if there's an infinite number of inhabited universes) knows everything? Why yes it is. Do we therefore *know*
that someone exists out there who knows everything? Other than that (those) hypothetical someone/s, no, I don't think any of the rest of us know one way or another.
Re: humans and their "superior adaptability" ... well, humans today certainly aren't terribly adaptable, at least not without the help of all their fancy tools and technologies. But I don't see how it's arrogant to simply observe that at one time, humans, without all the fancy tools and technologies they have today, did indeed spread into more kinds of environment than any other non-human person (or plant) I know of. So if they aren't more capable of adapting to change than any other (Earthly) life forms, all indications seem to confirm that they *were*
more adaptable at one time.
Please note that adaptability isn't the same thing as superiority. Every living creature has its own talents and specialties. So humans (at one time) proved to be good at adapting to new environments. So what? All that means is that humans' particular talent (or one of their talents at least) resided in that area. Other life forms had their own talents. I ... don't see what the problem is. No one's engaged (I'm not at least) in any contest to prove that humans are somehow better than any other life form. They're just different from other life forms, that's all. All life forms are different from each other. Better at some things, less suited for other things.
Well, that's diversity for you. I guess if some mysterious being up in the sky were somehow "taking score" on who was "the best" and who deserved to live while all other Earthly beings deserved to die, then we'd have something serious to argue about. But personally, I'm quite sure that no such contest exists. In some (arrogant) humans' minds does it possibly exist? Well it certainly wouldn't surprise me. But I just don't care that much about what other humans (especially the arrogant ones) think. My point is, the "superior species contest" doesn't exist in any objective way, and that's what matters to me.
Isn't the very word, "superior," a rather silly word? What does it even mean? I don't know. I guess various humans (especially the arrogant ones) define it in various ways according to their own design or (more likely) convenience. Well, that's their convenience and they're welcome to it. In the meantime, the very idea that a human is superior to *anyone*
(even a rock for example) means virtually nothing to me. Doesn't mean anything to me; doesn't matter to me. Ah, so nice to not have to be shackled to some kind of superiority contest that I'd feel pressured to win. I'm shackled to enough kinds of pressure as it is. Please don't count me in on any superiority contest on top of all that. That'd be way more than this "superior" person could handle.
By the way, I have a riddle for any who'd consider it a (hopefully interesting) riddle: Could we consider modern Western humans, if we separate them from their technology, to still be human, or at least human in quite the same way that they were? After all, we modern Westerners are so married to our technology that it's practically like one of our limbs. So if we lost our technology, perhaps we'd still "be human" per se, but we'd be crippled humans! Hmmm, sorry, didn't mean to spoil the riddle by answering it myself, I actually hadn't planned to do that. Okay, let's say we wouldn't be *whole*
humans, at least as far as the modern Western breed of human is concerned.
I don't know; you tell me ... Guess our "adaptability" would really be tested then, wouldn't it?
Re (from ColorsWolf
"I know you like other humans may feel very 'protective' and 'caring' of other non-human creatures, but please don't let this 'protection' and 'caring' become 'discrimination' and 'patronizing.'"
Okay: as long as we're agreed that "protection," "caring," "discrimination," and "patronizing" are all ultimately subjective concepts -- just as I believe that *every*
concept (as handled by the human mind) is ultimately subjective and the result of (hopefully educated) guesswork. What any one of those four quoted words means to one person, is certain to mean something somewhat different to someone else. Ain't it a rip-off to be a hopelessly subjective being living in a relentlessly objective world?
Well, it is.
Oh by the way: can cats and dogs adapt themselves to (in essence reverting to their distant ancestors') life in the wilds? Well, it's been proven; many of them have done it. Thus it's possible, but I trust we can agree that there may (at least in theory and/or for argument's sake) be higher-priority considerations than whether something is possible.