Hold on my neighbour owns a horse, I'll go and ask him..
Edit, I asked but he just kinda stared at me then started eating hay
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
42 points (88.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43395 readers
1293 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Your neighbor has a strange diet.
you got that right. pronoun antecedent issues
I wonder if some languages have a way to avoid it. Maybe different pronouns for the subject and object?
Not knowing anything, I would guess some languages just don't have pronouns or our equivalent
I hadn't considered that. Could be.
None of us considered the fact I said "neigh-bour"
π€
Oh man, I missed that! Shame on me.
If pronouns didn't exist we would have to invent them.
If pronouns didn't exist we would have to invent them.
If pronouns didn't exist we would have to invent them.
If pronouns didn't exist we would have to invent them.
I guess your neighbor isn't Mr. Ed.
You should have expected that of course. No one can talk to a horse.
only donkeys can articulate complaints to their owners. it is in the bible, which has to be true or civilization would be pointless. /s
There's a philosophical paradox about this called the "repugnant conclusion". Technically, it's supposed to be about humans, not horses, but the logic is the same.
The main conclusion was that it's better to have a larger population that's worse off than a smaller one that's better off because it's better to exist than not exist.
Personally, I think the opposite is true, but there's not a "right" answer.
it's better to exist than not exist.
I mean, that's a pretty big assumption...and I'm not sure I agree with it!
Sum benefit of the world. For you today, you're still here so I assume you prefer to exist. How bad would things have to be before you prefer not to exist? That is your personal value of existence. Now apply that concept to everyone on earth.
Thinking about others is not the same math. I would rather have fewer people and better quality of life if I was still here but that is not a fair assessment because every person feels that way and most of us still want to be here.
Not that you support it, but who would it be better for, though? Plus if you didn't exist it's not worse or better for you because you don't exist in the first place.
I do not agree at all with that.
it is obviously better to never have been. Not even sure we are now. Boltzmann Brains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
Flip it and you have massive horse breeding, horses being stored on the side of the road in winter. Horses dying of abuse and overuse. Etc.
Cars arenβt the problem. Humans are.
In Alexandre Dumas' work, the essence of speedy/hasty travel is how many horses were exhausted, that paints a picture of the utilitarian (not the philosophical ethics) way people used to treat these animals.
On the other hand there's sections where D'Artagnan loves his old, wonky steed. So people did care for their own. But people do have those feelings even for inanimate objects, like cars.
I think one could compare dogs. They are being used utilisticallly, like drug finders or rescue dogs. Obviously there are people that treat them badly and most people would rather have a dog die than a human being (Laika). Does that mean most dogs would be better of not born?
The Soviet Union trained dogs to carry explosives to the underside of enemy tanks. sometimes it backfired. but the dogs were meant to be blown up is my point. they were explosive delivery machines, functionally not unlike a FGM-148 Javelin antitank missile
Cars arenβt the problem. Humans are.
Environmentalism is a nutshell.
What is a moral win for a horse? Like, good versus evil? Pragmatism versus altruism? I think we'd have to know what a horse's ethical framework consists of before we could decide if an event was morally desirable for horses.
the lesser amount of horse suffering, en total e. the story is that Nietzsche suffered pity for a horse being whipped and wrapping his arms around the beast's neck, "I know how you suffer!" he was [psychologically] hospitalized subsequently.
The lack of individuals within a species is not a problem as long as the population is healthy. Horses are not in danger of going extinct. I do not know the numbers then and now, but horses are fine, and the ones alive in countries that would have put them to work in other eras are free of suffering, which is something every sentient being wants to avoid.
I'm glad horses are not being used as much as before; they are not objects, they are animals just like us.
Of course itβs a win for the horses. Their population was unnaturally high and itβs better to not even exist in the first place than to suffer. This goes for farm animals as well but weβre not there yet unfortunately.
Their population was unnaturally high and itβs better to not even exist in the first place than to suffer
This guy PETAs.
This guy wants to be born into slavery and die from exhaustion.
I'd rather be born into slavery than have some arrogant self-aggrandizing narcissistic cunt decide wether my life is worth living.
That escalated quickly
I don't think he wants to be my friend.
Maybe if you were more overtly pancake? That might help..
How's that different from the human experience?
You're implying that literally all horses were abused, always.
That's incredibly stupid.
He said nothing about abuse, only suffering.
So literally all horses suffer, always?
Have you ever worked with horses? (I'm assuming no, but I have to ask.)
itβs better to not even exist in the first place than to suffer. This goes for farm animals as well but weβre not
If you believe this, does that give you a moral imperative to start a nuclear war and end the suffering of future human generations?
I never said kill all horses/humans/whatever. The difference is between taking lives away and not forcefully breeding life for the purpose of enslavement.
Horses however only require grass, hay, etc, are self driving to an extent and can return home if needed, and have less environment impact than a car.
City streets were intensely filthy back in the days of horses.
They require a constant input of hay.
They're "self driving" in the worst possible way - they can run off on their own and do whatever they want, and have little understanding of the rules of the road. People already freak out when a robotaxi takes an inadvertent wrong turn, horses can freak out and try to kill pedestrians.
They're slow. They're hard to manage. If you don't want to be exposed to the elements then you'll have to build carriages, so you'll still have factories and whatnot. Horses eventually just up and die regardless of how well you care for them.
Horses are not better than cars.
Theyβre βself drivingβ in the worst possible way - they can run off on their own and do whatever they want, and have little understanding of the rules of the road. People already freak out when a robotaxi takes an inadvertent wrong turn, horses can freak out and try to kill pedestrians.
Ah yes because no one has ever """accidentally lost control""" of their car and smashed something/someone to pieces with it!
I'd take the mounds of horse shit on the streets over the disgusting stench of cars any day. At least I can scoop some up and spread it on my garden.
I'd take the mounds of horse shit on the streets over the disgusting stench of cars any day.
Excerpt:
New York, which at the time was estimated to be the home of 150,000 horses, was targeted as well. The 15 to 30 pounds of manure produced daily by each horse multiplied by the number of horses in New York city resulted in more than three million pounds of horse manure per day that somehow needed to be disposed of. Thatβs not to mention the daily 40,000 gallons of horse urine.
Cars don't decide to do it.
Car sentience Rule #1: Don't let the Humans know you are sentient.
disgusting stench of cars
Good thing there is already a solution for that in the form of electric cars. But too many people prefer stinky and loud cars for some reason.
It isn't mentioned much but there was often a 3 foot high lane of manure down most city boulevards