I disagree on two parts:
1. I think it’s immoral to oppose the creation of sentient beings.
2. If we create sentient beings, those beings will have been created by a natural process, because we (and our actions) are natural processes.
On point 2 : well you got me there. Let me be more precise : its not the "natural processes" part that is important, but my point was rather that this type of hybridizing results in the creation of organisms which have not been time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution. We have no gaurantees of the probabability of a successful organism - could be, as I said, some fucked up abomination which only exists to plead for death. Quite tragic in my view if this is the outcome.
I just think we'd better not even go there.
Although I think this is unlikely, let's accept it as true for the sake of argument.
Eventually I think it's fair to presume we'd come to understand which variations of the process produce your 'abomination' and solve that problem, such that we go on to produce many, many more organisms that don't suffer this same experience.
Would this not be a better outcome than 'not even going there'?
What would be the point of creating new species? Sow more division and war and violence. I just dont see it turning out well. Inherently humans would be the "creators" of the other species. Sounds like a recipe for some horrible problems with speciesm.
I've not given it a lot of thought but off the top of my head:
Imagine a monkey or ape that possesses above-average (for an ape) intelligence that could be a home-health assistant, taking care of an elderly person who wishes to maintain some independence and not move into a nursing home. Or a disabled adult who needs special care throughout the day.
Speciesism seems a remote risk when you consider the fact that our moral circle of concern has only widened across history.
Evolution is not kind. And evolution doesn’t optimize for happiness or even health beyond reproductive.
Evolution has produced plenty of humans who plead for death. We treat it as a disorder and try to fix it.
I’m wholeheartedly on board with (1) not creating more suffering and (2) reducing suffering. However I’m not convinced that evolution does better on either of those two fronts than empathetic humans.
> “time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution”
Those refining pressures are not kind or gentle.
We can stop ourselves from being unkind, though
Ive often thought that the dichitomy between human action and natural processes is a false one.
If we define "natural" to mean "things that happen", then sure, I would see no difference between natural things and human things. But we use the word "natural" to separate some of our actions from the actions of animals.
I think we could come up with a list of things that people do that animals don't do. Looking at actions from the standpoint of culpability, intentionality, objectivity, language, and planning might shed some light on what actions we would consider "natural". For example, feeling attracted to another person would fall under the "natural" category because we would not consider ourselves "culpable" or "use intention" for such an action. Another example: desire paths made by humans in the grass would probably fall under the "natural" category because people do not plan the paths with language or use objectivity to create the paths. We simply walk "mindlessly" and the paths spring up from under our feet. Another example: asking a stranger for directions would fall under the category of "unnatural" because we need to use language and an objective view of the world around us to engage with another person to share information.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural only one sub-item of these fifteen definitions of "natural" mentions a difference between human vs non-human.
Lets look at the definition for nature: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature
Definition 2b is succint: "an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual"
According to this, of course, something like murder is quite natural. Is the stranger giving you directions not following that "nature" within which makes him help you for nothing in return? Is your request for help not a natural thing?
Ultimately, I don't like arguments about definitions, because I think they're a cheap way out: "x is (not) bad because its y"; they also force discussions about all the wrong things, ignoring the core of what both parties care about regarding the issue.
I want to find what essential quality separates people actions from animal actions. It seems to me that all unnatural things got "affected by human discernment". Using that rubric, I find it interesting that all of the definitions of "natural" you provided fall into those categories of either "fundamentally affected" or "not affected" by human discernment where things left in their base state we call "natural" and things left in their affected state we call "unnatural".
Examples:
1. Natural justice - that humans have a kind of justice beyond what nature provide which also implies that humans have sussed out the various justices allotted by nature.
3. Adopted vs natural child - human convention creates long-lasting parent-child relationships without a birth connection.
10. Growing without human care
13. (a) Closely resembling an original, (b) freedom from artificiality -- both of which require a human to create the artificiality.
The definition of "unnatural" toward which you're extensionally groping here is "things only humans, and no other animals, do". I suspect you are going to find it a considerably narrower category than you presently appear to imagine. I also don't think it is going to lead you anywhere useful; many anarchoprimitivists have trodden this ground before you, and if nothing else it may be worth familiarizing yourself with some of their work lest you find yourself in one of the same pitfalls they so often do.
Do you see a narrow difference between human output and animal output? Would you consider that difference somehow not "useful"? I think the bird and bee examples do not provide a compelling sense of language in the same way human talking does because animal language appears tightly bounded and human language through its recursive features appears possibly limitless.
you are applying a different definition that is problematic. by your definition murder could be considered natural
Lets look at the definition for nature: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature
Definition 2b is succint: "an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual"
According to this, murder is in fact quite natural.
I don't like arguments about definitions, because they're a cheap way out: "x is (not) bad because its y"; they also force discussions about all the wrong things, ignoring the core of what both parties care about regarding the issue.
i agree. i do however like to clarify definitions so that we all know what we mean. i am quite happy to continue the discussion with OPs definition of natural, because now that we understand what that definition is we can get back to the actual core of the issue.
since we obviously agree that murder is not good, and you also agree that not everything natural (by your definition of natural) is good either, using natural in support of your argument no longer works.
this doesn't invalidate your argument. we can still discuss whether creating sentient beings is acceptable or not. just arguing whether it is natural or not does not help us here