what makes human life more valuable than spiders'?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Krumple
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:28 am
@Shinhyung,
Perhaps the post would "go somewhere" if it were a bit more broad in scope? Like is human life more valuable than other life?

Spiders aren't cute, they are sneaky, quiet and not very attractive. So it is easy to not like them and plus they don't require a whole lot of power to squish them into oblivion.

Look at what we do as humans, we put roads all over the place and eat up more and more wild life areas. Constantly encroaching into the animal domain without an ounce of concern or respect. I'm surprised that there are opossums or squirrels in the cities. Where I live the area use to team with dear and bear, mountain lions and a huge variety of birds, all of which are never seen unless you go to the zoo.

So to me it shows that humans value themselves far above all other life. The part I think that will ultimately get us is that we actually rely on other life for our own.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:35 am
@Shinhyung,
Shinhyung;88093 wrote:
I was thinking about this while killing a spider one day. I was quite scared to touch it or smash and burst it (urrgh) so I hoovered it! Well it must have been a shock and torture for it and I'm a bit sorry, but I find myself thinking, "well it's only a spider..."

I wouldn't have got over it so easily killing another person though.

Why is a person's life better than a spider's (I'm sure it is!!)? Because we are bigger? Live longer? Are cleverer? Or do we only think it because we are human ourselves?

(:popcorn:I just found out there were loads more smilies than I thought and I just love this one called popcorn.:offtopic:)



What makes a computer more valuable than a primitive adding machine?
 
William
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:56 am
@TickTockMan,
Personally, I find it "strange" for us (homo-sapiens/sentient human beings/male/female/) to equate ourselves to any other life form on this planet, much less those that can be considered as "pests/vermin/predators" albeit there are members of this "group" who have a tendency to perform as such. Is it natural for us to do so? Perhaps; after all it can be surmised we had no choice as we went from "dull/ignorant" to "shining like a new penny". Perhaps they were natural stages we were "destined" to go through? Hmmm?


Leonard;88402 wrote:
-Human life is no different than a spider's life, but it would be much easier for us to kill a spider than vice versa.


Hello Leonard. I cannot imagine myself making such a statement. To me it offers a very "low" opinion of the human being we are or should be, to be more precise. As your next statement offers your doubts if any intelligence on Earth arguably exists. Considering the many definitions of the word itself indicates it is indeed difficult to determine.

Leonard;88402 wrote:
Perhaps it is because we are the only 'intelligent' or 'sapient' beings on the planet, though some would argue we have yet to find intelligent life on earth.


Considering by those definitions provided by "wiki" is it easy to understand why you make such a statement. I, for one, agree not in intelligence itself but in how we "use" that knowledge.

Leonard;88402 wrote:
I wouldn't crush the spider, unless it posed a threat to me.


Exactly and why I made the statement I made in a previous post "..well, it's only a fetus" for it can be conceived that new "human being" would not be complimentary to our existence and hinder that intelligence of what it is conceived our existence to be as you yourself relate it no different than that of a "spider" as it is easy to "kill". Do spiders kill their own? Hmmm? And then there is the BLACK WIDOW, isn't there? Ha? She lands a mate has a sexual affair and then devours him. That does ring a bell. But does she kill her offspring? I guess in a manner of speaking as those males she produces will be eventually devoured by their "loving" sisters, huh?


Leonard;88402 wrote:
It makes webs....


Have you ever been caught in a spiders web? (click below link) Ha, talk about fodder for another thread? Chilling isn't it?

YouTube - Arachnid Web Scene 1

Leonard;88402 wrote:
......and kills even more annoying things....


Ah, now I see your point as you relate us to spiders; for don't we do the same thing as you continue to say.......

Leonard;88402 wrote:
.......like mosquitoes and gnats,


Now we must determine who those "mosquitoes and gnats" that are pests to our existence, huh.................us, no better than spiders, as we snare them in our web. You know Leonard, now I am beginning to see your point.

Leonard;88402 wrote:
.....so I just let spiders be.


Now, as I am agreeing with your statement, we must learn where it is they "hang out" so we do not get "entangled" in their "web". Many spiders live alongside humans exploiting the nooks and crannies in which they dwell. These are the ones we truly need to be cautious of.



Leonard;88402 wrote:
If we find it right to crush spiders, then maybe some unknown giant beings somewhere would find it right to crush us.


Maybe? Do you mean be being caught up in a bigger web as a means of entrapping us, these intelligent, human "spiders" as we are considered "their prey"? Hmmm?


Leonard;88402 wrote:
-Personally, I find humans to be more destructive than spiders.


Me too, and they "spin" much bigger webs.

Leonard;88402 wrote:
Maybe it should be them killing us in that case.


To put it bluntly..............they are!

richrf;88407 wrote:
I was reading an interesting article today in the Wall Street Journal about crazy ants that are on a rampage in Texas and Florida and even go after fire ants which are also on a rampage in Texas and other southern states. There is nothing that humans can do to stop them. They just take over what they want.


Considering the "Lone Star State" is were I reside, I have never encountered one myself. As for a humans not being able to do anything about them, if they do exist, I am sure we can.

richrf;88407 wrote:
I know that humans have this amazing ability for self-congratulation of their species. I wonder whether the ants are doing the same thing right now? You know, I wouldn't be surprised. They should eat some humble pie sometimes.


I couldn't have put it better myself.

William;88198 wrote:
I am sure there are those who will find a hard time understanding your sentiment especially after they have met a brown recluse. But alas, perhaps not, as a great many believe "well.....it's only a fetus".


Grimlock;88415 wrote:
This is sort of a bizarre point, William. I mean...I personally like spiders.


Hmmm?

Grimlock;88415 wrote:
Even when I semi-gleefully kill other insects which annoy me (wasps being a favorite), I go out of my way not to disturb spiders.


Again, hmmm?

Grimlock;88415 wrote:
But even I know that the brown recluse must be put to death if found in the home.


Look where they dwell in the home as per Wiki:

"Recluse spiders build irregular webs that frequently include a shelter consisting of disorderly threads. These spiders frequently build their webs in woodpiles and sheds, closets, beds, garages, plenum, cellars and other places that are dry and generally undisturbed. They seem to favor cardboard when dwelling in human residences, possibly because it mimics the rotting tree bark which they inhabit naturally. They also tend to be found in shoes, inside dressers, in bed sheets of infrequently used beds, in stacks of clothes, behind baseboards, behind pictures and near furnaces. The common source of human-recluse contact is during the cleaning of these spaces, when their isolated spaces are suddenly disturbed and the spider feels threatened. Unlike most web weavers, they leave these webs at night to hunt. Males will move around more when hunting, while the female spiders tend to remain nearer to their webs."

Perhaps our waste and clutter has something to do with enriching their habitat?

Grimlock;88415 wrote:
It's simply not an organism that can be tolerated in close proximity to humans.


Assuming my above comment to be accurate, what can we do about that as far as insuring their "habitat" doesn't conflict our habitat?


Grimlock;88415 wrote:
At any rate, moral comparison between the brown recluse and a fetus would probably need a reanimated Aristophanes for adequate treatment.


Perhaps? I assume you are referring to his play THE WASPS, correct? It was perhaps not a "net" but a "web"? It could interpreted the same.

William
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 08:07 am
@William,
William;88456 wrote:
Considering the "Lone Star State" is were I reside, I have never encountered one myself. As for a humans not being able to do anything about them, if they do exist, I am sure we can.


Here is the WSJ article on crazy ants.

'Crazy Ants' Get Under Skin of Gulf Coast Residents - WSJ.com

There are also lots of youtube videos on them. [/QUOTE]

Rich
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 08:14 am
@Shinhyung,
Having lived/worked for a month in the Amazon a few years ago, I'm actually a real appreciator of spiders. I saw 8 different species of tarantula and all sorts of other fascinating arachnids and insects. Unbelievable diversity and richness.
 
William
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 08:21 am
@richrf,
richrf;88460 wrote:
Here is the WSJ article on crazy ants.

'Crazy Ants' Get Under Skin of Gulf Coast Residents - WSJ.com

There are also lots of youtube videos on them.


Rich[/QUOTE]

Hello Rich, my statement was a mix of being metaphorical and true for I have literally never encountered any "crazy ants" but seemingly "crazy people" I cannot make such a claim. :depressed:

William

---------- Post added 09-06-2009 at 10:06 AM ----------

Aedes;88461 wrote:
Having lived/worked for a month in the Amazon a few years ago, I'm actually a real appreciator of spiders. I saw 8 different species of tarantula and all sorts of other fascinating arachnids and insects. Unbelievable diversity and richness.


I can only imagine what that was like. But speaking of the Amazon and South America and this very thread, have you ever read John Grisham's THE TESTAMENT by chance? It speaks of the Pampa (lowlands) of that continent.

William

---------- Post added 09-06-2009 at 10:16 AM ----------

Let me just say this. We as humans have the knowledge to rid our planet of these predators/vermin/pests that plague us. In a sense you could say "we asked for it". It has everything to do with waste (human and otherwise) and all it's contexts for it is such wastes in which these creatures thrive. Hopefully one day all will truly understand the magnitude of the problem we are getting ourselves into. I can only hope.

William
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 10:23 am
@William,
William;88463 wrote:
have you ever read John Grisham's THE TESTAMENT by chance? It speaks of the Pampa (lowlands) of that continent.
Haven't read it.

William;88463 wrote:
Let me just say this. We as humans have the knowledge to rid our planet of these predators/vermin/pests that plague us. In a sense you could say "we asked for it".
This speaks to my interest, because my area of research is vector-borne diseases. First of all, we do not have the knowledge to do such a thing. Secondly, you cannot say "we asked for it".

Regarding the first point, even if we're just talking about the arthropods that "plague" us (including not just disease vectors but things that attack our houses and crops), you're talking about untold species of mosquitos, ticks, mites, flies, hymenoptera (wasps + bees), spiders, scorpions, bugs, termites, fleas, etc.

Even with the major ticks in North America, there are multiple species of Ixodes, Dermacentor, and Amblyomma alone that spread human disease, and they all have different ecologies and distributions. The Ixodes scapularis tick best known for transmitting Lyme disease lives predominantly on deer and on rodents -- so what are you going to do, go through the forest picking ticks off of white-footed mice?

There are a few success stories in medical entomology. The most famous by far was the Walter Reed Commission in roughly 1903, when Walter Reed and his crew went to Cuba during the Spanish-American War, discovered that the transmission cycle of Yellow Fever required the mosquito Aedes aegypti, they discovered the peridomestic breeding sites of this mosquito, and successfully eliminated human transmission of Yellow Fever. William Crawford Gorgas, who was an understudy of Reed, later applied this with tremendous success to reduce Yellow Fever during the Panama Canal project.

Through basic human development malaria's areas of transmission have been reduced -- it used to be endemic as far north as Boston and even up to Scotland. But drainage of wetlands, climate-controlled dwellings, screen windows and doors, "indoor" entertainment (electric lights / radios / TVs), and spraying DDT eliminated malaria from this region. But that is manifestly not the case in the tropical world where there are highly effective vectors of malaria, and in Africa there are many species of Anopheles mosquito that can transmit it. Anopheles gambiae breeds in water-filled tire tracks and mud-brick pits, Anopheles funestus breeds in swamps, others breed in agricultural irrigation, I mean how pray tell can you eliminate them in any kind of parsimonious way? Indoor residual spraying with DDT seems the most promising to me, because DDT is essentially nontoxic to humans (despite Rachel Carson's erroneous propaganda to the contrary), it kills peridomestic mosquitos, it limits transmission, and it has a negligible environmental impact.

Some are easier to control, like the reduviid bug that transmits Chagas disease in Latin America. Indoor spraying, or alternative building materials, seems to be effective at limiting contact between the bug and the human.



As for asking for it, considering that 1/3 of Europe died from a flea-borne illness between 1347 and 1349, there have been repeated epidemics of this throughout history, and some even posit that plague was one of the final blows to the Roman Empire -- it certainly isn't something unique to modernity that we are "asking for it".

Sure, it's human living conditions and behavior that expose us to certain risks, including both infection and widespread transmission of illnesses. But then again every other creature on earth is ALSO prey to some other opportunist, and I don't think crows asked for West Nile virus and cows didn't ask for babesiosis.
 
manored
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 12:12 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;88324 wrote:
Well I have never been bitten by a spider and I just let them do their thing. Have you actually been bitten by a spider?
Dont remember, probally yes.

richrf;88347 wrote:
On my balcony, I leave the spiders alone. They keep the mosquitoes away. Thank you spiders.

Rich
Indeed, its a choice between spiders and mosquitoes. But if you dont kill the spiders, you are killing the mosquitoes through the spiders =)

Leonard;88402 wrote:
then maybe some unknown giant beings somewhere would find it right to crush us.
If they did, I would understand their reasons, but I would also try to poison then to death =)

Krumple;88433 wrote:
Um nope, is that so hard to believe? I let them be and they let me be, I suppose. Is that giving them too much credit?
Depends of the kind of spider and how attentious you are, because you might accidentally not let then be someday =)
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 12:21 pm
@manored,
manored;88484 wrote:
Indeed, its a choice between spiders and mosquitoes. But if you dont kill the spiders, you are killing the mosquitoes through the spiders =)


This is the nice thing. By non-action and non-interference, I have plausible deniability. Thus, no one can prove a thing unless they can read my mind or my post on this forum.

Rich
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 03:43 pm
@Shinhyung,
I was sitting here for a moment pondering if I should add anything else to this discussion dealing with the spiders and I remembered something that I found a little humorous.

I think it was a comedian one time talking about some random facts and one of the facts was that you consume an average of seven spiders every year either by sleeping they crawl into your mouth or into your food or what ever. So he says well it's January 10th and I got my quota for the year.

If you don't laugh at that reread it until you do because when you do I hope you are slightly disgusted as you giggle.
 
prothero
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:25 pm
@Shinhyung,
One spider life versus one human life, for most the human is spared no problem.
What about the eradication of spiders to save human lives. Interference with the order of nature to spare human lives. At what point do we go too far?
Eliminate mosquitos to conquer malaira?
Elimnate the small pox virus?
Hunting down the man eating tiger?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:33 pm
@Shinhyung,
It's all abstract until it affects your country, your town, your child.

Around 2/3 of a billion people contract malaria every year, over 1 million children under the age of 5 die of it, and it's the single most important cause of delayed economic development in Africa according to a famous study. Only a finite number of mosquito species transmit it, and they don't have to be eliminated -- but the malaria parasite requires a mosquito-human life cycle and preventing mosquitos from picking it up from humans and retransmitting it is one of the best ways of mathematically eliminating continued transmission (according to mathematical modeling).

So what is right? Let our kids die for the sake of the mosquitos?
 
Leonard
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:35 pm
@Shinhyung,
By saying "no different than a spider's life," I mean we are both animals, multicellular, capable of survival, and attack things we deem "prey". Of course, a human is much more complex, but spiders aren't entirely useless. Maybe (hypothetically) there's some malevolent godlike figure up there tossing down lightning bolts at us, looking down upon us like we look down upon spiders, and attempting to eradicate us. Why? Well, why do we kill spiders? Because we find them ugly, and/or dangerous. Perhaps such a being would think the same, being angry at us for building cities on top of his forests that he created. I'll live with the ugly, hairy spiders for now just to remove the trillions of trillions of mosquitoes that would exist if spiders didn't. Anyway, the poisonous ones are only poisonous so they can kill insects and larvae. If they sting us, it's because they're dumb, their life doesn't depend on stinging humans. As for mosquitoes, it does. And they perpetuate disease. An army of 6 billion spiders would more easily kill mosquitoes than 6 billion humans, so i'm happy with that.

The other life I find intolerable is bacterial/viral life. Though some would debate that viruses aren't considered "life".

---------- Post added 09-06-2009 at 08:37 PM ----------

It'd be insane to call developing vaccines to kill diseases "immoral," but no doubt some people call diseases "life" in the same way they call humans "life."
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:44 pm
@Leonard,
Leonard;88574 wrote:
The other life I find intolerable is bacterial/viral life.
You couldn't digest food or clot your blood without gut bacteria. You didn't mention that fungi were intolerable -- well, it's our mucosal bacteria that are our main defense against fungal overgrowth. We wouldn't have yogurt, cheese, wine, or beer without microbes... and we also wouldn't have a food chain...

You get my point, not every bacterium is plague or MRSA, and not every virus is influenza or HIV.

Leonard;88574 wrote:
some people call diseases "life" in the same way they call humans "life."
A disease is a pathologic process in a host. Those that are infectious are caused by living things (I'll lump viruses in for simplicity's sake, they're close enough).

Just because something is alive doesn't mean that humanity is morally required to be its steward at our own expense.
 
richrf
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 08:02 pm
@Aedes,
90% of the cells within us are not ours but microbes'.

Your Body Is a Planet | Infectious Diseases | DISCOVER Magazine

The way I look at things is that the bacteria and virus are not the problem. The problem is when an environment is created within our bodies that allows the proliferation of certain types of harmful beings in a manner that our body cannot properly manage (e.g. reject or disable). Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Every organism is just surviving in the best way it knows how. My personal bet is on the cockroach, the current winner and all-time champ.

Rich
 
The Theorist
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 10:03 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;88101 wrote:
When going to war, one of the functions of propaganda is to teach us to say "well it's only a (insert relevant ethnic group here) . . . ."


War is another issue. War is between men and men. Killing a spider is an incignifacant act. we are the dominant species for a reason. we kill lower life forms on the totum poll... thats life. As to the war comment. you cant compare this to war. killing a spider is defrent than killing another human.
 
odenskrigare
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 11:12 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;88576 wrote:
You couldn't digest food or clot your blood without gut bacteria. You didn't mention that fungi were intolerable -- well, it's our mucosal bacteria that are our main defense against fungal overgrowth. We wouldn't have yogurt, cheese, wine, or beer without microbes... and we also wouldn't have a food chain...

You get my point, not every bacterium is plague or MRSA, and not every virus is influenza or HIV.


for my part, I like supporting a menagerie

not just the microbial life: animals too, dust mites living in the eyebrows
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 11:25 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;88452 wrote:
What makes a computer more valuable than a primitive adding machine?


I wasn't aware that a computer was more valuable than a primitive adding machine.
 
prothero
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 11:55 pm
@Shinhyung,
Part of the agenda of modernity was to use reason, science and technology to "tame,control" nature for the benefit of man. This inclucded many significant advances in sanitation, water supplies, medical care, and includes the eradication of diseases and pests which carry diseases.

Part of the notion of postmodernism is that these types of alterations or interventions into the natural world can carry negative and unpredictable results. A return to veneration of nature and the "natural order" as containing a wisdom which man radically disturbs or alters at his own peril.
Or even a notion that nature has value in "its own right". A realization of acknowledgement of the interconnectedness of all things. Now the benefit of man is no longer the only consideration. The immediate and calcuable benefits to man must be weighed against long term and perhaps unforeseen perils to the balance of nature.

What criteria do we now use to measure the "rights of black widow or brown recluse spiders" say versus potential harm to humans. Or the habitat of the horned owl versus water supply for a major city, etc.?
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 11:40 am
@prothero,
richrf;88489 wrote:
This is the nice thing. By non-action and non-interference, I have plausible deniability. Thus, no one can prove a thing unless they can read my mind or my post on this forum.

Rich
But, in the end, you are killing either way, so there is no point in not killing spiders due to any sense of morality, unless your sense of morality says spiders are nice and mosquitos worthless =)

prothero;88571 wrote:
One spider life versus one human life, for most the human is spared no problem.
What about the eradication of spiders to save human lives. Interference with the order of nature to spare human lives. At what point do we go too far?
Eliminate mosquitos to conquer malaira?
Elimnate the small pox virus?
Hunting down the man eating tiger?
We go too far when we kill ourselves. Anything else is acceptable =)

prothero;88618 wrote:

Part of the notion of postmodernism is that these types of alterations or interventions into the natural world can carry negative and unpredictable results. A return to veneration of nature and the "natural order" as containing a wisdom which man radically disturbs or alters at his own peril.
Or even a notion that nature has value in "its own right". A realization of acknowledgement of the interconnectedness of all things. Now the benefit of man is no longer the only consideration. The immediate and calcuable benefits to man must be weighed against long term and perhaps unforeseen perils to the balance of nature.
Nature is not balanced, thats an childish human delusion. It just happens to change too slowly to be noticed, but, left to its own devices, nature would eventually create one or more lifeforms that would be too sucessful and break food chains and weebs everwhere, leading to massive extinction and perhaps the end of life.

The proof is us, we seem to be this first "accident" from "mother nature" =)

I wonder why people suddently started wanting to protect these abstract notions, maybe too much free time or total lack of faith in humanity. (Aka: belief that randow, but somewhat self-balancing events, can keep we alive better than ourselves)
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/12/2022 at 08:18:51