Naughty Succubus "Saki-chan" - Vol. 1 Ch. 58 - Background succubus' daily life

[MangaDex]

 

[Psychronia]

Don't look down on animals. Rude humans.

 

[Kaarme]

Domestig pigs and dogs were created by humans as they are, though. They aren't natural creatures. I'd say that grants humans the right to look down on them.

 

[criver]

@Kaarme There's a logical disconnect between your statements.

 

[Kaarme]

@criver There isn't, as far as I can see it. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate?

 

[criver]

@Kaarme
Domestic pigs and dogs being domesticated and selectively bred by humans does not really grant any rights beyond just stating that they were domesticated and bred by us.
Looking down on them should have nothing to do with it.

 

[Kaarme]

@criver Well, it's kind of a philosophical question, so your opinion is exactly as good as mine, and thus I can't simply deny it. I was mainly looking at it from the point of view that if there are any animals humans could look down on, then it would be those whose fate was dictated by humans from their very birth. Wild animals, untampered by humans, are just as good (or bad) creations by evolution as humans, so they shouldn't be looked down on.

I don't personally look down on domestic animals or plants. Although I do consider wolves more noble than dogs. I was just talking philosophically.

 

[criver]

@Kaarme My statement was not an opinion, it's a fact - there is a logical disconnect between your statements, and it lies precisely in your opinion and your value system, in which domesticated animals are worse in some sense - this is pretty much an arbitrary decision (not arbitrary for you possibly, but objectively arbitrary).

The point of the character in the manga was specifically regarding humanity's arrogance - and the belief (or rather want) of being greater.

The problem with philosophy is that you can "prove" anything (most notably contradictory statements). In your case I could use your own "logic" about subjective notions such as natural and unnatural, to informally argue that humans are the most unnatural, and thus lower than domesticated animals by a similar type of "logic". There's a clear lapse in logic here mirroring the lapse in logic in your original statement. At the end of the day nothing is gained by such a futile exercise.

 

[Kaarme]

@criver Nah, domestic animals are in a sense inferior because for the most part they can only live at the mercy of humans. Some of them can go wild with varying success, hugely depending on how much they were selectively bred toward some specific goal and especially where they happen to be in the world, but that's it. This technological, cultural environment we are living in is the natural environment for humans (or one of them) because this was something evolution equipped us to create and maintain and we did it ourselves. For example I'm living in a place where humans couldn't survive around the year without a certain level of technology and society. But since my ancestral countrymen had the brains to develop the means, this is also a natural human environment, in a manner of speaking. But throw a cow out there and it's dead soon enough. The same goes for cats and dogs, apart from perhaps managing to survive for a time in an urban environment, with luck. However, a wolf does just fine here as long as it's not shot.

 

[criver]

@Kaarme See that's the issue - it's some arbitrary metric you picked for "better" that's solely based on whether you recon animals would survive in our environment - and you picked that specific metric only so that there would be some kind of justification, but you could have picked any other metric that would have disagreed with the general idea that humans are "better" and should look down on X. This is more a case of fitting "arguments" to a statement, than actually deriving a conclusion in an unbiased manner. Just to make a point of how flimsy and rationalizing this justification is, let's turn this around - how long will the average human survive in a wild environment with no city for hundreds of miles? Also the statement that humans have evolved to live in polluted cities, eat processed food, and deny their instincts is simply wrong, as evidenced by all the physical and mental health issues caused by such a way of living. It works both ways, but the main issue is the arbitrary metric that you picked, and that it has no relation whatsoever to looking down on animals. One can always find reasons to look down on somebody/something else - at it's core this is simply prejudice and often a mechanism used to cope with cognitive dissonance. You gain nothing by looking down on anything, except for the fact that it's a way to reinforce your own beliefs as correct by intentionally finding examples that agree with those, and finding negatives where a disagreement is seen with one's belief system. It's basically introducing emotion to reinforce beliefs and is evidence of bias.

 

[Kaarme]

@criver What's the metric then? The metric is whatever you are measuring. For 500 million years the metric was survival of the fittest. Of course these days we do have metrics like how many liters of milk a cow produces. It's a whole lot more for domestic cows than some wild bovines, but it won't make the domestic cow any happier or comfortable, quite the contrary. I like my yoghurt, though, so I'm not looking down on the domestic cow. However, it does depend on humans to survive (without being an obligate parasite), so the poor beast is inferior to its wild counterparts as an individual looking out for itself (which is ultimately what all living beings should be doing).

Even with all those mental health and other problems we live twice as long as we used to.

how long will the average human survive in a wild environment with no city for hundreds of miles?

Have a look around yourself. What, 7-8 billion humans surviving out there. It's pointless to ask how long an average human would survive without the civilization because we built that civilization for ourselves to survive. That's what we are and do, it's a part of us. You might as well ask how long will a wolf survive out there if you take out all of its teeth. Or how long will a hawk survive if you break its wing.

 

[criver]

@Kaarme The point is that you decided on a metric just to justify your conclusion, while there are a number of other metrics which disagree with that very same statement - it's evident bias and sophistry.

Even with all those mental health and other problems we live twice as long as we used to.

Which somehow tells you that you have adapted to breathing pollutants and eating garbage? I think not - dying from obesity, stomach/lung cancer, ending up in a soul asylum, suicide, etc. would imply the opposite. Research implies the opposite. People live longer despite all of those problems, not because of them. Better medicine and food abundance doesn't automatically mean that you have adapted better - your body hasn't adapted any better than most animals to this - you simply have tools to offset dying. And might I remind you - tools researched and manufactured by a fraction of the population over the years, and certainly not the average person. People have also effectively taken out most of natural selection from the equation, and are on the verge of a global climate catastrophe of their own making. Then you get to problems such as suicide due to overwork and stress, and suddenly looking down, or pitying people seems a lot more reasonable.

It's pointless to ask how long an average human would survive without the civilization because we built that civilization for ourselves to survive.

Then this goes both ways:

But throw a cow out there and it's dead soon enough. The same goes for cats and dogs, apart from perhaps managing to survive for a time in an urban environment, with luck.

And there's another point I would like to emphasize - the "we" that you envision is actually not the average people. You can attribute technological progress to all of humanity, but the average person actually has no merit in this. The fact that Newton developed his mechanics, doesn't give anybody a free pass when considering how intelligent they are, the same way as an athlete achieving feats of strength doesn't imply anything about the fitness of another individual. Granted - it's a good exercise in making yourself feel better about yourself.

You might as well ask how long will a wolf survive out there if you take out all of its teeth. Or how long will a hawk survive if you break its wing.

This might have been a point if you were born with all of your ancestors' knowledge, and could build your own tools. If something breaks your tools, and you have no capacity to rebuild those, by your own metric you're more useless than a maimed animal. Which is objectively untrue.

 

[Kaarme]

@criver Humans are social animals. If we weren't, we wouldn't be here. Somebody is free to develop great technology and science because others make sure that person doesn't need to worry about food, clothing, housing, health care, looking after their kids, etc. That's how society works. You think Newton would have had time for his science if he had needed to toil on the fields from morning till the evening to eke out meager living?

It's not like most of the people of the old would have been any healthier despite living only 40 years if they were lucky. They just had other ailments and troubles. Wild animals also live stressful lives much of the time.

I do sense some nihilistic bias in your posts.

 

[criver]

@Kaarme

Somebody is free to develop great technology and science because others make sure that person doesn't need to worry about food, clothing, housing, health care, looking after their kids, etc. That's how society works. You think Newton would have had time for his science if he had needed to toil on the fields from morning till the evening to eke out meager living?

Let's put this back into context. This does not give any more rights to average Joes to claim any of the achievements of Newton, or whatever scientist, and it doesn't imply that they have adapted to their environment either - they have adapted to using tools they themselves will not be able to build. You could teach a monkey to press a button to get food - this doesn't mean that the monkey has reached some high level of enlightenment or that it is superior in any sense - it has just adapted to its tools. So no, the fact that Newton or some other scientist was born in a well off family doesn't imply that his achievements automatically transfer over humanity in general, as much as people would like that to be so. Granted, it does imply that to have time to focus on science your basic needs have to be met at least partially. But I am sure you realize the difference between the two notions.

So at the end of the day the average person is in no way better adapted - unless you consider adapting to your smartphone as a superior trait. In fact you could argue that the average person has regressed, considering the loss of basic instincts, deteriorating gene pool, and deterioration of sight, hearing, taste, smell. A fraction of humanity has indeed developed gene mutations that have to do with greater intelligence and greater physical fitness. But that is a very small minority compared to the general population. The main thing that has changed is your education - which by the way, for the most part gets in the way of more intelligent people - read up on the biographies of famous scientists.

It's not like most of the people of the old would have been any healthier despite living only 40 years if they were lucky. They just had other ailments and troubles. Wild animals also live stressful lives much of the time.

I am unsure what part of my post you're referring to. If your point is simply that medication and food abundance have benefits in terms of life expectancy and general health, then we clearly agree. But that's not my point, is it. You were trying to attribute the achievements of a few individuals to all of humanity, using this to make a comparison to domesticated animals based on some arbitrary metric that you picked to agree with your statement, and somehow reaching the conclusion that looking down on the domesticated animals is justified. I have explained in this very post that you metric could as well be applied to monkeys pressing a button, if the button would provide better health care, and better food, the monkey would in general live longer (provided that also its other needs are met). The fact that you rely on your supermarket doesn't make you greater in any way. What makes you "greater" would be your intellectual and fitness achievements. Attributing achievements of others, to yourself, is simply ridiculous.

I do sense some nihilistic bias in your posts.

Do elaborate. Is it existential nihilism? Moral nihilism? Is it relevant to the point? If it is, point out the instances, etc.

 

[Ristler]

If it can be explained, it can be explained briefly.

 

[Jelly_Storm]

Holy shit the 4Koma about a shit succubus seems to attract debates! Or that Kaarme guy like to be argumentative...

 

[imadoathing]

the common thought of pigs being low isnt based on domestication, its because we subjectively define them as gross and dumb. which again is going by our own standards.
but also we objectively domesticated animals out of a need for that which we couldnt do ourselves, like large loadbearers or hunting/rescue animals. and in that sense even livestock provides a service to us that we should never look down on

 

[SoloSera]

This back-and-forth encourages me to post my thoughts on the matter. I do see the original "logical disconnect" mentioned, but nothing would change even if Kaarme recognized it and, as such, it is largely unimportant. Instead, I will communicate my thoughts.

I tend to think that the idea of supremacy only exists because we feel a need to justify our actions. We feel guilt at our actions(such as eating other living things) and, by believing we are superior, our guilt is lessened. When we recognize the reason the concept exists, we can also recognize how truly meaningless the concepts are. We can recognize that all life has equal value while continuing to sustain our existence, so the concept of supremacy is unnecessary. I don't mind eating an equal(plants, animals, etc) if it keeps me from the pain of hunger. Likewise, I wouldn't mind being eaten by an equal(assuming minimal pain).

I've also seen this idea of supremacy applied to other humans. We accept these notions to rationalize doing things we wouldn't want done to ourselves. I sincerely dislike the notion of supremacy and how it twists those who accept it. I think I had more of a point for this section, but the medicine I took is making me sleepy and confused. -.-

 

[Glomoro]

Holy shit the 4Koma about a shit succubus seems to attract debates! Or that Kaarme guy like to be argumentative...

Probably the latter, but don't forget to credit criver for their part in that nonsense. It takes two to tango.

More on topic towards the chapter itself, I'd figure what she said was at least adequate for that job. Perhaps she was getting a little too rough is the problem. That is sort of the point to an extent there, but if the client actually starts fearing for their life you may have gone too far.