@relee A simple answer would be if the consequences of not drawing my sword is that more harm will happen.

As for who? Well, that's asking the wrong question, because at its roots it's all about being able to draw our boundaries, and being able to enforce them.

Personally speaking, we generally have a live and let live philosophy when it comes to others living their lives, as long as what they are doing isn't harming those around them.

@FreyaManibrandr If we're getting personal, what are your definitions of harm?

If you want to get really deep in there, what is your line on what seperates a person or being from an animal or object? It's okay if there's more tiers than that, too, that's a really complex question.

@relee Harm is anything that is inimical and/or deleterious to the continued existence or well-being of the subject in question.

One may ask, "How do we know if it is the case?" And to that i say, we definitionally can't because it is a categorically subjective classification, and requires us to view the situation on a case-by-case basis.

As for what separate us from animals and/or object. I'd say I honestly can't tell you. As an animist, I see quality in the souls of all that exists, that includes us, animals, humans and objects that are considered "not living." But then again, considering that the universe is itself constantly interacting and involving micro- and macrocosms of itself in endless cycles of death and rebirth, what really makes it so special to be considered "living" that it only extends to carbon-based life forms with self-replicating proteins?

Would you consider stars to be alive? Because I do, as well as landmarks, monuments and world wonders, for that matter.

@FreyaManibrandr It can be really difficult to determine what composes the subject in question.

I have a strange relationship to animism because I tend to anthropomorphize objects and even concepts, as much as even apologizing for saying bad things about them in anger. But, if you look at a living creature, we're multi-celled organisms. Our cells comprise a single being by working together, but arguably they're each a life of their own. (Cont.)

@FreyaManibrandr The individual cells that make up your body aren't even all connected. Blood is a liquid, but part of your body, and each blood cell contains your whole genetic code. Each cell also contains a Mitochondria, with its own genetic code.

And all of them are made up of arrangements of the same particles as every bit of non-living matter. In a sense, you could say the universe is alive because parts of it (like us) are alive. (cont.)

@FreyaManibrandr Stars may or may not be alive in a sense, but they don't really do much besides physical reactions of their constituent particles, as far as I know.

Many animals on Earth are in some way 'intelligent' but have minds distinctly different from humans, and nothing but humans gets human rights from humans regardless of capability or intelligence, though they may get better treatment. (cont.)

@FreyaManibrandr The point where it becomes important if something is alive is more when it has a will to resist, understanding to know there's something TO resist, and the capability to stop someone, or get someone else to stop them.

A gorilla might be territorial, but it doesn't own property, or know what that is. It won't take you to court. But it also thinks and feels in ways we might relate to, but are still alien to our own minds. (cont.)

@FreyaManibrandr Thanks for sticking with me so far!

When I asked about definitions of harm, the idea was to think about it from the perspective of someone who would know what harm is and that they're being harmed. Many animals respond to something we'd consider pain, but don't understand the harm apart from their diminished capabilities. When death comes for them, they might understand it's possible, having seen others die, but not know how it works. Some animals do.

@FreyaManibrandr I forgot the (cont.)!

Anyways, at present there aren't any minds we can communicate well with. Folks have been able to communicate with a few animals and their minds are different enough that they can't understand the concepts we might be able to teach, and become better able to understand and communicate more from learning. Or so my understanding goes, anyways.

It seems inevitable, however, that humans will diverge into seperate species or races, (cont.)

@FreyaManibrandr and we'll also develop artificially created beings that will have different capabilities and mind structures. This means eventually we'll have to accept that humans, also, are not equal, at least physically, and have to deal with either being compassionate for those with less abilities, or cruel and doing some horrible eugenics stuff.

Considering how many people kill other humans, and vastly more would casually kill any animal... (cont.)

@FreyaManibrandr I worry for the new people who will be appearing one day, and the 'different' people who are already here.

What if, because I have so many mental differences, people decide I'm not a person anymore? Maybe I'm a threat, or just a smart animal, or something else terrible. So, I like to ask questions and help people think about these upcoming issues and how they relate to people who are already here. (cont.)

@FreyaManibrandr Finally, back to harm, I think at this point if someone can tell you that you're harming them and you can understand, that's a pretty good baseline. Let someone decide for themself! But, it becomes a real dilemna when you can't communicate, you don't know what somebody or something thinks is part of themselves, what they think is good or bad, and how they want to be treated. You might not even know they're alive!

Interesting stuff, yeah? What do you think?

@relee It can be, because there's no one singular definition of harm that would apply to all of existence.

@FreyaManibrandr Very true. In the end, you can often go with your own definition of harm, and try to make up for it when someone else tells you you're wrong, and by helping you harmed them.

It can be really difficult without communication, though.

@relee Such is the nature of subjectivity

@relee This is a big reason why I am glad I don't really identify as human. Humanity, at least the white western concept of it, has been a vector of a lot oppression, and what we know as human arrogance.

@FreyaManibrandr I've been trying to be more inclusive to non-humans by using 'being' or 'folks', but it makes it difficult to discuss the physical human body and relate to shared capabilities being in one, if the other person doesn't consider it a human body. Though, I've met non-humans that consider their body human and just not them, and others that are 100% non-human, and there may be more out there.

@relee I think it's important to consider that communication is a product of nurture, and not nature. It's a part of why culture is important to philosophy, but perhaps if we could find a way to help other species communicate with us in a way that we can understand unambiguously, we might have a lot to learn.

@FreyaManibrandr It really is both, though! From what I understand, they've found that 'wild' humans will eventually develop language, where as other animals don't. Even those we're capable of communicating with, or animals observed teaching other animals skills.

At any rate, we can teach some animals to communicate, but in talking with them we learn they have things they can't understand, and things they're incapable of.

The human throat, mouth, and ear are evolutions.

@relee You'll be surprised how capable of mortality salience animals can be. If you've ever been to the slaughterhouse and see how the pigs react to hearing what happens to their own and knowing what's next, you'll know what I mean.

@FreyaManibrandr They really shouldn't be able to hear that... It also really shouldn't make a sound.

It might be an international thing? I know they have pretty nasty factory farms in the states. Most animals here are killed with an air hammer, from what I understand. They might make a noise? I'm not sure.

Mostly I think other animals shouldn't be there for that. Especially their friends and family? Geez.

@relee Sapience is an interesting subject, because one could wonder if if what we see is it, or if it's only the kind of sapience that is being communicated in a way that we could understand.

@FreyaManibrandr Yeah that's a tricky thing! They cover that in pop scifi even, like Star Trek. It's hard enough to tell if something is alive, sometimes. Harder still to tell if it's communicating! And then, it might not know YOU'RE communicating!

There's also a lot of physical phenomena that few or no animals can sense, on earth, but machines could, and potentially aliens might. They might also use these in communication!

@relee They do a long more than you realize, the lives they lived paved the way in order to make carbon-based life forms possible.

Also animals, as we are finding out, are much closer in aptitude and intelligence to humans than we first thought. It is very possible that the observed disparity is due to the same software running on different hardware.

@FreyaManibrandr The thing is, we all build our own software as we grow, we don't have any by default, as far as we know. It seems it kinda springs out of more mechanical systems.

Animals have their own intelligence, and humans are a kind of animal so that just makes sense. But, intelligence isn't really on a scale, it's not a property but a phenomemon. As much as two humans are different, other animals are more different, and yet still similar.