The world listens to this speech and learns:
- The UFO craze of the mid 20th century was real. Aliens really were abducting and probing humans.
- Their evaluation established that we are not clever or strong enough to be useful, but we are delicious and cheap to feed.
- A fleet of transports will soon arrive to take humans throughout the galaxy to be raised as food.
- The technological gap between us is incomprehensibly vast, so there is no possibility of resistance.
This is the story of how humanity became successful.
The desires of a chicken are to eat and make more chickens.
The desires of a human are more complex. For this example we don't need to list out what they are.
So let's say you are offered the opportunity to go to space as in your scenario. And your desires are met. But at the age of 40 you are painlessly killed and eaten. And you are assured of having lots of children.
What do you think? Would some people agree to this?
And to make the example more complete, the alternative is not a comfortable life on Earth, but rather war where lots of people are killed young and the rest have very difficult paintful lives of constant fear.
I'm not sure what the goal of the chicken is except maybe to make more chickens, and if that's the goal then yes chickens were successful.
If your goal as a human is to explore and pass on your knowledge to your children, then yes, that could be considered as successful as well.
Also, it depends in large part on if your goals are personal, or generational. If personal then you could argue both ways. But if generational then yes definitely a success.
Why did you just change the scenario?
I would consider chickens held in captivity comparible to humans held in captivity. Holding a human in captivity is forcing someone else's will on that person and not giving them the opportunity to be free. I call that slavery.
> By evolving to
Being selected to by us
> they have convinced humans to feed and house them
No, humans have constructed chickens to meet our requirements, minimising the amount we need to house them (e.g. killing them at a few weeks old).
Chicken farmers breeding a fast-growing chicken is a textbook example of artificial selection.
And while humans are part of nature, nobody would call a car crash a "natural disaster" just because it was caused by humans.
[1] https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_30
Evolution is designed to increase the chances of survival by introducing genetic diversity and adapting to an environment in order to maximize life expectancy.
Selective breeding actually reduces the chances of survival and introduces massive defects. It's much more likely all of the chickens will die of a single disease with selective breeding, while evolution allows them to survive.
> Shadow with me while I'm steppin' on my own resentment
> Life scatter in all directions, I was overzealous
> Overcurious, Momma worry her days get better
> I know she heard me, a timid voice in her stormy weather
> And Poppa taught me our ancestors were tarred and feathered And brought across the sea, bodies swinging from poplar trees
> I wore a modernesque version, my burden haunted me I cautiously approach the rather daunting sea
> By nightfall I face the man I'm 'sposed to be All this grief, been eatin' away my stomach lining
> It's hard to eat when my poppa image stuck inside me
> I wore his death mask,
> smilin' through the trauma
> In his honor,
> I'm expounding
back then, blacks didn't occupy the same moral category as the humans who bred and traded them.
afterwards, blacks were upgraded to 2/5ths human.
now, we still struggle for acceptance and parity.
morality is a process.
Imagine a scenario in which you can save one of two lives: a human or a dog. You can't pick both. Just one. The question is not, "Which would you save?", but instead, "Would you final moral fault in a person who chose to save the dog?". Almost everybody would hold a person who chose to save the dog morally culpable for the death of the human. But they would not hold them morally culpable for the death of the dog if they chose to save the human.
That will never change. Because animals are not humans.
we came to see blacks as humans because lots of people shed blood and fought for their rights. nothing was handed to anyone for free.
Recommended reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/
My premise is simple: almost every single person would find a person who chose to save the life of an animal over a human morally culpable for the death of the human. Whereas they would not find a person morally culpable for the death of the animal if they chose to save the person instead. That asymmetry directly speaks to the different moral stations that animals and humans occupy.
You have yet to level a single actual argument against that premise.