[JK-Swizzle]

I believe you are missing the forest for the trees. It is bringing up the question of what defines self will. It is unrelated to veganism in all but text.

An easy example is dogs. We have bred dogs for centuries to love doing work for us. If they hated doing the work, it would be easy to call it cruel. If they loved it by nature, it would be easy to call it kind. But since we created them into a thing that loves the work we need them for, where do the ethics fall?

Should we prevent them from doing what brings them joy? Should we make use of this win-win situation? If it is the latter, we are quickly approaching the ability to morph every species into something that gets joy from doing our work.

Dogs we changed by accident. The next one will not be an accident. Is it still a beings free will if the game was rigged from the start?

[HerbManic]

This is why I also like cats. The only reason they don't eat me is that I am 10 times bigger than they are. Other than that, they still seem to be running Lion software on miniature hardware.

[fragmede]

If you die and they run out of food, guess what they'll eat?

[billynomates]

OK but If I'm dead I won't care

[the_af]

> Dogs we changed by accident

(I know your point wasn't about dogs either, it just reminded me of something).

I love Neil de Grasse Tyson's line in Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey:

"This wolf has discovered what a branch of its ancestors figured out some 15.000 years ago... an excellent survival strategy: the domestication of humans."

[oooyay]

There's also another animal/dog documentary that I've watched recently that puts a finer point on this realization. The secret to survival and evolution is cooperation. For instance, not all dogs evolved the same way in this documentary. Some were more nuturing, some were more problem solving. For the focus of the documentary the challenge was to match the dog with a human that had a need they could address.

I think somewhat egotistically humans underappreciate how we have also been goaded by our "pets" into our own evolutionary journey. Most of the subjects of that documentary would not be alive if it were not for those dogs.

[rcxdude]

It's much like how many plants have accidentally found that a great means of propagation is to produce a compound that is both a great chemical warfare agent against other plants and microbes and also tastes interesting to humans or makes them feel funny.

[JK-Swizzle]

That just makes it even more interesting. Have we been selectively modified to think dogs are cute? If I showed a toy poodle to a caveman, would he also want to put it in a little bag with only its head poking out?

[moondance]

An amusing quip, but since you brought Neil up- his takes on veganism are generally disappointing and facile.

[rjh29]

As are his takes on almost everything.

[dennis_jeeves2]

True, the guy is has somewhat banal views. Guess he still has an audience.

[the_af]

> the guy is has somewhat banal views

...on some things, because he's only human, and some pretty solid views on other things :)

[the_af]

That's a very broad claim. Can you elaborate?

[rjh29]

Two things. He's obviously an expert in astrophysics but his explanations are condescending and "well actually", like he is trying to convince you how smart he is. That's given him a reputation as a blowhard online.

Outside of that field, his takes are your typical "genius in one thing believes he's a genius in everything". Someone even made a list of his mistakes: https://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/01/fact-checking-neil...

One of his tweets that HN will love: "Obama authorized North Korea sanctions over cyber hacking. Solution there, it seems to me, is to create unhackable systems."

[the_af]

Thanks for the list!

I agree that the fundamental thing here is:

> "genius in one thing believes he's a genius in everything"

No disagreement here, and sadly I think this is an unfortunate part of human nature.

Other than that, I'd say the person who wrote that list has a beef with Tyson, there's a mix between honest mistakes and debatable things, a lot of nitpicking (with a dose of cherry-picking), and ultimately this doesn't prove that "most of [Tyson's] takes" are mistaken. I agree that some things he says are dumb (like the cybersecurity tweet you mentioned) but I wouldn't dwell too much on them. "Cosmos", in all of its incarnations, is amazing. Of course, I'm not arguing the script is his, but his delivery and screen presence are solid.

I see Tyson commented on that blog, and some of what he says makes sense (e.g. picking on his colloquial use of "exponential" seems a bit mean spirited, though he could have been more precise; some people misunderstand the spirit of his comments on scifi movies; etc). In general, his replies in that blog to what at some points amounted to personal attacks left me the impression that Tyson knows how to gracefully and politely handle flamebait.

[protocolture]

Depends on the dog tbh. Keshonds are bred to yell at anyone getting on your barge. A lot of humans would probably like that job if it paid enough. Just chilling out and yelling at anyone you dont recognise.