[continued from previous message]

The watershed moment, if there was any, was the ate 17th, and
18th century in Europe, when "social pets" became more common,
animals valued for their social bonds rather tha n their usefulness, and
that again is centuries before Darwin. (cf.eg.
The history of emotional attachment to animals by Ingrid Traut,
The Routledge Companion to Animal-Human History, 2018)


Are there any ethical implications of common descent?
I doubt it, though maybe in the margins, a slightly more pronounced
tendency to be in favour of animal rights and
against vivisection, But even this is ambivalent,
There was a really interesting historical dialectic between Darwin,
and Christian conceptions of animal souls, played out in the vivisection
debate in Victoria Britain. The Darwinian notion of the relatedness of
all life had given a  boost to the anti-vivisectionists, and
observing that Darwinian arguments had success where religious ones had
had less let religion based anti-vivisectionists like Hull revive
theological arguments about animal souls.

Who do you think anyone approves of such as this today.

Eh, you think animal experiments have stopped?


Do you think is

was ever justified by the general population. But it's the result of
power. Lord Acton once remarked "that power tends to corrupt and
absolute power corrupts absolutely." This I think probably explains much
of man's inhumanity to man both in the past and today. Unfortunately, we
see this in our world today and in recent history.

no idea what you meant with this

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)