Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by Sy Borg »

Neuron count probably does not yield significantly different results to behavioural cues, but the extra data is still helpful in reducing anthropocentric bias, which over-emphasises intelligent human traits over unfamiliar displays of intelligence.

Another issue to consider is configuration, lifespan and their place in ecosystems. Cephalopods have plenty of neurons (but many of them in their semi-autonomous arms). Further, they only live for a year or two - just long enough to reproduce. Further, they are one of the few groups that is doing well today because humans have fished out a number of their predators, and the more acidic oceans that undermine the shells of most molluscs is not an issue for them.

So, they are perhaps a more ethical animal food option than longer-lived and social animals that form close bonds, but that also depends on their treatment before slaughter.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by GE Morton »

GrayArea wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:36 pm
The existence of human beings can still be explained when we say that there are a lot of factors that make morality POSSIBLE to begin with, including the number of neurons. And just because it's possible for a species to possess moral values, it doesn't automatically mean that all members of that species should.

The sheer high amount of neurons and other factors making morality possible is merely one of the countless ways of how those neurons can be used based on our choices (not "are"). In the end, the act of choice itself prevails over the option / possibility. I presume this would be due to the fact that the number of neurons does not definitively equal to what the neurons do.
The point of the neural analysis is not to determine to what extent animals are capable of moral agency (conscious awareness of rules for governing their behavior), but what capacity they have for "welfare," i.e., for suffering and enjoyment.

But the high EQs of dolphins raises the question of whether they may also possess some agency.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by GE Morton »

Sy Borg wrote: September 24th, 2022, 8:06 pm Neuron count probably does not yield significantly different results to behavioural cues, but the extra data is still helpful in reducing anthropocentric bias, which over-emphasises intelligent human traits over unfamiliar displays of intelligence.

Another issue to consider is configuration, lifespan and their place in ecosystems. Cephalopods have plenty of neurons (but many of them in their semi-autonomous arms). Further, they only live for a year or two - just long enough to reproduce. Further, they are one of the few groups that is doing well today because humans have fished out a number of their predators, and the more acidic oceans that undermine the shells of most molluscs is not an issue for them.
I would think their unique neural architecture would make computing EQs for cephalopods difficult. But based on their behavior their cognitive powers rank right up there with those of great apes and corvids. Wonder what they'd be capable of if they had longer lifespans, were social, and had a means of communicating acquired knowledge.
So, they are perhaps a more ethical animal food option than longer-lived and social animals that form close bonds, but that also depends on their treatment before slaughter.
Good points, but I'd have reservations about raising octopuses as food animals. A proposal to establish the world's first octopus farm in Spain has drawn protests.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59667645
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton wrote: September 24th, 2022, 10:05 pm
Sy Borg wrote: September 24th, 2022, 8:06 pm Neuron count probably does not yield significantly different results to behavioural cues, but the extra data is still helpful in reducing anthropocentric bias, which over-emphasises intelligent human traits over unfamiliar displays of intelligence.

Another issue to consider is configuration, lifespan and their place in ecosystems. Cephalopods have plenty of neurons (but many of them in their semi-autonomous arms). Further, they only live for a year or two - just long enough to reproduce. Further, they are one of the few groups that is doing well today because humans have fished out a number of their predators, and the more acidic oceans that undermine the shells of most molluscs is not an issue for them.
I would think their unique neural architecture would make computing EQs for cephalopods difficult. But based on their behavior their cognitive powers rank right up there with those of great apes and corvids. Wonder what they'd be capable of if they had longer lifespans, were social, and had a means of communicating acquired knowledge.
So, they are perhaps a more ethical animal food option than longer-lived and social animals that form close bonds, but that also depends on their treatment before slaughter.
Good points, but I'd have reservations about raising octopuses as food animals. A proposal to establish the world's first octopus farm in Spain has drawn protests.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59667645
Almost everything draws protests these days :)

Given that octopi are anti-social and cannibalistic, would farmed animals need extra feeding? I suppose they could be penned like pigs, but that would be cruel.

I personally think that their intelligence is overrated, boosted by their manual dexterity (tentacular dexterity?). I think they are less intelligent than dogs and cats, let alone apes and corvids, despite being by far the most intelligent invertebrates. Consider the work of guide dogs, for instance. A guide octopus would only take you to its favourite crevices to hide in or find food - for themselves :)

Still, what can we expect from a one or two year-old? The level of cognition they achieve in that time is impressive. If they lived a long time, as you suggest, the result would be interesting. In the meantime, animals with the evolutionary strategy of living a short time and producing thousands of eggs are doing better than others in the Anthropocene.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:19 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: September 24th, 2022, 2:59 pm
GE Morton wrote: September 23rd, 2022, 7:04 pm At least one philosopher thinks so, or at least that it is a relevant factor.

https://reason.com/2022/09/22/counting- ... s-animals/

At first blush I thought the suggestion ridiculous. But after some reflection decided there might be something to it, if that number relates to an animal's capacity for experiencing "welfare."
Nah. That would make the Blue Whale so massively moral as to put to shame all other life forms. Other Cetaceans would follow in a logn hierarchy and humans would be way down the list, behind elephants.
Yes, the neuron count would have to be adjusted for the animals' body weight. Most of the brain, in all animals, is devoted to managing the body. One measure for making these comparisons is the "encephalization quotient," or EQ, which is the ratio of brain weight to body weight:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient

Humans have an EQ of ~ 7.5; pilot whales ~4-6

Another adjustment might be to restrict the neuron count to neocortical neurons, which are those involved in cognitive processing. Pilot whales (actually a species of dolphins) have twice as many neocortical neurons as humans, but a lower ratio of such to neurons to body weight.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00132/full

Nonetheless, these animals would have high moral standing, per this theory.
It's still rubbish, because its about the content of the brain, not its relative mass.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:28 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: September 24th, 2022, 5:10 pm
Since Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler had more neurons than a female Labrador with her puppies you would have to conclude that wiping out millions of humans for greed and gain is more moral than giving up the substance of your own body to feed babies.
And what of the selfless ant or bee giving up everything for the greater good, though with very limited neurons.
You're making moral judgments here based on behavior. The question is, what is the moral standing of various animals, based on their capacity for "welfare," i.e., for suffering or enjoyment?
Well duh?? I am making moral judgements?? Are you kidding?
The brains of cetacaens are far more complex and convoluted than humans despite trying to minimise them because of their mass, that would indicate a greater propensity for emotional understanding and potential suffering.
What makes you think, even if you could measure it, that a concept such a "moral standing" is meaningful, even inside human society, let alone outside it?.
Does a killer whale deserves special attention in a moral world, above the seals that they gang up on to kill and play with before they eat them?
Your trouble is that you have a weird understanding or "moral" as if it were a scientifically quantifiable phenomenon.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GrayArea wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:36 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: September 24th, 2022, 5:10 pm
GrayArea wrote: September 24th, 2022, 3:08 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: September 24th, 2022, 2:59 pm

Nah. That would make the Blue Whale so massively moral as to put to shame all other life forms. Other Cetaceans would follow in a long hierarchy and humans would be way down the list, behind elephants.
The number of neurons could still be one of the requirements for the other factors to play their role in the moral standing of animals. More neurons, more variety.
No.
Morality is a cultural phenomenon, not a genetic one. The idea is without merit.
I am quite happy to believe that female elephants are more moral than most humans. But how would you judge morality except by utterly subjective preconceptions and biases.
Since Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler had more neurons than a female Labrador with her puppies you would have to conclude that wiping out millions of humans for greed and gain is more moral than giving up the substance of your own body to feed babies.
And what of the selfless ant or bee giving up everything for the greater good, though with very limited neurons.
The existence of human beings can still be explained when we say that there are a lot of factors that make morality POSSIBLE to begin with, including the number of neurons. And just because it's possible for a species to possess moral values, it doesn't automatically mean that all members of that species should.

The sheer high amount of neurons and other factors making morality possible is merely one of the countless ways of how those neurons can be used based on our choices (not "are"). In the end, the act of choice itself prevails over the option / possibility. I presume this would be due to the fact that the number of neurons does not definitively equal to what the neurons do.

But I assume factors such as the number of neurons, and the strength of the connections between them, etc, can also contribute to heightening the limit of how deep an organism can think if they simply chose to.

The selfless ant or bee has less grasp of "what's so good about giving up everything" than the humans who act the same way. For the former, it's more of an instinct. The act itself does not decide the depth or the motivations behind that act.
You are just running yourself in ever decreasing circles..
But let's say that you can use this measurement, and put different animals on a hierarchy of morality?
What would you do with it?
WHat do you think it would justify?
User avatar
GrayArea
Posts: 374
Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by GrayArea »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2022, 5:11 am
GrayArea wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:36 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: September 24th, 2022, 5:10 pm
GrayArea wrote: September 24th, 2022, 3:08 pm

The number of neurons could still be one of the requirements for the other factors to play their role in the moral standing of animals. More neurons, more variety.
No.
Morality is a cultural phenomenon, not a genetic one. The idea is without merit.
I am quite happy to believe that female elephants are more moral than most humans. But how would you judge morality except by utterly subjective preconceptions and biases.
Since Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler had more neurons than a female Labrador with her puppies you would have to conclude that wiping out millions of humans for greed and gain is more moral than giving up the substance of your own body to feed babies.
And what of the selfless ant or bee giving up everything for the greater good, though with very limited neurons.
The existence of human beings can still be explained when we say that there are a lot of factors that make morality POSSIBLE to begin with, including the number of neurons. And just because it's possible for a species to possess moral values, it doesn't automatically mean that all members of that species should.

The sheer high amount of neurons and other factors making morality possible is merely one of the countless ways of how those neurons can be used based on our choices (not "are"). In the end, the act of choice itself prevails over the option / possibility. I presume this would be due to the fact that the number of neurons does not definitively equal to what the neurons do.

But I assume factors such as the number of neurons, and the strength of the connections between them, etc, can also contribute to heightening the limit of how deep an organism can think if they simply chose to.

The selfless ant or bee has less grasp of "what's so good about giving up everything" than the humans who act the same way. For the former, it's more of an instinct. The act itself does not decide the depth or the motivations behind that act.
You are just running yourself in ever decreasing circles..
But let's say that you can use this measurement, and put different animals on a hierarchy of morality?
What would you do with it?
WHat do you think it would justify?
Explain how i'm running myself in ever decreasing circles. You didn't really counterargue any of my points. Also, neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy, unlike computing power. It's more than mechanistic, one of the reasons being that neurons allow more freedom within the system. But if we say that it's hypothetically possible, (though it's not) what one could do with this hierarchy of animal morality is to use them to understand the motivations behind animal behaviors, and etc. However, this hierarchy would not justify much of their actions, since to have morality does not mean that morality is always perfect. It's mostly just for the sake of knowledge.
People perceive gray and argue about whether it's black or white.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

GE Morton wrote: September 24th, 2022, 10:34 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: September 24th, 2022, 10:00 am
GE Morton wrote: September 23rd, 2022, 7:04 pm At least one philosopher thinks so, or at least that it is a relevant factor.

https://reason.com/2022/09/22/counting- ... s-animals/

At first blush I thought the suggestion ridiculous. But after some reflection decided there might be something to it, if that number relates to an animal's capacity for experiencing "welfare."
My first thought is that the idea has possibilities, but is incomplete. It seems to estimate the 'magnitude' of particular attributes by counting the nodes of the 'network', which sounds OK as a starting point, but ignores the network's connections.
The number of connections is (roughly) proportional to the number of neurons, at least with mammals.
I think I've changed my mind. The link you originally provided talks first about neuron-count per individual, which, I suppose, might be a useful measurement. Then it seems to talk about the total number of neurons per species, multiplying the neuron count by the count of individuals, and concludes that humans are, in some way, superior because of this. And now I think that maybe this is a cobbled-together 'justification' for human indifference to the suffering (if any) of animals. Disappointing, but then maybe the idea was a non-starter in the first place?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GrayArea wrote: September 25th, 2022, 7:02 am
Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2022, 5:11 am
GrayArea wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:36 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: September 24th, 2022, 5:10 pm

No.
Morality is a cultural phenomenon, not a genetic one. The idea is without merit.
I am quite happy to believe that female elephants are more moral than most humans. But how would you judge morality except by utterly subjective preconceptions and biases.
Since Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler had more neurons than a female Labrador with her puppies you would have to conclude that wiping out millions of humans for greed and gain is more moral than giving up the substance of your own body to feed babies.
And what of the selfless ant or bee giving up everything for the greater good, though with very limited neurons.
The existence of human beings can still be explained when we say that there are a lot of factors that make morality POSSIBLE to begin with, including the number of neurons. And just because it's possible for a species to possess moral values, it doesn't automatically mean that all members of that species should.

The sheer high amount of neurons and other factors making morality possible is merely one of the countless ways of how those neurons can be used based on our choices (not "are"). In the end, the act of choice itself prevails over the option / possibility. I presume this would be due to the fact that the number of neurons does not definitively equal to what the neurons do.

But I assume factors such as the number of neurons, and the strength of the connections between them, etc, can also contribute to heightening the limit of how deep an organism can think if they simply chose to.

The selfless ant or bee has less grasp of "what's so good about giving up everything" than the humans who act the same way. For the former, it's more of an instinct. The act itself does not decide the depth or the motivations behind that act.
You are just running yourself in ever decreasing circles..
But let's say that you can use this measurement, and put different animals on a hierarchy of morality?
What would you do with it?
WHat do you think it would justify?
Explain how i'm running myself in ever decreasing circles. You didn't really counterargue any of my points. Also, neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy, unlike computing power.
Good Grief!
That being the case then why are we even talking about this absurd wretched article?
User avatar
GrayArea
Posts: 374
Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by GrayArea »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2022, 10:43 am
GrayArea wrote: September 25th, 2022, 7:02 am
Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2022, 5:11 am
GrayArea wrote: September 24th, 2022, 7:36 pm

The existence of human beings can still be explained when we say that there are a lot of factors that make morality POSSIBLE to begin with, including the number of neurons. And just because it's possible for a species to possess moral values, it doesn't automatically mean that all members of that species should.

The sheer high amount of neurons and other factors making morality possible is merely one of the countless ways of how those neurons can be used based on our choices (not "are"). In the end, the act of choice itself prevails over the option / possibility. I presume this would be due to the fact that the number of neurons does not definitively equal to what the neurons do.

But I assume factors such as the number of neurons, and the strength of the connections between them, etc, can also contribute to heightening the limit of how deep an organism can think if they simply chose to.

The selfless ant or bee has less grasp of "what's so good about giving up everything" than the humans who act the same way. For the former, it's more of an instinct. The act itself does not decide the depth or the motivations behind that act.
You are just running yourself in ever decreasing circles..
But let's say that you can use this measurement, and put different animals on a hierarchy of morality?
What would you do with it?
WHat do you think it would justify?
Explain how i'm running myself in ever decreasing circles. You didn't really counterargue any of my points. Also, neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy, unlike computing power.
Good Grief!
That being the case then why are we even talking about this absurd wretched article?
Because I want to talk about it, and you're responding to me.
People perceive gray and argue about whether it's black or white.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by GE Morton »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2022, 5:04 am
It's still rubbish, because its about the content of the brain, not its relative mass.
It's mass (or neuron count) limits what kinds of "content" it can manifest.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: September 25th, 2022, 8:53 am
Then it seems to talk about the total number of neurons per species, multiplying the neuron count by the count of individuals, and concludes that humans are, in some way, superior because of this.
Yes, it takes a utilitarian turn at that point ("greatest good for the greatest number"). But that argument is no more valid for animal welfare than it is for humans.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by GE Morton »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2022, 5:10 am
Well duh?? I am making moral judgements??
Yes: "Since Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler had more neurons than a female Labrador with her puppies you would have to conclude that wiping out millions of humans for greed and gain is more moral than giving up the substance of your own body to feed babies."

You're rendering judgment on the morality of Genghis Khan and Labradors. Which is irrelevant to the question of the moral standing of humans or Labradors.
The brains of cetacaens are far more complex and convoluted than humans despite trying to minimise them because of their mass, that would indicate a greater propensity for emotional understanding and potential suffering.
No, it doesn't (if you mean greater than humans). Because most of a brain's mass is not involved in cognitive processes.
What makes you think, even if you could measure it, that a concept such a "moral standing" is meaningful, even inside human society, let alone outside it?.
Well, that concept allows us to distinguish entities to whom we moral agents may have moral obligations from those we don't, e.g., rocks from humans. All moralities presuppose that some entities have moral standing and others don't.
Does a killer whale deserves special attention in a moral world, above the seals that they gang up on to kill and play with before they eat them?
Your trouble is that you have a weird understanding or "moral" as if it were a scientifically quantifiable phenomenon.
Again, you seem not to grasp the question of the thread. Neither orcas nor seals are moral agents, and how they behave toward one another is irrelevant to that question, which is, What obligations do WE, as moral agents, have to either species? How must WE treat them? And, might we have have more obligations to some species than to others?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GrayArea wrote: September 25th, 2022, 11:31 am
Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2022, 10:43 am
GrayArea wrote: September 25th, 2022, 7:02 am
Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2022, 5:11 am

You are just running yourself in ever decreasing circles..
But let's say that you can use this measurement, and put different animals on a hierarchy of morality?
What would you do with it?
WHat do you think it would justify?
Explain how i'm running myself in ever decreasing circles. You didn't really counterargue any of my points. Also, neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy, unlike computing power.
Good Grief!
That being the case then why are we even talking about this absurd wretched article?
Because I want to talk about it, and you're responding to me.
If, as you say, " neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy,", then the conversation os over.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021