Good vs Evil (why evil will win)

[Gregory A]

Any farmland used for animal feed can be used for crops for human consumption.

If we just repurpose the farm land dedicated to animal feed we can produce enough food for the entire human population because a person needs far less food than a cow. Not to mention the water that is used in animal production, We would free up literally billions of gallons of potable water for human use.

LIvestock don't get eaten alive, don't die of hunger or thirst and are well treated to get best value at market. They are processed in a humane way, and that's better than any ending nature has in in store for them. And it can be said that they get to enjoy life because of a demand for meat. And It may be that we can get by without meat if we stop reproducing, ourselves. But that would be the requirement.

 

[expat_panama]

If we define heaven as being the perfect place and we are free to define 'perfect' then a heavenly place and heaven can be one and the same....

That's just it, we can define the words any way we want to come up w/ any afterlife of our chosing, but none of that will do anything to whatever afterlife there is. My problem is that there's a lot of good evidence that there's nothing after we die, and there's other just as good evidence that it's really neat, and my conclusion is there's simply no way to nail it down here and now. Meanwhile I got a great life to live so that's what I'll keep busy with.

...And it does look like the human race will be lost. But to what? Inaction? And is this 'evil' or something that's inevetable, a deterministic outcome?...

There's no reason to blame the loss of the human race on something bad. Everything in this universe has limits (except reality maybe). My guess is that we'll be replaced by our mutated kids who will most probably be far more powerful and capable than us. Homo sapiens have only been around what, 100k years? The previous humans (before the Neanderthals) was homo habilis and they hung around a million years. The future's really hard to predict.

...If 'Time' is real then all outcomes have in effect been decided or otherwise can only be the sum of the probabilities that are around us now. I like to think that the future is not written and we can make real changes, but the truth is it looks like we don't have much choice....

Time seems to be very real but it's also quite fluid --by moving we can make time slower or faster, and back when the universe was born w/ everything at the speed of light time stood still. Couple that w/ the fact that the universe is heading either for a cold death or a big rip it makes time a lot less meaningful.

However, my preference is for the idea that life is what we make of it.

 

[jehanne1431]

If it's impossible to reason with an atheist and there is no reason why it would be impossible to reason with a non-believer, then logically an atheist is not a non-believer. Atheism is not a non-belief in god but is instead opposition to belief in god. And it's why atheists target religion disregarding the fact that religion's existence is not dependent on there being a God.

. . . Word salad. .. . . Or, a.k.a., a distinction without a difference.

The fact you live your life without considering God's point of view on any subject, without caring about the consequences of your actions with regards to what happens after death ---- given all that, it is impossible to reason with an atheist on basically any subject. Our values and priorities and fears do not coincide in the least.

 

[expat_panama]

Evil relates to morality. And morality is a survival enhancement mechanism...

Maybe, or then again maybe not. My personal take is that doing good is an imperative that's beyond mere survival. Would I die if my death brought about more that was good? Of course I would.

...Reality gives rise to consciousness. Or consciousness gives rise to reality? The question of why there is something instead of nothing is because it can be argued that there is both. Reality exists while we are conscious, whereas there is nothing when we are unconscious...

--and there's nothing I can logically add to convince u otherwise. No matter, after ur dead the rest of us will simply continue dealing w/ reality as it is. Reality is, and our consciousness is just doing the best it can in living w/ reality and thoroughly enjoying ourselves.

 

[Blues Man]

LIvestock don't get eaten alive, don't die of hunger or thirst and are well treated to get best value at market. They are processed in a humane way, and that's better than any ending nature has in in store for them. And it can be said that they get to enjoy life because of a demand for meat. And It may be that we can get by without meat if we stop reproducing, ourselves. But that would be the requirement.

There is no such thing as humane slaughter.

Why would it be a bad thing if there were less cows because they are used for cropland management and the regeneration of farmlands and not mass produced for food in what are deplorable conditions?

U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists | Cornell Chronicle

From one ecologist's perspective, the American system of farming grain-fed livestock consumes resources far out of proportion to the yield, accelerates soil erosion, affects world food supply and will be changing in the future.

news.cornell.edu

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think you're right.


No we wouldn't because he had no need to kill people. Whereas if we don't raise livestock there will be a trade-off in human deaths. A lot of land in the world is marginal meaning that it is only suitable for grazing animals.

Well, he had a "need", he used the whole thing for political purposes. I'm a vegetarian, I think we don't "need" to eat meat.

 

[Gregory A]

That's just it, we can define the words any way we want to come up w/ any afterlife of our chosing, but none of that will do anything to whatever afterlife there is. My problem is that there's a lot of good evidence that there's nothing after we die, and there's other just as good evidence that it's really neat, and my conclusion is there's simply no way to nail it down here and now. Meanwhile I got a great life to live so that's what I'll keep busy with.

There's no reason to blame the loss of the human race on something bad. Everything in this universe has limits (except reality maybe). My guess is that we'll be replaced by our mutated kids who will most probably be far more powerful and capable than us. Homo sapiens have only been around what, 100k years? The previous humans (before the Neanderthals) was homo habilis and they hung around a million years. The future's really hard to predict.

We didn't have the methods by which we could wipe ourselves out back then. And it won't be something necessarily easy to predict that will bring about the end of mankind. It's just as likely it will end as a result of a breakdown in society as it will end in war.

Time seems to be very real but it's also quite fluid --by moving we can make time slower or faster, and back when the universe was born w/ everything at the speed of light time stood still. Couple that w/ the fact that the universe is heading either for a cold death or a big rip it makes time a lot less meaningful.

However, my preference is for the idea that life is what we make of it.

Time appears to be an illusion. We can dilate time where time is a rate of motion, but not change nothing when it comes to time's apparent direction. If Time exists then so much for free-will anyhow.

At the moment life is being decided by primal forces and the opportunity we have given these. Vulnerabilities exist for no other reason than them being exploited.

 

[expat_panama]

We didn't have the methods by which we could wipe ourselves out back then. And it won't be something necessarily easy to predict that will bring about the end of mankind. It's just as likely it will end as a result of a breakdown in society as it will end in war...

That may be a bit controversial; I mean, do we really have the ability to "wipe ourselves out"? My personal take is "no". What wiped out the neanderthals? Was it society breakdown? War? How about we just say that any species that's able to survive for a few 100k years is a pretty good species.

...Time appears to be an illusion. We can dilate time where time is a rate of motion, but not change nothing when it comes to time's apparent direction. If Time exists then so much for free-will anyhow....

Ok so we can't take time literally because it's an illusion. Lot's of things we can't take literally but we sure as hell better take them seriously. The icon of ur document on ur PC desktop isn't literally ur document, but if u right click on it/delete sure screwed. Same w/ a train coming at u & u say that the matter is just empty space w/ nanoscopic nuclei & infinitesimal electrons --u still get squished. There are a lot of things that we have to take seriously even while we can't take them literally.

Time's the same thing. So it's an illusion. Meanwhile we'd better take it damn seriously.

At the moment life is being decided by primal forces and the opportunity we have given these. Vulnerabilities exist for no other reason than them being exploited.

That was hard for me to follow, could u possibly clarify that?

 

[Gregory A]

. . . Word salad. .. . . Or, a.k.a., a distinction without a difference.

The fact you live your life without considering God's point of view on any subject, without caring about the consequences of your actions with regards to what happens after death ---- given all that, it is impossible to reason with an atheist on basically any subject. Our values and priorities and fears do not coincide in the least.

For a god to exist atheism's position needs to be invalid. Which of course is not saying if it's invalid God exists. Atheism's position is an invalid one, and because it is opposed to religion it needs to be political, which it is too.

 

[Gregory A]

There is no such thing as humane slaughter.

Why would it be a bad thing if there were less cows because they are used for cropland management and the regeneration of farmlands and not mass produced for food in what are deplorable conditions?

U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists | Cornell Chronicle

From one ecologist's perspective, the American system of farming grain-fed livestock consumes resources far out of proportion to the yield, accelerates soil erosion, affects world food supply and will be changing in the future.

news.cornell.edu

Feedlots are unnatural environments and they should be phased out. But the more natural, free-ranging of livestock, should be kept. And sure we wish nothing dies, but that is how it is. Better the livestock is 'processed by us than native creatures be eliminated by nature. The more vegans the better, but then what to do with marginal land that's in the face of an increasing population? I mean we can't enforce two-child families (creating replacements for their parents only), a stable growth rate of zero.

 

[Gregory A]

That may be a bit controversial; I mean, do we really have the ability to "wipe ourselves out"? My personal take is "no". What wiped out the neanderthals? Was it society breakdown? War? How about we just say that any species that's able to survive for a few 100k years is a pretty good species.

We presently have the capability of wiping ourselves out many times over and the nuclear winter that would follow, with the destruction of infrastructure that would occur would leave cities uninhabitable for centuries.

Ok so we can't take time literally because it's an illusion. Lot's of things we can't take literally but we sure as hell better take them seriously. The icon of ur document on ur PC desktop isn't literally ur document, but if u right click on it/delete sure screwed. Same w/ a train coming at u & u say that the matter is just empty space w/ nanoscopic nuclei & infinitesimal electrons --u still get squished. There are a lot of things that we have to take seriously even while we can't take them literally.

That sure is right. But the problem is our soft lifestyles lead to soft outlooks. And, as we need to be comfortable when sitting in front of our computers we also tend to look at the world through rose-colored glasses because of that. And, if Religion is the opiate of the masses then humanism is the most opiated of all religions. We are becoming increasingly naive is what is happening and this presents itself as a vulnerability.

Time's the same thing. So it's an illusion. Meanwhile we'd better take it damn seriously.

With less than eight months to make the changes needed before we reach the point of no return, we had better take such a short amount of time damned seriously.

That was hard for me to follow, could u possibly clarify that?

If for whatever reason mankind ceases to exist within one hundred years it would not be because it is the intention of anyone, in particular, to do that and be instead the influence of primal forces at work.

 

[Gregory A]

If there is a god then why would he let Ted Bundy successfully escape imprisonment three times? The answer is that Bundy was rewarded for his positive actions, his planning, losing weight to squeeze through tight passages, all positive things. We are rewarded, not just for doing good morally, but for our efforts. Knit a sweater and the finished sweater is the reward. Morality is a positive thing, but it's not the only positive thing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

LIvestock don't get eaten alive, don't die of hunger or thirst and are well treated to get best value at market. They are processed in a humane way, and that's better than any ending nature has in in store for them. And it can be said that they get to enjoy life because of a demand for meat. And It may be that we can get by without meat if we stop reproducing, ourselves. But that would be the requirement.

Let's change it.

'Jews don't get eaten alive, don't die of hunger or thirst and are well treated to get best value at market. They are processed in a humane way, and that's better than any ending nature has in in store for them. And it can be said that they get to enjoy life because of a demand for meat. And It may be that we can get by without meat if we stop reproducing, ourselves. But that would be the requirement.'

Now, imagine how people would react.

 

[Gregory A]

Let's change it.

'Jews don't get eaten alive, don't die of hunger or thirst and are well treated to get best value at market. They are processed in a humane way, and that's better than any ending nature has in in store for them. And it can be said that they get to enjoy life because of a demand for meat. And It may be that we can get by without meat if we stop reproducing, ourselves. But that would be the requirement.'

Now, imagine how people would react.

People are conscious of life itself, cattle are not. They don't stress over the possibility of their demise. In the wild the slightest of impediments, a limp for example, singles them out as targets for predators. Whereas a limping domestic animal is likely to be singled out for treatment. If we don't have livestock they don't have lives to be enjoyed and native animals take their place these dying painful natural deaths.

 

[Gregory A]

This thread has gone off track because it had initially attempted to change an outcome that in a sense has already taken place and as a result of that is now impossible to change. A chronological protection factor in force. If the future is real then all we do is predetermined to happen. Regardless, as an adult male I will try and meet my obligations to protect society even if fighting a battle in a war that can never be won.

"Would I die if my death brought about more that was good? Of course I would." So easy to say but where are you when even as much as a nonmilitary battle is being fought? In your attempted self-promotion you had stuck your neck out but what now?

 

[Blues Man]

Feedlots are unnatural environments and they should be phased out. But the more natural, free-ranging of livestock, should be kept. And sure we wish nothing dies, but that is how it is. Better the livestock is 'processed by us than native creatures be eliminated by nature. The more vegans the better, but then what to do with marginal land that's in the face of an increasing population? I mean we can't enforce two-child families (creating replacements for their parents only), a stable growth rate of zero.

You build on the marginal land

As I said we can feed 800 million people with the same crops we grow for livestock feed in the US alone.

Last time I checked that is more than twice the population of the US.

You can crow more food for human consumption on an acre than you can livestock feed

 

[frigidweirdo]

People are conscious of life itself, cattle are not. They don't stress over the possibility of their demise. In the wild the slightest of impediments, a limp for example, singles them out as targets for predators. Whereas a limping domestic animal is likely to be singled out for treatment. If we don't have livestock they don't have lives to be enjoyed and native animals take their place these dying painful natural deaths.

Are they? Are they not?
What is "conscious of life itself"? When was the last time you had a conversation with a cow?

And if we have humans who are unable to stress about life, is it okay to kill them?

 

[Gregory A]

You build on the marginal land

As I said we can feed 800 million people with the same crops we grow for livestock feed in the US alone.

Last time I checked that is more than twice the population of the US.

You can grow more food for human consumption on an acre than you can livestock feed

If you had any understanding of the actual situation you'd be aware that building on agricultural land costs lives. This is simple logic. Using methanol as fuel costs lives. Feeding corn to cattle costs lives. People in other countries die of starvation everyday.

 

[rupol2000]

Evil comes down to predation and parasitism.

God has nothing to do with it. The Christian God Yahweh did not call himself good, and he did evil as well (he demanded bloody sacrifices, was obsessed with jealousy, was a tyrant, and so on)

 

[Gregory A]

Evil comes down to predation and parasitism.

God has nothing to do with it. The Christian God Yahweh did not call himself good, and he did evil as well (he demanded bloody sacrifices, was obsessed with jealousy, was a tyrant, and so on)

Good and evil we relate to morality but can still be seen as being positive and negative actions independently though. We can do good by rationalizing situations, do evil by being ignorant of them.