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.
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.
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.
. . . Word salad. .. . . Or, a.k.a., a distinction without a difference.
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.
--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.
There is no such thing as humane slaughter.
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.
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 was hard for me to follow, could u possibly clarify that?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
You build on the marginal land
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.
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.
