Good_Egg wrote: ↑July 27th, 2022, 9:08 am
Sy Borg wrote: ↑July 26th, 2022, 8:39 pm
However, when discussing death being required to sustain life, the level of strife and suffering inflicted on being on a daily basis - human and otherwise - is enormous, beyond comprehension.
Against what baseline are you judging the strife and suffering experienced by chickens to be enormous ?
Does being eaten by humans necessarily cause more strife and suffering to the average chicken than being eaten by foxes ? Or dying of disease or hunger and being eaten by worms ?
Or is it just that the number of chickens being bred to feed the humans is enormous ?
What's your comparator here ?
Or are you just bewailing that life involves pain and not suggesting that anything could ever be any different ?
There is no world peace, just transient pockets of relative peace.
Spreading that level of transient relative peace throughout all times and places in the world is what most of us mean by "world peace". You know, absence of war ?
Seems to me a valid question - what prevents us humans from scaling up and universalizing the most peaceful examples of human existence ?
It seems you are leaning towards a Descartes angle, that other animals don't really suffer, nut us humans. That view lead to outrageous cruelties.
I have said multiple times that life involves suffering and death and, yes, nothing will be any different.
There is very obviously no possibility whatsoever of world peace and the notion is clearly an unreachable ideal, like The Perfect Man or Perfect Woman, or the Garden of Eden. While competition exists, there can be no peace, and that's inevitable.
Let's say we create a Shangri-La world, where some peaceful indigenous tribe has influenced and inspired all societies with their fabulous philosophies. It's already impossible at the start (I expect that in such a situation the racists and theists rebelling instantly and people would be accused of being "woke").
Gandhi's Non Violence movement was the closest example I can think of, yet his influence has already largely disappeared from Indian society. Even the caste system has persisted, despite his efforts.
In game theory, a single bad actor in Prisoner's Dilemma can bring disequilibrium to a perfectly peaceful society, just as viral disease can spread through a population from a single viroid. When everyone is cooperating, a single person prospering by exploiting others' good nature can start a chain of "I'd like some of those benefits".
Why? Because preservation is unstable because breakdown (via entropy) is intrinsic to physical reality. Any perfectly peaceful society will inevitably start breaking down - unless the "perfectly peaceful" society coerces potential recalcitrants into being peaceful.