One failure has killed us

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Once the great religions injected the most dangerous failure into mankind's upcoming civilisation:

The stupid believe that we are the ruling species and all other living things are our subjects.

On this point we have missed a real chance to find the only right track beyond the frame of free nature, and since then we are spinning around our selves like in a drain. Our disrespect and arrogance has automatically grown to an extreme state that is impossible to survive. The things that are to find when exploring the background of life are deadly unless having found the deepest respect toward all life, and our borderless and undamped expansion in all regards will lead us into unavoidable and complete self-destruction anyway. Fascination toward nature is the only rational goal available and that's why we have never found a real target. Our end as species is very close at hand.

If those peoples that later reached the top position in terms of science and technological progress once would have adapted to a religion that had taught deepest respect even toward the weakest creatures, then all developments would have moderated onto al level that can be survived until reaching some kind of higher goal. Without any doubt, the multifarious limitations connected with respecting the weaker creatures, are actually what would have prevented nearly all of the huge problems and dangers mankind is facing in this final stage of its existence.

Does anybody disagree?

_________________________________
www.basicrule.info

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,224 • Replies: 11

No top replies

@steffen phil,

No opinion, just neutral speculation(You reserve no doubt whatsoever!?) Now, correct me if I am wrong, you are proposing sustaining the weak, by virtue of the strong? Forgoing expansion, and promoting consolidation? Who is it that you consider the "weak"? The Chinese? and to which dangers are you referring? Global Warming? Nuclear Armament? Terrorism? Food shortage? Poverty? Extraterrestrial Invasion? I need specifics to form an opinion. However, I do remain curious.

1 Reply

@Camerama,

Quote:

Our end as species is very close at hand.

2012?

Quote:

If those peoples that later reached the top position in terms of science and technological progress once would have adapted to a religion that had taught deepest respect even toward the weakest creatures, then all developments would have moderated onto al level that can be survived until reaching some kind of higher goal. Without any doubt, the multifarious limitations connected with respecting the weaker creatures, are actually what would have prevented nearly all of the huge problems and dangers mankind is facing in this final stage of its existence.

Why weaker creatures, and why not other humans? Wouldn't we be better off if we had respect for all humans rather than on the creatures we need to kill to feed ourselves and test vaccines? The more you respect mice the less you respect humans.

1 Reply

@Jebediah,

Quote:

Now, correct me if I am wrong, you are proposing sustaining the weak, by virtue of the strong? Forgoing expansion, and promoting consolidation? Who is it that you consider the "weak"? The Chinese? and to which dangers are you referring? Global Warming? Nuclear Armament? Terrorism? Food shortage? Poverty? Extraterrestrial Invasion? I need specifics to form an opinion.

@Camerama:

To the dangers: What will be the dangers you would describe for somebody jumping out of a plane? Is it the danger to get a heart attack, to freeze to death, to strangle oneself in panic or to smash on the ground?

Anyway, it doesn't really matter, the same as it doesn't matter anymore since we have completely left the frame of free nature without taking along the respect and fascination towards all living things. The only difference is that there will be hundreds or thousands of different dangers, with each one by itself providing deadly consequences.

There are hidden rules in nature and arrogance means to be dead even so ones heart is still beating on for a little while.
I am not pretending anything and I would never talk such things if I wasn't absolutely sure.
Why not telling the truth?

Quote:

Why weaker creatures, and why not other humans? Wouldn't we be better off if we had respect for all humans rather than on the creatures we need to kill to feed ourselves and test vaccines? The more you respect mice the less you respect humans.

@Jebediah:

When you say "why not other humans", where are you taking this from? There is nothing at all in my phrases with such ignorant meaning, so please stay straight and fair.

Anyway, you are still looking in the wrong direction. One will never really learn to unconditional respect humans before having learned to respect mice. All cruelties between men have got the basis in the disrespect, ignorance and arrogance towards the small and offenceless creatures and such will never heal anymore. This is not naive waffle, but rather it is a very hard fact.

As mentioned, there are hidden rules in nature and you should be open to face the fact that your angle of view might be too cramped to see them all. In the consequence, things that are taken for granted could be horrible cruelties. For example: There are billions of birds suffering in their plain cell, without ever seeing the sun or the moon, for giving cheap meat or eggs to the human keepers (btw: everybody eating such things is a keeper). The reason is not mainly that we are hungry -for the majority of us that would be just a arrogant illusion or alibi - the reason is we are using everything we found beyond the frame of free nature to squeeze those creatures still inside and therefore are defenceless, in absolutely borderless ways.

Just imagine there would be something that had created principals before giving the bang to our universe. Would that something, what ever it might be, have allowed any species to exist in the long term and to reach any kind of higher goal, when it would treat other creatures in this manner?

I believe this something would be anything with great fascination for the extreme diversity that would develop in the free nature (think of all the small and giant creatures in the oceans for example or the age of the ruling reptiles for hundred of million years).

To believe our appearance would have been the sense for all that would be plainly na?ve. Obviously it was more that we had some chance to be creators by ourselves after leaving the frame of free nature - but we have failed by not finding respect and fascination toward the things thats expectation once inspired the creator(s) of our universe.

_______________________
www.basicrule.info

1 Reply

@steffen phil,

Quote:

When you say "why not other humans", where are you taking this from? There is nothing at all in my phrases with such ignorant meaning, so please stay straight and fair.

Sorry, I meant "why not just other humans". Since you said you thought humanity should respect even the smallest animals, it's clearly implied that you think we should respect humans.

[quote]Anyway, you are still looking in the wrong direction. One will never really learn to unconditional respect humans before having learned to respect mice. All cruelties between men have got the basis in the disrespect, ignorance and arrogance towards the small and offenceless creatures and such will never heal anymore. This is not naive waffle, but rather it is a very hard fact. [/quote]Well, I don't believe in letting humans die of diseases because we didn't test vaccines on mice. That's the dilemma you face when you say that we should have the deepest respect for even the smallest of creatures.

Even if you are a vegan, you'll find that most farming results in animals being killed.

Some religions observe the rule of treating everything with respect, judging that it will strengthen the habit of being respectful, will cultivate an attitude. I agree that it will, but I think you can cultivate that attitude while still allowing for vaccines to be tested and such.

0 Replies

@steffen phil,

Steffen:
I think the religious notion that man is master of all is simply a manifestation of what species do all the time. A species in its quest for reproduction will exploit any niche possible. It just so happens that humans have the cognitive ability to exploit more niches. We would not be the first species to go extinct because we ruined our own environment.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

Jebediah wrote:

Quote:

Well, I don't believe in letting humans die of diseases because we didn't test vaccines on mice. That's the dilemma you face when you say that we should have the deepest respect for even the smallest of creatures.

Some religions observe the rule of treating everything with respect, judging that it will strengthen the habit of being respectful, will cultivate an attitude. I agree that it will, but I think you can cultivate that attitude while still allowing for vaccines to be tested and such.

@Jebediah:

My knowledge about the necessity of mice for the development of vaccines is not as deep as I could state any opinion on that issue. There are a lot of discussions about such matters and quite likely the scientific representatives of both opposite fractions would provide quite contrary opinions.
Anyway, as far as it is discussed in the publicity at least a big part of animal experiments is done for the development of cosmetics, washing powder and so on.

I think that "mice and vaccine" is an issue that is often used as sham, while in reality the very large majority of cruel and brutal disrespect towards the animals comes with mankind's almost complete ignorance and not at all with any kind of lifesaving matters.
Most people just don't care if the animals they are feeding on have spend their entire life in a little plain box without ever seeing a flower or even the sun. They only care about the money they have to pay.

Quote:

Even if you are a vegan, you'll find that most farming results in animals being killed.

I'm not even a vegan, I've spent part of my life in the outdoors and still doing so since 20 years. There I do kill animals for feeding myself. The major sin is captivity (something that has never been on earth befor mankind has created it). It is easy to avoid any products from captive animals. I consequentaly do so since many years and will stay on with this for the rest of my life. That is quite easy, whereas, for me, being a keeper (directly or indirectly) would be like staying in a horror movie.

GoshisDead wrote:

Quote:

I think the religious notion that man is master of all is simply a manifestation of what species do all the time. A species in its quest for reproduction will exploit any niche possible. It just so happens that humans have the cognitive ability to exploit more niches.

@GoshisDead:

We are not occupying any niche, we have actually left this game with leaving the frame of free nature and out there we are exploring the background of life already. This state is connected with huge power that has never been available for any species on earth. Using a bit of common sense one can easily comes to the conclusion that there might be some kind of higher goal reachable after leaving the frame of free nature. But it would also be deviant to all natural laws if such could be achieved automatically. I would be very surprised if pure physically enforcement is the key for entering such a goal. (Guaranteed, there is not a cold computer in the background of life)

Quote:

We would not be the first species to go extinct because we ruined our own environment.

Extinction of species is an all-day natural process, but it is not something that simple. The development of a species into a niche is a long and very complex process. Free natures creatures are like very complex stones in an extremaly complex puzzle and therefore an extinction is a very complex process itself. Some important factors for extinction are environmental or climate changing's and the upcoming of natural enemies. Mostly it is an interdigitating combination of this and other factors.

Free natures creatures, including the strongest predators are very caution (not by intention but automatically) and to be honest I do not know any species which has destroyed itselve by destroying its environment here on earth. Still I'm really very interested in that, can you give any examples?

________________________________
www.basicrule.info

2 Replies

@steffen phil,

Steffen:
We are in a niche, just because we have dominated the entire earth does in no way mean we aren't occupying a niche in respects to the adaptation argument. Also the awesome thing about cognition, material culture, culture and the ability to manipulate them means that said processes are sped up exponetially. We have the ability to reflect upon the niche, thus taking the randomness mostly out of the equation, while not removing the obvious natural drive to dominate one's environment for maximum reproduction.

One of the primary reasons for habitat degradation (when not caused by humans) is the species occupying the niche are too successful for a time degrading their own habitat and thus the original adaptation that made them thrive is no longer as useful in the newly morphed habitat, thus another species or a mutation of the original species occupies the degraded habitat because they are more fit to do so.

0 Replies

@steffen phil,

steffen;121082 wrote:

Jebediah wrote:

@Jebediah:

My knowledge about the necessity of mice for the development of vaccines is not as deep as I could state any opinion on that issue. There are a lot of discussions about such matters and quite likely the scientific representatives of both opposite fractions would provide quite contrary opinions.

Yes, but in science, if both sides offer contradicting opinions they cannot both be right.
[quote]Anyway, as far as it is discussed in the publicity at least a big part of animal experiments is done for the development of cosmetics, washing powder and so on.
I think that "mice and vaccine" is an issue that is often used as sham, while in reality the very large majority of cruel and brutal disrespect towards the animals comes with mankind's almost complete ignorance and not at all with any kind of lifesaving matters.
Most people just don't care if the animals they are feeding on have spend their entire life in a little plain box without ever seeing a flower or even the sun. They only care about the money they have to pay.[/quote]I agree that cosmetics is a different issue. As far as medicine, we cannot have new medicines without testing them on animals, it is impossible. The only question is whether we want the first test batch to be done on humans or on lab rats.

People generally aren't willing to pay the money for free range chicken eggs, it's true. But I would urge them to use their extra money to help the people of Haiti before I would urge them to buy free range chicken eggs instead of regular.

I don't think respect for animals will lead to respect for humans, it's more likely the other way around. Where has the animal rights movement gained traction? In modern countries, where we are more tolerant and generally nicer to people than they were in ancient times.

1 Reply

@Jebediah,

@Jebediah:

Quote:

People generally aren't willing to pay the money for free range chicken eggs, it's true. But I would urge them to use their extra money to help the people of Haiti before I would urge them to buy free range chicken eggs instead of regular.

To play someting off against something is not the right way when discussing this kind of matters. You are not doing that but you are turning into that direction with the above phrase. If somebody wants to buy eggs of birds that live in a plain cell for their entire life (you call such eggs "regular"), it is up to them.
As mentioned, for us as species it doesn't matter anymore, but there might be some other connections wich could be pretty interesting for one as individual.

@GoshisDead:

Quote:

One of the primary reasons for habitat degradation (when not caused by humans) is the species occupying the niche are too successful for a time degrading their own habitat and thus the original adaptation that made them thrive is no longer as useful in the newly morphed habitat, thus another species or a mutation of the original species occupies the degraded habitat because they are more fit to do so.

That sounds better. As said, such a process is always very complex. Still very interesting, there are creatures which are even able to stay on the end of the food chain for a hundred million years without changing very much (such as the strongest predator on earth, can be seen on my website).

Quote:

We are in a niche, just because we have dominated the entire earth does in no way mean we aren't occupying a niche in respects to the adaptation argument. Also the awesome thing about cognition, material culture, culture and the ability to manipulate them means that said processes are sped up exponetially. We have the ability to reflect upon the niche, thus taking the randomness mostly out of the equation, while not removing the obvious natural drive to dominate one's environment for maximum reproduction.

OK, we are in a niche. If you will, everything is always in a niche. But anyway, just try to open your mind and understand that the frame of free nature was the frame for all living things during a very long, exiting and facinating time. And now we have left this frame and there is not much space between us and what is in the background of life. It is like a invisible border and there is no chance to cross it unless finding something beyond physical power. Respect and the absence of ignorance and arrogance would be suitable tools for such a journey.

______________________
www.basicrule.info

1 Reply

@steffen phil,

Steffen:
I do understand and empathize with your view. I was simply musing about why we act surprised about the situation we are in given our history and nature.

0 Replies

@steffen phil,

Humans will go on for billions of years. They will and have always had to learn how not to end their species and they will do this again. I assure you.

0 Replies

One failure has killed us

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know