17 replies to this topic

[Florian Xavier]

is so high, i just checked "Hyena Eats Wildebeest Alive Brutal Killing Full Movie..Kenya AfricaHyena Eats Wildebeest Alive Brutal Killing Full Movie..Kenya Africa", i don't post the link cause its graphic, but basicaly you can imagine.

 

Full natural selection is rare but still exist in some place like KENYA, is it the role of man to make it stop ?

 

Edited by Florian Xavier, 29 October 2014 - 02:29 AM.

[Clacksberg]

Yes, but you'd have to avoid upsetting nature's balance. But that video brings it home - not nice to see any suffering. 

[Clacksberg]

Evolution went wrong with the Hyena!

[Mind]

Incredible that the wildebeest lived so long with such a prolific injury and bleeding.

 

As far as suffering goes, throughout our history humans have treated each other much worse than that hyena treated the wildebeest. Maybe we should focus on ending human-based torture first.

[Soma]

Incredible that the wildebeest lived so long with such a prolific injury and bleeding.

As far as suffering goes, throughout our history humans have treated each other much worse than that hyena treated the wildebeest. Maybe we should focus on ending human-based torture first.

For humans to stop exploiting, subjugating, and killing other human beings, we need to stop fighting against one another and identify a single goal that is essential to all of humanity and in which we can cooperate. Historically, we humans have disproportionately emphasized our differences rather than our similarities, and even less the universals of life. Continuing on that path has only one inevitable end.

[Thew]

Incredible that the wildebeest lived so long with such a prolific injury and bleeding.

 

As far as suffering goes, throughout our history humans have treated each other much worse than that hyena treated the wildebeest. Maybe we should focus on ending human-based torture first.

 

Yeah you're right.

We should stop killing/harming each other, we should more aware about it.

[Saffron]

Yes, it is the role of man to interfere with Darwinism and stop as much as possible. Nature is unfavorable and bad. Most people believe nature is wither neutral, or good, just because, because its nature. Nature is bad. Common sense observation. Its on a nihilistic Darwinian operating system, where its perpetual war and competition for resources, food and survival, so the offspring can then do the same, and so on.

 

Nature is Nihilistic Darkness-Suffering-Based. This planet & physical 3D Matter-Energy Space-Time reality is darkness based not balanced in the middle or good. Theres infinite more sources of pain than pleasure, and they can be more intense than the pleasure is pleasurable.

 

Most people from all categories of belief do not believe this or admit it. Most atheists wont admit this. Most Religious/Metaphysics wont admit this. There is one branch in the Atheist-Scientific-Naturalist crowd that WILL admit this, its Abolitionist Bioethics. There is one branch in the Religions/Spiritual crowd that ALSO WILL admit this, its called Gnosticism. Or mitigated dualism gnosticism.

 

Both these specific branches from the materialists and spiritualist categories, Abolitionism & Gnosticism share the same belief that this is a horrible reality that should be terminated/replaced. Possibly, general transhumanism agrees to a weaker degree and buddhism to a weak degree, so there are two more in the material/spiritual catagories that also agree to a lessor degree than Abolitionism and Gnosticism

Edited by Saffron, 23 December 2014 - 08:17 AM.

[avatar]

am from kenya and that is called nature.
it seems to me u are suffering from what is typically called the 21st century problem. what do u mean killing!!! its called fending and if the lion doesnt kill the zebra it dies. there are more zebras than lions. u just blonde

[Nootropic Cat]

Yes, it is the role of man to interfere with Darwinism and stop as much as possible. Nature is unfavorable and bad. Most people believe nature is wither neutral, or good, just because, because its nature. Nature is bad. Common sense observation. Its on a nihilistic Darwinian operating system, where its perpetual war and competition for resources, food and survival, so the offspring can then do the same, and so on.

 

Nature is Nihilistic Darkness-Suffering-Based. This planet & physical 3D Matter-Energy Space-Time reality is darkness based not balanced in the middle or good. Theres infinite more sources of pain than pleasure, and they can be more intense than the pleasure is pleasurable.

 

Most people from all categories of belief do not believe this or admit it. Most atheists wont admit this. Most Religious/Metaphysics wont admit this. There is one branch in the Atheist-Scientific-Naturalist crowd that WILL admit this, its Abolitionist Bioethics. There is one branch in the Religions/Spiritual crowd that ALSO WILL admit this, its called Gnosticism. Or mitigated dualism gnosticism.

 

Both these specific branches from the materialists and spiritualist categories, Abolitionism & Gnosticism share the same belief that this is a horrible reality that should be terminated/replaced. Possibly, general transhumanism agrees to a weaker degree and buddhism to a weak degree, so there are two more in the material/spiritual catagories that also agree to a lessor degree than Abolitionism and Gnosticism

 

I think you'd like this book:

 

http://www.amazon.co...rds=dark nature
 

[Florian Xavier]

the fact that animals can't even commit suicide and have no choice but to born because of sex, make nature somewhat evil.

Edited by Florian Xavier, 08 April 2015 - 05:56 PM.

[Brett Black]

Philosopher David Pearce has examined these issues and written an excellent free online book about it. I consider this one of the pre-eminent tasks for humanity to realize, very much in line with transhumanist and antiaging values, I highly recommend taking a read:

The Hedonistic Imperative
http://www.hedweb.com/

The Hedonistic Imperative outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life.

The abolitionist project is hugely ambitious but technically feasible. It is also instrumentally rational and morally urgent. The metabolic pathways of pain and malaise evolved because they served the fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment. They will be replaced by a different sort of neural architecture - a motivational system based on heritable gradients of bliss. States of sublime well-being are destined to become the genetically pre-programmed norm of mental health. It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event.

Two hundred years ago, powerful synthetic pain-killers and surgical anesthetics were unknown. The notion that physical pain could be banished from most people's lives would have seemed absurd. Today most of us in the technically advanced nations take its routine absence for granted. The prospect that what we describe as psychological pain, too, could ever be banished is equally counter-intuitive. The feasibility of its abolition turns its deliberate retention into an issue of social policy and ethical choice.

Edited by Brett Black, 14 April 2015 - 02:30 PM.

[Brett Black]

I think the typical David Attenborough-esque nature documentary is probably complicit in promoting an intentionally sanitized and inaccurate version of the natual world, quite possibly because they realize how unpalatable(and unpopular) footage of really horrific suffering would be.

The Onion News Network did a sort of spoof / dark humour version of nature documentaries that in some ways presents a more honest and laudable perspective (although the videos are also peppered with the sort of surreal ridiculousness that the Onion often uses for humourous purposes):
https://m.youtube.co...h?v=nIikrFQzS1o

Edited by Brett Black, 15 April 2015 - 05:18 AM.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

When a lobster desperately struggles to escape as it is being boiled alive, is it truly suffering? Was the wildebeest truly suffering as the hyena was eating it alive, or does it simply appear to our minds that it was suffering?

[ceridwen]

Of course they are suffering

[Clifford Greenblatt]

Of course they are suffering

Here is where it is essential to define suffering. When a car overheats would you say that the car is suffering? The point I am trying to make is we need to consider what is essential to meaning of suffering. Conscious experience is essential to what suffering is. We do not have any "experience meter" to determine what organisms do or do not have conscious experience. If the lobster being boiled alive does not have any conscious experience, then all its desperate struggling might appear to us to be a sign of suffering, but there would be no true suffering present at all.  We do not know what it is like to be a lobster. Conscious experience, unlike physical phenomena, can be detected only firsthand. No one can detect or measure the conscious experience of another.

[A941]

 

Of course they are suffering

Here is where it is essential to define suffering. When a car overheats would you say that the car is suffering? The point I am trying to make is we need to consider what is essential to meaning of suffering. Conscious experience is essential to what suffering is. We do not have any "experience meter" to determine what organisms do or do not have conscious experience. If the lobster being boiled alive does not have any conscious experience, then all its desperate struggling might appear to us to be a sign of suffering, but there would be no true suffering present at all.  We do not know what it is like to be a lobster. Conscious experience, unlike physical phenomena, can be detected only firsthand. No one can detect or measure the conscious experience of another.

 

 

Lobsters may not suffer, but higher lifeforms for sure do. A harmed Insect trying to get away may do this because of primitive patterns of behaviour, which have evolved because they are usefull, but a dog, a monkey etc. we can recognize something that we understand and experience in them.

Yes, they may not suffer in the same way, but i doubt that they are feeling well in such situations.

 

Back to the main topic:

Yes, there is a large ammount of suffering in the natural world, mainly cause evolution works this way.

Evolution is a process that is not controlled by an intelligent force, it also has no real goal, it just happens to enable a species to survive in a special environment, and if that environment changes then it is possible that 90% (or 100%) of that kind will die, and only a small minority with the needed traits for survival, will remain.

Worshipping all the forces which we tend to call nature, as bening and "loving", like some people do, is almost one step dumber than believing the craziest religious nonsense. All these morons think they very well know what "god", or "nature" wants, so humans should not play god or mess with nature, not mentioning that nature messed up a million times before we came to be.

 

To end all suffering is a noble idea, better than the acceptance of it, or the brainless belief that it might have a meaning.

Soon we might be able to take evolution into our own hands, and adapt individualy, as we see fit, and not in a millenia long, painfull process.

[Julia36]

Sufferig is reversable. see the Quantum Suffering thread in Philosophy

[Multivitz]

Suffering is an experience, it's nice to avoid it, but sometimes it serves as a lesson. A burn victim's nerves are removed by the heat so the pain level becomes manageable. If the pain and suffering is too much the central nervous system impuse blockers. Being half eaten alive is more about how the individual handles life afterwards,not how they felt at the time.
The emotional output of an organism through suffering is a function of survival, it can decide to put out emotion, or it can go into automatic shock which of course is an involuntary biological response.
I believe in the old history teachings which include the Gnostic and similar techniques, so to me that explains why we have violent predatory organisms. The old world was smaller with lower gravity, organisms were bigger, everything was more harmonic, earth gets hit by big object, gravity increases, few are happy about this, global biofields experience and record the suffering, harmony gets disrupted, zoos are created. What does a lion do, apart from smile at me in the zoo and give some entertainment!
I saw the title of this thread and thought is was about the corperations stirring up and interfering in Africa, how wrong was I, 'Ibola' what a cjoke.

Edited by Multivitz, 11 December 2015 - 04:51 PM.