I am a vegan and have been so for 18 years.
— Truth Seeker

Gooder than God. :lol:

I'm sorry. I already said that, but I hadn't realised your total fragility. Just ignore me, and I'll do likewise. — unenlightened

What do you mean by my "total fragility"? Vegans are strong and ethical. We are not fragile. What about examining "divine justice"? Might is right is wrong.

No you didn't. I didn't reference the Bible, you did. You responded to a dog whistle like a fanatic because I made a joke that involved the word "God". Other religions are available. — unenlightened

You said "divine justice". Since 31% of humans alive in 2010 identified as Christians, I brought up the Bible. We don't have religious population data for 2024 or else I would have quoted it. Once we have examined the Bible for divine justice, we can examine the Quran for divine justice as Muslims formed 23% of the human population in 2010. Once we have examined the Quran for divine justice we can examine the holy books of Hinduism for divine justice as 15% of the human population in 2010 were Hindus. We can keep going like this until we have have covered all the Gods of all the religions in the present and the past.

That's not justice.
— Truth Seeker
Of course it is. IF God made you, he fucking owns you. Go talk to your breakfast about justice and convince it it wants to be eaten. — unenlightened

I am a vegan and have been so for 18 years. I was a vegetarian before I became a vegan. I don't eat sentient beings. I want to be a total nonconsumer. If I could have genetically engineered myself to live without air, water, food and sunlight, I would have done so many years ago and would have offered it to others for free.

God or Gods can't own living things. Living things have intrinsic rights that God or Gods can't take away. Yes, if the Biblical God is real, then the Biblical God is able to kill living things but that makes the Biblical God evil, not just.

Don't proselytise dude, it's considered uncool on this site. And if you want to argue about the Bible, do it with someone who takes the Bible seriously - that's not me! — unenlightened

I didn't proselytise. I responded to what you said. The word proselytise means "to induce someone to convert to one's faith" - that clearly is not what I did. I offered you information relevant to your statement - that is all. I take the Bible very seriously because it has had and continues to have serious effects on billions of lives. It has altered the course of human history for both better and worse. It has been and continues to be the most influential book on Earth.

My garden - my rules. Slugs and caterpillars are sent to hell, and philosophers get fresh vegetables in due season. When you make a universe, you get to set the rules. You don't let your creation boss you about. — unenlightened

That's not justice. That's a tyranny without any ethical principles that underpin justice.

Divine justice is usually conceived as tautological. Think "I made the world and I make the rules, so I can do what I like." — unenlightened

How is doing what I like the same as justice?

I recommend that you read: https://www.evilbible.com and watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk3V0Qi8W30 Thank you.

Are you agnostic about Simulation Theory? — RogueAI

Yes, I am also agnostic about the Simulation Hypothesis as it is not possible to test this hypothesis.

:lol:

I don't think a planet of nonconsumers is a good idea. — Athena

What's wrong with organisms being nonconsumers? Surely, it is better to be able to live without consuming any air, water, food, sunlight, etc.?

what kind of human being would exterminate people with disabilities — Athena

The Nazis killed lots of disabled people. It's very sad but it happened.

Would you feel safe living next door to someone like that? — Athena

No, I would not.

Perfectionism is dangerous. How might we avoid that? — Athena

Cultivating empathy and compassion would help.

I agree.

I am an agnostic as I can't know whether God or Gods exist or not.

I wish you've created a poll in your OP. — L'éléphant

I have granted your wish! I have edited the original post to include a poll.

I

The point I am making is that we are not intelligently designed by an all-knowing and all-powerful God or Gods.
— Truth Seeker

How do we know that? How do we know that without divine/simulation intervention, there would be ten times as many car crashes a day, but god/simulation designers are constantly intervening in an unnoticeable way? Once theism or simulation theory is taken seriously, we really can't say that evolution is not being directed. — RogueAI

Did you not read about all the design flaws in organisms and the extinction of 99.9% of all the species to exist on Earth so far? Why would all-knowing and all-powerful God or Gods create flawed organisms? Why didn't all-knowing and all-powerful God or Gods prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and death? Why not make all living things nonconsumers instead of making some autotrophs, some herbivores, some carnivores, some omnivores and some parasites? It's possible that there is/are one or more evil Gods and he/she/it/they made flawed organisms and caused suffering, inequality, injustice, and death because he/she/it/they are evil.

If so then unenlightened's point stands: there can be no mistakes when copying genes since we are not intelligently designed by a God or a team of Gods. — Moliere

I disagree. When a gene is copied correctly, there is no mistake. When it is copied incorrectly, there is a mistake.

Evolution relies on what you call 'mistakes' as you well enough know. And the rate of copying 'mistakes' evolves itself because 'error correcting genes' are also a thing. Thus 'mistakes' or as I like to call them 'variations' are more common in some parts of the genome than others. — unenlightened

I agree. The point I am making is that we are not intelligently designed by an all-knowing and all-powerful God or Gods.

"correctly" implies that the gene was "correct" in the first place

No, it doesn't imply anything. It simply means that a sequence such as ATCG was copied by mistake as ACCG or ATTG, etc.

Every species came into existence as a result of genetic mistakes.
— Truth Seeker

You do recognise that this is strictly nonsensical. don't you? There can be no mistake unless there is a plan. :scream:

Yes, there can be mistakes when copying genes. When a gene is copied correctly, there is no mistake. When it is copied incorrectly, there is a mistake.

It's great that you have found Kiva.

But feeding people who go on to have children who will also be dependent on receiving food, increases the problem. We can not keep increasing the human population. We live on a finite planet and need to base our decisions on that. — Athena

We should certainly use contraceptives to keep our population at an optimum level for the Earth. I am not suggesting that we should be encouraging people to be freeloaders. I am suggesting collective equal ownership and contribution based on ability and receiving based on needs. I know a thirty-year-old autistic man who is still in nappies and is non-speaking. His condition severely limits what he can do. The Nazis would have executed him. I once met someone who believed in the ideology that if you can't defend your life you don't have the right to live. I believe that all living things have a right to life, not just the ones that can defend their lives. Vegan egalitarianism will reduce the amount of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death on Earth. It would be even better if we could genetically engineer all living things to be nonconsumers so that they can exist without consuming any air, water and food.

If I didn't have a duty of care to others,
— Truth Seeker

Sounds like faith. :naughty:

Sorry, I have been winding you up. It was not a serious comment in the first place, I was just amused by your religious phobia. — unenlightened

It's not faith - just circumstances. No apology is needed. I don't have a religious phobia.

Every species came into existence as a result of genetic mistakes. We are all mistakes of nature. It explains our flawed biology and the fact that 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth are already extinct.

Quoting ChatGPT 3.5:

Here are several examples of design flaws in various organisms:

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in Mammals:

Description: This nerve, which controls the muscles of the larynx (voice box), takes a lengthy and circuitous route from the brain down into the chest, looping around the aorta (or subclavian artery on the right side), and then back up to the larynx.
Flaw: The detour is particularly extreme in giraffes, where the nerve travels an additional 15 feet down the neck before looping back up, instead of taking a more direct route from the brain to the larynx.

Human Spine:

Description: The human spine is a column of vertebrae that supports the body’s weight and protects the spinal cord.
Flaw: The spine is prone to issues such as herniated discs, scoliosis, and back pain because it evolved from a structure that supported a quadrupedal stance, not a bipedal one. The S-shaped curve in humans puts a lot of stress on the lower back.

Human Eye:

Description: The human eye has a retina that is inverted, meaning that light has to pass through layers of cells and blood vessels before reaching the photoreceptors.
Flaw: This setup creates a blind spot where the optic nerve exits the eye because no photoreceptor cells are located there. Some cephalopods, like octopuses, have more optimally structured eyes without this blind spot.

Prostate Gland in Males:

Description: The prostate gland surrounds the urethra just below the bladder.
Flaw: As men age, the prostate tends to enlarge, which can constrict the urethra and cause urinary problems. This placement and potential for growth cause discomfort and health issues.

Human Pharynx:

Description: The pharynx is a passageway that serves both the respiratory and digestive systems.
Flaw: The shared pathway for food and air increases the risk of choking. Unlike in some other animals, the crossover of these pathways can lead to fatal accidents if food enters the trachea instead of the esophagus.

Pandas' Thumb:

Description: Giant pandas have a modified wrist bone (the radial sesamoid) that functions as a thumb.
Flaw: This "thumb" is not a true opposable digit and is much less efficient than the thumbs of primates. It is an example of an evolutionary workaround rather than an optimal solution, allowing pandas to grasp bamboo but with less dexterity.

Vestigial Structures:

Description: These are remnants of organs or structures that had a function in early ancestors but are now either useless or repurposed.
Flaw: Examples include the human appendix, which is prone to inflammation and infection (appendicitis), and the pelvic bones in whales, which are remnants from when their ancestors walked on land.

These examples highlight how evolutionary processes often result in structures and systems that are not optimally designed but rather are modified versions of pre-existing anatomy adapted to new purposes.

The human birth canal presents several design challenges that can make childbirth difficult and risky for both the mother and the baby. Here are the primary issues associated with the "bad design" of the human birth canal:

Pelvic Structure and Bipedalism:

Description: Humans are bipedal, meaning we walk on two legs. This mode of locomotion requires a pelvis that is shaped differently from that of quadrupeds.
Flaw: The human pelvis has evolved to support upright walking, resulting in a relatively narrow birth canal. This narrowness makes it more difficult for the baby to pass through during birth, increasing the risk of complications.

Large Fetal Head:

Description: Human babies are born with relatively large heads to accommodate their well-developed brains.
Flaw: The combination of a large fetal head and a narrow birth canal can lead to obstructed labor, where the baby's head cannot pass through the pelvis easily. This situation can necessitate medical interventions such as cesarean sections.

Twisting Path:

Description: The human birth canal has a complex, curved path that the baby must navigate during delivery.
Flaw: Unlike in many other mammals, where the birth canal is more straightforward, the twisting path in humans requires the baby to rotate during birth. This rotation can add to the difficulty and duration of labor.

Risk of Birth Injuries:

Description: The strain on the mother’s body and the baby during passage through the birth canal can lead to injuries.
Flaw: For the mother, this includes tearing of the perineum, pelvic floor damage, and postpartum hemorrhage. For the baby, there is a risk of shoulder dystocia, where the baby's shoulders get stuck, leading to potential nerve damage or fractures.

Evolutionary Trade-offs:

Description: The evolutionary changes in the human pelvis and birth canal are a result of trade-offs between bipedal locomotion and the need to give birth to large-brained infants.
Flaw: These trade-offs have not led to an optimal solution for childbirth, creating a scenario where human childbirth is significantly more dangerous and painful compared to other mammals.

High Maternal and Infant Mortality:

Description: Historically, and even today in areas with limited access to medical care, the complications arising from the birth canal design have resulted in high maternal and infant mortality rates.
Flaw: The need for medical intervention during childbirth, such as the use of forceps, vacuum extraction, and cesarean sections, underscores the inefficiency and danger posed by the current design of the human birth canal.

These challenges highlight how the evolutionary adaptations for bipedalism and increased brain size have led to significant difficulties in human childbirth, reflecting a complex balance of competing anatomical requirements rather than an optimized design.

What divine justice? How do you know that there is a "divine justice"? What about everything that has ever happened is just?
— Truth Seeker

Divine justice is usually conceived as tautological. Think "I made the world and I make the rules, so I can do what I like." Tautologies, of course, do not require evidence; whatever happens in the world is evidence of Divine justice. You, for example, will probably come to a bad end for asking such an impertinent question. Or, if Divine justice is tempered with Divine mercy, you may be forgiven. This is the great thing about God, it explains everything, and by looking at creation one can discern His character. It is so useful to any thinker who, when asked impossible questions can happily respond "God knows!" — unenlightened

Sounds like faith, rather than fact. How can the abundance of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world be considered just? I think all the Gods are either imaginary and evil or real and evil. I am an agnostic because I can't know for sure.

Thank you for explaining. I agree.

a) That would be tampering with the evidence and divine justice forbids. — unenlightened

What divine justice? How do you know that there is a "divine justice"? What about everything that has ever happened is just?

The only objective reality, in my view, is the ever-changing present moment. — punos

I think the ever-changing present moment is a subjective reality because this is what we experience, nanosecond by nanosecond. How can this be objective?

I agree.

At the moment, private ownership exists. I agree that if no one owned anything, no one would be in a position to share anything. I don't think those who own lots would agree to ban private ownership and ban money. That would take away their privileges and luxuries.

Good ideas in principle, but in practice, these are difficult. I have seen much corruption that increases suffering, inequality, injustice, and death on Earth.

Suffering is evidently reduced by medicine or psychology, inequality by distribution, injustice by justice, and death is reduced by healthy, peaceful living. — jkop

I see your points. How do we ensure those who need the medical or psychological treatments get them? How do we distribute resources evenly amid so much inequality? How do we replace injustice with justice? How do we get people to live healthy and peaceful lives?

Thank you for the link to the interesting article.

I do not think it’s possible to minimise suffering on global or personal level. — kindred

I am sorry to hear that.

You would be permitted to have children if and only if you performed some legendary task of heroics or invented something society-changing or happened to be selected by random lottery. It was a privilege one earned voted on by those who proved their worth and intellect, not a right. — Outlander

Thank you for your reply. Which society had the above rule?

I understand. Thank you.

Thank you for your reply. Why would an Artificial General Intelligence care about living things?

Most of the humans who are currently alive are doing much better in terms of standards of living than most of the humans who were alive 10,000 or 5,000 or 2,000 or 1,000 or 500 or 250 or 100 or even 50 years ago. However, inequality is at its worst in terms of the disparity in the standards of living of the richest 0.001% compared with the poorest 0.001%.

I only know about billionaires what is publicly available. Please see: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires

But how generous are the super-rich, really? Not very, according to Forbes’ research. The members of the 2023 Forbes 400 list have collectively given more than $250 billion to charity, by our count—less than 6% of their combined net worth.

I am quoting from:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2023/10/03/the-forbes-philanthropy-score-2023-how-charitable-are-the-richest-americans/

How can someone become a billionaire if they have been donating most of their income throughout their life? How could a human become even a millionaire (i.e. have USD 1,000,000 in their bank account and/or own assets of this value) if they donated most of their annual net income, never mind a billionaire? It's impossible for people to become millionaires and billionaires if they have been charitable their entire lives. So, the billionaires who have donated billions were not always donating.

Why are we still talking about this in this thread when https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15216/how-can-we-reduce-suffering-inequality-injustice-and-death was created to discuss it?

You keep ignoring my points. My points remain true even if you keep ignoring them instead of acknowledging them.

We as a species spend much more on weapons than we do on charities.
— Truth Seeker

If the world was a moral place place there would be no charities, they would not be needed. — Sir2u

I agree.

This is not working. We are doing unimaginably better than in the past and can either agree with than or defend what appears to be your notion that great progress has not been made. How could you possibly know most billionaires are not generous? The answer to that question requires how you got that information. How can you know more about "them" than you know about me? — Athena

Most of the humans who are currently alive are doing much better in terms of standards of living than most of the humans who were alive 10,000 or 5,000 or 2,000 or 1,000 or 500 or 250 or 100 or even 50 years ago. However, inequality is at its worst in terms of the disparity in the standards of living of the richest 0.001% compared with the poorest 0.001%.

I only know about billionaires what is publicly available. Please see: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires

But how generous are the super-rich, really? Not very, according to Forbes’ research. The members of the 2023 Forbes 400 list have collectively given more than $250 billion to charity, by our count—less than 6% of their combined net worth.

I am quoting from:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2023/10/03/the-forbes-philanthropy-score-2023-how-charitable-are-the-richest-americans/

How can someone become a billionaire if they have been donating most of their income throughout their life? How could a human become even a millionaire (i.e. have USD 1,000,000 in their bank account and/or own assets of this value) if they donated most of their annual net income, never mind a billionaire? It's impossible.

So how do you intend to govern such a process? How would you deal with those who would not surrender their land? How would you manage the wars and terrorism that would arise as a consequence?

How would you manage the world government of millions of displaced people who have to move around with their families so that they can get their plot of land? How would you manage the gaps in manufacturing industries all over the world, created by mass migrations of people? — Tom Storm

I can only ask people to share. I realise that those who have may not want to share with those who do not have. I am not going to do anything to those who don't surrender excess (i.e. greater than 1.95 acres) land. I can't implement my policy of sharing.

In the extremely unlikely event that everyone accepts my policy, to minimize disruption, we could make land ownership local to where one already is. So, if you are already living in Lagos, the global government will try to give you land in Lagos. I realise that this won't always be possible.

In my ideal world, all living things would be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and would own an infinite number of universes each. There would be no suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in my ideal world. Sadly, we don't live in my ideal world.

I don't live with my parents.

I will support it. I will give up my land to gain an equal share of the 15.77 billion acres of habitable land divided by 8.1 billion humans currently alive which is 1.95 acres per human.

We could calculate the total habitable land area on Earth and divide it by the number of humans and give each one an equal share of the habitable land. This would be an example of sharing. This would eliminate inequality in how much land each human have.

I agree.

Yes, by "money" I mean "currency". Is there a difference between money and currency? English is my second language so I may have missed any nuance between the two words.