...to do things without offending/harming a single soul? — Agent Smith

No, the fact that humans are still breathing offends some misanthropic characters and some of the more extreme antinatalists.

World peace — Agent Smith

Yes, economic equality, sufficient political checks and balances which prevent totalitarianism/autocracies/plutocracies/aristocracies/unfettered capitalism/cuts of personality or celebrity and indifference to cultural or religious practice would go a long way towards achieving such.

end of hunger — Agent Smith

Could have been achieved years ago.

cure all diseases — Agent Smith

Unlikely as there will always be new ones.

save & protect the environmen — Agent Smith

Yes and should have progressed towards this much more than we have so far

can we abolish suffering in any way, — Agent Smith

No and wouldn't want to, we need the comparator. But could control/prevent extreme examples.

Is it only will that's lacking — Agent Smith

A united global human will, yes.

Nil volentibus arduum — Agent Smith

Why do we still quote Latin? I sometimes do it myself by why do we think this adds more force to our words?

You can't make everyone happy. Quit trying. — Some dude/gal

Nah! Keep trying, it's an honorable goal, probably unattainable in all cases but an honorable goal nonetheless!

The mammalian brain is well adapted to keeping us alive (long enough to reproduce) and yet is not well adapted to making us happy. It's part of the problem with which our lives are inextricably entangled.

We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them. — Albert Einstein

...to do things without offending/harming a single soul? — Agent Smith

I would say 'no', because every action has a cost either to ourselves or others. When I buy a pint of milk I reduce the supply of milk to others and funds for myself. The harm here is not unjust. And the benefit outweighs the harm. But there is still harm. That is because every action involves a trade-off between cost and benefit. The example is given in economists' terms but it could be applied to actions with consequences less obviously 'economic'.

Well according to Richard Dawkins

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

Why do we still quote Latin? I sometimes do it myself by why do we think this adds more force to our words? — universeness

We should give up Latin tags. After all, cui bono?

quod erat demonstrandum

I wish I knew how to end suffering.

Yep - it would be a rash person who argues that there is a moral code embedded in nature. However, we can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' - so just because nature is like this doesn't mean we can't work towards positive change (for humans at least) - which we have done in so many ways over time.

We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them. — 180 Proof

Like what what happens in school and college: Teachers/Professors vs. students! There's a small chance that there's a tertium quid in our midst! Nevertheless, Einstein has a point. That quote goes into my quotes anthology. :up:

I would say 'no', — Cuthbert

No — universeness

:ok:

Keep trying — universeness

Mulgere hircum?

Non sono mica Mandrake!

I wish I knew how to end suffering. — Andrew4Handel

Garden of Eden. Meno's slave, Socrates?

Richard Dawkins — Andrew4Handel

A man who calls it as he sees it. Altruism is idiotic, some might even say it's insanity; psychiatrists/psychologists should categorize it as a mental disorder that makes people (altruists) do patently dumb stuff e.g. sacrificing themselves for people who don't give a rat's ass about them (that's suicide, just dressed to look like something less moronic, less dangerous).

However...

Well according to Richard Dawkins — Andrew4Handel

...we and all creatures on Earth are vessels of genes and memes taking orders from them to procreate them. What a silly meme. Maybe that's because he himself is silly.

We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them. — Albert Einstein

And here, dear 180booze, I agree. We can't use science for solving the problems it created.

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. — Andrew4Handel

And here he is wrong. At the bottom we see love and hate in purest form. The cause of hunger, war, environmental issues are Xenophanes and his admirer Plato. All misery in the world is retractable to those two founders of modern thinking. If only they knew. Would they have given up their place in history? I bet they wouldn't.

And here he is wrong. At the bottom we see love and hate in purest form. — EugeneW

I think he is wrong because things including love and hate exist in a mental realm.

You don't observe injustice in the universe you experience it.

His viewpoint then was being rigidly mechanistic and reductionist. But a reductive mathematical/physical universe only has statistics in it.

I think the presence of suffering is problematic for everyone because it requires experience. Without conscious entities no suffering.

No idea what conclusion to draw from all this.

Altruism is idiotic, some might even say it's insanity — Agent Smith

How can you avoid altruism. Individuals and usually a society have to ensure children survive to adulthood?

I think Dawkins altruism phobia exists because of his desire to have a purely robotic, mechanical universe and to endorse the worst form of natural selection and ubermensch. Maybe he will post on here and enlighten us.

I suppose it is altruism why we care about others suffering.

I think Dawkins altruism phobia exists because of his desire to have a purely robotic, mechanical universe and to endorse the worst form of natural selection and ubermensch. Maybe he will post on here and enlighten us. — Andrew4Handel

Dawkins is an altruist - he does not take the facts of nature as an ought only as an is.

I think Dawkins altruism phobia exists because of his desire to have a purely robotic, mechanical universe and to endorse the worst form of natural selection and ubermensch. Maybe he will post on here and enlighten us. — Andrew4Handel

If you watch his online debates and interviews, I think you would find Dawkins to be a humanist, an altruist, and an optimist. He regularly reports his own personal wonder regarding his own conceptions/perceptions of the Universe.

Dawkins is an altruist - — Tom Storm

Someone claiming that the ultimate truth is organisms being machines programmed to pass on genes or memes has a loose screw somewhere in his machinery. Comparable to God psychotic schizo manias.

Dawkins is an altruist - he does not take the facts of nature as an ought only as an is. — Tom Storm

But if we are nature we cannot transcend it.

It is an incoherent position like blaming people yet claiming we have no freewill.

Dawkins is an altruist - he does not take the facts of nature as an ought only as an is. — Tom Storm

He doesn't know the facts of nature for a starter. The facts of nature he perceives and thinks to be facts is what he advocates for and wants others to perceive as well. Selfish, that is, in agreement with his memetic take.

Someone claiming that the ultimate truth is organisms being machines programmed to pass on genes or memes has a loose screw somewhere in his machinery. Comparable to God psychotic schizo manias. — EugeneW

Not at all - perhaps you don't understand his book.

“Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.”

― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

It is an incoherent position like blaming people yet claiming we have no freewill. — Andrew4Handel

No, it's a romantic position. It reminds me of the famous quote by Pablo Casals talking about life. "The situation is hopeless - we must take the next step."

Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.” — Tom Storm

That's what I mean. His truth. You really think our genes are up to something? We just employ them. They are completely altruistic... :razz:

I was simply contemplating an interpretation of altruism that meshes with our inherently selfish genes. It actually squares with what I've been saying for quite some time now on this forum (nobody's reacted favorably to it as of yet): We're probably conflating selfishness with self-reliance/independence. What I mean is if someone can stand on their own two feet, become capable of looking after themselves, that's a good thing, oui? This state of being able to live without assistance from others might be mistaken for egosim.

...to do things without offending/harming a single soul? — Agent Smith

Millions of tiny organisms die just so you can breathe. To say nothing of those who must die so that you can eat.

Altruism is idiotic, some might even say it's insanity; psychiatrists/psychologists should categorize it as a mental disorder that makes people (altruists) do patently dumb stuff e.g. sacrificing themselves for people who don't give a rat's ass about them (that's suicide, just dressed to look like something less moronic, less dangerous). — Agent Smith

In Freudian psychology, altruism is classed as an advanced ego defense mechanism.

Millions of tiny organisms die just so you can breathe. To say nothing of those who must die so that you can eat. — baker

That was baked into my post. The people most sensitive to this rather disturbing truth are the Jains (god bless them).

A more nuanced approach to death and suffering kinda makes them ambiguous, morally that is. What defines success (evolutionarily)? Numbers: more the merrier. The meat industry has led to a population boom among cattle, pigs, chickens, etc.. In other words, by killing & eating these animals, we've made them highly successful organisms. This sounds weird, but we're actually helping by killing & eating. What if something similar is happening with "millions of tiny organisms"?

In Freudian psychology, altruism is classed as an advanced ego defense mechanism. — baker

What's that?

Selfish, you mean like threeish i.e. not really egoistic, but close to egoistic. Isn't that a good thing?