In my personal opinion, I never want to live in a world where the lion lays down with the lamb. It's not that I like pain and suffering, but I like life in all its diversity. Pain and suffering are a (hopefully) small fraction of it.

I don't think nature is cruel. I think "cruel" denotes a certain malice, or mens rea. People have that, but most animals I know, don't. Even cats that play with their prey are training. I don't think they are hating on the prey.

I don't think it is good to inflict "unnecessary" pain and suffering, and I think cruelty should be stopped.

Most animas I know, predator and prey, spend the majority of their lives in leisure. Sure, there are intense flurries of action, but there is a great deal of laying around doing nothing. Even fish in the sea (probably one of the most kill-or-be-killed environments, provided they have some semblance of biodiversity left) have time to eat, fertilize, and do other things.

But, like the evening news, if it bleeds, it leads. So your average T.V. documentary isn't going to show you the laying around, burping, farting, fucking, shitting, pissing, eating, playing, teasing, enforcing the pecking order, etc. That's pretty boring to many. The morbid curiosity of leisure time humans must be satisfied.

:up:

Nicely framed, James.

With your logic, isn't any solution worse than the problem? Can we justify the systematic slaughter and destruction of ecosystems as means of ending cruelty? Isn't that the height of hypocrisy?

As for humans, genocide done by colonialists can't be justified by examining the sometimes harsh and barbaric practices of the natives, right? We destroy nature because we care less about animal suffering, not more.

It's some kind of transhumanism. — richard77

There was another transhumanist dude who was invited on TPF some time back. He too wanted to kill all life on earth because Darwinian life is evil, he thought. Basically he was a wannabe mass murderer on a planetary scale, but we had to play nice with him because he was a guest... :-)

:up: @180 Proof

Is there some kind of psychological principle that makes us more inclined towards bad news? What explains the media law - if it bleeds, it leads?

Is risk aversion part of such a mindset?

In economics and finance, risk aversion is the tendency of people to prefer outcomes with low uncertainty to those outcomes with high uncertainty, even if the average outcome of the latter is equal to or higher in monetary value than the more certain outcome. — Wikipedia

We wanna know the worst that could happen in order to put safeguards against such eventualities. So, in a sense, nothing really morbid or there's no psychopathology in wanting to see the darker side of nature - it's simply a good survival strategy.

Coming to the OP's question, protecting nature, some believe, is simply to leave it be, leave it alone, let it do its thing. However, humans are part of nature; thus, let us do our thing! Nothing's amiss here! Mother nature, in most cases, seems to know what she's doing.

From another angle, it's obvious that humans are disrupting the natural balance - ecosystems usually achieve equilibrium and is self-sustaining using mechanisms that are, at the end of the day, simple give and take. On this view, protecting nature amounts to putting a stop to human activity interference.

the lion lays down with the lamb — James Riley

They may lay down together, but the lion will sleep a lot better than the lamb.

Your response gets an A+.

when I was watching documentaries in the TV about wild life where huge amount of pain, fear and starvation are present — richard77

TV isn't reality. On THIS OLD HOUSE work is done without fuck ups. One has to remember though, THIS OLD HOUSE is a produced show and is tightly edited. We just don't see the screwups.

Nature documentaries are also produced shows with plenty of editorial decision-making going into the final results. A film about birds which showed our feathered friends flitting about, pecking here and there, squawking and whistling, hopping along the branch, etc. for 90 minutes (or 5, maybe) would be quite tedious. The editors will look for footage which shows conflict, suffering, pain, hunger, brutal attacks, etc. -- because that stuff attracts our attention. And just so you know, there is a lot of nature footage available to draw from. You could make a documentary about tropical birds without ever leaving your house.

True enough, lions and wolves don't check to make sure the wildebeest or deer is 100% dead before they begin eating it. It may be pretty much alive. The only reason predators would have for a quick and total kill is self-protection. And, remember, they are hungry. Waiting for the rabbit's heart to stop is just not part of SOP.

I've eaten shellfish that was still alive. They were delicious, screams and all.

To the degree they survive, 'herd species' are better adapted to false positives (i.e.guessing predators are present when they are not there) to false negatives (i.e. taking for granted predators are not there when, in fact, they are there).

Isn't such morbid sentiments the natural and logical result of utilitarianism? If indeed our actions ought to be judged from a moral standpoint based on the amount of pain and pleasure they lead to, then pain and pleasure become ends in themselves; they cease to be taken as mere messages or incentives for life-saving or life-enhancing behavior. Life, then, becomes a mere means to procure pleasure, and worthless in itself. Therefore utilitarianism devalues life.

If indeed animal suffering is bad, as is the premise of the OP, then animals need to be taken out of their misery and it's the humane thing to kill them all... See how it works?

By this reasoning, all dentists should be equipped with Kalashnikov and body bags.

If on the contrary one takes suffering as a mere incentive, as a message, as a means to an end (which is survival), then staying alive is the important thing and we need to accept suffering as a means to keep us out of trouble whenever possible. Likewise, animal suffering can be seen as a good thing inasmuch as it helps prolong their lives.

Pain is only a messenger. It is a feature, not a bug.

To the degree they survive, 'herd species' are better adapted to false positives (i.e.guessing predators are present when they are not there) to false negatives (i.e. taking for granted predators are not there when, in fact, they are there). — 180 Proof

:up: Screw logic! I wanna live! :grin:

So basically the question can be: is it better for an animal to exist (an animal that is a prey and can feel pain and all that stuff) or not exist rather?

It could be solved in a very peaceful way like slowly making every cm of the world controlled by cultivation for human use, what is happening now as well anyways.

Please dont answer btw based on cognitive dissonance, but try to think about this, it does not matter if its a comfortable thought or not. Only the logic.

Transhumanism says also something similar, but they want to make a lion vegetarian: that would be also a very nice thing to achieve if possible.

To the degree they survive, 'herd species' are better adapted to false positives (i.e.guessing predators are present when they are not there) to false negatives (i.e. taking for granted predators are not there when, in fact, they are there). — 180 Proof

:100:

Screw logic! I wanna live! :grin: — TheMadFool

:100:

Is there some kind of psychological principle that makes us more inclined towards bad news? What explains the media law - if it bleeds, it leads? — TheMadFool

In my personal opinion (as influenced by personal experience and reading some authors), attraction to action is the result of idle hands. If we have leisure, and if we choose not devote our time to the arts, or others, or sleep, then we seek distraction. We can't just do nothing, or live in the now. So we seek to distract ourselves. Distraction is the key word here, and I'll return to it in a moment.

But I think 180 is correct about the false positives and you are correct about risk aversion. Seeing someone or something else get killed reminds us that it is not us that is getting killed. It also promotes planning on how to not be the one who gets killed. I'm sure there is more to it than that. (As a side note, 180 references "herd species". Our tendency to extend our sympathies to the prey, instead of the equally-deserving predator, may indicate that we are, originally, a prey/herd species. We are now predators, of course, but that alliance of the heart may be a residual thing from when we were not top dog.)

Back to "distraction." I pulled the following, amended, from an old paper I wrote:

"The result of this orgy of reason, caring and might, is a concept which justifies "progress" at the expense of all else. This concept is the supreme and overriding sanctity of human life. So sacred has this concept become that in some circles it even reigns over the quality of life itself, no thing withstanding.

"The sanctity of human life is shown in many ways, not the least of which is our preoccupation with "safety". Safety for our children who will not know the true essence of adventure; safety for ourselves so we lose our ability to deal with adversity; and safety for others so our insurance rates stay low enough that we can afford to pay for our safety. This preoccupation is epitomized by the statement "Lets all play safe to¬gether"27.

"An objective look at our condition would reveal a constant, overwhelming, unsolicited celebration of humanity. Life has been an unbroken exaltation of the accomplishments of man. It has been nothing but us walking around patting ourselves on the back, and raving about the qualities that we supposedly have by choice or by character. We give ourselves credit for breathing and existence deserves a medal. The examples are endless. From the "courageous" infant, born with a handicap, a warrior against the odds in a cold cruel world; to the resilient community bouncing back from a flood, as if they had a choice. Local T.V. news stations are famous for fostering this crap. Next to the last few seconds with Charles Curralt28 and a trip to the wilderness now and then, when do we ever do anything that is not absorbed in "us"? Even adulation for the natural world is usually tainted by anthropomorphism or artistic impression:

'In itself life is insipid, because it is a simple "being there." So, for man, existing becomes a poetic
task, like the playwright's or the novelist's: that of inventing a plot for his existence, giving it a character
which will make it both suggestive and appealing. ... ... serious examination should lead us to realize
how distasteful existence in the universe must be for a creature - man, for example - who finds it
essential to divert himself.' Jose Ortega yGasset 9

"In light of these circumstances it is no wonder that man has had the "progress" that he has experienced. As long as people pay at least superficial heed to the golden rule and avoid "unsociable conduct", they can do no wrong. If they can couch their actions in terms of their own or another's benefit then it will be acceptable.

"I've belabored this point both for explanation and to bring home the understanding of just how much baggage we have to leave behind in order to understand, and have a reverence for, the Earth.

Anyway, yGasset was not talking about hunting as the distraction; as if it was a sport. Hunting is living in the now. It is what we do. We are also hunted, and it is good for us to wander alone in predator country. It keeps us on our toes. It keeps us in the moment. There is no distraction or you're dead or hungry.

So, when we see the bleeding on T.V., it leads like porn. It is a reminder of what could be and what still is for the living. But we want all that from the safety of our couch. We die when we don't live.

I once said "Suicide is a leisure time activity." Everything except living and dying is a leisure time activity. We are attracted to life, so we watch it rather than risk living it. I also once said "If life bores you, risk it." Ah, but that couch is calling . . . :worry:

is it better for an animal to exist (an animal that is a prey and can feel pain and all that stuff) or not exist rather? — richard77

What would you prefer, as an animal who can feel pain yourself? Would you rather exist or not exist?

I would rather exist, personally, reason for which I haven't yet tried to kill myself. But that's just me...

Yes its a good question, like what portion of good can balance what portion of bad. I dont know for sure if prey animals enjoy their life or not, despite of having also a lot of nice moments.

The question is: if you know that u will die in a horrible way, would u still want to exist? Me not. But this is true for almost all preys. 99.9% of them will die in a horrible way. So the question is what can balance this amount of bad. For me there is not enough good in exchange.

So lets go 1 step further: if through the innovation of transhumanism we could make a lion vegan, would u support it?

I think there is no rational argument against this. Any argument against this would prefer the suffering of other animals more than a less exciting documentary.

I dont know for sure if prey animals enjoy their life or not — richard77

All species are preyed on. Even lions get killed, by a virus, an elephant, a man or another lion. COVID-19 is our most recent predator.

if through the innovation of transhumanism we could make a lion vegan, would u support it? — richard77

Nope. I don't support eugenism. Ethically, Man has no right to alter God's or Nature's creation.

Practically, the risks involved are unpredictable but could be massive, as in a sudden explosion of the population of antilopes and other species preyed on by lions, followed by an epidemic, or over-grazzing and desertification, killing nearly all of them. Ecological collapse.

Predators of a species kill a lot of sick animals and thus help maintain the rest of the species healthy. Similarly, predation helps reign in over-population by one species.

Also real lions would keep on predating. You cannot possibly engineer all lions. Some of them are hiding... Even if you could treat all lions the trans way (translionize them I guess), then hyenas would take over that particular segment (or "niche") of the ecological system. You would have to transhyenize all hyenas, and so on and so forth with the many species of wolves, foxes, panthers and other wild cats etc. You'd have to treat every and all predators on earth. Otherwise the ones remaining will ultimately take over the niches left by the ones you treated into eating grass.

Darwinian life is a bitch but it does surviving really really well.

:up: The next worst thing that can happen to one, after death, is ennui and the most exciting thing on earth is death & dying! Go figure!

Gives a whole new meaning to the expressions "dying of boredom" and "bored to death".


Immortality? Boring! Death!

:flower:

Immortality, a synonym for boring & Death! — TheMadFool

Some Marine wrote an anonymous note on bulletin board in Khe Sanh, Vietnam. It said "For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know."

I think predator and pray and the whole animal kingdom knows that, lives that, dies that, even when they are not fighting.

Some people know how to do that consistently, or so they say. Guys like Eckhart Tolle? Personally, I've not yet been able to master it. I have, however, had glimpses of it; the birth of my son, hunting, and a few other times, usually of beauty or danger.

For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know — James Riley

:up: See :point: Eco-"terrorism" & Radical Environmentalism.

I think predator and pray and the whole animal kingdom knows that, lives that, dies that, even when they are not fighting. — James Riley

Hmmm... :chin: :up:

Some people know how to do that consistently, or so they say. Guys like Eckhart Tolle? Personally, I've not yet been able to master it. I have, however, had glimpses of it; the birth of my son, hunting, and a few other times, usually of beauty or danger. — James Riley

:up:

The danger in beauty or the beauty in danger. Perhaps another reason why if it bleeds, it leads. Beauty, danger, boredom, death and dying all entwined like in a serpentine mating ball - can't tell which head belongs to which tail and which tail belongs to which head. Does it even matter?

[deleted post]

[deleted post] — 180 Proof

Even your deleted posts make sense! :lol:

:smirk:

Does it even matter? — TheMadFool

That's a good question too. I think the good definitely outweighs the bad, but if I stop to think about it when good is happening, then I lose it. To stay lost in that beautiful rapture would be the key. Not thinking about it as it happens would be the key. Some times I wish my brain would STFU so I could live something without all it's stupid considerations of logic and morality sticking their nose under the tent.

I wish it would be so easy to lose the bad when it's happening! I've been trained up somewhat to do that (embrace the suck) but it's not easy to be a tough guy. You can stare at a wound and try to enjoy, or defeat the pain. But I can't keep that up for ever. Too bad thinking about the bad won't make it go away.

Regardless, thinking about whether it matters is itself a leisure time activity.

That's a good question too. I think the good definitely outweighs the bad, but if I stop to think about it when good is happening, then I lose it. To stay lost in that beautiful rapture would be the key. Not thinking about it as it happens would be the key. Some times I wish my brain would STFU so I could live something without all it's stupid considerations of logic and morality sticking their nose under the tent. — James Riley

It's hard to find one's bearings in the world, it's one big messy affair and yet, from a certain angle, life boils down to, what?, a handful of simple rules. No guarantees though and that's one of the rules.

I wish it would be so easy to lose the bad when it's happening! I've been trained up somewhat to do that (embrace the suck) but it's not easy to be a tough guy. You can stare at a wound and try to enjoy, or defeat the pain. But I can't keep that up for ever. Too bad thinking about the bad won't make it go away. — James Riley

This is the paradox: Bad makes you think & not think at the same time! Think about it!

I think we should relate to nature in a manner of mutual respect. Not adoration, despite our destruction of the environment, after all if most of us were dropped in the middle of the jungle we would almost surely die. Nor should we forget earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, landslides, etc.

But, nature does provide and nurture and inspire too. And while this is suffering, one must imagine instances of joy too: mass suicide is just not common after all.

So it's tricky. We need to respect nature, defends ourselves from it and not destroy it anymore.