But I don't blame other people for choosing other terms or seeing it as strictly a cold, dead, inanimate object of scientific exploration. Deity, non deity, universe, reality, existence, simulation, mother nature, the cosmos, for me the name is not so important, names are relatively arbitrary, call it "the great potato" — Benj96

I like that last one, but people might think I mean pumpkin, so I'll stick with The Whole Shebang.
Which could and could not care less and more about capitalism.

In essence I was describing existence in as dynamic and interconnected a relationship as I could articulate. — Benj96

Yes, I got that. What I don't get is how what you describe qualifies as a deity, or whether something so big and round and wibbly-wobbly could have any point (I know, all points - which would still present as a continuous smooth surface). I recognize the concept and I don't perceive it, or the people who articulate it, as something to be wary of; but nor do I find any valances with which to engage.

If you are moving on with the topic, at any speed, please do; I'm still interested.

Does that answer your question? — Benj96

Ye-e-es.... and uhu.

So my theistic view runs that the oneness, or absolute fundamental entity, — Benj96

What is the relationship between yourself and that deity?

I agree in the sense that entertainment is the religion of the masses. — Benj96

Yes, and religion is an entertainment of the masses, as are politics and wars. We're feeding on electronic media, but we have no baleen to filter the nourishing plankton and krill out from among the plastic derbis.

Social media has shown our endless hunger for being entertained. — Benj96

I don't think that's what we hunger for. I think entertainment is a junk-food, to fill a hole in our collective psyche; a substitute for meaningful achievement and community.

I think Marshall McLuhan was right - too bad only seven people in the world could understand his prose, and three of them didn't read English.

We as humans have great potential. The quality of that potential can be good or bad and depends on our awareness/education or understanding of the world and then what we choose to do with that knowledge. What actions we convert it into. — Benj96

Yes. And the starry-eyed optimists think the more science we have, the better we behave.

However, there is always 2 sides to every coin. — Benj96

Bringing money into the equation is never a good idea!

We are just as capable of increasing the diversity and stability of ecosystems as we are to destroy them. — Benj96

Which endeavour is progressing faster, here at the end of time

This probably why they were less interested in imposing capitalist, materialistic and possessive behaviours on other civilizations by conquering and colonialism. — Benj96

?

To become sustainable there is a great irony - in that we must return to what was already before - a 100% renewable and recyclable energy status of living systems. — Benj96

That would mean reducing the demand. We always increase the demand.
Solar energy is free, but unless you're a plant, you can only harness it with manufactured devices, every one of which depletes the Earth, pollutes the atmosphere and never goes back in the same pure form

Well everything that utilises energy can be considered parasitic or predatory when compared to a universe where energy is never used by life, and thus life does not exist. — Benj96

Scope and balance matter. There is a difference between passively absorbing a sun's energy and using up many suns to dominate the galaxy. This:

Perhaps this is why many imaginings of the future is an intergalactic, multiplanetary artifical sentience that feeds off the most long-lived and sustainable energy sources: perhaps deriving energy not even from starlight which is finite, but even more fundamental forces like gravity. — Benj96

doesn't sound renewable and recyclable. Intergalactic? We can calculate how much natural resources and energy it takes for three or four humans to escape the gravity of Earth. I don't see using gravity for that. We may be able to calculate how much it would take to travel to another solar system. None of that material, human effort or energy is ever coming back. But I don't know if anyone can calculate what it would take to travel to another galaxy, not even Andromeda, which is already heading our way.

Let's not forget that before us some other animal in our direct ancestral line was the most sophisticated. — Benj96

None of them was in a position to wipe out all life on Earth. None of them gave itself a God-given right to do so.

I think this is at most partially true. — Benj96

I think it's 100% untrue. Conservatives have been taken in by/invested in the prevailing capitalist fiction that people are motivated by material self-interest alone. That, once their survival needs are met, people just want to lie around, doing nothing - or worse, blissing out on mind-altering substances.
And maybe a great many products of our present system do feel that way - because they have given up any hope of autonomy or opportunity to develop their best talents or explore the limits of their imagination. And it doesn't help that they've been systematically dumbed down, brutalized and demoralized by the hierarchy.

Will 100%of people ever be employed? — Benj96

Eventually, there won't be jobs for anyone except servants and a few health care specialists. But it doesn't matter. Nobody should ever be "employed". People do want to work; they do not want bosses.
The happiest men I have ever seen were gathered around a malfunctioning machine, or a building site, or a rescue operation or a drafting table. Sometimes they're happy doing their own project, but they're even happier in a project they can share voluntarily, as equals, contributing to a team effort. They're unhappiest, they're taking orders from some idjit who gets double the money they get and hasn't a clue what they're actually doing.
Besides, it's even more corrosive to a person's psyche to lord it over other people than to be lorded over. That's the proverbial power corrupting to which I referred. And I do maintain that wealth is even more corrosive; that owning a mine or factory makes someone even crazier than commanding a battalion.

you show signs of being rather tired of 'fighting the good fight,' and you have became a little defeatist and disappointed with your own species. — universeness

In 2016, somebody stepped on my pink sunglasses; now I have to use the yellow ones.
It's not disappointment: I've been aware of the shortcomings of our species for six decades or so. What I've figured out is that "the fight" is not "good". Fighting can only ever be destructive and a war mentality produces bad leaders. I generally think subversion is a more effective strategy.

I also see that these top-heavy, overpriced, young-eating regimes have always toppled within a few hundred years of their founding. At first, the empires were small and local; their fall didn't reverberate very far. Then they grew bigger and richer, affecting entire continents both through their conquest and their demise; then bigger still, more diverse and psychologically unhealthy, until the sun never set on the last and biggest two. Their hegemony was quietly, subversively assumed by global corporate power, and now it's too big for any nation to escape, and the consequences of its collapse will also be inescapable.

Afterward, however harsh the prevailing conditions, the much diminished and impoverished human race can restart the enterprise on a better foundation. We - that is, the quiet good people who'd rather work than fight - will have left them seeds, skills, technological and historical knowledge. They might make the same mistakes - but at least they'll have a chance to avoid those mistakes, with guidance from the best of their ancestors, instead of the worst of their contemporaries.

(That's my bed-time story....)

I wonder if Thor will consult the lawyers of Asgard. — universeness

He's already appealed his case up to The Shadow Proclamation, who sent it back with a sticky-note, saying: "Why can't you 4,787,901 thunder-wielding gods in this galaxy just get along?"

"

Why would an ability to get more of what you already have an extreme excess of, prevent your ultimate demise? — universeness

It won't prevent their ultimate demise. It will merely defer their demise until there is nobody left to serve them.

Does more evil make evil stronger or does it just increase the determination of good to overcome it? — universeness

Evil has always been numerically less, but its blandishments appeal to the little bit of evil in the rest of us, and its threats keep the timid from action; it is stronger than Good, because Evil is not constrained by foresight, principles, compassion or shame.
The wars of B5 never end; evil just keeps coming back in yet another shape.
Once Evil gains supremacy, it can't be defeated by Good; the only way you can fight it is with its own weapons - by becoming evil yourself. What you can do is wait for the evil ones to consume the system until it collapses, then start over and prevent Evil from taking control. Horizontal, egaitarian societies had strategies to prevent consolidation of power; stratified, pyramidal societies facilitate it.

(* even so, those spider-bat spaceships were the coolest thing in sf)

Sango? — universeness

Just another deity.

Well they can keep trying to but their dilution continues. — universeness

Au contraire, mon cher ami!

Would you show any deference or assign any respect to any individual, due to their personal excessive wealth, or influence or even to a title such as lord, queen, king, pastor, imam or pope? — universeness

What difference does that make, if I never even meet one? They have their self-contained, self-sufficient fortresses well above the eventual water line. Nevertheless, they control my access to the necessities of life, the tax on my beer and the carcinogen content of the air I breathe. By the time the young women of Saudi get hold of them we - even more of us - will be under 52 extra meters of storm-churned water.

I can only imagine this is because we have not yet managed to make ourselves or any of our creations immortal — Benj96

It wouldn't help. We already doubled our life expectancy from the beginning of civilization to the present, and have made no comparable progress toward an equitable distribution of wealth and welfare.

Perhaps this is why many imaginings of the future is an intergalactic, multiplanetary artifical sentience that feeds off the most long-lived and sustainable energy sources: perhaps deriving energy not even from starlight which is finite, but even more fundamental forces like gravity.

Still parasitic and predatory, on a much larger scale. https://www.sfsite.com/09a/dan159.htm

The Really Big Problem is considering ourselves the summit and omega of all life in the universe, with an absolute, uncontested (except by our own brethren) right to exploit it, suck it dry and toss it away.

In my judgement, they cant escape the responsibility, by trying to scapegoat gods or exclaim that they are only acting in accordance with the natural rules of life, established and inherited from our days in the wilds. — universeness

I wasn't trying to enable anyone to do any of that. I was only using language within the context of economics, not implicating 10-dimensional strings, the amygdala or Sango.

Capitalism is pernicious and remains a serious barrier to creating a 'civilised,' existence for our species. — universeness

As were monetarism, currency, inheritance, land ownership and the concept of chattels that gave eventual form to capitalism, which then demorphed into globalization

Those who maintain it, IN IT'S CURRENT FORM, cannot escape their responsibility for the current state of the human world. — universeness

Sure they can! They'll stick the rest of us with the check, as usual, and complain to management about the waitress they groped.

But we do know about the singularity, as a very hot, dense concentrate of energy, it's just that, that's ALL we currently know about it. It has very definite value, as the most credible placeholder for the source of the universe, that best matches our current physics of the universe. — universeness

I believe you. What I can't figure out is its relevance to the topic.

All such current existents trace back to that very hot, dense energy concentrate with no known cost or cause. — universeness

Okay, if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist, and if you don't approve of it, it has no value. In that case, all that exists or can exists, happens or can happen, is 100% gratis, in which case "free" in all its forms and permutations is meaningless terminology. Makes attempted communication kind of futile.

That fundamental energy has no known origin/cost or first cause/consequence, so I think your 'no absolute freedom' and 'no free lunch,' is flawed. — universeness

Right. I should have made clear - thought I had made clear - that I was referring to the transaction of such entities as exist in the present and can be said to eat lunch. (Not to mention that the ignorance of one species - has no known origin/cost - is not definitive proof.)

I care enough about my existence to eat, — universeness

It doesn't matter why; the fact is, as long as you are in and of the world, you are not, and cannot be free of its laws. Which as all I meant by no absolute freedom, and no free lunch.

Beards are said to give their wearers an aura of sagacity and power. but I'm not sure to what extent. They seem to communicate 'something' beyond mere hairiness. — BC

What they communicate is meaningful in cultural context. In ancient cultures, the shape and style of a man's beard declared his nationality and rank. In modern times, it serves as proof of physical maturity and is either in or out of fashion. Europeans of one vintage routinely wore the either unkempt facial hair of peasants or the barbered, combed beards of the professional class; another vintage considered a man's covered face as something to hide, or unhygienic. In mid 20th century North America, clean-shaven was the norm, while beards denoted non-conformity.
None of that has any relation to reproductive capability, or inclination.

I consider that a boundary/limitation, not a bondage. — universeness

Reality, physics and the universe don't care how define things; if you don't eat, you die.

Yeah, but St Anthony does not exist, but study of medicine, WILL save lives.
The wax energy was wasted in the former, and well spent in the latter. — universeness

Yes, that is your valuation, not the actual cost.
The wax doesn't care. Physics doesn't care. The universe doesn't care.

Theism makes very little effort towards anything of significance in my opinion. — universeness

The fact that something is insignificant in one individual's opinion doesn't change the cost of that thing in terms of physics. Whether you light a candle as a petition to ST. Anthony or in order to study medicine, the same amount of wax is used; the same amount of heat is generated.
Eating celery stalks, I've heard, costs as much in expedinture of energy as it gains in nutritive calories - however, the gain in salts and fiber make celery a cost-effective food.

As to what the endeavours of theism have cost human being individually and collectively compared to its benefits, it's vastly, obscenely overpriced.

The calories we extend can be replenished, for our entire lifespan. — universeness

At the expense of other organic beings and their lifespan.

The concept of my 'freedom' to 'become' what I am today, plays a very important role in my personal conception of who I am and what I can do. I don't accept that 'nothing is truly free,' I consider my ability to think anew, as 'truly free.' — universeness

That's laudable - in all of your endeavors (though I have one or two issues with the Humanists).
But sure hasn't been a free lunch or a free ride, and however liberated your spirit and mind may be, your body is still in bondage to physics.

I am not just trying to be a nitpicking nudnick here Vera.
Trying to provide an exemplar of an existent that IS free from all notions of cost and consequence is not easy in an entropic universe, but I do think that there are such existents. — universeness

I suppose so. I don't see how that relates to human endeavors. We can't get or do anything without some expenditure of effort, calories and time.

I say, Wellington, Napoleon, Santa Anna and all such historical and current excuses for human beings, are not worth one fart of relief from any good peasant arse! — universeness

Agreed - so long as said peasant isn't whipping his dog and shagging his 10-year-old daughter. Or vice versa.

Progress, with that great big capital P is an ideal. It becomes an illusion if we convince ourselves that ideas are actual things or event in the world.
Progress, in the ordinary sense of motion toward something, is real and usual. We always have goals, aims, aspirations; we always try to go toward those things and outcomes we desire.
Once in a while, a large number of us head for the same goal at the same time, in the same direction.
When we achieve any part of that desired outcome together, we call it social progress.

None of that means we all choose the same goal, the same direction and the same path. The notion that we ever have is an illusion. You can't calculate the cost of all the wrong outcomes in the past and subtract it from the present. You can only compare your own situation with that of other humans.

The ultimate destination of a species is extinction. Every stop from here to there is progress - better for some than others.

Should they be? I don't think so. Are they? Sadly yes.
There's even a valuation of human life (insurance companies). And the popular quote "time is money" reflects the fact that your salary reflects how much your hours of life left are worth compensating. — Benj96

And that is an outcome of monetization, and that is an outcome of money as a means of assigning value. Of course it's wrong. Money is one of humankind's worst inventions. It corrupts the human psyche even more effectively than power - and it buys power, so the two most corrosive elements of society are in the same hands.

An hour of life of a minimum wage worker doing a job they don't want to do is worth less than that of an hour of the life of a tech CEOs. — Benj96

On average, 1/670. That's not so bad, given what a foot-soldier's life is worth compared to an emperor's.

Hence why in an ideal world we would all do jobs we love/are passionate about. — Benj96

Do what you love, share what you make, take what you need.
Learn what you can, teach what you know.

The usual conservative reaction to social welfare or GBI is: "Nobody will have an incentive work."
And yet, retired people used to die for lack of meaningful work. They don't anymore: they start new enterprises, learn new skills, keep busy doing the work they choose for themselves.

We have quality billionaires who can multi-task, ripping folks off in more than one place at a time. — unenlightened

So have Russia and China and notably the Middle East.
Fly Emirates, mate!

If the eco cutlery producer cannot produce something equal or greater in value then it simply means his "innately good idea", while perhaps well-intentioned, wasn't very good. — Tzeentch

The problematic word there is "value" and how that evaluation is made in a capitalist system. Two products on a shelf, both perform the same function equally well. One is more expensive to buy. That's an easy choice - for the consumer.
For the concerned citizen the equation is quite different. Assuming identical manufacturing methods:
Product A is a result of deep ocean oil drilling and its concomitant accidental pollution events - see map. It comes packaged in plastic. Oil refineries are heavy polluters and the raw material needs special transport vessels, which themselves are heavy polluters. All these materials are toxic carcinogens. Both the product and its packaging will be discarded and take 20-500 years to decompose, meanwhile stuffing landfills or killing wildlife on land and in the oceans. Some of it will become micro-plastic and end up in the consumers' lungs.
Product B is made from avocado pits. Avocado trees only thrive in sub-tropical regions and so their products need to be packaged and shipped to colder places, polluting wherever the trucks and ships go. The trees are large and need water which may be scarce in some growing regions. Neither the raw material nor the final product is hazardous to health and both are biodegradabe.
If we count up the associated costs in environmental degradation, cleanup, disposal, human health and long-term medical care, which product is actually cheaper?

The amount of goods produced goes up, and as a result of the guac producer's free giving away of their waste product which the eco cutlery producer turns into value, the guac producer's buying power goes down as a result of their charity. — Tzeentch

I don't see how. Before he gave it away - not as charity but in self-interest - he was paying to have it hauled away. So he was saving money on the transaction all the while the eco-cutlety producer was investing in the early stages of his company's growth. The guac-producer was a couple of years ahead in extra profits and continues to benefit from free pit removal, and the eco-cutlery company doesn't ever become a competitor or cut into his business.

So, do you reject the word 'freedom' as unattainable? — universeness

First, I'd like to reject the conflation of 'liberty' with 'a free lunch'.
Second, I do not believe that anyone can be autonomous free, or that any desirable thing can be attained entirely without cost.
Third, that is not a rejection or freedom itself, nor of the word; it merely puts them into a realistic perspective.

Money is excellent at standardising the value of all products/goods, services and properties against one another. As before that bartering was tricky. — Benj96

Therein lies a fundamental problem: the assumption that all things must have a market value for the purpose of commerce. Well if "things" can be assessed in monetary terms, why not resources, land, water, time, work, wildlife and human life?

Is it impossible to imagine the avocado grower, the guacamole maker, the pit recycler, the town councillor and the tree-hugger to discuss ways that they could most efficiently can co-operate to get what they each want and serve their community at the same time?

So if money is not evil. It's the behaviour and attitude ues that we have towards it that are - how much we want, and at what cost, what we spend it on and how we get it (thievery, immoral corporation or charitable donations etc).

The theft and corruption, hoarding and cheating are much easier to accomplish with money - even more so, with digital money! - than with turnips, shoes and roofing slates.
The charity, however, is far more efficient and effective without money.

There are no bears in the forests of Scotland. — universeness

Not anymore! But there are still a few in other places where people and berries live.
My poor little joke was meant to illustrate that "free" is a function of timing, alertness and luck. There is usually a cost and some risk in human endeavours. Nothing is truly free, but survival is a whole lot less costly if you don't have to carry the landlords, administrators, priests, armies and corporate profits while you forage.

I have yet to hear a valid argument the concept of ANY human OWNING land. — universeness

Or water or air or trees or animals or even other people.

Therefore when we say dismantle capitalism.... what it does need is regulation. — Benj96

Too late for that. Whatever regulations a government enacts the next one will begin to dismantle; within four election cycles, its effects are completely neutralized and the rush toward the precipice resumes with gusto.

And government is and should always be about equalising, checks and balances.

Should, yes, but never can. However honestly and well-meaningly it begins, government is always suborned by the interests of the most ruthless citizens and the economic system, with all the powerless in it, made to serve them.

It will have to collapse under its own corruption. Just pray that happens soon - before national rivalries, corporate greed, technological irresponsibility and the whirlwinds our predecessors have sown wipe us off this planet.

If you were out in a forest, and you ate berries, growing on a bush for your lunch, does that count as a free lunch? — universeness

Only if you're gone before the bear family arrives.

the modern way economies work hinders environmental consideration/sustainability for a fundamental reason - our attitude towards the world as an object to be owned, mined, deforested etc for objective resources. — Benj96

Yessss!!!

But "stability" is a resource too. — Benj96

:clap: :clap:

I know they aren't after me. They are. By they, I mean a UK billionaire and the politicians of my city and perhaps even the Prime Minister of my country. — Bug Biro

Which UK billionaire? Aren't they all busy messing up their own country's housing situation?

As to homelessness: I don't know how successful this strategy is, but it doesn't sound like a policy of killing off through neglect.
As to affordable housing https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2022/04/making-housing-more-affordable.html
Several issues intervene between policy and implementation: the enormous cost of Covid; the co-operation of provinces - You know who you are, Duggie-Bob! - the opportunistic investors and increased demand for real estate, rising rental prices

According to this same rentals.ca’s national rent report, the three cities that have seen the highest annual increase in one-bedroom rental prices are: London, Ont. (36.9% increase)
Calgary, Alta. (29.8% increase) Vancouver, B.C. (18.8% increase)

However, real estate developers prefer to build this kind of thing in London, Calgary and Vancouver rather than low-cost homes for working people, marginalized people and refugees.

then that religion would open the door to morally permissible atrocities in the minds of its followers. — ClayG

The monotheistic ones do, anyway - without any need for self-denial. All you need is for a god to give people permission to behave as badly as they secretly wish. So does political zealotry.

Voltaire said:
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities.

This is a true of Pope Urban II as it is of Hitler.

But it's still a stretch to say you can imagine a world without good and evil - perhaps an uninhabited planet might fit the bill, but then, so what? — Wayfarer

I didn't say that. But, in fact, I can imagine a world without evil - as I understand and defined evil. It would just have to be slightly less evolved. Say, stopped before the chimpanzee.

OTOH, I can't imagine a world without good or bad. That's the appropriate pairing, as both good and bad can be unintentional, unconscious; just a subjective interpretation of reality. The opposite of evil would be something like benevolence.

think the philosophical point is that the capacity for evil - both to experience it and to cause it - is an integral part of self-conscious being. — Wayfarer

A human trait, a human concept. Though it's possible some of the other intelligent species are capable of evil on some very childish level, I'm not convinced of it.
Good things and bad things happen*; evil is done.

for the benefit of potential nitpickers: * This does not rule out their being also brought about by human agency, but does preclude evil from simply happening by chance.

but again, so what? — Wayfarer

My contention was that we can conceive of a world in which we don't need to be snails in order to refrain from acting out our evil impulses. Most people do this routinely, every day.
So, nothing, I guess; just lining up the ideas presented. Fire at will.

You can? What would that be like, then? A world where nothing is ever born or dies, is subject to illness or injury. I can't see how this can be 'easy to imagine'. — Wayfarer

All bad and unfortunate and sad things that can happen are not evil. Evil is a specific kind of bad: malevolence, deliberate destructiveness, consciously intended harm.
Being born is not evil - indeed most people are glad they were born and most parents, too. Forcing women - or any creature - to reproduce against their will, rape and bondage, puppy farms and cattle breeding are evil.
Death is not evil - we can even choose our time and means. Cold-blooded killing and war-mongering are evil.
Mistakes and misjudgment are not evil, even though they can have undesirable consequences.
and dying are not evil.
We know that we all have the capacity for evil (We may even have a monopoly on it), but we don't have to bring it into the world.

I was simply arguing against an argument I heard from a theist that if God exists, then good and evil exist. — ClayG

Of course, you are correct. And you were debating a question of logic with a theist? Why?

The eco company has no choice but to accept this charge as they don't find an alternative. Now the price of eco cutlery goes up to maintain profit margins and is now more expensive than plastic cutlery. — Benj96

it gets worse: between them, the two companies have increased the demand for avocado pits - if not necessarily avocado fruit. And then, some other cleverboots sees an opportunity to use avocado pit in place of plastic, manages to get hold of the formula or its inventor - which is a legal booby-trap waiting down the line. At first, this merely increases the price avocado farmers charge for their produce, but then the demand for just the pits skyrockets, and a lot of the fruit is left to rot, until somebody figures out a way to use it for fuel, so another byproduct is in huge demand again, so they start importing from Kenya instead of buying from California, which, of course, adds to transport costs and pollution. Some California farmers spotted the trend a couple of years in and turned fields of strawberries into avocado orchards, but they have to wait another twelve more years for even a modest a harvest, by which the time, the whole avocado craze may have peaked and declined. Meanwhile, there is a scarcity of strawberries, driving up the price and bolstering imports from Mexico, which is a great opportunity for smugglers...

Is the structure or design of our markets/economy hindering us from developing a better way forward? — Benj96

Not hindering. Preventing. Putting the kibosh on.

Social animals didn't stop being real [genuine; authentic; natural] animals when they became social.

A couple of things with these two related acts: 1) they are more than expression of emotion. — Bylaw

Contempt may be a compound emotion, but it is an emotion. Mockery and derision are expressions of that emotion. Only the most simple, primitive emotions can be expressed entirely by grimaces and gestures. The complex ones coupled with ideation, and humans tend to express those emotions in verbal language, as well as body language. When I say expression, I mean all available forms. If you feel contempt for somebody, you might only look down your nose at them, wave your hand dismissively, or roll your eyes at what they say - and yes, those gestures do communicate your feeling, and may very well hurt their feelings. But we usually also add words.
None of this means the feeling itself isn't genuine, or negate the social injunction to keep your overt expressions of it in check - or suppress them altogether, when expressing them (to a cop, or your boss, or your kid's principal) may put something you value in jeopardy.
Feelings, simple or complex, don't become less genuine when we have learned the self-disciple to express them appropriately.

That holds true for all negative emotions. Toddlers are prone to tantrums, but by age four, we expect children to have learned not to express their frustration in that way. At least in public. By age 18, we really ought to have stopped throwing them at all. That's an opinion, not a rule.

I think we have had these judgments so long it just seems true that these things must be suppressed. — Bylaw

Not "must". It's a social convention to regulate our communication of both thoughts and feeling. We used to call that good manners. They were invented to facilitate co-operative social behaviour.

But do you include expressing emotions in sound, facial expressions, posture. Like screaming in grief, say. — Bylaw

I don't see how grief can injure other people. But derision and mockery can; expressions of contempt, envy and anger can and does hurt feelings, and thus cause resentment, enmity, perhaps some form of retribution - which ripples outward, affecting kin, friends and bystanders, which is disruptive of the social harmony.
And that is why children are taught to control their temper and refrain from laughing at another's disability, physical or mental shortcomings, not to say they hate people, even if they do feel that way. Emotions are of the moment; social interdependence is for the long term.