Just a question, and I am sure there is a ready answer; and then, I will be on my way, satisfied that the world is the world. Would someone please tell my why, when I greet my uncle Sidney, I am not "greeting" exclusively (!) systems of neuronal activity?
Troubled sleep over this. — Constance

Well, that rather complex neuronal activity is unique to that particular system, in which it has stored senstions, memories, emotions, responses, knowledge, feelings, interactions with other systems, skill-sets, melodies and a pattern whereby it recognizes and can distinguish from all others the unique system of neuronal complexes which is designated as "Constance" in its realm of perception. All this neuronal activity takes place in a unique container of specialized cells that are all busy replicating, dying, doing all kinds of work to process elements from the environment into materials to maintain the edifice which is "Sydney", the sum of all those cellular activities, interstitial fluids and structural elements and containing membranes in which it takes place, one of whose various designations is "uncle to Canstance".
Yeah, that seems pretty exclusive. But why is it a problem?

Focusing on the Garden described in Genesis 1-3, the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, c. 6000BCE, pretty good match.
Gen 3:17-24 - thistles, thorns, sweat, animal skins, driven out of a good place to a difficult place - yep, sounds historically accurate
Gen 4 - coupling, conception, childbirth, sibling rivalry - this place - check.
The only thing that doesn't fit here is that pretty, shiny, benevolent sky-daddy god.
Conclusion: pretty, shiny, benevolent sky-daddy god did not create "this place".
Therefore, Christians must have been misled.
But were they misled about the nature of the creation or the nature of the creator?

God is. (Shut up and don't question his existence!)
God is perfect, omni-everything. (because I said so.)
Why do Christians believe my version of God made the world? (I'm not only uninterested in interpretation and explanation, I'll heap verbal abuse on anyone who attempts it.)
Discuss.

There is also an online chess tutor you can sign on to, that's very good, according to my very bright chess-playing friend, who is only intermediate class, but seems to enjoy it.

I am terrible at chess playing a computer at an easy level and I am killed off pretty quickly. — TiredThinker

I was knocked out by my third opponent in Gr 9 chess club. Too much work for too little reward. But that's because we have the wrong brain-wiring for that game. I quit at the end of first semester and joined the drama club, which was much more fun: they let me design and build sets. Maybe softball is a better fit for you, just as Scrabble is a better fit for me. Go is right out of my ballpark, because it's strategy, but I like mah jong, cos it's pattern-recognition.
They're games! Some people got computers involved, because for computer people, everything has to involve computers, but that's irrelevant.
What's relevant is whether you enjoy playing the game and the company in which you play it.

Does chess even exercise useful parts of the brain? — TiredThinker

For sure. Observation, memory, projection, prediction, visualization, long-term and short-term planning - it's very cerebral and the learned skills have many other applications. Okay, so maybe you don't want to grow up to be a spy or diplomat or general....
...so, play Snakes and Ladders or Monopoly.

It's true by definition. — Bartricks

It's nice to have the definitive definition of God. It's nice to have the last word on all matters theological. But it's a teensy bit odd to do that and then come with that burden of proof thingie at other people. It's almost like you were attacking John Cleese with a banana.

Absolutely. You have quite a knack for problem resolution out of curiosity are you/were you in a management position in your career? — Benj96

No, but I've done a bit of student counseling in a multicultural city. Anyway, this aspect of the situation has been exercising my mind for many years. I rather like animals, and disapprove of cruelty for any reason. And it's so obviously avoidable! I did a bit more recent research for a novel.

It's true by definition. — Bartricks

OK

What did I say someone who quetsions that is? — Bartricks

A berk, I think.
What "issue"? People believe whatever they want.

I do believe in God. But I don't believe God created the world we live in. It doesn't look like the kind of place an all-good person would create. But Christians typically do believe that God created the world. Why? — Bartricks

Maybe you're taking somebody else's unreliable word for what God is like. Who told you He's all-good?

Christians believe their god created the world, because the Sumerian creation myth is in a book that was written down by Hebrews long after they picked up the oral tradition. Meanwhile, the Christians' founding figurehead changed the whole concept and identity of the Hebrew god. So they have the Saviour figure at the center of their religion, but His role depends on the God figure that's supposed to have engendered Him, which is a different person from the Jehovah of the OT. But the compilers of the Bible that modern Christians use as their source and final authority lived in Roman Europe 300 years later just lumped all the stories in together, regardless of their origins, ages and contradictions. So the Christians are confused and conflicted and all the time at odds with one another over doctrine.

God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. Those are the essential attributes of God — Bartricks

If you subscribe to that hyperbole, your conundrum is intractable and impervious to reason.

(don't be tedious and question that - if you want to use the word 'God' to refer to a peach, that's fine, but you're just a berk)

Is the choice really is between the absolute acceptance of that omni-doctrine and a peach? OK then I'm a berk, because both appear silly to me.

So, there is nothing in the definition of God that commits a Christian to the belief that God created the world. — Bartricks

The commitment of Christians is not in a definition; it's in the acceptance of Jesus as their redeemer. A cornerstone of the doctrine is believing that story in the foundational book that starts "In the beginning...", which also enables the same God to be King of Heaven, which is important to Christianity wih it afterlife myth. But they do a lot of interpreting, ignoring and cherry-picking between that and the Ascension.
They don't need to 'square the book' with the omni-God. They just need faith and short memories.

Probably the New York managerial job is available to them if they demonstrate their thinking and policies would lead to a larger profit margin for the owner. — Benj96

That's 1 out of 3.5 M unemployed.
The profit margin dictates replacing expensive employees with cheaper ones, more employees with fewer employees, at every step.

If you are actually campaigning and working hard to help make a better human civilisation and someone suggests you are trying to create a utopia and utopia means: — universeness

I spent a lot of my life doing that. At one time, I believed improvement was not merely possible, but that it would continue on beyond me. What I have seen instead is the erosion of much of the social progress my generation brought about. I no longer believe human are capable of sustained progress. I'm not even sure enough of us want it.

You suggested the system I advocate for is utopian. I maintain it is not and it is offered simply as a better way for humans to live. — universeness

Well, good luck, then!

Jobs can always be created. Is the job "telecommunications manager" or "website designer" available to people of the 13th century? — Benj96

None at all, among the world population of 0.35-.40B. And how many of those jobs are available to the 6.5B of today's world? I'm not sure how many of the factory workers in Bangladesh can relocate to the head office in New York and take over management of communications. If if two of two or three of the others get a chance to learn web design before their families starve.

The Ready-Made Garments (RMG) industry is the main source of manufacturing employment in the country. However, according to government's a2i project and International Labour Organisation (ILO) around 60 per cent (5.38 million) of garment workers in Bangladesh will become unemployed by 2030 and be replaced by robots due to automation in the RMG sector.]The Ready-Made Garments (RMG) industry[/url] is the main source of manufacturing employment in the country. However, according to government's a2i project and International Labour Organisation (ILO) around 60 per cent (5.38 million) of garment workers in Bangladesh will become unemployed by 2030 and be replaced by robots due to automation in the RMG sector.

The wall one hits is always the same one: proportions. The reason automation benefits owners is that they have to spend less on wages. It's the only reason they do it: to make more profit, not to make better jobs.

So long as humans exist, human problems will be adressed by humans (not automated). — Benj96

There is only so much service anyone needs, and private enterprise won't pay for most of it. If you're not earning, you can't afford a tennis coach, a geriatric nurse, a dog-walker, a plastic surgeon, a butler, or a masseur. If the Republicans are in charge long enough, all personal services will be available to the wealthy alone - including elementary school for their kids....
Of course, that's short-sighted: when enough of the incomes dry up, people default on loans, repossessed homes and cars sit empty and consumption bottoms out at subsistence level. The whole economic system breaks down, requiring either massive government intervention and reorganization or the grandfather of all social upheavals (because, this time it's global). But I think short term is all they're planning for now.

This has too much personal depth in it for me to accurately unpackage. — universeness

It basically means I reject the charge of thinking the way the exploiting class wants me to and that I don't consider 'utopian' a bad word.

I believe capitalism is best for some things but not Laizefair capitalism built on the autocratic model. We can retain capitalism and replace the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model. — Athena

I can't quite picture that - unless you mean something different by capital than I do. This may not be the venue for an exhaustive discussion of capitalism. Suffice that I believe it's entirely surplus to requirements - an unnecessary complication of and drain on the economy.

The focus of this education is good citizenship and lifelong learning. Its goal is well-rounded individual growth. — Athena

Sounds good. Teachers would be on board with that. Most of them would be thrilled to teach to the student's need and ability, rather than the board's, state's industry's, universities', parents' and church's competing demands; would rather spend more time with the children than the paperwork. Why not just make all schools a fusion of Waldorf and Montessori, with a dash of Lyceum mixed in when they get older?

Now Christians think they created democracy! — Athena

Christians have as many self-delusions as Americans - and are about as accurate in the use of words.

Stop thinking in the exact way the nefarious few want and need you to think. — universeness

I have, some time ago. I do not use the term pejoratively; I wear it with proper humility: I'm a utopian pastoral socialist by conviction, though I cannot live up to the ideal. I'm also on the brink of extinction. If I were younger and less tough, some jillionaires would make a fetish of serving my flesh in their exclusive club restaurants.

We would be a bunch of followers of the "cool", with the name of the billionaire attached to its logo, and no longer able to understand what it means to be connected to the earth. — L'éléphant

Yeah, that's a depressing state of being. (We have mass-produced pills for that!) Not being connected to your work - what you figured out, what you devised, what you designed, what you crafted, what you made - that may be even more intimately soul-parching. TS Eliot had a pretty good take on it.

(We could do better than this!)

So, you agree, we need to change that and reject the capitalist world? — universeness

Of course! They're killing us all, right alongside the trees and butterflies.

A democratic socialist/humanist administration which implements a resource-based economy. — universeness

Sounds utopian to me
, by every standard of Utopia with which I'm familiar. Hell, I invented one of 'em.

YES!!! and a UBI would support this! — universeness

Obviously. It's an essential first step toward sane self-governance.

for that we need statistics. — SpaceDweller

Here's a start:
:

Worldwide, a billion people could lose their jobs over the next ten years due to AI...
45 million Americans could lose their jobs to AI automation...
AI will create 58 million jobs, and by 2030...
Companies deploying automation and AI say the technology allows them to create new jobs. However, the number of new jobs is often minuscule compared with the number of jobs lost.

I keep hearing as how "we" need to retrain displaced workers and make sure people enter "the job market" with higher academic credentials.... the very thing the grand old party of American Business, rah,rah,rah opposes with all its might.

House Republicans passed these deep education cuts today despite clear opposition by tens of thousands of residents over the past few months who spoke out in support of our schools at town hall meetings and rallies across the state. In a recent survey, 53 percent of residents said education funding should be the last place lawmakers cut, according to Michigan State University’s Institute for Public Policy and Social Research.

People seeing negative things and ignoring positive things is nothing new. — SpaceDweller

It's true. Neither is people seeing positive things and not supporting their claims.

Thanks Vera I'll have a look into it. My question for you in the meantime would be "Is veganism healthy only when a portion of humanity adopt it or would it also be the healthiest option if everyone adopted it globally? — Benj96

The study only covered personal physical health, not any social factors. We already know, from earlier studies on agriculture, land and energy use, how much healthier a world we would have without the huge and growing meat industry.

(considering the existence of those with intolerances/food allergies, illnesses, gastrointestinal diseases, illnesses, gastrointestinal diseases, muscle wasting disease or in a protein malnourished state, — Benj96

All of those conditions can be readily addressed within the limits of a meat-free diet.

those who cannot monetarily afford vegan alternatives, those that simply don't have vegan products available in abundance in their local supermarkets — Benj96

They can phase out the most expensive meats first and increase their intake of the cheapest vegetables. Meanwhile, the whole system of food-production and distribution can be gradually altered toward efficiency, ease of access and improved nutrition. Nobody needs to go pure vegan to be healthy or to reduce their share of the devastation of Earth. But everybody can do something better than they have been.
Nothing is carved in stone. Supermarkets are not mandated in the Ten Commandments and all those half-empty shopping malls could easily convert to hydroponic gardens. There are quite a few urban community projects already underway.

Perhaps veganism is not the perfect fit for all currently. Individual needs considered - medical or otherwise. — Benj96

Of course! Especially the 'otherwise'. In many countries, people already have less meat in their diets, simply because they are poor, or it's not available. But all countries have some growing land, and their capabilities can be improved with irrigation and smart farming practice. For those people, continuing and improving an omnivorous diet would be economically more feasible, and family or village farms with mixed production would be the best solution for their circumstances. However, it's the rich industrial nations that consume - and waste - a very large, overweight lion's share of all the food and other resources of the world. A change in the eating habits of North America could save South America from total destruction.

Democratic agency. The consent of the majority of all of the stakeholders involved or the consent of the majority of their democratically elected representatives under a very robust set of checks and balances. — universeness

Utopia!

You identify that we cannot have production techniques which cause dangerous environmental/ecological impact. — universeness

In a capitalist world, you cannot have any other kind. Nor have we had any other kind since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

I would rather such tech was not brought in until it could be brought in without any such impact. — universeness

How, where, when and how fast new technology is used is controlled entirely by the owners of the means of production - who also control the terms and conditions of employment. They can be regulated by government and mitigated by collective bargaining - unless they also own the government, which, in capitalist societies, they mostly do.

Available jobs don't go down due to technology, what happens is that some jobs are replaced with technology, however new kinds of jobs also pop out. — SpaceDweller

In what proportion? For every 1000 jobs made obsolete, how many are created? What happens to the 999 people and their children?

On the other hand, employment is extremely important to ordering our lives and I am not advocating leaving people unemployed! — Athena

But does it have to be employment in the old sense of working for a boss who takes half or more of the value of your work as profit and does whatever he wants with the product? Might 'work' not be re-imagined so that independent people spend part of their time pursuing their creative endeavours, part of their time in co-operative efforts that benefit the whole community and its environment, part of it in games, social activities and entertainment, and part in solitary contemplation?

In essence who's beliefs ought we to also believe? — Benj96

You could go with theirs...National Center for Biotechnology Information

The use of indexing systems, estimating the overall diet quality based on different aspects of healthful dietary models (be it the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans or the compliance to the Mediterranean Diet) indicated consistently the vegan diet as the most healthy one.

then the tech should be brought in. — universeness

then the new tech should be slowly phased in — universeness

By what agency? Who is in charge of deciding and carrying out these policies?

With that said, is it ethical for technological automation top be stunted, in order to preserve jobs (or a healthy job marketplace)? — Bret Bernhoft

Couple of problems with that. What 'healthy job marketplace'? First, what's a job marketplace but people selling their time and strength and skill to other people? How does one assess its state of health? Why assume it's healthy or can remain so with more automation? Second, what is technological automation? To whom does it belong? What purpose does it serve? What is its ethical standing? In what social organization? Some unexamined assumptions under there that need considering before any ethical standard can be applied to the question.

And then: What else happens when automation eliminates jobs? More goods are produced, faster. More resources are used up faster. more waste is produced and released into the air, water and land faster. It literally eats the planet. Meanwhile, the people who have no jobs have no income. So who's buying all that product? Does it go straight from the factory into the landfill, like the packaging it comes in? People have to clean up the waste. They have to be paid for that, so they can afford the goods the machines produce. That's usually done from public coffers, not private ones, so the people that are hired to clean up the waste are also the ones paying the taxes that pay their own salaries. Where is the surplus value that buys government services?

That's just the unaccounted logistics. Ethics are still waiting in the hall.

On that note regarding the strict control of genetic diversity of poultry (or any domestic animal for that matter) as you described, this doesn't fare well against transmissible infections (bird flu for example) — Benj96

Hence the routine addition of antibiotics to their feed. Also growth hormone for a faster profit. I'm not going to research it now (got to get back to my own work sometime soon) but I've read that the incidence of hormone-related abnormalities, such as gynecomastia, early onset puberty and of course, the ubiquitous specter of obesity.

If they are identical clones then they will likely be equally vulnerable to a fatal disease. — Benj96

They're not exactly that, but they are bred for specialty traits: lean ham, more milk, big brisket, tender white breast... They're commodities, not animals. They are commercial items, subject to product-design, product-modification, according to the demands of the market.

Luckily by downsizing the average distance between potentially infectious animals as well as their general well being /resilience is increased inadvertently which works in our favour to prevent the spread of animal born infections. — Benj96

Small, family-run, free-range farms. Apparently, the UK is moving in the right direction (Be aware, that's a PDF with lots of graphics.) Nothing like that can happen in the Republican-ridden US, where agri-business has serious political clout and zero scruples.

I think the main issue is protein. I get most of my protein from goat whey and peanut powder. I don't have any interest in the taste of meat. — frank

After a period of abstinence, it becomes repugnant. Our initial decision to do without meat was due to the hypocrisy factor: if we're not willing to kill it, we should not eat it. The transition was easier than we expected; the aesthetics of food preparation are much improved.

Yes and lose biodiversity in the process. If we don't breed food animals then they will go extinct. — Benj96

Maybe. Or maybe their numbers will simply decline from the expendable billions to a cherished few. To a manageable population level, where they provide milk and eggs and wool for their caregivers and stem cells for the meat factories. On a family farm with one or two cows, they would be better treated and more valued than on a factory-sized dairy farm with 2000 cows, which are slaughtered for dogfood at age 5 or 6 when their milk production falls below the financially mandated quota. Beef cattle have a life expectancy of 1-3 years. I'm pretty sure you don't want to think about the 'life' of poultry. None of them have the freedom to mate according to their natural inclination; their genetic makeup is rigidly controlled for uniformity.
Domestic animals are not contributing to biodiversity; on the contrary

More than 1.7 billion animals are used in livestock production worldwide and occupy more than one-fourth of the Earth's land.
Production of animal feed consumes about one-third of total arable land. https://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/march/livestock-revolution-environment-031610.html

Grazing livestock and the specialty crops grown for feed push wildlife, as well as native plants out of their ecological niches, and thus reduce biodiversity.

So we just inherit a new set of problems do we not? — Benj96

Not necessarily. We could opt to solve the present ones sensibly, with moderation and forethought.

They still eat grass/ crops that photosynthesise (uses solar energy) to generate food. Again.. Whether we feed it to them that grains directly or they are free to eat grass from the ground themselves is irrelevant to the energy source. — Benj96

I don't understand this. If we stop breeding food animals, there won't be any more of them to need the grass and grain. We can eat the grain and leafy plants directly, saving a huge amount of energy on the intermediaries.

If you do not want to eat animals I respect it but I am not agree with substitute them with pills or tablets. — javi2541997

Yet once more again: I never have advocated substitution. I only suggested that if you think the vegetable-based diet is missing some nutrients you need for health, you can add them. It's an optional extra. I eat vegetables, grains, legumes and root-crops, supplemented by eggs (from a local free-range farm. I've met the hens; they're not just happy, they're downright feisty.) and dairy products (not currently available from a wholesome source, but my egg supplier is raising goats, so hopefully, soon).

while India is a good example of veganism they also consume animals as chickens — javi2541997

That's not veganism. Not all Indians are practicing Hindus, any more than all Americans are all devout Christians; not all Indians are vegetarian, anymore than all Americans are tooth-and-claw carnivores, and not all vegetarians are vegan.

https://thevou.com/lifestyle/how-many-vegans-are-in-the-world/Right now, there are about 5%, equal to 15.5 million people in the US following a vegetarian-based diet, according to the Statista Global Consumer Survey on diets and nutrition in the U.S. in 2022.
However, only 2 million of them – that’s approximately 0.5 percent – lead a purely vegan lifestyle.

It's never been a question of replacing normal food with pills - not even for astronauts is that a current option. It's a question of changing the way we produce, distribute and consume normal foods.

I'm not sure whether artifical meat manufacturing will outcompete natural processes that have evolved for millenia in the use of energy. — Benj96

What natural processes? Buffalo grazing over vast unfenced prairies and a few wolf-packs picking off the stragglers and weak calves at the edge of the herd? We disrupted that cycle around 30,000 BCE when humans moved into agricultural settlements. All of our present food production is artificial; we don't compete with nature; we eliminate competition and alter the life and reproduction of other species to suit our own requirements. What's produced in the vats is not artificial meat* but actual cloned muscle tissue from live animals. The only difference is that you can get many tons of clean, healthy meat from a single cow, without injuring her.
* There is also something to be said for plant-based meat substitutes. There is more processing involved and the nutrient value needs to be monitored, and sometimes enhanced, in order to make these foods part of a healthy diet. They do serve, however, as an intermediate stage for people who want to change their eating habits but have difficulty breaking old habits.

Now all that stands in the way is issues of doubt as to the lucrative nature of such an undertaking (the securing of investment) and prejudice (beliefs that it is unnatural and harmful or whatever the case may be). Education and inspiration are most needed here indeed. — Benj96

Yes, the important thing is never what's good for the world or the people, but what's good for the morbidly obese bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy.
I despair. This is all coming far too late, in the looming shadow of a retrograde political swing and closing-panic. Half a century ago, we might have been able to avert destruction; even two or three decades' head-start might have mitigated the coming disaster.

But after reading your arguments, I think you still defend that we consume animals just for fun or greed. — javi2541997

No, I condemn it. But I acknowledge that it's one of our species' less endearing traits.

It is true that thanks to chemistry some scientists developed important tablets full of nutrients which can (more or less...) replace organic food as meat. — javi2541997

You're the only one talking about tablets. Nobody's replacing a dripping pink slab of flesh with a pill. In fact, the cultured meat is just that: meat. The DNA comes from a cow, a chicken, a fish or a pig. You can adjust the fat content and texture; you can have a dripping pink steak that contains all of the same nutrients as the one chopped out of the flank of an animal.
What we can do instead, or in the meantime, is eat a vegetarian diet, and if necessary, add in whatever mineral, vitamin or amino acid may be insufficient. The Hindu population of India has managed to keep up its numbers, in spite of wars, foreign occupation and droughts, for a few thousand years with no pills at all.

PS - that's where I had my Damascus moment, at a buffet dinner hosted by a colleague from India. The array, variety and taste of the food was astounding - without a speck of meat on the entire table.

That's like cheating yourself. You are not being fed with the real nutrients. — javi2541997

And yet I continue to thrive! There are no real and false nutrients, just molecules! Chemical compounds that an organism requires to function, not a magic elixir for supernatural beings. There is no mystique to feeding humans. Vitamins and supplements are already used in vast quantities by prosperous western nations - which consume the overwhelming majority of the world's animal products: meat+dairy+plant+supplements - yet we keep getting fatter and less healthy.

My only question here is that this process of synthesising meat surely demands a lot of electricity in these factories. And that electricity has to come from somewhere - currently not renewable energy so this solution to eating meat must come simultaneously with a change over to renewables otherwise it won't solve the fossil fuel - climate change dilemma. — Benj96

That's right. It's not a complete solution yet; it's a step in the right direction. Can you calculate the production of feed and the butchering, processing, packaging, transportation and refrigeration of the meat already use a considerable amount of coal- and nuclear- generated energy, plus the land use (cutting down carbon-capturing trees to make room for cattle) plus the waste methane of cattle and waste products of the associated industries? And weigh that total against the energy needed for vat propagation of meat? They can:

An Oxford study in 2011 estimated lab-grown meat production could involve up to 96 per cent fewer global greenhouse gas emissions, 98 per cent less land use and up to half as much energy.

The net gain is even bigger, since the meat factories can be located in the cities where the meat is consumed: Tiny footprint on the land; inside a contained and controlled environment, in which the CO2 can be easily captured and recycled. Further advantages: no disease, no hormones, no antibiotics: 100% pure meat, made to taste specifications.
Set 'em up next to the neighbourhood greenhouse/hydroponic installation/mushroom bunker and use the byproducts for heat and fertilizer; open a food outlet on the same premises, so people can get their fresh meat and veg within walking distance of their home.
All of these 'problems' are solvable with existing technology.
Only two obstacles: vested financial interest and popular prejudice. (You can bet the former is promoting the latter with every resource they have.)

Although I understand that we can't let the farm animals breeding forever, it may simply be a solution like not introducing males and females together or something like that. Stop it at the breeding part so it doesn't have to get to the killing part. — schopenhauer1

Domestic animals don't control their breeding anyway. The farmers do. Much of it - cattle in particular - is done artificially. To stop it, all we have to do is stop. Inducing milk production in a cow that has not given birth is more complex, but already within reach. Should work on goats, too. Free-range egg sellers regularly keep all-hen flocks: a calmer barnyard and no risk of an embryo plopping into a customer's frying pan. Sheep, also goats, rabbits and llamas) could still be kept for the wool - when you don't want an increase in the herd, just sequester the rams. Pigs have no other use, except rototilling vegetable patches and cleaning up the floor of orchards and permaculture gardens and sniffing out the odd $1000 truffle.
Humans have choices about what they eat and how they produce it.
(And - Shhhh, don't spook the elephant! - about how many of us need feeding.)

I don't think the ability to feel pain is in any way relevant. — Tzeentch

That's an opinion many humans share. Not all, however.

Besides, how do you know insects and plants do not feel pain? They react to being attacked just like a mammal would. — Tzeentch

Insects do; they have a nervous system. When caught in a trap, they try to escape. Broccoli doesn't. I eat broccoli, but not spiders.

If you do not feed yourself with meat you would lose proteins and then you will get sick. — javi2541997

How long does it take, usually? I haven't fed myself with the flesh of mammal, birds or sea-creatures for 30-odd years. So far, feeling fine.
We have the technology to substitute all the nutrients we don't get from our diet - and a whole lot more that we don't need at all - hence the multi-billion dollar supplement industry.

To cut down a tree, to butcher a lamb, what is the difference, really? — Tzeentch

The screaming.
That's simplistic, but that's the thing in a nutshell: not to kill that which expresses a desire to live; not to hurt that which responds to pain. If trees are shown to have a nervous system, I'd have to rethink whether I should use lumber.
We cannot live without compromises: there is no purity for a high-maintenance, highly perceptive species. Algae can be more innocent than earthworms; spiders more innocent than hyenas. None of them have a choice, and Evolution has passed all of their characteristics and needs down to us.
But we are no longer subject to nature; we developed the ability to subjugate nature. To destroy it, to replicate or alter its processes, to dig up the distant past and burn it, to turn valleys into radioactive waste dumps and jungles into grazing land for disabled species that belong on plains which no longer exist.
Collectively, we could become far more benign, had we the will and leadership. The Earth would last longer and we would survive both longer and with a better quality of life.
Individually, we have only a limited choice in how we live and how much we contribute to the destruction.
Vegans try to do as little harm as possible. They can't do zero harm, because they are human in a world that is now 100% human-owned and operated.
Other groups of people try to minimize the harm in other ways: they build tiny houses, or eat only locally produced food, or build their own greenhouse, or stop using plastic, or put solar panels on their roof or recycle water.
I don't think there is anything to gain by saying: If you can't be perfect, you shouldn't try at all.

But that’s a different example. — javi2541997

Yes. The OP was about killing to eat. Killing in self-defense is exempted from murder involving a human, as well. The reason you'd get away with it is not that you may have been unaware of a reflex action, but that whether aware or not, the manslaughter was justified.
In the case of modern man killing animals for food, it is done with full awareness. It may be justified if it's a matter of life and death, but not justified when there are other choices. Yet our moral and legal codes do not distinguish different kinds of animal-slaughter by motive, only by species.

I'm sorry that was so long. I should come back sooner.

What then are we to make of eating meat? How could we compromise and settle everyone's concerns surrounding the ethics of meat? — Benj96

By making it in vats in a factory. We can do that now. That would address the ethical concern, though not necessarily all other concerns.
But there are vested commercial and political interests pitted against the new technology, so it's taking longer to develop on a commercially sustainable scale.

Question 1: if instead of a butcher you had to go to a slaughterhouse and kill what you need for your family, would you respect animals more? Would you eat meat less frequently? Would you be grateful for it? — Benj96

If the confrontation between the meat-eating human and his prey takes place in slaughterhouse, it's very likely to put the human off his meat, for a while anyway. But it's not a setting that engenders respect: by the time it arrives at there, the animal is already degraded, traumatized and reduced to the status of a commodity. The ethical wrong is not in the ending of a life, but in the method of production and destruction that takes an individual entity from its artificial inception through its miserable short life to its ignominious end. I doubt gratitude enters this scenario.

Question 2: Are vegans and carnivores that don't kill for themselves not both trying to avoid/running away from the same fear - that we are natural predators (in part ofc - omnivores) — Benj96

No, I don't think so. Vegans who make that decision on ethical grounds are reacting, not to natural hunting but to modern life and food-production. They're not rejecting a lifestyle where eight men go out with spears and bring home two or three caribou to feed the clan all winter, in favour of relying on the roots and dried berries the women had been able to gather.
They're rejecting the factory farms that raise billions of artificially bred and enhanced sentient individuals and torture them for the single purpose of being slaughtered, so that obese humans can throw away 26% of the meat and hasten their own heart disease with the rest.
And they're not rejecting meat in the stone age, when the balance between humans and other animals might have been sustainable; they're doing it now, when alternatives are readily available and the status quo is fast driving the rest of the world to extinction, with ourselves not far behind.

Then, when a mental sick person commits a crime, probably he was not really aware about what he was doing. — javi2541997

In that case, his legal defense is "Not guilty, due to diminished capacity".
So we might also overlook it if he eats goats, grasshoppers, newspapers or mud.
Only those of us who do understand our actions and are free to choose what we eat are held responsible and subjected to judgment.

Whatever you eat, you will need to eat some living organism. Just because one is fluffy and the other is not, does not make it better to eat one over the other. — Tzeentch

The distinction is not in the covering but in the ability to feel pain.

I think most animals know exactly what they're doing. — Benj96

The more we learn about animal behaviour and intelligence, the more evident this becomes.

I would defend myself because my natural instinct of survival says me to kill X animal to keep alive. It is like a reflex action and I am not sure if I would be "aware" of my own actions of killing an animal just for surviving. — javi2541997

Of course you would be aware. All primitive hunters who kill to survive are aware, as are sport hunters who do it for fun. But, in real life, how often do you really have to choose between killing and starvation? How about a nice bowl of cereal instead? Moussaka? Bean soup?

Agreed but can there be a recognition of a spectrum of sentience and obligations to harm become more pronounced as sentience increases? — schopenhauer1

There is an instinctive range of sympathy from least to most likeness to ourselves. But that's sentiment, not obligation - not reliable, either, as we learn that outward appearance is a poor indicator of sentience.
As far as our moral and legal codes go, the cutoff is Human/Other. In different periods and regions, parts of the human population have been designated Other, so as to withdraw legal protection from that group. But no Other ever gets elevated to the Human category. The closes we come to that is exempting what we designate "companion animals" from the kind of treatment to which "food animals" are subjected.
Vegetarians of different types draw the line at what they consider distinguishable levels of sentience; some eat fish and crustaceans; some eat dairy and eggs. Vegans just rule out the killing and exploitation of all animals.

In our quest to breed the most loyal and docile breeds (labradors, retrievers etc) we inadvertently and accidentally made the opposite simultaneously - aggressive and hostile breeds that don't really serve our purposes. — Benj96

There was nothing inadvertent about it. We bred all domestic animals to serve our purposes. Pit bulls were bred to fight for the entertainment of spectators. Wolfhounds, terrier and beagles were bred for hunting. Some for sniffing, some for racing, some for rescue work and some for guarding. Since most of the vicious animal sports have been outlawed, some of those breeds pose a problem. But we still breed dangerous dogs for guarding our valuables.

“we can know we act unconditionally” (i assume since there are other ways we can act too). — KantDane21

There. The 'we can know' in the second statement refers back to 'it is known' in the first statement; to balance the knowing, not to modify the acting: the conclusion is valid through knowing.*
*merely a lay opinion

I have no issue with obscurity myself. I don't like the idea of oblivion is all. — TiredThinker

I don't think we get a lot of choice, really. You can make shit up; pretend you'll go to heaven if you've been a good little Christian, or the Happy Hunting Ground or Valhalla or Paradise or Sto'Vo'Kor, but it's all fairy tales. You're not expected to like winking out like a star or snuffing out like a birthday candle... either of which is better than some other analogies I could draw....

You got to keep your memories? — TiredThinker

Yes, I've been lucky that way. No serious brain issues, other than the constant search for things I just put down five minutes ago. The rest of the machine is rusting shut or falling apart, but the top is still largely functional. I didn't replicate, so my contribution to the genome is nil. I have done no great harm to anyone, some small benefit to my immediate environment: I did some competent work, had an infinitesimal influence on 20th century politics, made people laugh and taught youngsters. My contribution to human history is minimal. I prefer that obscurity to being commemorated with a statue that some future generation will pull down and smash to bits.
Few regrets, even fewer complaints.

What value is there to the self if we are nothing more than physical beings, and it is likely everything is predetermined? — TiredThinker

Objectively, none whatever. Who would be measuring it? Value is subjective. The average earthworm seems satisfied to be physical being; so do most doves and bats and whales. I know I'm okay with it. I find the physical world beautiful, endlessly interesting and most of the time, quite pleasant to live in. I don't mind having no objective value, as long as I'm having worthwhile experiences.

To my knowledge all mutations are either bad or don't change anything, and super rarely anything good and evolving. — TiredThinker

That's the big chance genes live for. Imagine bearing the mutation that starts a whole new species! But, who cares? That's not why creatures reproduce. They either can't help it or get actual joy out of it. Or aggravation. Either way, life experience and a sense of not having wasted their time.

What use is an identity that doesn't evolve and in fact continues to become less and less functional by our own standards? — TiredThinker

Yeah. I'm dealing with old age myself. It's no fun, but memory is some consolation.

4,380,000 — Alkis Piskas

wars with no material gain in any of them for a group of humans? Amazing! It must have happened before my time, or I'd have noticed, probably.

And around we go. — Tom Storm

You can. I won't.

Ideologies must have power to embed their ideology - — Tom Storm

So, you think abstract concepts are not merely alive and have a will of their own, but also have agency and power to manipulate people? Ho-kay...

Are you one of those cynics who thinks that no one believes in anything, it's just about money? — Tom Storm

In order for anything to be "about money", somebody must first believe in money, which would make it a self-contradiction for me to think that. No, I'm one of those cynics who think that ideologies, like money, like technology, like social hierarchy, like law, were invented by humans and are wielded by humans. Of course people believe things - all kinds of things that no squirrel or shark would be fool enough to believe. Humans have large brains, imaginations, anxieties and egos - they can make up six mutually contradictory theories before breakfast.

'Communicate something' means open ended interpretive possibilities

Does it, when you're placing a dinner order? Or giving instructions to an employee, or explaining to your wife over the phone where to look for the file you forgot and need her to bring to a meeting? Verbal communication normally has a message that is expected - or at least intended - to convey information from the speaker to the hearer. It's normally that way in written communications, as well. The more open-ended it is the less communication takes place. If they can read into it whatever they like, why bother writing at all? Let 'em write their own!

That's fair. So you are saying subjective interpretations of myth are all that matter? — Tom Storm

I didn't say what matters; only what I'm qualified to report on. Matter - to whom?
To someone with a vested interest in one particular interpretation, it matters greatly that theirs prevail. Preachers seem to put a lot of effort into convincing their congregations that their version is the right one, rather than encouraging them each to make a subjective guess as to the meaning of scripture. To a scholar, an interpretation is worthless unless it sheds light on some aspect of anthropology - and it can't do that if it doesn't correspond to known facts about the period and people in question; if it doesn't add to a body of accumulating knowledge. Radical interpretations must be supported by other evidence. But mine is mundane secular anthropology, nothing noteworthy.

I thought you were saying there was a true version of any myth - the author's intention? — Tom Storm

I didn't even posit a particular author or intention for this story - it's far too old. Every story must have been told by someone before it could be heard and interpreted by anyone else, that's all. This one probably goes back to long before there were identifiable Hebrews, to the Sumerian culture (The Akkadian one is more violent.)

The origins of humans are described in another early second-millennium Sumerian poem, “The Song of the Hoe.” In this myth, as in many other Sumerian stories, the god Enlil is described as the deity who separates heavens and earth and creates humankind.

You can see the echoes coming down a millennium or so, and the notion is further supported by the prominence of rivers in the Genesis creation myth

“The Debate between Bird and Fish,” water for human consumption did not exist until Enki, lord of wisdom, created the Tigris and Euphrates and caused water to flow into them from the mountains.

What physical record of that literature remains is fragmented, and obviously, other influences must also have entered the oral tradition of nomadic peoples like the Jews, who came into contact with many nations before they occupied Jericho and settled there, so I don't think it's possible to trace any of the stories to a single definitive source.
I don't think authorship or author's intention really enters into the assessment of myths. The stories of ancients peoples were told and retold from memory, embellished, adapted, combined, translated many hundreds or thousands of times before anybody wrote them down. But they all had to begin with a human being attempting to communicate ideas to another human being.