NATO was never masculine. They can hardly move tanks between each other’s countries. — NOS4A2

Absolute nonsense. NATO passed with flying colors the role it had during the Cold War of creating a credible deterrence. Hardly can move tanks? LOL.

How about those Reforger exercises? Reforger 88 had about 125 000 men, all deployed to Germany from the US, France, Canada, UK, Denmark. The whole objective of the annual Reforger exercises was the moving of tanks into West Germany. And NATO is finally getting back to it's original role (thank God). Some countries unfortunately ran down their militaries (the 90's peace dividend), luckily that stupidity didn't reach my country. But that era has passed.

At any rate, I can’t wait to watch the EU bring out their counterproposal, which will invariably lead to WW3. — NOS4A2

You don't know or care about what the response is, which is obvious from referring to the EU, not the group actually active in the issue.

Anyway, many think that this peace-deal that Axios published was an intentional move by the Russians to humiliate Trump and harass Ukraine. Naturally Trump doesn't notice, but anyway, who cares. I think this will pass as an example how Trump caves in always to get a peace deal.

* * *

Well, I hope the country you are living in chooses to have Swedish Gripens, just like Ukraine. One absolutely cannot trust Trump and as Americans have now twice voted Trump into power, with the US there is a risk, unfortunately, of it being an untrustworthy ally/weapons provider... when the customer isn't Israel. So I think my country is taking a little risk when choosing the F-35. Not a huge risk, but still.

(CBC, Nov 21st 2025) The Liberal government is reviewing whether to proceed with a full order of 88 F-35 fighters from U.S.-based Lockheed Martin. It has been suggested that Canada could accept the first batch of 16 stealth jets and then pivot to filling out the rest of the order with Saab Gripens — or some other aircraft.

You may disagree, but I think that may be something related to, but different from, fundamentalism. — Tom Storm

Fundamentalism is an apt word here, as is zealotry.

Do you see much fundamentalism where you live? Here in Australia, it flickers in marginal spaces, largely due to the influence of American Protestant culture via social media and online communities. But it’s still a minor force. The default setting here seems to be a general lack of interest in God or religion. — Tom Storm

My country has had a novel way to eradicate religious fundamentalism: we have had state religion since our independence. And state naturally does something with far less enthusiasm as some voluntary churches desperately competing of having people. So I had religion taught at school, where I have to say thay two of the best teachers ever where also lutheran priests, who both also taught philosophy.

There are only few Christian sects especially in the North, and they fit the "deeply religious" stereotype, but political influence is minimal.

Sufficienly corroborable evidence. — 180 Proof

If you have sufficiently corroborable evidence, then the issue isn't about faith anymore, is it?

I think that many religions understand that they are an issue of faith, not something evidence, which is comes back to my point here.

Atheism is a pretty broad area. — Tom Storm

So is faith/religion and religiousness, yes.

I am a freethinker and atheist, but my form of atheism is simply that I lack a belief in God. I don’t claim that God doesn’t exist, because I don’t have that knowledge. - I think it is a common view among organised atheists these days. — Tom Storm

Isn't that a level of agnosticism? I myself have been since my childhood an agnostic and feel quite happy about it.

The problem with most obvious forms of atheism is that they only critique the low-hanging fruit of fundamentalism and literalism, which is equally disparaged by many believers, including theologians like David Bentley Hart and Bishop John Shelby Spong. — Tom Storm

That's a very good point. But we usually tend to go with the stereotypes or the worst possible examples of some ideology or viewpoint and not accept the fact that a lot of intelligent, knowledgeable and informed people can have totally opposite world views from us.

Or then it's simply these times where the discourse is dominated by the algorithms, where two people with opposite views but with an understanding and respect where the other person comes from, is too boring. As if we would then yawn ourselves to death.

Literalism seems to be a reaction to modernity and a retreat into concrete thinking as a bulwark against changing culture. — Tom Storm

I think it's even more general than that. It's basic human nature, which you can see in even in philosophy itself, where especially the "puritans", "fundamentalists" and those who don't swerve of from the teachings of their great philosopher, be it the Karl Marx or someone else, will put themselves on the pedestal and proclaim to be better than others. If it happens even in philosophy, you bet it will happen in other human endeavors also.

No. Again: I claim that it is demonstrable that theism is not true (see links in my previous posts). — 180 Proof

Cite a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text.

Also, provide nonsubjective truth-makers for the following sine qua non truth-claims of theism:
(1) at least one mystery
(2) created the whole of existence and
(3) causes changes to (i.e. intervenes in) the universe in ways which are nomologically impossible for natural agents or natural forces (re: "miracles"). — 180 Proof

?

Very difficult and confusing wording in my view. But I'm not very clever. What is "providing nonsubjective truth-makers"?

Yet notice the difference between "it can be proven" and "it is demonstrable, that something".

In Your math example:

(1×1=2) cannot be demonstrated to be true" because, in fact, it is demonstrably false"

one has to remember that you can give a proof that 1x1=1. At least you can refer to the axioms and an axiomatic system. Hence no need for the demonstrability of falsehood when you can give a direct proof.

Yet when the only thing you can give is an indirect Reductio ad absurdum proof, it actually isn't the same as an ordinary proof. It leaves open questions.

And anyway, my point was that to give a proof as in logic or science, one needs objectivity. Yet not all questions can be answered objectively as they are inherently subjective. Religion deals a lot on those subjective questions, like what is good and what is bad. Giving thus proofs in religious issues forgets the requirement for objectivity. And not only "proving God" forgets this, it actually goes against a lot of religions itself.

The typical atheist argument is that for example all the creation stories are, to put it mildly, quite far from our scientific understanding, hence everything in religion is quite dubious. The problem then comes when the same question is asked, what then is good and what is bad? The vague reference to humanity or something else hides that the problem isn't solved. It still is a subjective issue and an objective proof as in science/logic cannot be found.

In fact, if Russia invades again, they face destruction at the hands of NATO and the US.

10. If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked; — NOS4A2

What bullshit is this "decisive coordinated military response", when a) you cannot train for this and Ukraine cannot be a member or anybody else (like Ireland etc.) cannot join NATO? The emasculation of NATO and Ukraine-NATO ties makes this totally ludicrous statement. Who the fuck will defend Ukraine, when NATO cannot be in Ukraine?

No matter. If this deal goes through, invasion would be illegal according to Russia’s own laws.

16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine. — NOS4A2

HAHAHAA!!! :rofl:

Wait... :brow:

...you are serious??? :worry:

You really believe the country lead by Putin, that has several times, actually, put into writing that it didn't have ANY territorial claims toward Ukraine or Crimea, to have no aggression towards other "artificial" countries like Ukraine? And then there were ALL the Minsk agreements. How much Putin valued those? What horseshit do you believe in???

Above all, read your history: Russia never attacks, it only defends itself. According to Soviet Union, my little country attacked the Soviet Union in 1939, just as the Baltic States wanted to join the Soviet Union in 1940. So the can easily have a hypocrite law that argues they won't attack anybody. Incredible garbage.

And do notice, this is just like Trump surrender deal with the Taliban. That peace-deal also said that:

4. A permanent and comprehensive ceasefire will be an item on the agenda of the intra-Afghan
dialogue and negotiations. The participants of intra-Afghan negotiations will discuss the date
and modalities of a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire, including joint implementation
mechanisms, which will be announced along with the completion and agreement over the future
political roadmap of Afghanistan.

Which the Taleban cared shit about. They didn't even pretend to have talks with Republic of Afghanistan. Did Trump (or Biden) care about that? Of course not. But do notice the evident Trumpian issue on both of the peace-deals. Then in 2020 Trump announced the following in the Taleban surrender-deal:

A comprehensive peace agreement is made of four parts:

1. Guarantees and enforcement mechanisms that will prevent the use of the soil of Afghanistan by
any group or individual against the security of the United States and its allies.
2. Guarantees, enforcement mechanisms, and announcement of a timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan.

Did he bring up this with the foreign forces, that by 2020 were by manpower a larger force than the US personnel on ground? Of course not! It was just a surprise for them... just like this brainfart. And the same thing is here, where Trump is just demanding actions not only from Ukraine, but European countries too.

South Vietnam, Afghanistan... seems next in line is Ukraine for the US. Or Trump is basically hellbent on Ukraine to be in that category.

Hopefully our leaders keep their calm and handle this as one of those Trump stupidities that comes out from the current White House like the US annexing Greenland and Canada. Trump seems to desperately want that Nobel-prize and one can just imagine what fortunes have the Russians promised to Trump.

(1×1=2) "cannot be demonstrated to be true" because, in fact, it is demonstrably false. — 180 Proof

Mathematics is totally objective.

Besides, my claim is that 'theism is Not True is demonstrable' – "not true" is not necessarily equivalent to "false" (e.g. non-propositional statements are not true and not false). — 180 Proof

I think I didn't understand this. Are you saying the issue is undemonstrable or undecidable?

At least now, I guess Trump's DOJ has had enough time to destroy all the worst things for Trump in the files.

* * *

Well, Axios has released Trump's "peace plan" for Ukraine. It's even worse than the surrender to the Taliban, which is now I guess the low point of American diplomacy.

From the proposal:

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries and NATO will not expand further.

4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

And notice that article 3. isn't about Ukraine, because there's articles 7. and 8:

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.

So basically this is a wet dream for Putin. Trump will emasculate the strongest alliance that the US has had ...and Putin will also get Ukraine. This is at least on par (if not worse) than the surrender deal that Trump made with the Taleban (and it should be noted, Biden carried out to the end dutifully).

Why this thread is more apt to review this whimsical action from Trump than the Ukraine thread is that likely (and hopefully) this surrender purposal won't go anywhere.

What an incredible surrender monkey Trump is.

Exactly.
Above all, with a proof... or with God appearing to everyone and being part of physical reality, it's not essentially an issue of faith, of choosing your life choices.

Your not basically making moral choices to be "good" or to be religious, to have faith or not, or to be an atheist. You are then making simply practical choices, just like how you cope with the planet spinning on it's axis and circling around the sun and creating night and day and the seasons. Morality goes out of the question, just as it's not a choice for us to have night or day. At least when we are on this planet.

Thus, I think it can be demonstrated that theism is not true¹ even though other conceptions of divinity (such as e.g. acosmism & pandeism) are completely undecidable (agnostic). — 180 Proof

I would put it that basically matters of faith cannot be objectively answered and are hence truly subjective.

And when you cannot demonstrate that theism is true, you cannot demonstrate it's false.

In my view it cannot be proved and such proof goes against the whole idea of believing in God and against all Abrahamic religions.

When there's a proof, you don't need to have faith. Christianity, and Jesus Christ, say to take God into your heart. That doesn't mean to think it out, use reason and then you will find God. I assume all Abrahamic religions are similar in this case.

And lastly, just assume there would be this proof. It itself would then obviously quite powerful religious item. Why then need things like the Holy Bible and so on? God exists, so then just pick the correct God or the God closest to this proof. Hence the proof itself would be basically an idol and believing in the proof would be idolatry.

It's possible that Trump is trying to pressure Maduro into negotiations, like he does with the tariffs. The bully tactic he's known for. I think he actually likes Maduro, and wants to force him into alliance, or more likely allegiance. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually Maduro would be totally open for talks.

(BBC) Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro has said that he is willing to hold face-to-face talks with representatives of the Trump administration as US pressure on him grows.

Maduro made the comment hours after US President Donald Trump said he had not ruled out deploying ground forces to the South American country.

But here I think you have to notice that Venezuela is here on a totally different position than let's say the threat posed by Trump to Denmark (with Greenland) or Panama. Covert operations are already underway.

Perhaps Maduro should just try to attempt to bribe Trump. Give that Trump presidential library some oil wealth.

Seriously, the Swiss got their tariffs lowered by giving Trump lavish gifts including a beautiful gold bar. So some small percentage of that oil wealth and then just wait a couple years that Trump isn't in power so you can tell it was a joke. After all, how long did Putin and the Russians have Trump oogling for them for a possible hotel build in Moscow? And we all remember how enthusiastic Trump became, when Ukrainians offered mineral rights to him.

1. The majority of screen time in such "masterpieces" is dedicated to the aestheticization and heroization of the sinner; the moral justification of atrocities. — Astorre

We love the escapism.

It's an old genre of making criminals to be heroes and then trying to portray the story as a critique of the society. It's the old idea that criminals are forced into crime, because of the economy/society, not being people that actually like crime and voluntarily choose the lifestyle, do like violence for the sake of violence and are actual hideous people like psychopaths are. Usually they are forced to crime, not actively seeking crime and leaving a dull normal life they could totally chosen. And at some stage, they usually show that they still have morals, and aren't the psychopaths they often are.

For example mobsters have been portrayed as rockstars living a life different from us is the perfect escapism for us from our dull safe lives. This was totally obvious even before Coppola and Scorsese, from the films during the time when the US had really a Mafia problem. Only with the exception then that the "Cosa Nostra" remained hidden from the public.



Finally, there is punishment in the end, which is there to make actually the viewer to feel better. The main character has to die, usually with a violent yet glorious ending. Be it Breaking Bad, Scarface or in the gangster movies of James Cagney. Only in very few movies the criminal actually gets away with the murder and the lifestyle without there being any karma or justice. Just as only a few films are the police the actual gangsters, which they easily can be.

This all makes sense, when we understand the underlying reasoning: it's entertainment. A movie like Schindler's list isn't made to entertain you, but "Breaking Bad", "Scarface", "The Godfather", "The Departed", "Goodfellas", they all are there to entertain you. You won't feel bad afterwards. That's the issue here.

Just like with violence itself, people like it as entertainment. The Romans loved the Gladiator games, executions were flocked to see later in history. Quentin Tarantino says the truth about our love for violence: it's entertainment. It doesn't mean that we love actual violence. Not only is there this moral judgement in the end or the fact that the story implies the main character was somehow forced to crime, in the end they are all actors and it's fiction, even if based on a real story. Nobody actually died. Hence we can enjoy it as entertainment. Hence the real object isn't the main character, the real object is for the viewer to feel good afterwards and think the movie was worth wile to see.

It would be totally different if we would have just actual footage of people being tortured to death, being ripped apart into pieces by bomb blast with the viewer understanding that it isn't fake, that it's really innocent children or walkers passing by being killed. Naturally there that actual footage that criminals use to instill fear on others. Many wouldn't finish their popcorn, but throw up and be traumatized from the images.

As @Metaphysician Undercover noted above, the drug war has been more of an excuse to do something with totally different objectives, not the actual reason. To deal with something like the drug trade the military isn't at all the best options, but it's a flashy way to show off that you are doing something.

Yet here does lie a major problem: just what is the military objective here? Just how is it thought to be reached? If one assumes that with naval and air power regime change would be obtained, then that objective is very optimistic indeed. Likely any airstrikes will just reinforce the support of the regime. It's not at all obvious that even killing Maduro that the regime would collapse. What about the opposition? Basically I've noticed nothing done in that sector and when Trump is already hinting the willingness to have talks with Maduro, that willingness totally undermines the support for the opposition. And anyway, many of those people against the Maduro regime have already left the country.

Hence this is more like a show of gun diplomacy and if then some strike is implemented, the result will be similar as when attacking Iran. Trump will just declare that the strikes have been successful and the Maduro regime will continue just like the Iranian regime continued on. Any contrary finding will dealt with firings, so the success of a military strike is as obvious as that there is absolutely no inflation in the US under Trump now. :wink:

Now some might wish to argue that "... modern Western liberalism: secular, pluralistic, rule-of-law-based, with an emphasis on individual rights and freedoms". is not dead yet. But as this is only a virtual autopsy, and has to take place before the wretched corpse is buried for good and all, I can assume the death from various words and deeds of Western leaders, who find it convenient to pay lip-service to enlightenment principles whilst undermining them in practice. — unenlightened

Have ever leaders followed any principles in their actual actions? Grand speeches are different as are the high-minded reasons given for real-politik or de-facto imperial aspirations.

One could have written off also religion even at the time of Nietzsche, but religion and faith is still important even in this Millennium. So no need for the autopsy of religion either. Philosophical views and ideologies die only when they are thoroughly replaced, not when they are generally accepted, have achieved their main objectives and are old textbook stuff that no current university student gets excited about. Yet they aren't replaced, they just seem very bland as they aren't new ideas. What likely happens is that when the main objectives have been achieved and the thinking has been generally accepted, the orthodox believers come up with a next wave, which in the end is likely something hilariously stupid.

With liberalism it's I guess the libertarians with the most vocal being perhaps the anarcho-capitalists, who think that rights of the individual mean that everything collective is bad and everything can be handled by the market mechanism. And some of them come even to this forum to share their enthusiasm when their first "philosopher" they've read has been Ayn Rand. We now how that will go.

The death of Enlightenment and it's values is even more dubious. Not every Western country has a Trump administration chipping away the institutions that make Western democracies themselves and filling the void with corruption and a police state. I think there's a lot more focus on Enlightenment values because of what is happening in the US.

The left-wing populism of Hugo Chavez (which Maduro tries to continue) is quite similar to right-wing populism of Trump. Few do notice the similarity (or do want to accept the similarity), yet it is totally obvious.

Quite fitting to the moment:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/I-2r-qJcxKc

Since the leader of Venezuela has been designated a narco-terrorist, I think that goal is clear. But viewing poor drug runners as dispensable pawns, for the purpose of inciting conflict, is pathetic. — Metaphysician Undercover

Trump doesn't care if the reasons are pathetic, which they are. As a populist he doesn't care. Everything opposing his actions is just basically "liberals whining" for him.

More Epstein files have been released — NOS4A2

Yeah, tells something when they covered 23000 pages of files from Epstein:

Number of times of mentions in the documents:
Melania Trump: 12 times
Putin: 792 times
Obama: 1783 times
Trump: 9 379

So it seems that the best friends then had a breakup in their bromance. What else would be new?

I wonder... is there a way, a certain order of steps maybe, that leads the mind toward the best possible conclusion — even if only for now? How can I think through a thought without breaking my own structure of thinking or undoing my own reasoning? I hope you understand what I mean. — GreekSkeptic

There are no steps in thoughts. Some ideas might come to you sooner than other ideas. You're not assembling a machine where there's a user's manual to follow step by step. — @

Thoughts and ideas come to mind in a myriad of ways. Perhaps the steps you are looking for would be the ways to check up if your conclusion is valid. I don't think there's one optimal way to do it (and likely not even theoretically). You are not a machine like @L'éléphant said, you are capable of understanding and changing your own "algorithms".

There's just guidelines like if you think you have made a new conclusion finding, check if anybody has made the same conclusion or something similar to it. Any other person ever lived not to have thought about what you are thinking would be strange. Or tell the conclusion to people and if ALL disagree / don't understand / don't follow your reasoning and there really is nobody that agrees with you, perhaps the problem is in your conclusion.

Genocide is the intentional destruction of existing sentient beings who wish to live. Ending breeding is the prevention of future suffering through non-creation of victims. There is no killing, coercion, or hatred involved - only a refusal to keep breeding sentient beings for exploitation. — Truth Seeker

Reproduction and breeding aren't synonyms. Ending the ability for an animal species or plant species to reproduce does mean extinction, which you seem to be in denial on how cruel that is. And what you are basically saying that exploitation of a domesticated species is a just cause for extinction and eradication of that species. And yet you declare you draw no differences on animals and then argue for extinction of large animal populations ...all in the name of preventing suffering, when your are at the same instant making dramatically huge lines on just what animals deserve to exist what don't deserve to.

Again, I would totally agree on the improvement on the life quality of farm animals, yet the insistence on on the extinction of all farm animals seems like a sinister ideology in sheeps clothing.

You’ve built a strawman version of the position. “Let nature take care of it” does not mean “abandon all ecological management.” Vegan ethics does not entail passivity - it calls for active, non-exploitative stewardship. - In the case of reindeer, population control through non-lethal immunocontraception, controlled rewilding, and habitat management can maintain balance without slaughter. — Truth Seeker

Finally some hints that you are getting to my point with "non-exploitative stewardship". So we both understand and accept that there must be that stewardship that humans do with the environment and the various species. Yet that isn't a strawman argument. Letting nature take care of it means that humans don't interfere at all with the process. Stewardship means that you are taking an active role in the supervision and care taking of something.

Yet what is the real difference between "non-exploitative stewardship" and exploitative stewardship or just ordinary stewardship? And again, just to make it clear, sterilization isn't so morally humane as you promote it to be.

And anyway, veganism is, as you said, something that 1% of the population adhers to. You might think that you are part of the bold vanguard of people, but then we don't have a stomach like herbivores and a balance healthy diet contains a small part of meat, which accepted by the vast majority of people. If you want to change that, it's very difficult in a democracy. That we don't do manual work as much as before, we don't seem to have a reason for a high calorie diet.

The way how distinct people and their cultures die isn't usually talked about.

It's by cultural assimilation, not by some dramatic and brutal action like genocide. Likely those violent attempts fail and only increase the cohesion of the persecuted people as they then have a common history. But children going to school and learning a language that isn't spoken at home doesn't seem as a hostile issue. The state usually has a central role in this assimilation starting from the crucial decision of which is or are the official languages and if education is given in a local language or not. Hence language politics matters.

One good example is the state of France and the French language. During the French Revolution it is estimated that only half of the people in the Kingdom of France could speak actually French. You had many other languages like Occitan in the south, which now less than a million people speak as a native tongue. When you have a centralized and universal education system in France in French and the only official language is French, then that language is a tool for that cultural assimilation. Same thing in Russia. One of the first things that now Putin's Russia has done in the occupied Ukrainian territories starting from Crimea is to replace Ukrainian schoolbooks with Russian ones and start to demand that Russian is used in schools and that Russian curriculum is followed in schools.

Determinism is a red herring here, because IME no one can give an account of how free will would work and make sense even in a non deterministic universe. — Mijin

We can indeed model the world as being deterministic, everything having a cause and effect, like the Einstein's block universe. But as you said, this is irrelevant for us as we are part of this reality, this universe, and cannot escape it, jump out of it.

For example, there are no other possibilities that either @Mijin responds to this comment mine or he does not. That's determinism, unavoidable yet not at all useful as we would first assume.

Do we then have total free will? Again this is idea as a model of reality is similarly not so useful as we could first think of this. What we do on this planet hardly matters in the big picture, assuming if you think about galaxies and billions of years.

Everything is actually about the questions you make. The questions define what is an useful model of reality and what isn't. Thus then to argue is some model is right while others are wrong doesn't at all understand this.

You mentioned researching. Why wouldn't it be work? Best work is something that you like so much you would do it even voluntary. But if you are paid for it... and get the obvious perk of not being unemployed, why not?

I already said in my previous post: all sentient beings matter equally. The ethical distinction isn’t between “wild” and “domesticated,” but between free existence and forced breeding for human exploitation. — Truth Seeker

My point is that when we are responsible for the species and the ecology, we have to make decisions that you seem not to think that don't have to be made. Veganism as a choice of an individual surely doesn't have to answer to these issues, but others have to do it.

There’s no hostility toward any sentient being - only opposition to exploitation. I already said in my previous post: all sentient beings matter equally. — Truth Seeker

You're not making sense. How can you even say that you are treating animals equally when you are hell bent on eradicating all livestock and farm animals? That's billions of animals. That "they would die of old age" isn't as humane as you think it is, just like it wouldn't have made less diabolical the genocidal objectives of the Nazi if they would just had separated every male and female [/i]Untermensch there exists and let them die of old age. We would naturally call it a genocide and that the people would be treated more humanely than being slaughtered doesn't make the end result morally better.

Reindeer who roam freely in tundra ecosystems and maintain natural behaviors are not comparable to cows or chickens bred into total dependency, mutilation, and slaughter. — Truth Seeker

Well, they are killed in the end. So what's different? You think every cow or chicken that has ever lived has been treated cruelly? And because of this they, as animals, shouldn't exist? You truly are drawing dramatic lines on just what species is worthy of living based on their treatment and their connection to humans and then denying this, which is very confusing.

If reindeer were no longer bred for consumption but allowed to live and die naturally, that would align perfectly with veganism and ecological balance. — Truth Seeker

OK, let's think this through.

We know how an "ecological balance" comes about. So your argument would be simply to "let nature take care of the reindeer". Knowing how fragile the Nordic tundra is, that is a recipe for disaster. Now when the reindeer would be left wander on without any supervision and let them freely have offspring, then the amount of them would likely multiply because there simply aren't enough predators around to eat them. For example, just in Finland there are 200 000 reindeer. In one year, they multiply to 300 000 and hence roughly 100 000 are slaughtered annually and the population is kept at a steady 200 000. Predators eat roughly 2000 of them annually and about 3000 of them die in traffic accidents (because they are smart animals, they use the few roads in Lapland as it's more easy to move on them than in the marshy forests and the reindeer lick the salt used to de-ice the roads). Yet that's a small dent in the 100 000 newborn population annually.

Reality for drivers in Finnish Lapland. No need for English translation, the other Finn is pissed off and cursing about the traffic jam, the other one takes it humorously:


So you can easily see how in just a few years, reindeers would be a huge problem when reindeer increase substantially. Of course, the "ecological balance" would be found with the millions reindeer eating the tundra bare land and then dying in numbers in a famine in the millions. In the end, some kind of "balance" could perhaps be the outcome, but the fragile tundra would have gotten a severe beating with likely many plants species becoming extinct.

The introduction of rabbits into Australia shows what happens when there aren't enough predators around.



Simply put it, when we have molded the biosphere as we, we have to take care of it. And taking care means that we have to anticipate what results our actions have. The simplistic ideology of do not harm animals and let them be isn't going to work here, because the "hands off" approach is a horrible decision and to "have some of them die of old age" has also huge consequences. The ideology is simply not taking at all into consideration what it would mean when taken as an universal law.

A 2/3 support for the war is quite high.

I believe work should be done and taxes should be paid by robots while all humans live as monarchs in their bubbles. — Copernicus

Would it go so in reality ever? And you seem not to like work. What's wrong with working? And what's wrong in contributing to the society?

Skim a little off that ridiculous trillion-dollar pay package and it could be done in your neck of the woods.

It's not economics, it's a choice. — Banno

Actually, the US has a very dismal record in implementing such welfare-state politics. Usually the end result is a system far more expensive and far less effective than it's European counterparts.

Now I think the US puts per capita third most money into education (only such well-off countries as Luxembourg and Norway put more), but it's results are quite moderate. Again, it's up to the few Ivy-league universities attracting the best in the world that makes the US education system look good. But if we look at average education let's say in New Mexico and West Virginia...

Basically the US always creates systems that are inefficient and very costly compared to any other country.

↪Linkey 27% of Russians support the war. — AmadeusD

In today's Russia it's very difficult to get truthful polls were what you say depends on the people you are saying the things to. As the saying went in Soviet times, a Russian has one opinion at work and another at home in the kitchen, when surrounded by trusted people.

From this, it can be concluded that most Germans derived sadistic pleasure from carrying out the Holocaust, and this sadism became a need for them. — Linkey

I think sadism is generally something that isn't inherent especially to the German people. A more explanatory reason, like always when people think that the World will be better if some people or class of people are killed, is ideology.

People running concentration and extermination camps are one type and likely the sadists will enjoy it. But those still were few people and it went far broader than just the sadists in the population, which in the end are a small part of any population.

Nazi ideology and the ideological racism is crucial in understanding the behaviour of Germans in WW2. Just look at how the German armed forces behaved in Norway and Denmark and compare to their Poland and Russia. The difference is that Norwegians, the Danes (as Finns too) were part of the so-called Nordic race and were not untermenschen. The obvious proof of this is that German soldiers could marry Finns, Norwegians and Danes. Also Denmark and Norway weren't the planned new Lebensraum for the German people in Hitler's plans. In Denmark the German occupiers kindly hinted at the Danish authorities that the Jews in Denmark would be a problem and the Danish government quickly moved the small Jewish population into neutral Sweden. Not so in Poland, in the Baltics or in Russia. Also there is the different treatment of Russian prisoners in war compared the POWs of Western countries. And when it came the Finns to change sides and give the Dolchstoss to it's former ally (that just had saved them from a Russian offensive in the summer of 1944), there were no atrocities towards the few Finns and Sami people that lived in Northern Finland. Not only did the Germans let the civilian population to evacuate to Sweden, in some few cases they even helped with the evacuation. And then the Germans destroyed absolutely everything they could in their withdrawal to the Norwegian border, which was the norm in the fighting in the east-front in WW2 (so talk about German pünktlichkeit). It all goes back to the Nazi ideology and understanding that evil ideology makes then "sense" in differences in actions. These people genuinely thought that they would be making the world a better place, just as the Marxist-Leninists when killing the class enemy in their revolutions.

First point— this has nothing to do with psychoanalysis. — T Clark

:up:

We created that dependence through artificial selection; we can end it responsibly through gradual, compassionate transition. — Truth Seeker

So your answer is to end them. With a "gradual, compassionate transition". You want these breeds to be erased, but are "compassionate" about it.

In this view you seem to put a lower value on animals that have been bread by humans than to other wildlife. Why the hostility and the categorical inequality between sentient animals? Or how about reindeer? They were domesticated from Mountain reindeer in the 13th Century in Norway and since them have roamed around freely in the tundra here in the Nordic Lapland. But since we have domesticated them and eat their meat (which is one of the most healthiest meats around as reindeer have a hugely varied diet with hundreds of different plants), I guess according to you the 200 000 or reindeer have to go too.

In every case, these animals die long before reaching even a small fraction of their natural lifespan. — Truth Seeker

Five years out of 20 years isn't a small fraction. And do note that not all live up to 20 years in the wild, just as not all humans reach 75 years.

I think your point is something that is very popular with many people: they make this huge and all-encompassing separation with humans and the wildlife/biosphere being totally different from us. Seems like everything we have touched is contaminated and has to deposed of. With vegans it's about animals, but with others it's foreign species introduced to new environments by humans. Of course this can be destabilizing, when you introduce some species that doesn't have anything eating it or limiting it's expanse. But in many cases the introduction isn't so bad, especially when the plant or animal is basically cultivated or farmed. Yet I don't share this view of humans being different from everything else as I think we are part of the biosphere and just a dominant species among others and what we do is similar to other species that mold their environment. That doesn't mean that we don't have a responsibility, naturally.

I assume that a Trump presidency is bad for gun producers. People don't have the urge to buy guns. When it's the next Democrat who is portrayed to seek gun-control, then there's a boom when people are buying even more guns to protect their home.

Yep, in Kremlin's propaganda Finland is preparing to attack Russia.

At this point, humans need to develop advanced robotics to let them do all the physical and mental labour and let humans enjoy the fruits of production in their own bubbles (libraries, vacations, drug addiction, etc). — Copernicus

Oh, if it would be like in Star-Trek. But I think it won't for several reasons.

It starts from things like I do like to engage with actual people when I need a service and I'm pretty confident that I'm not alone with this need. I already hate talking to bots on the phone that cannot understand anything but the most obvious words when trying to connect to an actual employee. If there's an actual human operator, oh the easiness. And why on Earth would this need for human contact change? Or how about having a meaning in life? Do work, not just play and recreation and all that hedonistic stuff. And it doesn't end just there with this issue.

In my view it's extremely naive, simplistic and basically degrading idea to think that with tech humans will come obsolete and we will have masses of people that are just enjoying themselves with the tittytainment and virtual realities they live in. These are based on simple extrapolations that don't take into account real economics and real politics in our world. We will likely manage our current large problems somehow, but we won't solve them. Not with tech. Starting with things like income inequality and there being rich and poor countries. No amount of tech will solve these issue, which cannot be solved by technology. Manufacturing is just a part of the whole society, not everything.

Besides, you just need one great economic depression (which could be starting now with the Trump-slump) and these ideas are as whimsical if fascinating fantasies as Star Trek itself was. In the 1960's the creators of 2001-A Space Odyssey genuinely believed that the world in 2001, now a quarter of a Century ago, would be like what was shown on film. Perfect example of this is that passenger-spaceplane taking Dr Heywood Floyd to the lunar outpost was run by Pan Am. Well, Pan Am might have been the largest international airliner of the day in the 1960's, but the company didn't live to see 2001 as it ended operations in 1991.

Should you also be paid to be an artist even if no one has a use for your artwork?

Who is doing the paying, and where does the money come from? — Athena

The obvious answer is of course not, if there indeed is NO use for anybody.

Obviously we can trace where the checks arrive for the artist. Is it simply social-welfare benefits for an unemployed person or is he or she getting grants or money from the government as an artist?

The question for many smaller societies, just like mine, having any artists, authors or poets around is crucial for our own language and identity. Without them there's no Finnish culture. Without culture, then next in line is the survival of your language and with it the whole existence of your people. In these kind of cases it's totally understandable that the government itself sees a healthy culture. And we have a lot of Fenno-Ugric people as clear examples what happens when that language and culture isn't upheld, but transformed to be Russian.

The only logical thing a sane, educated, and enlightened society can do is pay people for both study and jobs and let them choose what they wish. — Copernicus

To keep social cohesion strong in a society, there needs to be a contract that the vast majority of people accept. The idea of free education until university-level masters degrees is that then these educated young people will then contribute to the society, create wealth and pay taxes. The idea of having an extensive library network and seminars etc. for the public is that it's a service the population is actually very willing to pay. That's where the contract is.

This contract breaks up when some people or a segment of the people are seen to be free riders. The obvious and far more clear example is how societies deal and think of foreigners. If foreigners contribute to the society, they are universally accepted. If someone hates tourists and publicly declares hostility towards tourists, you can be well assured that other people will angrily reply to this person and tell that their family's whole income is dependent on tourists and the bigoted person should shut up. In the other extreme are the foreigners who are intent on draining the wealth from the society and have no intention of friendly cooperation, these foreigners are universally rejected. We call them invaders, foreign occupiers or the enemy and the society sends it's young men to fight these foreigners. We give medals to people that have killed these foreigners.

And in the middle are migrants who some in the society feel are free riders and don't contribute anything to the society while others disagree with this. Enter the normal discourse around immigration... actually everywhere.

Free life long education should be also viewed from this viewpoint on how the society and parts of it think about this. Are there free riders? Are there people depicted in the above cartoon shown by @Copernicus? Is there a thought that this is entitlement for a small crowd that don't want to actually work? Does the society have money for this? If it has income to pay for this, why not? Perceptions are very important, especially if taxes are high and the education isn't free for everybody as likely there will be entrance bars to get into higher level education.

Here everybody can go to the university lectures and get the books from the university library, but they cannot go to the exams and finish the courses. Which is totally understandable, starting from the fact that professors simply cannot have thousands of people attending their courses and then have the time to read all of their exams, for starters. There still is that exclusivity on university education, if it has been for a long time been diminishing as many university level degrees lead to lousy and low income.

There are sanctuaries for animals where rescued animals live out their natural lives. Holstein and Ayshire cows could be moved to such sanctuaries. — Truth Seeker

You didn't answer my question.

OK, just look at these Holsteins and Ayshire cows. They have been bread to produce milk and basically are as dependent on us humans as all the pets we have and basically aren't there for surviving in the wild. What sanctuary are you thinking of?

Then, as the graph above depicts clearly, there's multiple times more livestock than there are wild mammals and thus "creating a sanctuary" for all that livestock is quite an ordeal. So if you assume that then there's these sanctuaries (likely the farms that they already are in, for practical purposes) that "they live out their natural lives", then you really have to answer the question: how many do you assume to reproduce? None? That's a mass extinction event. A few? There's something like 22 million Holstein cows now in 160 countries. So would the number be 5 000 Holsteins kept in a museum-sanctuary describing that pre-vegan era human farmed animals? Or just 500?

So let me as the question again. What is the value of the life of livestock including the 22 million Holstein cows for you? Do these animals, according to you, suffer in their life so much they don't even earn those five years of life at all? That they shouldn't exist because of your values?

As a choice of an individual, veganism works fine. I myself think that a balanced diet is totally fine too. Perhaps 1-3% of people are vegans. So it is quite understandable, that as a tiny minority, the world isn't going to play by vegan rules. In my world view humans are just very intelligent animals thanks to an advanced language, writing etc. Still, we are a part of ecology of this world part of the animal kingdom, not separate from it. That's also based on scientific evidence, but I understand that others will make a divide between humans and everything else. Yet obviously we have to take care of the planet when we control it. Likely as we will see in the future a peak in human population and the a decrease in the population, we aren't such a danger to the world as some think we are.

But let's think about this for a while.

What value you give to let's say to the life and existence of Ayshire and Holstein cows in the world?

They do exist and live (or are raised), for example, near my summer place. There aren't so many of them around anymore, as there's only one farm with dairy cattle. In my youth decades ago two close neighbors had cattle and I myself sometimes helped to herd the cows from the field to the cowshed with the neighbors family. Every one had a name, btw, but naturally the cowshed wasn't as "luxurious" as let's say the modern cowshed of the University of Helsinki with large open spaces and automatic milking stations. When my great grandmother lived, there were horses, cows and chicken in their home too (now my summerplace), because the roots of Finnish agriculture were still mainly subsistence farming (well into the 20th Century). Now those cowsheds and fields around my summerplace are empty (but the fields are at least still cultivated), basically because of globalization. The neighbors mother (now a grandmother) is sad that her grandchildren never had animals around them in their childhood.

Just to put things into perspective, here's just how cows in general compare to us humans and for example to wild mammals:



Now if some global dictator would define that everybody has to be vegan, the "Maoist" version would cause a mass extinction event not only in mammals, but also in birds and fish (let's not forget that half of the fish we eat in the planet are farmed too) and a hectic time for slaughterhouses and a lot of biomass to be burned for energy to make electricity, I guess. As American get about 30% of their calories from animal-based food, that's a huge change which drastically changes the economy. Naturally the more "humane" transformation would be to replace the domesticated animals we have had for over 10 000 years with lab-grown meat, which I presume vegans wouldn't eat, but tolerate, and let all the billions of living being just end their life without growing a new generations. Yet that too would end up in a mass extinction event.

If you argue that Holstein or Ayshire cows shouldn't exist because of their plight or their short life, usually 5 years compared to 20 years they would live, the question is if that short life is still worth to exist? Animal cruelty I object also and the "living standards" of farm animals have improved a lot, which is good. Yet is there any inherent value in the life of our domesticated animals?

Who are you calling a hypocrite? — Truth Seeker

Veganism is an option as you said, but it's not based on science, but moral choices. But then perhaps I misunderstood your OP in that veganism is basically your values. Values aren't based on science as in science things are true/exist or false/don't exist, not right or wrong. That's why the reference to having a better consciousness and feel better about yourself when choosing veganism, when vegetarianism seems not to be enough for you.

Do we just hold our breath, or run for the hills? — Punshhh

Nah. Neither.

The stock market simply works by speculative bubbles and overreactions.

Humans are omnivores, not herbivores.

And here an infinite series of infinitesimal rectangles is the perfect example, which just loops back to your first argument and mine:

Rationalism is bounded by finitism. For this reason, infinite values, being incompletely containable, limit mathematicians. — ucarr

I would disagree with that. I can imagine a perfect circle — ssu

Yes, we know how to use infinitesimals/limits and do use them, but don't have the clear and straightforward answer to Bishop Berkeley's criticism. That ZF-logic has an axiom "there exists an infinite set" (or something similar) doesn't in my view cut it.

Lol.

Somebody in the US Department of Labor has noticed just what kind of messaging the White House and Trump approves of. At least they won't be fired by Trump. :)

Welcome to Trump's America.

What is your worldview? How do you justify your worldview? — Truth Seeker

That I don't know everything interesting I would want to know and hence are open to new ideas and fact. Hopefully, at least, that's my "hypocrite" way I think of myself.

How does Vegan fit in? Vegan is…scientific? — DingoJones

Hypocrite. Human being is an omnivore. We aren't herbivores.

But if you have a better consciousness and feel better about yourself, why not?