There is biological and neurological evidence that human emotions exist along with an enormous amount of observational evidence. What more proof do you need? — universeness

In order for there to be neurological evidence that humans have emotions the hard problem of consciousness would have to have already been resolved. Which it hasn't. So I'm calling your bluff on this one..
As for requiring evidence I don't need objective evidence that others have emotions. I have them. And thus I believe others also have them in their likeness to me as being human.
I use subjective evidence (trust) not objective scientifically proven evidence that they have emotions.

You said you only believe in things upheld by empirical evidence and yet naturally assume people have emotions. Which definition of empirical do you use then exactly and can it be applied both to physical objects through scientific standardised measurement and also unique individuals with there individual experiences, feeling and emotions simultaneously? I think you contradicted yourself in your previous arguments and didn't spot the contradiction.

I am most interested in information that has empirical support not the musings of entertaining authors of human fiction. I place fairy in a different category of information, don't you? — universeness

What do you mean by "empirical" support? Do you mean objectively measurable by scientific method? And if so how do you go about objectively measuring/proving empirically the existence of ethics? Or the existence of the observer that applies empirical method/scientific method for that matter.

If you cannot prove empirically ethics then I suppose we have no use for it as it doesn't exist. And we must open the doors of science to all avenues and cut up living people to collect the empirical evidence we can't collect when theyre dead. Maybe the empirical evidence pertaining to chemicals/ neurotransmitters released during pain, suffering, fear and murder.

Or perhaps there are things beyond the grasp of empirical collection? Things we should consider not to commit atrocities in pursuit of all empirical evidences.

"All X is P" in standard logic is never understood as "All X is P and all P is X" as you seem to claim now (indeed "all humans are all animals" sounds pretty weird as a sentence). Formal logic is about propositional forms not about the semantics of the terms occurring insides propositions. — neomac

So if I say "-1 and +1 =0" I can't say "0 =-1.+1"?
They are not reversible and equivalent?
And if so how can your equivalence suddenly not satisfy reversibility unless it presupposes external information?
Physics equations work in reverse. Because they deal in actual equivalence not pseudo equivalence.

Correction what I said was.
P1 H = A
P2 XA =W (where X is an an unspecified fraction above 0 (none) but less than 1 (all) )
P3 XH =W (the same unspecified fraction pertains to some humans (H) being wing equipped (W).

In this case "human" = "animals". As in "all" humans are "all" animals. They are equivalent

Your form. P1 All H are A pertains to "All humans are animals." (but not all of them/as in not all animals are human. It is not equivalent because it is not reversible). In your case your following logic is correct. But seeing as I'm not referring to your meaning but the one I have outlined clearly above my logic stands.

It's not fallacious the fallacy is born through misinterpretation.

You obviously disapprove of the way I engage in discourse with others, I would call that distaste.
It's ok, you don't have to tenderfoot around me. I am very resilient. — universeness

To project "obviousness" on other people's minds/intent suggests you somehow understand them better than they do themselves. Perhaps my challenging of your beliefs/views came across as distaste but that was not my intention. And in such a case I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come across as distasteful.

Any viewpoint - agreeable or not to me - is insightful, it holds informative value.

How can an omnipotent system be entropic? Chaos-order-chaos, or singularity-expansion-singularity-expansion, with no ability to apply intent is not omnipotent. — universeness

Are conscious beings like us not the part of the universe that demonstrates intent? If we have no intent/desire/agency then we wouldn't have free will would we?

I think entropy - the tendency for energy to spread away from itself is countered by negentropy - the ability of systems to self organise through gravity, then self assembly of prebiotic chemicals, then life as a strictly regulated system then evolution of that system into conscious awareness which further organises knowledge into strictly categorised information and relationships etc - the external system becoming more chaotic and spread out but the internal system (self) becoming more organised and coalesced.

By imposition of that which is existent, ME or YOU. What is the beginning or end of a circle? The same place on the circle, I can choose where it is, so can you. This allows me to separate real from imagined.
I think therefore I am, and solipsism is BS nonsense. — universeness

Can you explain how your circle analogy links with the mind or the existence of you and I. I seem unable to make the leap between the two concepts and perhaps more elaboration would help

So do fairies and orcs and a race of omnipotent beings called the Q in Star Trek. But none of them have any existent either and to suggest they have is BS. — universeness

But they are information that can be shared/communicated right? And elicit emotions, new ideas, articulation etc?
Tell me if your family member told you they felt sad would you believe that was BS too as it has no existent outside themselves? Or would you assume their emotions exist and are thus valid and due consideration? Is this not the basis of empathy? Believing in what others say about themselves without objective proof external to them?

Yes it's clearly not (based on the fact that we have external knowledge pertaining to the set of assumptions (the knowledge that "not all animals are humans".).

I believe I already outlined that distinction. But I'll clarify once again.

If the assumptions given are strictly the "only information" available to make deductions (leaving our common sense to the contrary based on experience aside).. Then the logic follows as such.

This is the difference between mechanical/robotic or purely reason based thought and human thought based on experience and sense (observation).
We input into a computer that "some animals have wings." We also input that "humans are animals". The output from that sole computational function is that "some humans have wings".

The computer only has the information put into it as a basis to apply reasoning. Where is it going to extract the external knowledge that there are animals that are not human and therfore that humans don't necessarily have wings?

Supernatural has no existent. — universeness

It exists as a concept no? A concept/idea in your mind right now or how else would you be speaking of it? How can someone (something that exists) describe something that doesn't exist in any format - imagined or otherwise. Unless you are saying that concepts/beliefs/imagination doesn't exist which we can extend to basically all of the content of a mind. Therefore you would be suggesting "the mind" doesn't exist.

So you agree with me then. If you insist that an omnipotent creature can exist, then you are in BS territory. yes? — universeness

Yes I agree with you that an omnipotent "creature" (object/living thing) doesnt exist. I do think on the other hand that an omnipotent system exists (the universe).

The universe may be one of many so you have no compelling evidence that any singular universe can be perceived as omnipotent — universeness

You have no compelling evidence that multiple universes exist. And by the "universe" I mean "everything that exists" which would thus still be the full set, other universes would merely be a subset of "thee universe" (entirety) in that case.
Just as the infinity of numbers between 0 and 1 is a subset of the infinity of real numbers (1,2,3,4 etc) on the number line.

The universe may also be cyclical, so again cannot be perceived as omni anything — universeness

I don't really understand how the universe being cyclical negates the idea of it being omnipotent. If energy cannot be created or destroyed (first law of thermodynamics) then it is finite in quantity (yet still omnipotent as it is "all energy" available to the system).

Whether that sum of energy is arranged in a cycle or not seems irrelevant/incoherent with the argument.

You are not offering much reasoning for your distaste towards me and I don't really care — universeness

Whoa cowboy. I have no distaste towards you - someone engaging in philosophocal argument is harmless. I don't know you. We are merely in the process of discourse, you have your views and I have mine, I see no space for personal attack only challenging beliefs. Doesn't seem reasonably to me to have distaste for a person as people are not equal to/defined by the beliefs they hold. Beliefs and opinions change.

If you think there are no occasions where you would employ the term BS then that's up to you. — universeness

Well as far as I know the term "BS" is used mostly a quick, informal, sharp, derogative and aggressive term used to disable other people's beliefs more by intimidation and blunt hostility than welcome discourse. More formal academic terms for "BS" would be "falsity", "contradiction", "deception", "deceit", "paradox", "illogicality" or "irrationality". Many synonyms indeed, a bit less emotionally charged and personal than the word "BS" but I guess that's up to the person.

. 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. — Vera Mont

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. A capitalist will likely promote those that promise improvement in capital acquisition.

This is however unlikely given the level of education standard in bangledesh. Not impossible for a pure businessman to émerge from that pool but less likely than those with a western business degree.

Automation certainly reduces the need for man power but never completely as machines still need manufacturing, engineering, servicing, disposal/recycling etc. And those Hands made idle by automation will naturally gravitate towards the next task/job/occupation that still requires manual handling/labour.

There are jobs that it doesn't pay/is not financially viable to automate - for example humanitarian occupations that favour human well being/life quality over money-making schemes.

How do you for example automate career guidance councelling? When it is in direct conflict with global automisatiom of all jobs

Go ahead, explain! — universeness

What would you like to start with?

don't give the same credence to posits about the supernatural than the credence I give to posits which are based on logic or reason or human ethical imperatives etc. I hope that clears up your confusion about what I am actually typing. — universeness

And what do you believe is "supernatural"? Please clarify.

. I am sure you can do it to. — universeness

I can indeed. :)

An omnipotent being can exist and yet not be responsible for evil or what humans label evil. — universeness

An omnipotent object (person) cannot exist based on physics and thermodynamics. A single object cannot overcome the restriction of its own minute objectivity - a person cannot physically move mountains for example. It (a person) however, can choose to take responsibility for evil by not ignoring it in the world around them. A person can choose not to contribute to evil by figuring out what exactly it is (defining it) and taking the opposite course.

The universe as a whole unit on the other hand - containing all energy and thus degrees of potency, is omnipotent, but as a system of opposites which are neccesary and internal to its system cannot address the concept of evil. What is "evil" is relative to conscious entities within the universe - objects (people).

They are welcome to it but if you preach it to me as something supernatural and real then have the evidence to support it or expect me to treat it as nothing more than your own personal coping mechanism. I am interested in that which is evidence based — universeness

Happy to explain. Bring it on. Give me all you got.

I am not pretending anything, I just don't assign the same credence to concepts like god, logic, reason, human ethics or human fundamental principle. But you can, if you want to. Good luck with that. — universeness

You don't give the same credence in concepts like logic, reason, human ethics? You don't believe these things are not worth credence? (belief). Tell me then what do you believe in place of ethics, reason logic etc? Surely something you deem more enlightening I'm eager to hear all about it. I'm not one bit intimidated or afraid of having such an argument. Let it all be put out there.

And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning." as I assume you are attempting to disguise a compliment to yourself. — universeness

You assume incorrectly. I need not do any such thing. I don't compliment myself beyond anyone else's personal values. I value discussion above all. The verdict is up to others to decide. I simply have confidence that my views aren't intended to purposefully aggravate and harm others for the sake of it.

Yes, I am completely open to the ideas of others but not when they type BS. — universeness

And I suppose you're the be all and end all déterminer of what is BS? That's quite the claim. I hope it holds up to rigorous discourse, not simply because "you said so".

Any of these seems like BS to you Mr Benj? — universeness

Of course they do. I have common sense and so do you. But citing extreme examples to highlight absurdity is hardly useful as we both already know they're easily contradicted.

What is truly valuable/useful is arguing those beliefs you genuinely believe in and don't wish to be contradicted. Which I'm happy to oblige in doing if they seem unreasonable.

As I said before and will repeat for clarity, I'm not perturbed by the prospect of arguing my points against yours to establish what the actual case is. Do your very worst. Let reason pervade /determine who has the reigns here.

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

When we automate something such as trains (which used to require coal shovellers for the furnace) jobs become obsolete but new ones emerge based on the new technology (electrical engineer specialising in trains).

All of humanitarian endeavours cannot be automated unless humans no longer existed. So long as humans exist, human problems will be adressed by humans (not automated). If we became automated ourselves (uploaded our consciousness to computers) we would as a robotic race still face robotic limitations that require workers to resolve - even if we left our organic human bodies behind.

In essence, whatever progress we make (automation), there will always be more Progress, advancements to be made (work to be done).

We need to leave the god BS in the dirt, like any empty vessel no longer of any use to a progressive intelligent species. — universeness

Tell me Universeness what god should we leave in the dirt as BS? Bobs god? Sharon's? John's? Emily's? I wasn't aware you knew every single concept of/interpretation of god possible?

Whatever god you reject is your own personal concept of such an thing. And only that one thing. Which is fine, reject it at will. But perhaps don't pretend you understand everyone else's beliefs/interpretation of reality or what it means to them, whether they term it god, logic, reason, ethics, fundamental principle, etc.

We must maintain everyone's free will to admire and pursue a true meaning of reality with respect to them personally, otherwise we are some autocratic dictator enforcing our beliefs on others whether they want to accept them or not. Hardly justifiable.

Everyone worships something - maybe money, maybe fame, maybe knowledge, maybe humanitarism, maybe a person, maybe a god, maybe an idea, concept or thing. For us to shoot down eachothers beliefs is to damage them/to insult them by ripping their core values to shreds - hardly ethical. All we can do is debate and discuss. And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning. But none of this comes about with brute force and no explanation.

Nothing is BS, it is simply a belief we disagree with on either reasoned or ethical principles. When you express those issues people are free to agree or disagree and offer an alternative explanation.

No one can determine what is absolutely BS unless they know what is absolutely true by contrast - somehow omniscient, a "know it all."

Are you universeness prepared to proclaim yourself a "know it all" or are you receptive to other peoples ideas/concepts?

Accepting contradiction as paradox changes how the mind thinks — Gregory

Contradiction and paradox are the same thing. Two assumptions that are irreconcilable with one another. For one to be true the other must be false. But there is always a third option - obtaining the knowledge as to why they are both correct based on their individual self-referential truth.

Imagine two people looking at the numbers 69 from opposite sides. One says its 69 the other says its 96. Both are correct from their individual perspective, the information that has been omitted is their ability to walk around the inscription and view it from one anothers perspective.

They can then realise that context (from what angle they apply meaning) is essential. But contexts can be changed.

If Buddhism is metaphysical, maybe it can be classified as absurdism — Gregory

Not sure if I agree that Buddhism is absurd. Is karma - the idea that if you behave as a d*ckhead (selfish) you naturally precipitate hostility against you not true? Nice people don't like, endorse nor support unkind, self promoting behaviour.
And will make it their agenda not to propagate that - by not supporting those that encourage such poor behaviour. If you take advantage of someones good nature you may benefit temporarily/in the short term, but the next time you encounter problems and need help they will not be so forthcoming to aid you.

On "desire" in Buddhism, the more you want and the less you get the more you suffer. "Greed is the bottomless pit" - never satisfied by what it already has, always in anguish that it doesn't have yet more.

On the contrary, wanting very little material wealth and preferring to Foster/enable good relationships offers security in that your "like-ability" to others ensures that your suffering or lack of a resources is an emotive source for others to aid you/ help you to feel secure and free once again. Your kinship is returned with gratitude and acquisition of the necessary means to provide you basic comforts/sustain you - the sharing of provisions. Good karma.

If I desire everything there is nothing left for my friends/loved ones. It's Egocentric. But if I desire only for my loved ones to thrive, and they recognise that, the karma will be employed to carry me on their successes. A share of the benefits sought and received.

Time has a duality. One one side is the perception of time which requires the ability to hold memories (to be conscious) as without memory we have no recollection of the past and if we have no accessible past we cannot anticipate a future by proxy. In this case the only thing to exist is the present moment which would be meaningless because what is the present without the past and future to give it reference?

So in essence memory is a prerequisite for conscious/aware beings. Consciousness cannot exist without the acquisition and documentation (writing down/recording/memory) of experience.

On the other hand we have objective time - the thing we measure objectively by quantifying it with frequencies (orbits, tides, seasons, day and night, hours, minutes and seconds etc) the rhythm of vibrations of quartz clocks, the swing of a pendulum.

Both aspects of the passage of time are mutually dependent. We cannot acknowledge cycles/frequencies/repetitions (the objective measure of time) without memory (subjective/a product of awareness) Otherwise each cycle would be a "first encounter" with no reference to a previous one.

The difference between simultaneity and chronology is our existence as objects - matter. Energy travels at the speed of light; where space contracts so much, and time dilates so much that everything happens simultaneously (as a singularity - with no distinction between beginning and end, no distance, no start or end.)

On the other side of this duality is existing as matter (which cannot travel at the speed of light). Therefore it must experience change/rate, and thus chronology; cause and effect are separated rather than simultaneous and the same.

So the ability to be conscious and have memory depends on being physical objects. Memory/documentation/recording cannot occur in pure energy as its massless and non physical and doesn't experience time. Memory must be recorded on a stable unchanging objective physical medium which does experience time - something that doesn't travel at the speed of light.

There's a lot of corruption. — frank

There is Frank. Indeed. I think we can just as easily substitute the word corruption for "intense self interest/selfishness" but who's exactly?

I think part of the problem is that at a macroscopic scale (human systems/institutions) it appears impossible to point a finger at any one individual as the source of corruption. Especially when everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else simultaneously based on conflicts of interest.

It seems then that these systems are supposedly "blameless" and thus beyond anyone's individual attempt to resolve it. That is the culture at least. But it leads to stagnancy. An equal and opposite position cancels one another out and nothing comes of it - all the while the issues compound on one another; climate change, poverty, racism, energy crises, war - a world in division. "us" and "them".

But what we do know better than anyone else is ourselves. And we can discuss our views and bounce lines of reasoning off one another (as philosophers do). If we can somehow identify our own personal deceptions and misplaced beliefs and improve on them then the corruptions beyond ourselves become increasingly obvious.

We cannot force anyone to change, to impose on their beliefs as that would be aggressive and hostile in their view. What we can do however is lead by example. And direct people to the rigorous/thorough, well thought out and articulated conclusions we can come to through applying logic and thinking carefully. If it appeals to them and they understand it we will likely not be seen as an enemy or in conflict with them.

Good quality change never comes from rigid ideation and brute force. It comes from wisdom and patience.

Hume once said that if it were up to reason as reason, reason would just as soon wipe out all humanity, for there is here nothing of value-meaning-content in reason. Reason is an empty vessel of logical structure, and possess none of this dimension of ethical shoulds and shouldn'ts and rights and wrongs. But value, now there is something palpable: the feels and feelings of the world! But they are unwieldy to agreement.
I do agree that there is in all of our affairs there someting as you say, science, spirituality, and all the rest of what we are, but the "behind" is a very mysterious idea. Keeping in mind that, as Wittgenstein understood, the logos cannot apprehend itself; it cannot say what the logos is, for the saying presupposes the logos. This "behind" is elusive; and yet: what is elusive really is possessed in[/, the existence we witness all the time. This is the key to penetrating into this mysterious "behind" of metaphysics. It is not to look behind or beyond and the like; rather, it is to realize that what is manifest IS the behind of things. — Constance

How artfully expressed. I agree. Reason without ethics (something objectively unprovable outside of consciousness, emotions and feelings) is cold, callous and dangerous. It can get things done but without consideration for how it ought to be done to get there. It's robotic. I feel this is why we often consider Artificial intelligence as sinister.

For example perfect logic to solve the problems caused by humanity (climate change, poverty, inequality etc) is to destroy humanity. No humans, no human problems. Its entirely rational but it is not the logos (ultimate logic) because that would have to answer to ethical considerations and the value of that.

Similarly ethics by itself (pure emotion/moral urgency) without reason is emotive agency/motivation without a means to apply it. It is erratic, irrational and aimless. No vision for outcomes. Its pure impulse. Trying to do good without knowledge is equally dangerous. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So for me it comes down to the Logos (the ultimate logic) being a harmony between ethics and reason. Ethics and reason both address what ought to be done to reach a goal. But without the help of eachother they are both blind in their own ways. Nature shows us that equilibrium is the only way forward. Its the most stable set of affairs for emergent properties (goals).

And nature is built in cycles, frequencies, repetitions. And what is a cycle/circle but the combination of the irrational (Pi - wandering aimlessly ad infinitum and never repeating itself, erratic) and the rational (a discrete line that goes from A to B and is predictable along all of its points). Only when combined do we get something that can change - has the ability to do work/get things done, but ultimately stays the same/is regulated - a cycle.

the logos cannot apprehend itself; it cannot say what the logos is, for the saying presupposes the logos — Constance

Hmm. Well I'm not so sure. I think it cannot apprehend itself when it is biased (too reasoning/rational or too emotive/ethical/irrational). I think the logos perhaps only knows itself through its own inherent equilibrium, when it is balanced, when "all things are considered"). It can only have "revelation" of itself when it "is" itself, its true nature.

philosophical argument will replace religious dogma; and this is something of an inevitability ...in a few hundred years or so, if we're lucky) but a bringing people together will require either a very liberal attitude that accepts what is really not agreeable or appreciated in the comportment of others who are different; or an agreement in values, such that everybody lives comfortably with others because they are essentially the same. The former is a tall order. Really, nobody wants to live with others who are so morally and aesthetically remote. — Constance

All very good points. Ideally philosophy would subsume religions, perhaps not all of them because religions differ in their degree of dogmatic beliefs. Some are strict, fundamentalist and at times very imposing, therefore very easily reasoned against, others on the otherhand are more intuitive like taoism and Buddhism perhaps and therefore more relatable or approachable because they aren't trying to assert specifics so much, but rather a general idea.

Afterall, all religions, all spiritualities and philosophy and science are all observing and interpreting the same thing - reality. The universe.

I doubt all religion or the concept of religion will ever be dissolved fully by philosophy. My reason for example is that people almost always make the assumption that belief in a God automatically means one is religious. I believe in a god but I'm not religious I'm spiritual. I think intuition and empathy have a place beside reason and objective accounts of logic (as science exemplifies).

But I continously get bombarded with shock and intense debate from people that assume I'm religious. When I said no such thing. Because the idea of a god that they have is not the same as the god I ascribe to so they falsely categorise me. They believe religion is the only mode to perceive a god.

As I said the word "God" is not that useful when it's heavily loaded with abundant assumptions and contradictions. When it means something different to everyone. Even atheists have a belief in a god - the concept which they reject in their minds as non-existent. But presumably that is a religious dogmatic interpretation of "God" that they reject. You can't be atheist towards all possible interpretation of gods both past present and future, because you don't know what they are unless you ask the people who hold those beliefs. Hence why the term seems to persist for eons in human societies - ancient and modern alike.

But my interpretation of the word is apt for me because it includes a basis for consciousness (self/ personhood/awareness) as well as the external reality (universe). Anyone can coin their own term whenever they wish and for whatever purpose.

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. — Vera Mont

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

All the things you outlined seem very doable. I also agree that the level of food wastage is bizarre in the first world on a familial level and on a business one. Not only is it a waste of finances for individual families, but it artificially bolsters demand that isnt actually there and so makes the price of food more expensive. I can personally attest to that fact as whenever I am home there's a good deal of gone off/out of date food in our fridge (maybe 15-20%). And having worked in a huge supermarket chain the amount of perishables we dispose of at the end of a working day wasn't great. It wasn't too bad but it could have been better.

I don't know. I'm more interested in health than veganism, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the health of humans or of the world. — frank

I get you. You need to focus on your own health it's important. For me I think health is a collective matter because others unhealthy/ unsanitary decisions impact us. That's why public health and food hygiene regulation is such an important department in the health institutions of countries.

Take washing hands for example. Simple. Trivial. Doesn't seem like it is anyone elses business whether one washes their hands or how they do it or for how long.

But improper washing of your hands is a surefire way to spread bacterial and viral infections to others even if those don't necessarily make us sick ourselves. The same goes with sneezing and coughing, second hand cigarette smoke, how we dispose of waste, what we consume/ buy and therefore what economic pressures we exert on capitalism and what shortcuts we accept or don't - pollution of the air we breathe, the health and wholesomeness of the food we eat, what synthetic chemicals and preservatives we ingest etc.

This is about social etiquette and consideration for others health being equivalent/necessary to considering our own personal health and that of our family. We cannot be perfectly healthy in isolation when we live in society. It's as simple as that. It's just the same as a cell in your body. If a cell decides to do whatever it wants and not cooperate or obey healthy regulation like other cells (in other words if it becomes self serving and cancerous) it effects the whole system. Its toxic to the body as a whole.

If everyone around you is ill or has a weakened immune system that leaves you vulnerable to disease as they no longer offer a protective barrier between the source of the disease and your body.

Buddhist say they want to extinguish desire, but perhaps this is yet another paradox. Mustn't we desire to extinguish? — Gregory

Unless perhaps the state of peace (lack of desire/ lack of the pursuit of control/ of making demands on others and the self) is equal to a state where contradictions/paradox has dissolved away. A sort of ego death.

Maybe desire is a process of an ego. And ego wants. Selflessness does not want, it simply "is/be's"

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. — Vera Mont

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? (considering the existence of those with intolerances/food allergies, illnesses, gastrointestinal diseases, muscle wasting disease or in a protein malnourished state, those who cannot monetarily afford vegan alternatives, those that simply don't have vegan products available in abundance in their local supermarkets or those advocating against plant monoculture to maintain plant diversity?)

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

However, one of my complaints about the Gettier business is precisely that it pushes us to give a binary answer where it is not appropriate. — Ludwig V

Indeed. This is why I'm not an advocate of Gettiers problem as he precisely defines it. It disregards obvious "work-arounds" and adaptations of meaning in the words he uses based on him not acknowledging rational external information that is sensibly known but presumed not to exist for the sake of his definitions. Like the ability to move through time and space (the field where the cow and cloth are) for example.

There are cases when forcing words to be discrete and exactly defined in relation to one another leads to illogical outcomes (problems).

In the same way that the liar paradox or grandfather paradox is created. They use two or more incompatible discrete definitions of words or grammar of words that's leads to logical conflict. If the interpretation/context/meaning of such words was less stringent and more fluid then the paradoxes can be resolved.

Many paradoxes, conflicts of interest or contradictions stand based only on previous assumption - what we mean when we use the words we do to describe them. Change the meaning (assumptions) and you change the outcome (whether something is rational or irrational) based on those assumptions.

It's logical to conclude that if all humans are animals (assumption 1) and some animals have wings (assumption 2) that some humans have wings. But that is a rigid discrete acceptance of the meaning of the assumption. Not influenced by external modulation (by other assumptions such as "humans are animals without wings" (assumption 3) which would further deductive reasoning to the conclusion that "all humans are animals, some animals have wings but they are other animals than human ones". Which is correct.

It is in this way that we must include as much information as possible to get an accurate logical conclusion. Something that the liar paradox does not do, nor the grandfather paradox.

Nothing like that can happen in the Republican-ridden US, where agri-business has serious political clout and zero scruples. — Vera Mont

True I think their treatment of agriculture merely reflects the intense capitalism ingrained in US society. The "American dream" has become an exemplar for taking shortcuts to increase a profit margin, at least without fully considering the consequences of such actions, and at most with direct conscious ignorance of known/predicted complications/poor outcomes.

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. — Vera Mont

Well it may not be a case of genetic identicality (cloning) but knowing that certain genes or groups of genes promote certain phenotypic expressions (more milk, bigger brisket etc as you pointed out) it seems they are not as genetically diverse as say two chickens where one is small and lean but resilient to certain diseases because of that very reason (because their small size is protective - say to viruses that are "myotropic" - as in they target chickens with large muscle mass and minimal fat reserves) as oppose to one where muscle mass is disproportionate with what their immune system can adequately protect.

So genetic diversity is directly proportionate with the holistic appearance, the final result, the chicken that is the sum of said genes.

So I still think that genetic diversity (resilience) at the expense of uniformity (commodification) needs to be implored if we are to move away from hormone injections and antibiotics and better the health of the people that consume them.

. The reason we read about them is that we don't readt about the half-billion (or so) other Americas who don't do that. "Mr. John Tavernicky did not kill anyone today" would make a poor headline. — god must be atheist

Yes I agree, what the majority does is not as high impacting news. Because its already expected. News is new. So the takeaway is both good and bad. That a). Most of us do what is appropriate/expected/prudent and good/acceptable to do however b). This leaves us with an obsession/fixation on what we don't understand, the things people do that seem unjust, illogical or bad.

The trend continues. We, today's people, can eat it, if we don't have to kill it first.

But once in a while a vegan rears its ugly head (figure of speech - they are not ugly) and instills in us a sense of guilt.

This is a strange and difficult world we live in. — god must be atheist

The trend does continue indeed. You're absolutely right. I suspect that is because it is proving exceedingly difficult to totally alienate ourselves from the behaviour/characteristic of other animals. And we are not sure of ethically we should alienate ourselves in the first place.

In essence we see ourselves in them. Which is a beautiful thing, we have empathy for them (animals). But it constantly fuels that dilemma that as you said vegans highlight so often, a source of guilt and shame for destroying something we empathise with.

The world is indeed strange. But it is natural. We must grip onto and really appreciate what it means to be a natural thing - a carnivore, an omnivore, a herbivore. And question what we have the power to do realistically as natural things. We need to eat. And our body has demands of us that influence our cravings for certain food sources. There must be a way to be at peace, to settle the debts we have, with what we came from - nature.

Yes, I'm aware of the problem. It's just hard to get enough digestible protein from plants. — frank

It is indeed. We can only try our best. But personally I think that's enough. The question that really remains is are we "all" really trying our best? Do we each have the insights/wisdom and right intention available to us to do so? And if not who is to elucidate that for us with a measured and open minded approach to establishing what the facts really are? To lay all the options out for us to choose from.

In essence who's beliefs ought we to also believe? Who appreciates the true gravity of the situation and who wants to help resolve it not just for themselves but for others too? I think people with those characteristics are worthy of seeking out and hearing their say on such core matters. Afterall that is leadership quality is it not?

Here, again with some jargon, the moral precept is its own presupposition! Meaning, to witness the pain IS the precept! This, as you say, is the "Godly (I add the capital letter) approach to ethics." I think this right! But how is it Godly? — Constance

Exactly Constance. I ought to explain my choice of the word "Godly" you're right. The reason I use this word despite it being a heavily loaded term open to infinite and largely variable interpretations is that everyone worships something. Everyone has a "god".

What we worship - what we strive for, as in our personal "ideal" is a core value, some belief or set of beliefs that we hold as those of the greatest value to the self when we navigate and interpret the world and try to decide what it means and also what we ought to do to/for or through it (reality).

For some what they worship is capital/wealth (the purely capitalistic amongst us). For others it may be more humanitarian in nature, but really it can be anything: our partner whom we love at the deepest level, music, art, fame, knowledge. All very worthy pursuits in their own self contained directive.

But what some people value at their core is likely to face more issues - ethical and rationally arguable, than other possible gods - sources of reverence/worship/love. Generally the more strict, dogmatic and defined our object/concept of worship is, the more vulnerable it is to being logically or ethically/morally opposed by others, defeating our core values and thus purpose, agenda and means to form meaning in life. This is very unpleasant indeed as it leaves you in somewhat an existential crisis when others don't agree with nor condone what one worships, what one fundamentally values.

That leaves us with a simple question. What ought we worship that others can get on board with? What ideal is the most superior ideal that others can support and enjoy and accept as reasonable or ethical or preferably, both.

For me such an ideal/source of worship ought to be something self evident, its reason to exist is simultaneously why it exists - or as you said the precept (adjustment of behaviour in accordance with it) is its own presuppositions (inherent reason to do so).

For me the only thing that can justify itself as a source of worship is fundamental truth. Because to know it is to have vast knowledge of its applications, truth pertains to actual knowledge, not just falsity/delusion but something better - the relationship between the two, what's true is logical, its reasonable and it can be used to make the most potent arguments as to why it is indeed true.

Furthermore, to communicate it to others is to be ethical because telling the truth is a good thing, it leads to education instead of ignorance, and abolishes arrogance in place of understanding and empathy of one anothers point of view. To know the truth of how we individually perceive reality as well as what that true reality actually is - in essence to know everyone's individual hang ups (paradoxes and contradictions between them as well as the fundamental truth of it all) is a most useful tool/device to increase awareness of it.

And many in the past have with varying success described that dynamic - Buddhism with the cycle of samsara, karma and nirvana (the peaceful bliss of knowing that what you believe is both correct personally and in reality at large) etc, taoism with their universal "flow", abrahamic religions with their prophets and the word of god (the truth).

A fundamental truth would be flawless - both moralistically and rationally. If one worshipped say money instead - then they have to justify why they ought to be wealthier and more privileged than another. They have to justify every issue to arise from the personal acquisition of wealth and the impoverished which naturally arise as a necessary opposite.

This is why I used the term "God", the "logos", the fundamental principle/law behind science, spirituality, trial and error, change, free will, etc. Something with ultimate explanatory power. Now that is something worth pursuing regardless of what we name it. But I would call it God.

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

It does seem to be a key issue yes. Now the following line of thinking is not intended as a personal attack, I admire the fact that you don't contribute to overconsumption of meat, but may I point out a thing:

You get your whey protein from milk (from female goats right/ the same in the case of cows or whichever animals whey is available) So buying whey increases the demand for female animals. What happens to all the male ones that are inadvertently born in the process of trying to breed females for milk?

Peanuts though are rich in protein and fat and also improve the soil where they are grown and are seen as very sustainable.

It seems there is no perfect solution to avoiding animal products and the by-products of those demands while maintaining adequate protein nutrition and vitamin intake. At least not on a global scale. At an individual level its definitely possible to minimise dependence but if everyone adapts a vegan policy the issues become apparent as they compound on themselves. Vegetarianism seems to be the closest thing to satisfying the issues that arise in a world where either of the two extremes predominate - purely carnivores or purely vegans.

I do accept Gettier's definition because your strict definition would rule out many ordinary uses of "know" and transform "know" into a jargon concept useful only to philosophers — Ludwig V

I understand exactly what you mean. What I would suggest to consider is that words do not have one discrete/ unchanging or fixed meaning. The meaning of a word is not binary (if A then not B). This can only be the case when the context is clearly and strictly confined.

Not only can a word mean one thing or another thing depending on context but it can mean two things simultaneously (ambiguous meaning) as in the case of innuendo, metaphor and puns, or in humour/comedy. And it can even be used in reference to itself to form a self contained paradox/ contradiction - a meaningless sentence.
Allow me to explain with four examples:

Meaning of the word "know".
Context 1: I know that I feel sad. (I believe/know pertaining to inherent internal knowledge of my state of mind).

Context 2: I know there is a phone in my hand. (I observe/I and others can know this as its an object - objectively observable.)

Context 3: I know he's larger than life, he practically draws in everyone in the room (ambiguous insult/compliment - could mean I'm calling him fat, could mean I'm saying he's so extroverted that people naturally gravitate towards him.

Context 4: I know that I know nothing. (socratic paradox).

In this way we see that the word "know" is not specifically defined but dynamic. If it wasn't language would be extremely rigid and unexpressive. It would be like mathematics - able to follow a singular line of logic but not able to be used for poetry, comedy, drama, artistic license etc

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. — Vera Mont

Yes I see what you mean. You're right. We could avoid total collapse of the population of domestic animals by slowly winding down the demand for their products so that just a handful are left and better cared for.

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) because the resilience of a population to epidemics depends on genetic diversity of their immune systems. If they are identical clones then they will likely be equally vulnerable to a fatal disease.

So if we downsize poultry numbers we must simultaneously increase their natural genetic diversity to safeguard against extinction through a single disease. 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.

High intensity, poorly sanitised farming and overcrowding of animals is a condition ripe for contagion.

There's no such thing as that, is there? — frank

They have not perfected artifical meat products yet but technology is improving on this front and artifical meats like burgers etc are being trialled already with consumers (for texture and taste/like-ability) and in labs for nutrional value and correct portion of macronutrient, vitamins and minerals. Of course this research can be expedited by investment and positive public opinion.

Any innovations success is of course down to its lucrative nature/ usefulness to the public and whether they would consume it (capital viability) or avoid it (collapse and lack of competitiveness)

I am not obliged to make that kind of sacrifice for a stranger. — Bartricks

Correct. No one is obliged to do anything for strangers. I'm not obliged to help care for the sick either, nor obliged to give to charity, I'm not obliged to be kind, respectful, considerate or help others in any way shape or form. What exactly do you think the world would look like if everyone held this attitude? Do you think it would be civil or totally barbaric/chaotic?

Most people believe what we owe extends to other animals as overconsumption of meat/animal products not only leads to health detriment in ourselves - obesity, cardiovascular disease, colon cancer, intolérances, inflammatory bowel disease to list just a few, but also aggravates the climate crisis through a number of pathways: appropriation of limited fresh water supply, deforestation for agriculture, CO2 release by the raising of ruminants, use of fossil fuels in their processing, packaging (plastic) and transport across the world to where they are consumed.

Furthermore besides health and climate issues associated with overconsumption of meat, it also encourages food provision inequality. For us to overconsume others must underconsume. Just as for some to be wealthy others must be impoverished. They are opposites and mutually dependent on one another.

I'm not advocating for completely abolishing meat from our diets. I think that would just be a severe pendular swing to thr opposite extreme with similar impacts on land use, biodiversity, and our health. I think eating meat in an appropriate balanced diet is healthy and what we evolved to do as omnivores.

Im merely highlighting the pros and cons as I understand them - of both sides of the issue in response to feedback from other contributors.

Why is it hard for humans to reconcile ethics and eating meat? Because we have the capacity to know the ethics behind it. Our desire for taste of meat overwhelms our desire to recognize the life you snuff out of that living being — L'éléphant

It's hard to reconcile when we consider other animals as having sentience and emotions etc like we do. If we didn't consider this then the debate about veganism, vegetarianism, artifical meat etc woukdnt exist would it? The fact that this is still an active contentious subject is proof in itself that people do want to improve their relationship with animals and wish to debate as to how to do so.

It's hard to look at a dog and say they don't have the same basic feelings and behavior that we do: love, joy, anger, aggression, sadness, fear etc. And if dogs have those feelings it's unlikely that hundreds of not thousands of other animals also have these socially evolved interrelations with one another and with humans.

Sure we could go the opposite way and completely objectify other animals and even all other humans too and demonstrate no empathy for anything other than your own agenda and point of view - but popular opinion is that such people are most uncooperative, unpalatable and often dangerous to a society as they only consider their own goals ans are entirely self serving in everything they do.

The way to settle it is to farm people for food also. Then let's talk ethics. People complain about overpopulation, then why not gather a group of people and hunt them for sports? Yes, this sounds crazy -- but is it really? — L'éléphant

Have you come across a thing called "prion diseases" like kuru. They are transmitted best through cannabilism because the misfolded protein in the "food" is so similar to the protein in the person eating it that the bodies immune system finds it difficult to tackle. (As we are the same species).
It's not random that nature tends to favour predators eating other animals rather than theur own.

I also think this is more or less another manifestation of antinatalism. Undervaluing our own rights to eat or reproduce just as any other animal does unquestioningly. By that logic we might as well all be dead because no humans, no human problems. Seems a bit nonsensical. Also if we were to hunt eachother for food who has any more right than anyone else to be hunter rather than prey. This is just advocating for mass genocide rather than more humane and intelligent ways of minimising our population - like contraception, education etc.

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001379.htm#:~:text=Causes&text=Kuru%20is%20a%20very%20rare,part%20of%20a%20funeral%20ritual.

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. — Vera Mont

Yes and lose biodiversity in the process. If we don't breed food animals then they will go extinct. Sure if you want to say good riddance to poultry, pigs, cattle, goats, sheep etc be my guest. But then we have no natural source of high density protein nor do we have any animals to extract stem cells from to artificially produce meat.

So we just inherit a new set of problems do we not? The density of protein in plant material never has nor likely will ever match that of meat/animal products. The human stomach is only so big we can't eat 1kg of lentils when two chicken breasts, cheese or eggs would suffice.

You need to define evil first,
"Evil is lack of good"

If you agree with this definition, then evil isn't creatable — SpaceDweller

In this sense evil is a natural and avoidable opposite created simultaneously with good. After all how can we know what is evil without good? If everything was utopian we would have no concept of evil it would be meaningless.

No there isn't, no way that isn't very costly anyway. They don't produce the majority of their energy with renewables, but the majority of their electricity, and that is typically only 20% of total energy consumption. First you need to electrify everything and then you need to up your electricity production without fossil fuels times 5 to get to the same levels of energy consumption.... never mind the pre-supposed continual growth (which implies even more energy) that is deemed necessarily to keep our economies running.

And no, Iceland (with warm water springing out of the ground), Denmark (surrounded by windy seas) and Costa Rica (no industry because their economy is tourism) are not representative at all for the rest of the world. — ChatteringMonkey

You highlight some valid particularities here. I will reconsider my approach based on that info I didn't know previously. Yes maybe they aren't really representing the world at large

It just so happens that up till recent we were not that numerous and nature was resilient enough to carry those costs for the most part. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes agreed overpopulation is a big issue in all of this. The world wasn't designed for such abundance of a highly demanding apex species.

They should but they don't, never have in the geopolitical arena... stamping your feet about the immorality of it won't get us closer to solving the problem — ChatteringMonkey

It won't? So raising awareness of a clear problem doesn't help in formulating a solution to said problem? I have to disagree here. If you don't vocalise what "ought to be" then we have literally no goals/ideals to strive for. In such a case what can be done? This seems unreasonable and ultimately defeatist.

People need to stomp their feet about wrong-doings in the world. If we just sit back and watch we have little entitlement to complain or not accept the result. If we are aware of something immoral and don't stand our ground against it then we are complicit in whatever passive outcome occurs. You and I are as much devices of change as anyone else.

What do you suggest we do? What solution would you offer? Or are you just here to shoot down any and all possible paths to a resolve?