Common sense. To end suffering you need a huge amount of resources. More than realistically can be acquired. So prioritizing must be made. And of course animals would be lower in the list than humans.
They are a bit rather literalist, but they have a point.
Only “do less and consume less resources” won’t end suffering. It will limit certain kinds of suffering.
Feeding those without enough healthy food may require more resources (many reasons people don’t have enough food, sometimes those reasons are “war”.)
There are other kinds of suffering as well. Bad governments abusing people. Weak governments not protecting people. Not enough medical care, or the wrong kind of medical care. Unsafe neighborhoods, and unsafe homes.
Undoubtedly, there are hundreds of ways humans are suffering right now that I am not touching on.
I was more thinking of the PETA-style can’t-harm-one-animal-hair issue. The people who get upset if you trap rats that are eating native birds; that kind of thing.
But on the other hand, ending all suffering is such an unrealistic demand that no one would say it seriously. Stubbing your toe is suffering but would anybody prioritize ending it? You can read it as a hyperbole if you will.
So given the choice between a reading with addressable solutions, and one that can never be achieved and so no one would ever argue for, you intentionally selected the second interpretation. Because this allows you to reduce the argument to an absurdity, and then disregard it. But you’re just fucking lying to yourself, you’re not really achieving anything except finding a way to arrive at the conclusion that you had pre-selected.
Do you not understand what the role of animals is in all this?
Ever since the invention of agriculture, we have had the capacity to grow more food than humanity can consume. But agriculture is business, and business must grow. So when that limit is hit, we have to find ways to create artificial scarcities to continue growth. We do that by refining plant products into increasingly scarce luxury products. Animals are treated as nothing more than machines for refining save, cheap, sustainable plant products into toxic, polluting, addictive and unsustainable animal products.
Back to your premise: we are not dealing with a lack of resources!!! We are drowning in food!!! We are dealing with nothing more than greed and inhuman cruelty.
Ever since the invention of agriculture, we have had the capacity to grow more food than humanity can consume. But agriculture is business, and business must grow. So when that limit is hit, we have to find ways to create artificial scarcities to continue growth. We do that by refining plant products into increasingly scarce luxury products. Animals are treated as nothing more than machines for refining save, cheap, sustainable plant products into toxic, polluting, addictive and unsustainable animal products.
Oh, you’re that guy. I think this starkly demonstrates how facile your beliefs about communism are, if your name isn’t meant to be taken ironically.
I’ll note that you are afraid to directly argue with anything I said, because doing so would leave your own arguments open to defeat. So you just throw shit. Ooo-ooo-ooo, eee-eee-eee, that’s you.
Ever since the invention of agriculture, we have had the capacity to grow more food than humanity can consume
it’s devoid of facts. it’s just a story you tell to justify your position.
Would you care to amend that or are you just here to drown out actual discussion with cheap bad faith speech? Or is it genuinely your opinion that humanity cannot use agriculture to feed itself?!
agriculture is business, and business must grow. So when that limit is hit, we have to find ways to create artificial scarcities to continue growth.
it’s devoid of facts. it’s just a story you tell to justify your position.
Would you care to address this or is it just willful denial and abandonment of your own fucking beliefs and values?
We do that by refining plant products into increasingly scarce luxury products. Animals are treated as nothing more than machines
it’s devoid of facts. it’s just a story you tell to justify your position.
Would you like to join us here in FUCKING REALITY or are you going to continue to carry water for FUCKING ATROCITY? Like, I get you’re up in your feels. Me too, we’re discussing mass rape, mass murder, mass enslavement, and further forms of atrocity visited on TENS OF BILLIONS of vulnerable individuals. But buddy, you’re having the wrong fucking feels. You’re having the feels a rapist has about their victims.
Common sense. To end suffering you need a huge amount of resources. More than realistically can be acquired. So prioritizing must be made. And of course animals would be lower in the list than humans.
A huge amount of resources to . . . do less and consume less resources?
End deliberately human caused suffering is not the same as end all suffering.
End all suffering implies preventing all animals starving or eating each other. Or animal genocide so nothing is left to suffer.
I think that’s a pretty hyperliteralist take.
So is the original meme.
They are a bit rather literalist, but they have a point.
Only “do less and consume less resources” won’t end suffering. It will limit certain kinds of suffering.
Feeding those without enough healthy food may require more resources (many reasons people don’t have enough food, sometimes those reasons are “war”.)
There are other kinds of suffering as well. Bad governments abusing people. Weak governments not protecting people. Not enough medical care, or the wrong kind of medical care. Unsafe neighborhoods, and unsafe homes.
Undoubtedly, there are hundreds of ways humans are suffering right now that I am not touching on.
I was more thinking of the PETA-style can’t-harm-one-animal-hair issue. The people who get upset if you trap rats that are eating native birds; that kind of thing.
In rough order of plausibility:
End human-caused human suffering
End human-caused human-or-animal suffering
End anything-caused human suffering
End anything-caused human-or-animal suffering
You just inserted the word “all” and hoped, we wouldn’t notice but I did
I would argue that ‘end’ implies ‘all’, aka ‘eliminate suffering’.
If it said ‘reduce suffering’ or ‘minimise suffering’ that would be different.
But on the other hand, ending all suffering is such an unrealistic demand that no one would say it seriously. Stubbing your toe is suffering but would anybody prioritize ending it? You can read it as a hyperbole if you will.
But that’s kind of the point of the OP in the first place. End all suffering, wait not that suffering.
So given the choice between a reading with addressable solutions, and one that can never be achieved and so no one would ever argue for, you intentionally selected the second interpretation. Because this allows you to reduce the argument to an absurdity, and then disregard it. But you’re just fucking lying to yourself, you’re not really achieving anything except finding a way to arrive at the conclusion that you had pre-selected.
But that’s kind of the point of the OP in the first place. End all suffering, wait not that suffering.
Do you not understand what the role of animals is in all this?
Ever since the invention of agriculture, we have had the capacity to grow more food than humanity can consume. But agriculture is business, and business must grow. So when that limit is hit, we have to find ways to create artificial scarcities to continue growth. We do that by refining plant products into increasingly scarce luxury products. Animals are treated as nothing more than machines for refining save, cheap, sustainable plant products into toxic, polluting, addictive and unsustainable animal products.
Back to your premise: we are not dealing with a lack of resources!!! We are drowning in food!!! We are dealing with nothing more than greed and inhuman cruelty.
sometimes
no, we don’t
this is story telling
I don’t know whether you are saying, “this was captivating,” or “this was bullshit.”
it’s devoid of facts. it’s just a story you tell to justify your position.
Oh, you’re that guy. I think this starkly demonstrates how facile your beliefs about communism are, if your name isn’t meant to be taken ironically.
I’ll note that you are afraid to directly argue with anything I said, because doing so would leave your own arguments open to defeat. So you just throw shit. Ooo-ooo-ooo, eee-eee-eee, that’s you.
this is just insults and insinuation. you still haven’t given any real facts.
Neither have you, hypocrite!
Would you care to amend that or are you just here to drown out actual discussion with cheap bad faith speech? Or is it genuinely your opinion that humanity cannot use agriculture to feed itself?!
Would you care to address this or is it just willful denial and abandonment of your own fucking beliefs and values?
Would you like to join us here in FUCKING REALITY or are you going to continue to carry water for FUCKING ATROCITY? Like, I get you’re up in your feels. Me too, we’re discussing mass rape, mass murder, mass enslavement, and further forms of atrocity visited on TENS OF BILLIONS of vulnerable individuals. But buddy, you’re having the wrong fucking feels. You’re having the feels a rapist has about their victims.
I’m not the one making up stories to make themselves feel good.
not necessarily