47635274172635

You cannot experience non-existence. I don't even think you understand what you mean by non-existence the way you used it in that phrase. At most you can use it as contrast to existence, which can be enjoyable or not. If your existence is the least bit enjoyable it beats not existing. at least for me, and plenty others if you ask them.

We also know not existing is desired by others with worse lived experience. Which they think that whatever it even is, not existing, must be better than their lived experience. It's basically a way to stop existing, moving into non-existence. So we can only discuss about existing.

If you have any ideas about non-existence that's cute and interesting and you should maybe write a book about it or something.

>experience of non-existing rocks.

This is not really a philosophical argument as it is misuse of logic and words. I'll let you figure out why.

Invent new protocol just for LLM?

>Verfiably false statement that you need meat to do physical labor.

I don't think a lot of people like you understand the real state of things, how a lot of stuff gets done, costs and what's needed for it. One is the quick maffs you do in your head and it's a different thing how real people in real situations behave at scale. You cannot shame billions of people into not eating meat, they'll just come for you and anyone deciding it for them. You need to have a realistic alternative for it, this shaming nonsense is puerile and gets us nowhere, just allows you to finger wag from your high horse is all. I find this perspective and way to go about it extremely shallow and childish.

As compared to what, those animals never having experienced life ... at all? All farmed animals get to live and experience this place because of us. What you are fundamentally proposing is wiping them from existence, from possible existence. You cannot really argue for that without it being more goulish that you're trying to make it seem when they get turned into food. All of them die eventually, even if we don't eat them. And none would even exist if we didn't need to eat them.

So provided we offer decent conditions for their lived experience it can be a fair trade, since they wouldn't even exist in the first place. Who are you to judge if the cow thinks it's worth it or not? I mean the cow could very well go "moo yeah" if you present the deal "couple of years of grazing running around then get turned into a hamburger? Or no existence at all, what say you?"

Hunting a wild animal is not necessary in most cases. Especially if we have farming. You had no say in the existence of that wild animal, you have no claim on it unless you need it to survive. Say you get lost in the woods and need sustenance to survive, that is excusable sure.

Farmed animals exist purely because of their use to us. We enable their lived experience. Without us they wouldn't exist, they wouldn't experience sitting in the grass looking at a sunset, running around in the field or whatever.

And I did mention it depends on their lived experience. I was not talking about the bleak industrial warehouses animals that never see the light of day and sit in bleak conditions. They don't get much out of it. I am sure we can figure out a fair exchange without getting locked in philosophical conundrums about it.

I am fine with more expensive but higher quality life experience for farmed animals.

I know what existing is like, and I like it. Cows seem to like it when they sit in the grass looking at a sunset. Beats nothing.

If the cow doesn't have the same living experience as we do, to some extent, then you have no argument for not farming them, since it doesn't matter, because "there's nobody in there" as it were.

You need to make up your mind.

Farm animals wouldn't even have existed in the first place if it wasn't for farming them. They wouldn't have experienced their life at all. I personally think hunting is horrible, that's going after something that is alive without you having a say in it.

But say for farmed cows, living in a field for a while, that's better than not existing at all. You cannot judge if it's worth it from the cow's perspective, it got to live, enjoy the sun, eating in the field, doing cow stuff, same as us. Even with the hardships in my life I'd rather have existed, for however long I can, than not existing at all.

So you see it's not as simple to look at and judge farming. If it was for you those animals wouldn't even have experienced this reality. It some cases you may be right, depending on their conditions obviously.

Based on not having a realistic choice. The only person I personally know to successfully pull it off is an acquaintance that's rich by local standards, doesn't work, spends a lot of time sourcing and cooking it, and also eating it. He needs to eat more for same energy. It's so involved that most of his life revolves around it. It takes a good bit out of his time. The rest of the people from that friend group couldn't afford it, couldn't afford spending the money, couldn't afford spending the extra time on it.

I personally wouldn't eat meat if I had a good alternative. I rarely do, I eat it for health related reasons, considering my setup.

>eating any meat is morally questionable. (I say this as a person who does eat a lot of meat).

I think this is very wrong. Doesn't account for when you don't have a choice, to be healthy. You need to eat more, you need to consider all possible situations, construction work people need to sustain all that physical labor somehow. It's a more serious chore to even attempt to build a non meat based diet, let alone sourcing everything.

If we could have a healthy alternative that accounts for everything (taste included) then maybe you can make that argument. Until then it's quite shortsighted and ignorant.

You are moving the goalpost and just make up stuff. Plenty of time to ... do anything, yet nothing has really been done there. If they are so great they should have been able to defend themselves. If you want to keep the discussion real and objective, feelings aside.

I am also not trying to excuse past behaviors or anything of the sorts. It was what it was and we always strive to do better when we know better. But that being said, systems are built around what is functional considering everything that can happen. When you account for everything to insure your safety and survival, it seems to work out like it did. On all sides.

And again, these interactions are never one way, longer term there's benefits to both sides, the local country, and descendants of all slaves and slave owners.

And just as an aside, I could very well argue most of us are still slaves today, but with clearly way better conditions and freedom of movement. But if you don't toil away daily, 5 days a week, you risk medical issues or lack of shelter, kind of like the homeless discussion in this thread. In some cases even death.

So putting what a few rich people from hundreds of years ago did, on me, a regular European folk, is shortsighted or even evil. I had nothing to do with any of it, my ancestors were peasants. And the same is valid for most people OP is referring to when saying "europeans". It's pure nonsense.

I think you need to fix the cause not treat the symptom. I mean you should treat the symptoms as well, while fixing the cause of the issue.

Atm it seems everyone is trying to figure out how to treat the symptom, and they don't even know why, and they keep completely quiet about the cause of it all. Completely and utter mystery, or framed vague and unfixable enough that they do not have to really address it.

What the Swiss did back in the 80's with the heroin program...that's misinterpreted by US and they're specifically trying to mess it up in application. The Swiss didn't just give lab grade heroin to junkies, they ran a serious mental care and social reintegration program and used the heroin as basically bait. You had access to it but you had to go to their facilities where specialized people could start working with you.

What the US is doing is a mockery of that, they want it to fail so they can say it's not working and they shouldn't even try it in the future.

And I think it's quite clear to basically anyone with two neurons what the cause of it is, but authorities there are going to pretend they do not understand it. That it's some mystical unexplainable cause.

>Whatever bad things you can say about China or Taiwan, they both think slavery is wrong and kings are childish.

I remember China being pretty racist. A lot of people visiting got a clear message. Not aggressively but quite clear.

>The west were slavers.

Who sold them the slaves? Did Europeans go hunt for slaves or did they buy them? Who did they buy them from?

Also answer this, if Americans wouldn't have bought the African slaves, all those African-Americans that are now enjoying life in the land of the free, where would they have been born today? Think if they could push a button today to wipe slavery from the past, but that meant they get to spawn back in Africa, they would push it or not? Legitimate question. Because it's not like nothing good came out of it.

>The future is: the computers do the work and we have hobbies.

I highly doubt that. There is no precedent for people being kept around by their rulers, without getting some (real) use out of them. We'be been engineered into existing or not existing with various policies, one child, no abortion etc. We're manufactured as needed, and we mostly exist on a need basis. This isn't a comfy perspective and people tend to not want to see it this way, but that doesn't change it for what it is.

I personally highly doubt we'll all be kept around without people in power getting some real use/benefit out of us as a whole. Way simpler to "accidentally" wipe a good bit of what in their view would then be "useless eaters".

I wish more people would go beyond the "how it looks" and "negative perspective" and think at the actual risk. Especially with no historical precedent for what they are hoping for.