Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Mysterio448]

My question was really directed at theists. I want to know the theist's explanation for this phenomenon.

I have taken the bait. I think you are stretching what was meant by the description of evolution as "Survival of the fittest" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest by calling life an "engine of violence". Survival of the fittest really means survival of the genes of the fittest. Remember there was a time when it was all just plants

I'm not sure what you are referring to. When did I describe evolution as survival of the fittest?

Here is more info that you need to consider before you can call life a engine of violence.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-o ... -predators
The above estimated that only about 11% of animals get eaten by predators.
https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal ... s-compare/
The above shows that predators are not always successful. The last one is interesting, some estimates give tigers as succeeding in only 5% of the hunt chases.

You have misinterpreted your Quora link. It does not say that only 11% of animals get eaten by predators; it says that 11 percent of deer in Minnesota get eaten by wolves. And mentioning that predators are not always successful is completely besides the point. And you also have to take into account that a given species of prey animal is likely to be preyed upon by more than one predator species at a time.

[Mysterio448]

It's certainly the central theme in describing the current and historical nature of life, isn't it?

I think you'll have to explain why you think evolution is the central theme of life. I can't see how evolution is the central theme of life any more than one's immune system developing immunity to a certain virus is the central theme of one's individual life. If there is any such thing as a "central theme of life", I would say it is the idea I described in the OP.

All of them.

Name one reputable biologist who has said that evolution is the central theme of life.

[Steve3007]

I think you'll have to explain why you think evolution is the central theme of life.

As I said, I think it's the central theme in the sense that it's the underlying principle which ultimately describes the physical characteristics and development of all life on Earth. But if you think that doesn't make it the central theme of life, fair enough. I have no problem with that.

I'd say it's more central than the idea that Nature is all about bloodshed. But, again, that's just my opinion.

Name one reputable biologist who has said that evolution is the central theme of life.

I guess I could try googling some. If I can't find a quote in which they use the exact words: "I declare that Evolution is the central theme of life" are you going to quibble?

Charles Darwin (starting with the easy one)
Stephen Jay Gould
Richard Dawkins
Ernst Mayr
J.B.S. Haldane
Theodosius Dobzhansky

etc.

I kind of cheated and googled "evolutionary biologists" on the assumption that such people, by definition, think of Evolution as being pretty central.

[Steve3007]

I want to know the theist's explanation for this phenomenon.

When similar subjects have been discussed before the theistic explanation is to point out that God, when He created the Universe, wanted a Universe that was logically and physically self-consistent. It's essentially the same as the answer to the question: "why does God not save my life if I fall off a cliff?". Because (among other things) it would require an inconsistency in the law of gravity.

Given this, the evolution of creatures who make their living indirectly, in the ways that I described earlier, could be seen as inevitable. And therefore predation is inevitable. This argument seems more reasonable when considering God as a Universe creator rather than as a micro-managing individual species creator.

[Eduk]

God is also mysterious so if you find something to be mysterious that is just evidence of God.

[Fdesilva]

The above estimated that only about 11% of animals get eaten by predators.

I don't really see how measuring the actual percentage of animals that are eaten by predators affects the substance of the OP. That appears to be the simple observation, which has occured to lots of people in the past, that Nature is red in tooth and claw. I don't see the point in arguing about precisely how deep a shade of red it is.

The central argument is
1. Life is an engine of violance
2. As such why would a God (good God) create it.
So first we need to establish that life is in fact an engine of violance. Is that the case? Will a rabbit prefer never to have been born?

[Fdesilva]

I have taken the bait. I think you are stretching what was meant by the description of evolution as "Survival of the fittest" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest by calling life an "engine of violence". Survival of the fittest really means survival of the genes of the fittest. Remember there was a time when it was all just plants

I'm not sure what you are referring to. When did I describe evolution as survival of the fittest?

Here is more info that you need to consider before you can call life a engine of violence.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-o ... -predators
The above estimated that only about 11% of animals get eaten by predators.
https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal ... s-compare/
The above shows that predators are not always successful. The last one is interesting, some estimates give tigers as succeeding in only 5% of the hunt chases.

You have misinterpreted your Quora link. It does not say that only 11% of animals get eaten by predators; it says that 11 percent of deer in Minnesota get eaten by wolves. And mentioning that predators are not always successful is completely besides the point. And you also have to take into account that a given species of prey animal is likely to be preyed upon by more than one predator species at a time.

Fine but you need to establish your claim. Firstly the concept of the engine of violence is it a hypothesis or a theory? If its a theory what is the evidence that established it as such?
Now I can think of a senario where all animals are killed. That is a farm where animals a bred for meat. Would such a place be an example of an engine of violence?

[Fdesilva]

I wonder about the kind of "food" as you put it that nature provides - the weather, plants and animals - and our evolved resonances with those things as we move into an ever more artificial way of existence. I wonder how much this lack of being able to "earth" oneself in nature contributes to increased depression levels?

It an interesting question. For sure I don’t know the answer. However, it got me thinking. Depression is a state of mind. Now in the context of the mind your statement “evolved resonances with those things” I would say translates to love. Love of animals, love of nature etc. So if in our journey to the artificial we ways to express love as before, I guess that could be a cause that contributes to a depressed state of mind.

[Sy Borg]

I wonder about the kind of "food" as you put it that nature provides - the weather, plants and animals - and our evolved resonances with those things as we move into an ever more artificial way of existence. I wonder how much this lack of being able to "earth" oneself in nature contributes to increased depression levels?

It an interesting question. For sure I don’t know the answer. However, it got me thinking. Depression is a state of mind. Now in the context of the mind your statement “evolved resonances with those things” I would say translates to love. Love of animals, love of nature etc. So if in our journey to the artificial we ways to express love as before, I guess that could be a cause that contributes to a depressed state of mind.

I'm thinking of something more basic than love, that occurs in unconscious processing. Certain blends of gases and microbes that promote health and happiness. We are not evolved to be so physically separate from biota. At times it's as if we spend many hours a day living on barren rocks where the only biota comes from other humans, their food and scraps, and toileting.

[Mysterio448]

Fine but you need to establish your claim. Firstly the concept of the engine of violence is it a hypothesis or a theory? If its a theory what is the evidence that established it as such?

Neither. It's an observation.

Now I can think of a senario where all animals are killed. That is a farm where animals a bred for meat. Would such a place be an example of an engine of violence?

Mankind's urge to eat farm animals is a part of the engine of violence. Farms are just a sophisticated mechanism for achieving this.

[Fdesilva]

It an interesting question. For sure I don’t know the answer. However, it got me thinking. Depression is a state of mind. Now in the context of the mind your statement “evolved resonances with those things” I would say translates to love. Love of animals, love of nature etc. So if in our journey to the artificial we ways to express love as before, I guess that could be a cause that contributes to a depressed state of mind.

I'm thinking of something more basic than love, that occurs in unconscious processing. Certain blends of gases and microbes that promote health and happiness. We are not evolved to be so physically separate from biota. At times it's as if we spend many hours a day living on barren rocks where the only biota comes from other humans, their food and scraps, and toileting.

Sure, may be its a clue to why some people get hooked on drugs. Basically they are mind/brain altering chemical. Maybe when people get disconnected as you say they find something similar yet extremely unhealthy in drugs.

[Fdesilva]

Fine but you need to establish your claim. Firstly the concept of the engine of violence is it a hypothesis or a theory? If its a theory what is the evidence that established it as such?

Neither. It's an observation.

As its an observation it would need a theist who also recognises the observation to be true, to ponder on it. Your description of engine of violence fits perfectly with what hell can be described to be. So if you asked the question why did God create hell that a theist will need to ponder and respond. This observation to me seems you are only looking at the pain but not the pleasure associated with life. If life did not have any pleasure then I would consider it a valid observation.

Now I can think of a senario where all animals are killed. That is a farm where animals a bred for meat. Would such a place be an example of an engine of violence?

Mankind's urge to eat farm animals is a part of the engine of violence. Farms are just a sophisticated mechanism for achieving this.

Don't you think animals can be killed in a farm with less pain than if they were to die naturally? Don't you think for example a pets, some humans create heaven on earth for them?

[Mysterio448]

I want to know the theist's explanation for this phenomenon.

When similar subjects have been discussed before the theistic explanation is to point out that God, when He created the Universe, wanted a Universe that was logically and physically self-consistent. It's essentially the same as the answer to the question: "why does God not save my life if I fall off a cliff?". Because (among other things) it would require an inconsistency in the law of gravity.

Given this, the evolution of creatures who make their living indirectly, in the ways that I described earlier, could be seen as inevitable. And therefore predation is inevitable. This argument seems more reasonable when considering God as a Universe creator rather than as a micro-managing individual species creator.

I don't think your conclusion really follows from your argument. You appear to be saying that predation is inevitable because it is the most efficient system to support biological life given the laws of the universe. But there appears to be some circular reasoning here. You assume that this predation system is the most efficient biological system because the predation system is the system that has been established. That's a bit like saying the base 10 number system is the most efficient number system possible because that is the system that history has established. There is no reason to assume that a more humane biological/thermodynamic system could not possibly have been created. And just because you cannot conceive of one such system certainly does not mean that God couldn't.

[Mysterio448]

As its an observation it would need a theist who also recognises the observation to be true, to ponder on it. Your description of engine of violence fits perfectly with what hell can be described to be. So if you asked the question why did God create hell that a theist will need to ponder and respond. This observation to me seems you are only looking at the pain but not the pleasure associated with life. If life did not have any pleasure then I would consider it a valid observation.

It is true that there is pleasure in the world, but the pleasure is irrelevant to my point because pleasure is not itself a component of the fundamental mechanism of life, but is merely an incidental feature of life. Survival is not dependent on feeling pleasure; it is dependent on eating other life forms.

Furthermore, not all organisms feel pleasure. A Venus flytrap is unlikely to feel any satisfaction from digesting a fly, but it still digests a fly, nonetheless.

Don't you think animals can be killed in a farm with less pain than if they were to die naturally? Don't you think for example a pets, some humans create heaven on earth for them?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. But for what it's worth, I would day that a prey animal in the wild will at least have a chance at defending itself from predators, whereas prey animals in farms (particularly in factory farms) are essentially all on death row.

[Fdesilva]

As its an observation it would need a theist who also recognises the observation to be true, to ponder on it. Your description of engine of violence fits perfectly with what hell can be described to be. So if you asked the question why did God create hell that a theist will need to ponder and respond. This observation to me seems you are only looking at the pain but not the pleasure associated with life. If life did not have any pleasure then I would consider it a valid observation.

It is true that there is pleasure in the world, but the pleasure is irrelevant to my point because pleasure is not itself a component of the fundamental mechanism of life, but is merely an incidental feature of life. Survival is not dependent on feeling pleasure; it is dependent on eating other life forms.

Furthermore, not all organisms feel pleasure. A Venus flytrap is unlikely to feel any satisfaction from digesting a fly, but it still digests a fly, nonetheless.

If pleasure is irrelevant then so is pain. I would say they are both equally relevant to survival. An animal seeks pleasure and avoids pain.

Don't you think animals can be killed in a farm with less pain than if they were to die naturally? Don't you think for example a pets, some humans create heaven on earth for them?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. But for what it's worth, I would day that a prey animal in the wild will at least have a chance at defending itself from predators, whereas prey animals in farms (particularly in factory farms) are essentially all on death row.

My point is death is a ticket to heaven so farm animals get a reasonable life and a death that is possible less painful than old age. So how can it be worst off than in the wild? Sure I guess we got to ask the animals but given that not possible