- June 8th, 2021, 5:42 pm
#386782
earth, 
animals and 
plants should be considered meaningless in the face of human meaning?
As can be seen in the topic René Descartes: "animals have no mind, torture them all you want", it was even considered OK to torture animals for one's amusement, apparently to serve religion. René Descartes once nailed his
dog to a table to slowly dissect him alive, to show that the animal had no mind and that pain responses were mere machine like responses.
René Descartes would torture and dissect animals in his lectures, asserting over their cries of pain, that these cries were merely automatic reactions. Voltaire, whom the Church regarded as its greatest enemy, was horrified by such displays:
Philosophy or 'reason beyond value' may be a solution.
Philosopher Henry David Thoreau once said the following about the enhancement of human ethical practice in general:
"Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."
It appears that he was right. Millennials (Gen Y) have been driving a global shift away from eating animals, to serve moral considerations and Gen Z is accelerating a shift to veganism.
(2018) Millennials Are Driving The Worldwide Shift Away From Meat
A global reduction in meat consumption between 2016 and 2050 could save up to eight million lives per year and $31 trillion in reduced costs from health care and climate change. (National Academy of Sciences).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpel ... from-meat/
It may be a sign of higher intelligence when the human shows potential for moral consideration (reason). As such, it can be demanded on behalf of human dignity. A lack of care or moral consideration can become unjust when the potential for it (in an individual) can be made evident.
An example may be found in the emergence of the field animal ethics of philosophy, and its effects on how humans in general (culturally) perceive and interact with animals.
Animal minds have long been considered a "black box" by science. It wasn't given attention and thus people in general didn't know anything about it and cannot understand a problem with treating animals in a specific way (i.e. without respect).
(2019) Animal Ethics: an important emerging topic for society
Animal ethics evolves on the basis of advancements in intelligence and moral consideration (reason). It could be an argument that humans should choose wisely when they have the capacity to do so. A greater capacity in intelligence and moral consideration for animals comes with new responsibilities, and as such, the human being naturally evolves culturally into a state of less violence towards animals.
The same may be possible with regard earth, living creatures in general and perhaps even 'Nature' as a whole that would span the Universe.
When the human intends to prosper not only for the purpose to live another day (which would include 100-200 years, i.e. a 'short term' perspective), but for the long term (i.e. millions of years), the path that is chosen today can have a profound impact and it can be an argument that the human should chose wisely (by which philosophy or reason would essentially acquire a leading position, not like a religion with dogma's, but as a continuous quest to discover the optimal path for humanity).
Growth and progress is exponential by which it is increasingly important to make the right choices.
Morality may be the key for success and as it appears, modern day morality is based on
magical thinking by letting it depend (in general) on the lap part of the human.
Humans are naturally equipped with a
moral compass but when progress is increasingly made outside the direct influence scope of the human being, paired with the modern day dogma that the facts of science are valid without philosophy (a belief in uniformitarianism), which naturally results in a tendency to completely abolish morality, it may be important that that magical 'moral compass' aspect of human evolution is provided for by a professional plausible method that can secure long term success on that regard: philosophy.
(2020) How we make moral decisions
The researchers now hope to explore the reasons why people sometimes don't seem to use universalization in cases where it could be applicable, such as combating climate change. One possible explanation is that people don't have enough information about the potential harm that can result from certain actions, Levine says.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-moral-decisions.html
The scientists write that they "hope" that humanity / science will investigate the reasons why people sometimes do not use the "universalization principle" for moral considerations and decisions.
In 2020, the universalization principle appears to be the only method that is considered available for guiding human action and science.
How could the universalisation principle protect
Nature when faced with a potential trillion USD 
synthetic biology revolution that reduces plants and animals to meaningless beyond the value that a company can 
"see" in them?
In my opinion, philosophy and morality may play a vital role in the next 100 years to allow humans to evolve into a 'moral being' to secure longer term prosperity and survival.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 8th, 2021, 7:22 amDo you believe that self-interest of the authors of such texts is the actual origin of the idea thatBelindi wrote: ↑June 8th, 2021, 6:02 am I think quite a lot of religious people now understand the value of respect for the natural environment.I hope so. Historically, many problems have been based on sacred texts to the effect that God gave us the Earth as our plaything, to do with as we wish. Worse than that: God made the Earth specifically for us, to do with as we wish. I wish the compilers of these sacred texts had kept their own wishes and opinions away from the "Word of God". It would've saved a lot of time and trouble.
earth, 
animals and 
plants should be considered meaningless in the face of human meaning?As can be seen in the topic René Descartes: "animals have no mind, torture them all you want", it was even considered OK to torture animals for one's amusement, apparently to serve religion. René Descartes once nailed his
dog to a table to slowly dissect him alive, to show that the animal had no mind and that pain responses were mere machine like responses.Descartes Dissected His Wife’s Dog To Prove A PointThe French philosopher Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet) who witnessed the torturing of animals responded with the following:
French philosopher Rene Descartes didn’t believe animals had souls. To test his theory, he nailed his wife’s dog to a board and chopped it open while the poor thing was still alive.
Taking a hammer, Descartes nailed the creature’s paws spread-eagled to a board and proceeded to chop it to pieces, utterly unfazed by the “appearance” of pain. How Descartes’ wife reacted to finding out her husband mutilated and murdered her pet to prove an obscure point has sadly not been recorded.
René Descartes would torture and dissect animals in his lectures, asserting over their cries of pain, that these cries were merely automatic reactions. Voltaire, whom the Church regarded as its greatest enemy, was horrified by such displays:
Voltaire wrote:Hold then the same view of the dog which has lost his master (René Descartes), which has sought him in all the thoroughfares with cries of sorrow, which comes into the house troubled and restless, goes downstairs, goes upstairs; goes from room to room, finds at last in his study the master he loves, and betokens his gladness by soft whimpers, frisks, and caresses.Voltaire (1694–1778), Bêtes, Dictionnaire Philosophique.
There are barbarians who seize this dog, who so greatly surpasses man in fidelity and friendship, and nail him down to a table and dissect him alive, to show you the mesaraic veins! You discover in him all the same organs of feeling as in yourself. Answer me, mechanist, has Nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal to the end that he might not feel?
Philosophy or 'reason beyond value' may be a solution.
Philosopher Henry David Thoreau once said the following about the enhancement of human ethical practice in general:
"Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."
It appears that he was right. Millennials (Gen Y) have been driving a global shift away from eating animals, to serve moral considerations and Gen Z is accelerating a shift to veganism.
(2018) Millennials Are Driving The Worldwide Shift Away From Meat
A global reduction in meat consumption between 2016 and 2050 could save up to eight million lives per year and $31 trillion in reduced costs from health care and climate change. (National Academy of Sciences).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpel ... from-meat/
It may be a sign of higher intelligence when the human shows potential for moral consideration (reason). As such, it can be demanded on behalf of human dignity. A lack of care or moral consideration can become unjust when the potential for it (in an individual) can be made evident.
An example may be found in the emergence of the field animal ethics of philosophy, and its effects on how humans in general (culturally) perceive and interact with animals.
Animal minds have long been considered a "black box" by science. It wasn't given attention and thus people in general didn't know anything about it and cannot understand a problem with treating animals in a specific way (i.e. without respect).
(2019) Animal Ethics: an important emerging topic for society
Another reason for scientists to engage with the philosophy of animal ethics is that it might help them confront topics that have been traditionally off-limits: in particular, the notion of animal minds. While minds are difficult enough to talk about in humans, this difficulty is exacerbated when it comes to non-human animals.https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/anim ... and-ethics
... animal minds and consciousness have been consigned to a “black box”, an entity too complex or confusing to delve into, but whose inputs and outputs become the object of study.
Animal ethics evolves on the basis of advancements in intelligence and moral consideration (reason). It could be an argument that humans should choose wisely when they have the capacity to do so. A greater capacity in intelligence and moral consideration for animals comes with new responsibilities, and as such, the human being naturally evolves culturally into a state of less violence towards animals.
The same may be possible with regard earth, living creatures in general and perhaps even 'Nature' as a whole that would span the Universe.
When the human intends to prosper not only for the purpose to live another day (which would include 100-200 years, i.e. a 'short term' perspective), but for the long term (i.e. millions of years), the path that is chosen today can have a profound impact and it can be an argument that the human should chose wisely (by which philosophy or reason would essentially acquire a leading position, not like a religion with dogma's, but as a continuous quest to discover the optimal path for humanity).
Growth and progress is exponential by which it is increasingly important to make the right choices.
Morality may be the key for success and as it appears, modern day morality is based on
magical thinking by letting it depend (in general) on the lap part of the human.Humans are naturally equipped with a
moral compass but when progress is increasingly made outside the direct influence scope of the human being, paired with the modern day dogma that the facts of science are valid without philosophy (a belief in uniformitarianism), which naturally results in a tendency to completely abolish morality, it may be important that that magical 'moral compass' aspect of human evolution is provided for by a professional plausible method that can secure long term success on that regard: philosophy.(2020) How we make moral decisions
The researchers now hope to explore the reasons why people sometimes don't seem to use universalization in cases where it could be applicable, such as combating climate change. One possible explanation is that people don't have enough information about the potential harm that can result from certain actions, Levine says.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-moral-decisions.html
The scientists write that they "hope" that humanity / science will investigate the reasons why people sometimes do not use the "universalization principle" for moral considerations and decisions.
In 2020, the universalization principle appears to be the only method that is considered available for guiding human action and science.
How could the universalisation principle protect
Nature when faced with a potential trillion USD 
synthetic biology revolution that reduces plants and animals to meaningless beyond the value that a company can 
"see" in them?In my opinion, philosophy and morality may play a vital role in the next 100 years to allow humans to evolve into a 'moral being' to secure longer term prosperity and survival.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
zombie concept merely suggests that an individual cannot judge whether another individual is 'conscious' since it only has it's own 'conscious experience' to base such an assumption on.
- By Fanisa Ndhabambi
- By Sushan
- By Good_Egg