Eliminating suffering?

#3
#5
I read something about this here too. The man is plainly crazy. Eliminate predation, and pretty soon you'd eliminate humanity, too. Predators help keep all sorts of vermin under control that would otherwise act as disease vectors. In a world without predatory cats and other animals, mice and rats would proliferate, for example. Nature is balanced; predators and even parasites have a place in maintaining that balance. In my view, it's the main area where natural selection plays an indispensable role in keeping populations within limits that the environment can support: that's how it functions, not as the sole driver of evolution.
 
#6
Y'know, even if we were to wipe out all predatory animals(which would include all of humanity), suffering would still exist. Illness, pain, and death would not just go away overnight. The only way to end suffering would be to wipe out all life in the universe. Needless to say, that is insane. But then again, so is that guy's idea.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#7
Y'know, even if we were to wipe out all predatory animals(which would include all of humanity), suffering would still exist. Illness, pain, and death would not just go away overnight. The only way to end suffering would be to wipe out all life in the universe. Needless to say, that is insane. But then again, so is that guy's idea.
Might be better for people to learn how to reduce suffering but also endure & ultimately triumph over it.

"...Considering that, all hatred driven hence,
The soul recovers radical innocence
And learns at last that it is self-delighting,
Self-appeasing, self-affrighting,
And that its own sweet will is Heaven's will;
She can, though every face should scowl
And every windy quarter howl
Or every bellows burst, be happy still..."
-Yeats, A Prayer for My Daughter
 
#8
Y'know, even if we were to wipe out all predatory animals(which would include all of humanity), suffering would still exist. Illness, pain, and death would not just go away overnight. The only way to end suffering would be to wipe out all life in the universe. Needless to say, that is insane. But then again, so is that guy's idea.
But is suffering a purely physical phenomenon? If all forms of organic or physical life were eliminated, would any spiritual beings remain, and are they able to suffer?
 
#9
Predators help keep all sorts of vermin under control that would otherwise act as disease vectors. In a world without predatory cats and other animals, mice and rats would proliferate, for example. Nature is balanced; predators and even parasites have a place in maintaining that balance. In my view, it's the main area where natural selection plays an indispensable role in keeping populations within limits that the environment can support: that's how it functions, not as the sole driver of evolution.
David Pearce considers this objection here:

On some dubious assumptions fairly modest, family planning fertility regulation or via cross-species immunocontraception is a more civilized and compassionate policy option than famine, predation and disease.
Then there are two questions: is the Pearce's idea desirable? And is the Pearce's idea viable?

I think the Pearce's idea is desirable only if herbivores do not proliferate uncontrollably because other methods of control population, not predation and if predators are not killed but are converted into herbivores, including humans of course; moral maximum for all.

But I think the Pearce's idea is not viable, because ecosystems are too complex for a technical manipulation so fine as is necessary for the Pearce's project; any manipulation of this kind could be worse than the original.
 
Top