4 ms·
Apparently not beautiful enough to avoid being killed at all, though. It's a shame we haven't stopped eating animals.
by quiescant_dodo 6y ago
Apparently not beautiful enough to avoid being killed at all, though. It's a shame we haven't stopped eating animals.
- nightski 6y agoAh yes, pesky humans. If only nature didn't have those killer humans it would be all peace and harmony.
- phist_mcgee 6y agoAbsolute false argument. Humans are the cause of nearly every extinction for the last several hundred years. Nature wouldn't be peaceful, but it sure as shit would be more balanced. By arguing that nature is violent and chaotic (and thus we are only doing what is natural) absolves us of our responsibility to try and undo the damage we have wreaked on this planet for centuries. We are the enemy of every creature on this planet, and we need to face that.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nightski 6y agoThat's a bit of straw-man, I never said any of that. You have extended the conversation far beyond eating animals which is natural and can be done responsibly.
- phist_mcgee 6y agoIt is extending your argument, but I don't recant what I said. That kind of casually indifferent attitude towards 'oh well why bother because nature is chaotic' has caused so much destruction of the natural world. The attitude of resigning yourself to 'nature taking its course' long after we set it on the path it is on attempts to absolve us of our responsibilities to fix the damage we as a species do daily.
- jld89 6y agoI mean you pretty much tacitly said it with irony so...
- natmaka 6y agoNature is wild, unpredictable and senselessly gruesome. What distinguishes human beings from animals is the ability to speak on behalf of evil. Crime is a symbol of our freedom -- Jacques Vergès Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous -- indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose. -- Richard Dawkins
- slothtrop 6y agoTo put it another way, consuming animals is neither good or evil in and of itself.
- nix23 6y ago>What distinguishes human beings from animals is the ability to speak on behalf of evil. When was the last time you spoke with a animal? And why do you think Humans are not animals too?
- natmaka 6y agoI take "speak" in the broad sense of "expressing something", saw animals (mainly dogs and cats) understanding what I say (not only my voice tone), expressing what appears to me as many types of sentiments and opinions, and often learn surprising related facts or theories... but aren't aware or anything about a non-human being expressing something on behalf of evil. The (interesting) debate "are humans animals?" doesn't seem pertinent to me here. The author probably thinks they aren't, but his point isn't about this debate.
- slothtrop 6y agoIt's an issue because our collective footprints grow, and we all have an environmental footprint regardless of what we consume. You could extend this to: it's a shame we haven't stopped decimating forests, it's a shame we will continue to encroach on land so long as our population grows, it's a shame that as a result of this growth more animals will die through conventional agriculture i.e. plants, etc.