No, if you'd count that then there would never be world peace because animals can't live without killing one another. A world without murder isn't peaceful, it's empty.
It's natural for animals to kill and eat one another and defend themselves, but what humans do isn't natural at all and it's brutal and inutile.
Someday (far in the future) we can learn to grow meat the way we grow skin in a lab, and learn to mass produce it so animals don't have to die for us to eat
I really wish I could find the source to be sure but I think they said it was made out of wheat and some other stuff. So similar to tofu, really. Not just grown in a lab somewhere I don't think.
Please do! Just to let you know though, the article wasn't focused on that one thing specifically- it was about science-related predictions for the future.
Edit: I just had a poke around and found a really similar article here- it doesn't give specifics but it's the same general thing I was talking about. (Bottom of first page) http://www.popularmechanics.com...next-110-years
Genocide and wars and robberies and abuse of all kinds, destruction of ecosystems, destruction of species just for their home lands to use, all those arent quite the same as a lion catching an antelope. Their murder is at least justified, but for humans it's just arrogance and unfair claims of the planet
A class of kindergarteners can fight occasionally and play together and still be at peace, but if an 8th grader comes in and stabs half of them and then uses the rest as chairs for himself, that's not peace anymore.
Aren't we also the only species that would have any use for it? Other animals require nothing but the ability to keep peace within their own groups and their neighboring territories. What does a zebra in Africa care about how a coyote in America is behaving?
Exactly, the only species to care about it at all is the species preventing it. The others not only do not give a shit, but they'd achieve it easily on their own.
I'd have to disagree with you there. You know how much fighting there is amongst their own groups for power, mates, territory or the like? Now expand each group''s radius of potential threats and conquests by a million.... Yeah, I don't see a lot of peace there
Yes, but you said that animals would be able to achieve world peace easily had they tried, unless I misunderstood. Basically what I'm saying is give animals the means to roam all the earth and they'd go crazy fighting and killing over pride, territory, perceived threats etc.
But that's the point, leave out all humans and they will have the earth to themselves again and won't be bothered any longer, ad will keep living minding their own business in their own private places like the smart modest creatures they are, what's the point of going across the ocean to kill a million of your own kind? Humans are the only ones who can't sit still, the others are fine with each having their own little piece of land, that's why they're so peaceful
All this talk makes me think of the book Zoo by James patterson. It's about animals of all sorts making planned attacks. I haven't read it but it seems interesting.
You have to also consider that humans created the whole aspect of world peace and all of the little debates and arguments about it.
I think a lot of people hold humans above nature in the sense that we're responsible for maintaining and caring for it. Perhaps our superior intelligence has gone to our heads. I think we're equal with nature and that everything we do is some form of natural process of the constant evolution of the Earth and other species that inhabit it. It's easy to think that we're responsible for it all because we hold ourselves at such a high level of importance. But at the end of the day, all it takes is a flood or tornado to put us back in our places and remind us that we're not the biggest or strongest.
Great thought provoking post and congrats on POTD!
World peace simply means the removal of feuding between groups of a sapient species. It's a problem with ourselves we're trying to fix. I NW'd the same way I'd NW a post about how it's funny the only thing keeping [human-specific bacterium/virus/parasite] from extinction is the species that wants to eradicate it.
"It's a problem with ourselves we're trying to fix"
The post is, "It's funny how the only thing preventing world piece is the one species that wants to achieve it".
I don't get why you NWed when you posted the exact reason why someone would YYA it
I think it would largely depend on your definition of peace, but in short I agree that humans cause much more conflict than any other species and that prevents peace around the world from happening.
Like I said above, a world without killing is a world without animals. A kindergarten class that occasionally fights but leaves the class in order and plays together sometimes is peaceful, a random 8th grader coming in and stabbing half of them and then torturing the other half while shitting everywhere and breaking all the windows turns it into an un-peaceful environment.
Well then you're getting objective. Who's to say how much violence is too much? And it only disturbs the peace when a stronger force attacks a weaker?
what about a lion that massacres a herd of gazelle?
No, if you'd count that then there would never be world peace because animals can't live without killing one another. A world without murder isn't peaceful, it's empty.
It's natural for animals to kill and eat one another and defend themselves, but what humans do isn't natural at all and it's brutal and inutile.
Someday (far in the future) we can learn to grow meat the way we grow skin in a lab, and learn to mass produce it so animals don't have to die for us to eat
I read in an article (can't find the link, sorry) that by 2030 all meat products are expected to be replaced with an artificial meat substitute!
I hope it's actually grown out of cells, at least.
I really wish I could find the source to be sure but I think they said it was made out of wheat and some other stuff. So similar to tofu, really. Not just grown in a lab somewhere I don't think.
Aww, I hope they make one out of cells though, eventually.
That seems highly unrealistic. You can't believe everything you read.
...I'm going to try to find this article.
Please do! Just to let you know though, the article wasn't focused on that one thing specifically- it was about science-related predictions for the future.
Edit: I just had a poke around and found a really similar article here- it doesn't give specifics but it's the same general thing I was talking about. (Bottom of first page) http://www.popularmechanics.com...next-110-years
Why the double standard? Humans only natural predator is human (except a few microbes that we are good at suppressing, for the most part.)
Your words: "A world without murder isn't peaceful, it's empty."
I still like your post!
Genocide and wars and robberies and abuse of all kinds, destruction of ecosystems, destruction of species just for their home lands to use, all those arent quite the same as a lion catching an antelope. Their murder is at least justified, but for humans it's just arrogance and unfair claims of the planet
A class of kindergarteners can fight occasionally and play together and still be at peace, but if an 8th grader comes in and stabs half of them and then uses the rest as chairs for himself, that's not peace anymore.
Aren't we also the only species that would have any use for it? Other animals require nothing but the ability to keep peace within their own groups and their neighboring territories. What does a zebra in Africa care about how a coyote in America is behaving?
Exactly, the only species to care about it at all is the species preventing it. The others not only do not give a shit, but they'd achieve it easily on their own.
I'd have to disagree with you there. You know how much fighting there is amongst their own groups for power, mates, territory or the like? Now expand each group''s radius of potential threats and conquests by a million.... Yeah, I don't see a lot of peace there
Why? Why would species expand their radius and start making conquests? Didn you just say zebras and coyotes don't give a shit about each other?
Yes, but you said that animals would be able to achieve world peace easily had they tried, unless I misunderstood. Basically what I'm saying is give animals the means to roam all the earth and they'd go crazy fighting and killing over pride, territory, perceived threats etc.
But that's the point, leave out all humans and they will have the earth to themselves again and won't be bothered any longer, ad will keep living minding their own business in their own private places like the smart modest creatures they are, what's the point of going across the ocean to kill a million of your own kind? Humans are the only ones who can't sit still, the others are fine with each having their own little piece of land, that's why they're so peaceful
All this talk makes me think of the book Zoo by James patterson. It's about animals of all sorts making planned attacks. I haven't read it but it seems interesting.
I was wondering why I was getting all these new notifications on this post, I wasn't even notified this got POTD
Congrats
You should have got an email - did you check ure spam box?
Fun fact: There are two species in the world who have wars. Humans and ants. So in a way, ants prevent world peace, too.
Even without ants and humans though, the world wouldn't be peaceful. Nature is stunningly cruel.
As far as we know.
You have to also consider that humans created the whole aspect of world peace and all of the little debates and arguments about it.
I think a lot of people hold humans above nature in the sense that we're responsible for maintaining and caring for it. Perhaps our superior intelligence has gone to our heads. I think we're equal with nature and that everything we do is some form of natural process of the constant evolution of the Earth and other species that inhabit it. It's easy to think that we're responsible for it all because we hold ourselves at such a high level of importance. But at the end of the day, all it takes is a flood or tornado to put us back in our places and remind us that we're not the biggest or strongest.
Great thought provoking post and congrats on POTD!
World peace is an unattainable goal, and if people are preventing it, it means that not everyone wants it.
World peace simply means the removal of feuding between groups of a sapient species. It's a problem with ourselves we're trying to fix. I NW'd the same way I'd NW a post about how it's funny the only thing keeping [human-specific bacterium/virus/parasite] from extinction is the species that wants to eradicate it.
"It's a problem with ourselves we're trying to fix"
The post is, "It's funny how the only thing preventing world piece is the one species that wants to achieve it".
I don't get why you NWed when you posted the exact reason why someone would YYA it
Because it's not funny. It's perfectly reasonable.
I SEE NOW! Haha, way to go for reading super carefully.
Now I'm NWing as well
I think it would largely depend on your definition of peace, but in short I agree that humans cause much more conflict than any other species and that prevents peace around the world from happening.
Yeah because there was no killing before humans. No hunting, no predators, no carnivores. Every animal was a passifistic vegan.
That's not what world peace is
Peace. Around the world. No?
Like I said above, a world without killing is a world without animals. A kindergarten class that occasionally fights but leaves the class in order and plays together sometimes is peaceful, a random 8th grader coming in and stabbing half of them and then torturing the other half while shitting everywhere and breaking all the windows turns it into an un-peaceful environment.
Well then you're getting objective. Who's to say how much violence is too much? And it only disturbs the peace when a stronger force attacks a weaker?
what about a lion that massacres a herd of gazelle?
gaaaaaay