In Which The Forum Helps Pops With Critical Thinking
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-10-2015, 12:24 PM
RE: In Which The Forum Helps Pops With Critical Thinking
(03-10-2015 04:41 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If we are the most fit
Most fit for what?
(03-10-2015 04:41 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  and aware then why can we not progress without destruction or without devouring other life completely?
We must eat, we also compete for space so we cut down forests, we make a living by exploiting other animals, they are a resource, why are we to think it is our purpose to try and make all animals free and alive?


If there were no death then the world would be over populated (what would we eat? Sunlight?) If there were no death then we wouldn't have evolved, we would be microbes or even less. There are always going to be wealthy people and poor people. It can't be any other way, we can't evenly distribute the wealth. If there is no reward system then many people will not work. We won't have roads, schools, hospitals, we would just have lazy people expecting to get the same as everyone else without having to work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 09:11 PM
RE: In Which The Forum Helps Pops With Critical Thinking
Stevil,

I said devour completely.
We can be better off by living responsably. All resources are here for us but how is that a reason to be wasteful past ones need. Perhaps you haven't heard of starving people in messed up situations all over the world. Maybe you didn't know trees produce oxygen and are habitats for all kinds of additional life. Trees can be used up and become extinct just like humans. Did you really just say that we must clear out more trees to facilitate a higher population of humans? Humans are completely overpopulating the earth. The solution is responsible sex, not offing oldtimers and the lame. Animals are free and alive. Much more so than humans that are neutered from instinct, passion, and direction by greed and manipulation.
They can be a resource without using them greedily.
We have to have food, but there are alternate means. To eat meat is ok but should be done less for multiple reasons. Doing so would drop the market(slaughter), and the cost. This could, in itself, make make nutrition and sustinance more readily available for those whom are in more need for whatever reason.

Do you really think that things don't die outside of human circumstances? There's this thing called natural causes. There is also this stuff called vegitation.

Wow! Who said anything about redistribution of wealth from the ones who worked for it to those that refuse to work? Needy and able bodied aren't synonymous. If you can work then you should work. If you can't work and have dependents you should get some kind of help with resources and a better means of attaining them later.
Really, who would advocate for the nonsense you are claiming?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: