Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What Causes The Most Suffering?

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:35:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a question I have been thinking hard about but have yet to come to a conclusion on.

There are a lot of good candidates. Disease. Poverty. War. Depression. Lawful punishment. Natural disasters. One that's truly a prime candidate, even though most people wouldn't think of it, is the meat industry.

To be clear, the question is what DOES cause the most suffering, not what HAS. I think it's pretty clear that, throughout the course of life on Earth so far, the number one source of suffering has been the functioning of the food chain.

What would you say? And why?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:44:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Money ( or lack of) in the Darwinian society that is now.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 5:20:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:35:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is a question I have been thinking hard about but have yet to come to a conclusion on.

There are a lot of good candidates. Disease. Poverty. War. Depression. Lawful punishment. Natural disasters. One that's truly a prime candidate, even though most people wouldn't think of it, is the meat industry.

To be clear, the question is what DOES cause the most suffering, not what HAS. I think it's pretty clear that, throughout the course of life on Earth so far, the number one source of suffering has been the functioning of the food chain.

What would you say? And why?

The Fool: Ideologies, is the number one cause of wars. Religious, athiest and political. Secondly it prevent or from evolving as a whole together. The world can work as a team easily to solve world problem I ideology was erased from everybody mind tommorow.

On the meat market?
Well tough to say. I mean is it worth the animals living a short life, then no live at all. I don;t know. IF they are killed quick. Think like cows and chicken would be obsolite. They don't have any defenses againt other animals.What is a chicken going to do? (do we actualy have wild chicken? IDK) Plus it does't gives pleasure to some, so it not just negative. And I think if we ever get over the ideology things problems like this could be solved alot faster.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 9:01:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 5:20:36 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/23/2012 4:35:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is a question I have been thinking hard about but have yet to come to a conclusion on.

There are a lot of good candidates. Disease. Poverty. War. Depression. Lawful punishment. Natural disasters. One that's truly a prime candidate, even though most people wouldn't think of it, is the meat industry.

To be clear, the question is what DOES cause the most suffering, not what HAS. I think it's pretty clear that, throughout the course of life on Earth so far, the number one source of suffering has been the functioning of the food chain.

What would you say? And why?

The Fool: Ideologies, is the number one cause of wars. Whehter Religious, Athiest (ideologies) and or Political. Secondly they prevent or from evolving as a whole together. The world can work as a team easily to solve world problem if ideology was erased from everybodys mind tommorows. What I mean by Ideologies is irrational metaphysics. (not all metaphysics is irratoinal) But a step can't be made in metaphysics without logic, or you are just confabulating things.

On the meat market?
Well tough to say. I mean is it worth the animals living a short life, then no life at all. I don't know. IF they are killed quick? Things like cows and chickens would be obsolite. They don't have any defenses againt other animals. What is a chicken going to do? (do we actualy have wild chicken? IDK) Plus it does gives pleasure to some, so it not just negative. And I think if we ever get over the ideologies problems like this could be solved alot faster.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 9:31:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:44:28 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Money ( or lack of) in the Darwinian society that is now.

Money (or lack of) part is true. Social darwinisim is false as a theory, however. It is also not Darwinian, its ideas are Lamarckian.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 9:40:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I actually agree with the Fool that strong beliefs in lieu of objective evidence can make a strong, if not the strongest, case. Think of the Mideast governments that oppress their people on the basis of their religious dogma. Then there's the eastern communist governments who do the same thing with their socialist dogma. Then there are the western governments who allow some of their people (and indirectly many people in third world countries) to suffer greatly because of their capitalist/consumerist dogma. Even many African warlords believe they're serving whatever God they might believe in. So presently I don't think you could beat all of that.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 1:19:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:35:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is a question I have been thinking hard about but have yet to come to a conclusion on.

There are a lot of good candidates. Disease. Poverty. War. Depression. Lawful punishment. Natural disasters. One that's truly a prime candidate, even though most people wouldn't think of it, is the meat industry.

To be clear, the question is what DOES cause the most suffering, not what HAS. I think it's pretty clear that, throughout the course of life on Earth so far, the number one source of suffering has been the functioning of the food chain.

What would you say? And why?

Hmmm... compared to humanity? No, I'd say that humanity trumps the food chain.

Are we taking intention and degree of cruelty into account?
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 2:29:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:35:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is a question I have been thinking hard about but have yet to come to a conclusion on.

There are a lot of good candidates. Disease. Poverty. War. Depression. Lawful punishment. Natural disasters. One that's truly a prime candidate, even though most people wouldn't think of it, is the meat industry.

To be clear, the question is what DOES cause the most suffering, not what HAS. I think it's pretty clear that, throughout the course of life on Earth so far, the number one source of suffering has been the functioning of the food chain.

What would you say? And why?

What causes the most suffering?

All other answers have only mentioned events or components of living, but it should be noted that there is no more egregious facilitator of suffering then life itself. Additionally, there is no surer way to end suffering then to discontinue living.

*YYW's smart@ss moment of the day*
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 2:54:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 2:29:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/23/2012 4:35:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is a question I have been thinking hard about but have yet to come to a conclusion on.

There are a lot of good candidates. Disease. Poverty. War. Depression. Lawful punishment. Natural disasters. One that's truly a prime candidate, even though most people wouldn't think of it, is the meat industry.

To be clear, the question is what DOES cause the most suffering, not what HAS. I think it's pretty clear that, throughout the course of life on Earth so far, the number one source of suffering has been the functioning of the food chain.

What would you say? And why?

What causes the most suffering?

All other answers have only mentioned events or components of living, but it should be noted that there is no more egregious facilitator of suffering then life itself. Additionally, there is no surer way to end suffering then to discontinue living.

*YYW's smart@ss moment of the day*

If only oxycodone grew on trees...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:04:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 2:01:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Why does the existence of pain receptors necessitate a moral context?

The Fool: The emotional content does. I would make a disquinquish physical pain and suffering. For a sado-masichist may experience physical pain but they are not suffering, because it gives them an emotional pressure. But most of us in pain also suffer.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:15:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The meat industry causes very little suffering. Slaughtering is quick and humane. In the wild, animal lives are shorter and often end in suffering. Even laboratory test animals usually have lives with less suffering than nature provides in the wild.

There is in some species a mechanism whereby the creature goes into a catatonic state when death seems imminent, presumably to forestall suffering. I don't know how many species have that mechanism.

I hate to go Zen, but "desire is the cause of suffering" seems apt, particularly in our relatively comfortable modern world. Desire is also the root of joy as well, but that wasn't the question.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 3:51:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 2:01:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Why does the existence of pain receptors necessitate a moral context?

Lulz.

Because any type of receptor can be exploited for both manipulation and exploitation, among other things.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:02:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:15:48 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The meat industry causes very little suffering. Slaughtering is quick and humane. In the wild, animal lives are shorter and often end in suffering. Even laboratory test animals usually have lives with less suffering than nature provides in the wild.

There is in some species a mechanism whereby the creature goes into a catatonic state when death seems imminent, presumably to forestall suffering. I don't know how many species have that mechanism.

I hate to go Zen, but "desire is the cause of suffering" seems apt, particularly in our relatively comfortable modern world. Desire is also the root of joy as well, but that wasn't the question.

Sheesh, I haven't disagreed this hard in a while.

First, the meat industry isn't humane at all. As I understand it, most mean manufacturers and distributors are highly abusive to the animals they cultivate, often forcing them to live lives that are torturous from start to finish.

In the wild, animals live shorter lives, because they are at the mercy of their own capacities, rather than the more sophisticated and advantageous human construct.

Laboratory testing is horrendous, disgusting behavior. If karma exists, this will be one of the primary reasons we will eventually have a predator.

I might be mistaken, but unless they've evolved better options, all complex organisms that serve as prey have some semblance of a "tharn."

Lol, I think you're conflating "first world problems" with the human condition. On the other hand, I've decided that pain is essential, if we're to experience pleasure. For the sake of pleasure, I'll take it.

This question has a sort of moral tint to it. "Suffering" is simply something that happens -- the inevitable negative state to correspond with the potential ideal state. Caused or forced suffering is something different altogether.

In the wild, predator and prey generally coexist without the torture or disenfranchisement of either party. There are fawns and lions alike that enjoy themselves, and that enjoyment, neither party will compromise. Notice also that a herd of prey will go about their day as if nothing happened with a sort of innate understanding, if you will, once one of them is devoured, unless hunting becomes too frequent (in which case, they'll leave).

On the other hand, this is all simply part of the natural state of things, given biology seems to rebel against physics. According to the latter, we have entropy, which ensures that all organized states will degrade into chaos, but given the prior, we have the perpetual consumption of constituents to retain a complex form, or even increase its complexity. The more complex the organism, the more complex it requires its consumption. This, naturally, was the birth of the predator, as what we understand to be consciousness regarding the animal kingdom is simply complexity.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 4:54:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:15:48 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The meat industry causes very little suffering. Slaughtering is quick and humane. In the wild, animal lives are shorter and often end in suffering. Even laboratory test animals usually have lives with less suffering than nature provides in the wild.

There is in some species a mechanism whereby the creature goes into a catatonic state when death seems imminent, presumably to forestall suffering. I don't know how many species have that mechanism.

I hate to go Zen, but "desire is the cause of suffering" seems apt, particularly in our relatively comfortable modern world. Desire is also the root of joy as well, but that wasn't the question.

The Fool: no but it cancels it out. So its not a over all cause of Harm. But they are self-refuting. because they still desire to have NO Desire.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 6:22:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For answers such as "time", "life" and "desire", that's great and philosophical but I'm more so asking about specific actions/institutions/etc.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 6:23:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 2:01:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Why does the existence of pain receptors necessitate a moral context?

Never made this a moral discussion.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 6:24:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 3:15:48 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The meat industry causes very little suffering. Slaughtering is quick and humane. In the wild, animal lives are shorter and often end in suffering. Even laboratory test animals usually have lives with less suffering than nature provides in the wild.


You are forgetting that many many times more animals are raised and killed due to it. And it would be a mistake to generalize them all as quick and humane.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2012 6:54:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 2:54:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/23/2012 2:29:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/23/2012 4:35:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is a question I have been thinking hard about but have yet to come to a conclusion on.

There are a lot of good candidates. Disease. Poverty. War. Depression. Lawful punishment. Natural disasters. One that's truly a prime candidate, even though most people wouldn't think of it, is the meat industry.

To be clear, the question is what DOES cause the most suffering, not what HAS. I think it's pretty clear that, throughout the course of life on Earth so far, the number one source of suffering has been the functioning of the food chain.

What would you say? And why?

What causes the most suffering?

All other answers have only mentioned events or components of living, but it should be noted that there is no more egregious facilitator of suffering then life itself. Additionally, there is no surer way to end suffering then to discontinue living.

*YYW's smart@ss moment of the day*

If only oxycodone grew on trees...

What a wonderful world that would be...
Tsar of DDO
carpediem
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 7:28:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 1:00:31 PM, drafterman wrote:
Time.

This thing all things devours:
Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
Gnaws iron, bites steel;
Grinds hard stones to meal;
Slays king, ruins town,
And beats high mountain down.

Time
"I would die at the stake rather than change a semi-colon!"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 8:10:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 7:28:28 PM, carpediem wrote:
At 7/23/2012 1:00:31 PM, drafterman wrote:
Time.

This thing all things devours:
Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
Gnaws iron, bites steel;
Grinds hard stones to meal;
Slays king, ruins town,
And beats high mountain down.

Time

The Fool: But in this vague sense it also does the very opposite, which cancells it out. as a factor.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 8:19:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:35:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is a question I have been thinking hard about but have yet to come to a conclusion on.

There are a lot of good candidates. Disease. Poverty. War. Depression. Lawful punishment. Natural disasters. One that's truly a prime candidate, even though most people wouldn't think of it, is the meat industry.

To be clear, the question is what DOES cause the most suffering, not what HAS. I think it's pretty clear that, throughout the course of life on Earth so far, the number one source of suffering has been the functioning of the food chain.

What would you say? And why?

The continued existence of clever monkey, version 74 (homo sapian)

Because unlike nature, which tends to find a natural balance between predators and pray thanks to natural selection, we are able to cleverly (albeit cruelly) manipulate nature to our own devices.

Also, we kill the sh!t out of each other, amirite?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 9:47:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:02:18 PM, Ren wrote:
There is in some species a mechanism whereby the creature goes into a catatonic state when death seems imminent, presumably to forestall suffering. I don't know how many species have that mechanism.
I might be mistaken, but unless they've evolved better options, all complex organisms that serve as prey have some semblance of a "tharn."

I think an evolutionarily Better option would be Not having one.. being how becoming catatonic when in Severe Danger, despite forstalling pain, is Not evolutionarily beneficial..

I think it's more plausibly an unavoidable reaction of our nervous system, kind of Freaking out/lapsing, in High stress situations.. Than that it's an Evolutionarily beneficial mechanism in Prey species.

I don't see how it could be evolutionarily beneficial to become catatonic when your throat's gonna get ripped out.

'Cept maybe if it's NOT to forestall pain.. but rather to become less interesting to Movement driven predators.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 10:12:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 9:47:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/23/2012 4:02:18 PM, Ren wrote:
There is in some species a mechanism whereby the creature goes into a catatonic state when death seems imminent, presumably to forestall suffering. I don't know how many species have that mechanism.
I might be mistaken, but unless they've evolved better options, all complex organisms that serve as prey have some semblance of a "tharn."

I think an evolutionarily Better option would be Not having one.. being how becoming catatonic when in Severe Danger, despite forstalling pain, is Not evolutionarily beneficial..

I think it's more plausibly an unavoidable reaction of our nervous system, kind of Freaking out/lapsing, in High stress situations.. Than that it's an Evolutionarily beneficial mechanism in Prey species.

I don't see how it could be evolutionarily beneficial to become catatonic when your throat's gonna get ripped out.

'Cept maybe if it's NOT to forestall pain.. but rather to become less interesting to Movement driven predators.

Well, I see your point, and I don't disagree, but I was referring more to situations where it appears as though death is eminent. In such situations, struggling only makes it worse, and perhaps, pain is a less poignant sensation is such states.

Humans wouldn't know, as we're predators, and serve as prey to nothing. But, on the other hand, when someone freaks out, it's usually in terms of relinquishing themselves to the situation in often a self-destructive way, in the interest of "just getting it over with." So, perhaps that's the same thing applied a different way.

Idk.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 10:26:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 10:12:46 PM, Ren wrote:
but I was referring more to situations where it appears as though death is eminent. In such situations, struggling only makes it worse, and perhaps, pain is a less poignant sensation is such states.

I could see it being better in the viewpoint of a subject in such a situation.

I cannot see it as Evolutionarily Beneficial.. (unless as I said it's to become less interesting) as dying a painful death isn't "Evolutionarily" good or bad.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 10:31:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:44:28 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Money ( or lack of) in the Darwinian society that is now.

I agree with the money part. However, beware the pseudoscience of social Darwinism. It's not Darwinian, for one. It's not science, for another. It's hardly anything but a perverse derivative of his ideas used as an excuse by the "upper" socioeconomic classes to continue exploiting the "lower" ones.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 10:51:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/23/2012 4:35:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
This is a question I have been thinking hard about but have yet to come to a conclusion on.

There are a lot of good candidates. Disease. Poverty. War. Depression. Lawful punishment. Natural disasters. One that's truly a prime candidate, even though most people wouldn't think of it, is the meat industry.

To be clear, the question is what DOES cause the most suffering, not what HAS. I think it's pretty clear that, throughout the course of life on Earth so far, the number one source of suffering has been the functioning of the food chain.

What would you say? And why?

A "poor attitude" is the most crippling and debilitating thing on this earth. It causes more suffering than all other things combined.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%