I disagree that eating plants is destruction in any way that requires a moral valuation. Destroying a consciousness is morally problematic. But shuffling around nonconscious energy and matter into various states isn’t a moral issue.
I guess you can call eating plants “destroying” if you like. Just like I can say I murdered iron ore to forge it into a hammer. But both of those are just dramatic phrasing. if consciousness isn’t involved then morality isn’t either.
Its not just eating plants i am talking about but the grand total of destruction.
Every breath of air you take, every sip of water, every footprint in the dirt. It is impossible for any being, herbivorous or not to live with no ecological cost. Every fart is methane. Your housing takes space other life could claim. Your body blocks light to reach the moss spores behind you and your lungs convert oxygen to co2 as we speak.
My philosophy is to personally measure the cost where i am aware, lower it where i can but accept that there will always be a cost. Enjoy life regardless so that costs is not wasted.
Were speaking on completely spiritual different levels it seems. I am not religious but to me system of nature itself is a bigger consciousness with other life (like us) just sub parts of it, harming another being equals harming myself. Not wrong on itself but an important part of what makes life what it is.
The keyword is balance and awareness. Life requires destruction to persist and continue but to much destruction and it seizes to be also.
You’re doing your job. You breathe the air. That creates co2 for the plants to eat.
But let’s cut to the heart of it. What is the value of the ecology If not it’s ability to support consciousness? Do you think the universe, in all its chaos and meaningless motion, has some balance that has value?
I think the universe itself is the value that ecology and nature sustains.
But this subject is stretching what i can articulate in words without sounding like a religious nutjob. (Re reading post script, this was foreshadowing)
Consciousness is an emergent property of natural dynamics in the universe. The universe is some sort of contrast complexity between nothing exists and everything exists. Similar to light/dark either both exist or neither does.
Without universe to act as the natural wealth of physical interactions there is no stage for consciousness to form.
Without universe where things we judge as “immoral” “bad” can occur normally there is no universe where things that we judge “moral” “good” can occure. This is a step to say morality in nature does not actually exist.
The system of nature is destructive, it is finite. Bleak as we pay perceive it is is part of its complexe beauty. For everything we use we work towards destroying ourself conceptually.
So many words to actually say that isolated from context “acts of killing and eating of animals/others cannot be considered “wrong” trough any logical reasoning.
It is not the killing part that is “bad” to reference the earlier question.
But what we can conclude trough logical reasoning is that if we want to appreciate this insane universe we can instead of wailing in the (optimistic) nihilism of possibilities and inability to eliminate the inherent self destruction of what your kind emerged from. You can prolong its existence, strech it on more time by simply being mindful not to waste, to respect the values of nature around you and to use them to mindfully, optimally enriching the experience of the life that is now as it lives.
It is just as accurate to say the system of nature is creative and infinite. With things constantly evolving into other things and eventually evolving into heat.
You wouldn’t say that salt being dissolved in water has destroyed the salt. It simply created saltwater. Your choice about what is destruction and what is creation is arbitrary.
You can prolong its existence
The universe will exist infinitely. Nothing you do changes or destroys that. When you talk about minimizing impact, you’re talking about the impact to the environment that’s sustains consciousness. If that were to be destroyed, that would be detrimental. You’re trying to preserve that.
But even if we nuked the whole planet a hundred times over, the universe is fine. It’s just converted some matter to a different form.
My point is, your entire framework is actually working against the universe. The universe is a constant state of change trending towards heat. You’re doing your best to minimize that trend towards heat. To keep things from changing. To minimize your impact. That is completely against how the universe functions. But it is completely in favor of keeping consciousness around.
I disagree that eating plants is destruction in any way that requires a moral valuation. Destroying a consciousness is morally problematic. But shuffling around nonconscious energy and matter into various states isn’t a moral issue.
I guess you can call eating plants “destroying” if you like. Just like I can say I murdered iron ore to forge it into a hammer. But both of those are just dramatic phrasing. if consciousness isn’t involved then morality isn’t either.
Its not just eating plants i am talking about but the grand total of destruction.
Every breath of air you take, every sip of water, every footprint in the dirt. It is impossible for any being, herbivorous or not to live with no ecological cost. Every fart is methane. Your housing takes space other life could claim. Your body blocks light to reach the moss spores behind you and your lungs convert oxygen to co2 as we speak.
My philosophy is to personally measure the cost where i am aware, lower it where i can but accept that there will always be a cost. Enjoy life regardless so that costs is not wasted.
Were speaking on completely spiritual different levels it seems. I am not religious but to me system of nature itself is a bigger consciousness with other life (like us) just sub parts of it, harming another being equals harming myself. Not wrong on itself but an important part of what makes life what it is.
The keyword is balance and awareness. Life requires destruction to persist and continue but to much destruction and it seizes to be also.
You are part of that ecology and that’s ok.
You’re doing your job. You breathe the air. That creates co2 for the plants to eat.
But let’s cut to the heart of it. What is the value of the ecology If not it’s ability to support consciousness? Do you think the universe, in all its chaos and meaningless motion, has some balance that has value?
I think the universe itself is the value that ecology and nature sustains.
But this subject is stretching what i can articulate in words without sounding like a religious nutjob. (Re reading post script, this was foreshadowing)
Consciousness is an emergent property of natural dynamics in the universe.
The universe is some sort of contrast complexity between nothing exists and everything exists. Similar to light/dark either both exist or neither does.Without universe to act as the natural wealth of physical interactions there is no stage for consciousness to form.
Without universe where things we judge as “immoral” “bad” can occur normally there is no universe where things that we judge “moral” “good” can occure. This is a step to say morality in nature does not actually exist.
The system of nature is destructive, it is finite. Bleak as we pay perceive it is is part of its complexe beauty. For everything we use we work towards destroying ourself conceptually.
So many words to actually say that isolated from context “acts of killing and eating of animals/others cannot be considered “wrong” trough any logical reasoning.
It is not the killing part that is “bad” to reference the earlier question.
But what we can conclude trough logical reasoning is that if we want to appreciate this insane universe we can instead of wailing in the (optimistic) nihilism of possibilities and inability to eliminate the inherent self destruction of what your kind emerged from. You can prolong its existence, strech it on more time by simply being mindful not to waste, to respect the values of nature around you and to use them to mindfully, optimally enriching the experience of the life that is now as it lives.
It is just as accurate to say the system of nature is creative and infinite. With things constantly evolving into other things and eventually evolving into heat.
You wouldn’t say that salt being dissolved in water has destroyed the salt. It simply created saltwater. Your choice about what is destruction and what is creation is arbitrary.
The universe will exist infinitely. Nothing you do changes or destroys that. When you talk about minimizing impact, you’re talking about the impact to the environment that’s sustains consciousness. If that were to be destroyed, that would be detrimental. You’re trying to preserve that.
But even if we nuked the whole planet a hundred times over, the universe is fine. It’s just converted some matter to a different form.
My point is, your entire framework is actually working against the universe. The universe is a constant state of change trending towards heat. You’re doing your best to minimize that trend towards heat. To keep things from changing. To minimize your impact. That is completely against how the universe functions. But it is completely in favor of keeping consciousness around.