|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:24 pm
Joshua_Ritter The Resurrection Joshua_Ritter The Resurrection Joshua_Ritter The Resurrection A life without suffering is impossible. You asked if it could be done and I answered. Without suffering there is an utter lack of conflict in any way, shape, or form. Thus society would stagnate, lose its drive, and inevitably deteriorate until we're nothing but a bunch of idiots running around in the jungle again. Or even worse, suffering reenters the world and we are totally incapable of dealing with it and are wiped out. Not for long. It doesn't really matter. It's not humans that make a world without suffering impossible, it's the very nature of the universe.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:52 pm
The Resurrection Joshua_Ritter So there can be no drive without suffering? Not for long. It doesn't really matter. It's not humans that make a world without suffering impossible, it's the very nature of the universe. Actually, I'm going to have to agree with this. Believe it or not, there's more to the world than just humans. Animals suffer, plants suffer, hell, the terrain suffers. I mean, literally the landscape can't feel pain obviously, but that dosen't mean it dosen't suffer great losses critical to its survival. And most of these losses are created by humans. So, you want to eliminate suffering? Eliminate humans. But wait, what about carnivores? They kill other animals to survive, but aren't those animals suffering. So let's eliminate all carnivores. But wait, what about herbivores? They eat plants to survive, let's kill them, too. But wait, plants use up resources that is needed by the land, let's kill all the plants. But wait, some bacteria kill living things. Let's kill bacteria! Where does it end? To eliminate suffering is to eliminate the world, the universe, everything. I think I already posted something like this a while ago, but I honestly can't remember. Oh, and The Giver was a ******** awesome book. I need to read it again soon. And actually, it had to do somewhat with synesthesia, if you've read my thread in the Skeptics subforum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:36 pm
DrasBrisingr The Resurrection Joshua_Ritter So there can be no drive without suffering? Not for long. It doesn't really matter. It's not humans that make a world without suffering impossible, it's the very nature of the universe. Actually, I'm going to have to agree with this. Believe it or not, there's more to the world than just humans. Animals suffer, plants suffer, hell, the terrain suffers. I mean, literally the landscape can't feel pain obviously, but that dosen't mean it dosen't suffer great losses critical to its survival. And most of these losses are created by humans. So, you want to eliminate suffering? Eliminate humans. But wait, what about carnivores? They kill other animals to survive, but aren't those animals suffering. So let's eliminate all carnivores. But wait, what about herbivores? They eat plants to survive, let's kill them, too. But wait, plants use up resources that is needed by the land, let's kill all the plants. But wait, some bacteria kill living things. Let's kill bacteria! Where does it end? To eliminate suffering is to eliminate the world, the universe, everything. I think I already posted something like this a while ago, but I honestly can't remember. Oh, and The Giver was a ******** awesome book. I need to read it again soon. And actually, it had to do somewhat with synesthesia, if you've read my thread in the Skeptics subforum.
And thats a very interesting idea, that suffering is a prerequisite of the universe. What I would ask then is wether it is good to inflict suffering upon others or the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:12 pm
Joshua_Ritter DrasBrisingr The Resurrection Joshua_Ritter So there can be no drive without suffering? Not for long. It doesn't really matter. It's not humans that make a world without suffering impossible, it's the very nature of the universe. Actually, I'm going to have to agree with this. Believe it or not, there's more to the world than just humans. Animals suffer, plants suffer, hell, the terrain suffers. I mean, literally the landscape can't feel pain obviously, but that dosen't mean it dosen't suffer great losses critical to its survival. And most of these losses are created by humans. So, you want to eliminate suffering? Eliminate humans. But wait, what about carnivores? They kill other animals to survive, but aren't those animals suffering. So let's eliminate all carnivores. But wait, what about herbivores? They eat plants to survive, let's kill them, too. But wait, plants use up resources that is needed by the land, let's kill all the plants. But wait, some bacteria kill living things. Let's kill bacteria! Where does it end? To eliminate suffering is to eliminate the world, the universe, everything. I think I already posted something like this a while ago, but I honestly can't remember. Oh, and The Giver was a ******** awesome book. I need to read it again soon. And actually, it had to do somewhat with synesthesia, if you've read my thread in the Skeptics subforum.
And thats a very interesting idea, that suffering is a prerequisite of the universe. What I would ask then is wether it is good to inflict suffering upon others or the world.It's not good, per se, but necessary. We could try to minimize suffering, by not intentionally hurting other people, but we can't eliminate suffering altogether. Oh, and another thing I've been meaning to b***h about for a while now. Science interests me greatly, but it's gone too far. Illness is necessary. Death is necessary. Medicine is the worst invention of mankind. Ever hear about that guy who ran himself over with his own car at the McDonald's drive-thru a while back? People like that is why medicine should not exist. He should not have survived that. No one that idiotic should survive that. People who have heart attacks every year because they weigh 600 pounds and have cholesterol levels half their weight should not have survived their first heart attack. People older than 70 should not be alive. I love my grandparents as much as anyone, but I'm still adamant about this. Yay, flame me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:13 am
to prevent all suffering you'd have to create absolute stability. Stability in an absolute form would be the sesation of movement and change and would be a bad thing in my opinion. It COULD be done but thats stretching things a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
