Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 11, 2023, 1:08 pm

Super interesting topics.

You tie it back to practical frames/exchanges.
But I hope it's OK if I take the liberty to keep it at that higher -and more "philosophical" level-.

Also because, to me, the "ultimate" solution stems exactly from those higher principles that make you feel comfortable in your own skin and choices.

Intro: optimum balance against extremes

These topics are so politicized by both wings that it's challenging these days to have a sensible discussion on these issues.

Such as:

• Vegans/environmentalists: you're selfish, mean, and "bad" if you eat meat / aren't extremely worried about the environment
• Right-wing (implied): you're an extremist/naive/clueless and a pussy if you care too much about animal welfare / environment (some of the ugly/stupid extremes include proudly eating meat in front of idiot vegans who "lose it")

In SOME cases neither of them are even wrong.
But only when applied to some people and to extremes.

The majority of sensible people, as often the case, don't fall into any extremes.

Your takes all seem sensible, John.
And albeit a bit closer to the "green/vegeterian" end than mine, we're still close.

Our responsibility: marrying self-interest, with win-win

My take on this starts from a high-level mindset and comes back to eagle/personal growth:

We have a responsibility to increase the scope for "good" and minimize the pain/harm in the world.

And we have a responsibility to leave the world -and humanity- better off. 

Or, at least, that's how I see it for myself.

You may call it a "pass the baton" principle.

That starts with other humans, but also includes any living organism.

At the same time, we have the right, and it's also good, to pursue our own goals and self-advancement.

So it's almost always a case of finding the "optimum balance".
If one wanted to make a simple general principle, it may as well be "don't be an ahole".

Power dynamics meets win-win: enlightened Gods

Personally, and much in contrast to some extremist vegeterians/greens:

I put humans -and our selves- above the environment and other species.

To me, it's a law of nature.
There is no reason to obey it, but there is also no reason why you should give up your rights.
To me, to ask to give up your rights without any real reason to, is a guilt-trip. And, as well, a contorted, unhealthy, almost pathological sense of guilt that has no reason to exist.

But because of those win-win and "avoiding unnecessary suffering", that doesn't mean we are careless about either.

But it also means that we have no obligation whatsoever to "preserve" anything.

Only to take care of the environment to the point that it won't impact people's lives.
And to care enough about other animals that we avoid unneeded suffering.

A potentially more controversial corollary to this principle:

• If certain animal species are dangerous to humans, it's fair for humans to "get rid of them"

Ideally though, doing so while causing the least possible suffering to said species.

To put it as a general principle, it may be something like:

We are the Gods of this Earth, but let's choose to be enlightened Gods.

Quote from John Freeman on December 12, 2023, 1:16 am

Hello Lucio,

thank you very much for your answer!

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 11, 2023, 1:08 pm

Super interesting topics.

You tie it back to practical frames/exchanges.
But I hope it's OK if I take the liberty to keep it at that higher -and more "philosophical" level-.

Please do.

Also because, to me, the "ultimate" solution stems exactly from those higher principles that make you feel comfortable in your own skin and choices.

Intro: optimum balance against extremes

These topics are so politicized by both wings that it's challenging these days to have a sensible discussion on these issues.

Such as:

• Vegans/environmentalists: you're selfish, mean, and "bad" if you eat meat / aren't extremely worried about the environment
• Right-wing (implied): you're an extremist/naive/clueless and a pussy if you care too much about animal welfare / environment (some of the ugly/stupid extremes include proudly eating meat in front of idiot vegans who "lose it")

Yep.

In SOME cases neither of them are even wrong.
But only when applied to some people and to extremes.

The majority of sensible people, as often the case, don't fall into any extremes.

Your takes all seem sensible, John.
And albeit a bit closer to the "green/vegeterian" end than mine, we're still close.

Well, actually we agree on the topic as written below.

Our responsibility: marrying self-interest, with win-win

My take on this starts from a high-level mindset and comes back to eagle/personal growth:

We have a responsibility to increase the scope for "good" and minimize the pain/harm in the world.

I agree.

And we have a responsibility to leave the world -and humanity- better off. 

Or, at least, that's how I see it for myself.

You may call it a "pass the baton" principle.

That starts with other humans, but also includes any living organism.

I agree.

At the same time, we have the right, and it's also good, to pursue our own goals and self-advancement.

So it's almost always a case of finding the "optimum balance".
If one wanted to make a simple general principle, it may as well be "don't be an ahole".

I agree as well.

Power dynamics meets win-win: enlightened Gods

Personally, and much in contrast to some extremist vegeterians/greens:

I put humans -and our selves- above the environment and other species.

I also view it this way. We have to be comfortable to be the superior species because we are. It's not politically correct but it's a fact. We dominate the planet. The trick is that we are also self-aware. So we are aware of the damage we do in pursuit of our own self-interest. So there is the usual conflict between our emotional/animal self and our rational/human/higher self.

We like to eat meat but we kill to do so.

Rationally, we don't have to eat meat. That is, we can substitute for it. We can substitute for B12 vitamin +/- folate +/- iron or other things. So with this technology, eating meat becomes a choice. I know vegetarians who have been vegetarian for decades and are perfectly healthy.

However, our animal nature is to be omnivore and if we don't eat meat in the natural state, we develop nutrients deficiencies. To me it's a bit the same as contraception. In the natural state we could not allow ourselves to have the sexual behaviours we have with contraceptions. So having children becomes a choice (in first analysis not going into details).

That's where the moral argument comes in. So personally, I'm at ease with eating animals. I don't think it's the most optimal outcome, but it's the one I chose so I refuse to feel guilt nor shame. I was vegetarian for a few months at age 17 but not since then.

To me, it's a law of nature.
There is no reason to obey it, but there is also no reason why you should give up your rights.
To me, to ask to give up your rights without any real reason to, is a guilt-trip. And, as well, a contorted, unhealthy, almost pathological sense of guilt that has no reason to exist.

Yes and that's the common divide between the left and the right. The right says: it's nature (inequality, survival of the fittest, etc.) while the left says it's a choice (taxes, culture, social organisation, etc.). And yes it's according to the law of optimum balance. It's a bit of both: nature and nurture. Most of us feel a drive to eat meat (nature) and satisfy it. Others choose not to (reason).

But because of those win-win and "avoiding unnecessary suffering", that doesn't mean we are careless about either.

But it also means that we have no obligation whatsoever to "preserve" anything.

True. I agree. As an animal species, we don't. The problem is that if we accept this premise, then we accept that our cognition is nothing more than an advanced survival tool. And other say: "no, cognition can allow us to make choices contrary to our instincts".

Only to take care of the environment to the point that it won't impact people's lives.
And to care enough about other animals that we avoid unneeded suffering.

Yes, I agree. Here I personally read self-interest for humans and empathy (emotions) for animals. There is no weighing of interest between theirs and ours. Or maybe your hypothesis is that the balance of interest is right to be fully in our favour and that we can only minimise the harm done to other species. I think it's currently the case but maybe in the future we will re-evaluate this balance. For instance, we did it for whales or other endangered species. Yes, in final analysis it's for us. For us not to feel like we are totally destroying other species.

Here is a story. The first time I saw whales from a boat in New England, I felt ashamed. I felt ashamed of the harm we've done to these majestic animals. For the only reason that some of us liked the taste of their flesh. At some point it was survival, but it's not anymore. So it's pleasure hence hedonism.

Again I'm comfortable with my own. I eat horses, cows, etc. But I will never eat a whale. It's not rational but it's my personal choice.

I feel like these animals have the same right to live as we do. We may be superior in terms of technology and cognition but how can we justify it if we don't behave as eagles in terms of caring for "lesser" species. I think that if we are to enjoy the garden, we also have a role to maintain it as guardians (little pun here) if we are to be gods.

A potentially more controversial corollary to this principle:

• If certain animal species are dangerous to humans, it's fair for humans to "get rid of them"

For me, that's an easier choice. The problem we discovered is that when we did it, we disturbed the local ecology and allowed the proliferation of other species who then became harmful (Australia, NZ, pigeons+sparrows+rats in cities, etc.). So it goes back to the argument: are we part of nature or outside of it. I think we are part of it. So if we unsettle too much any system at equilibrium it fires back at us. That means that with each species we destroy, the existential risk to humans increases. We now know that just like with climate, there is a huge margin. The thing is that it's an unknown when we will have reached that point. So if nature was more simple yes: we eliminate a species and we're better off. But there are complex interactions between all living organisms so we don't know at what point we reach the "fuck-up" point of an ecosystem.

Ideally though, doing so while causing the least possible suffering to said species.

To put it as a general principle, it may be something like:

We are the Gods of this Earth, but let's choose to be enlightened Gods.

I totally agree with your conclusion. My point of view: I think that some of my behaviours are harmful but I choose to live with it. It's part of my dark side and I live with it. However, I think that in terms of net effect (going back to the first point) the harm we do as individual is negligible in the economical and historical inertia that we're in.

So the points I agree with:

1. Our interest is superior to other species and it's a good thing
2. We are to minimise the harm to other species (out of self-interest or not)
3. There is no moral duty to do so outside of our own survival (there is no court for these behaviours)

The point I see it differently:

1. We are to balance more carefully our own self-interest with other species' interests
2. There is a moral duty to do so from the moment we are aware we have a choice to do (hedonism vs survival)

So you see that I'm contradicting myself in pont 3 above (no moral duty) and point 2 right above (moral duty).

As an example:

I can take all the candy I want. I have no moral obligations not to do it. But I have a moral obligation not to do it from the moment I am aware that I'm harming someone in the process.

Thank you for the exchange. I'm happy to explore this as I don't have any definite answer. These are my current views and as I said I'm aware I'm in contradiction with my own reasoning but accept it. I'm aware there is a cognitive dissonance and I chose to resolve it in my favour. I chose to be selfish and I reclaim my right to do so as a living organism and as an individual. Since I'm computing that the harm is relatively benign in the grand scheme of things. And regarding the airplanes, I'm even disputing the claim that it is harm.

To be clear: I'm happy to be wrong and/or to change my mind (change my mind maybe.. I have an ego still :D ).

Quote from John Freeman on December 12, 2023, 1:50 am

Correction:

To be clear: I'm happy to be wrong and/or to change my mind.

Removed the comment as it is an expression of a fear of changing my mind. It also sounds rather defensive.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 13, 2023, 12:19 pm

Cheers John, good exchange indeed, may even make for a good post one day:

• Empowered mindsets of social responsibility: doing good, with high confidence and personal power