Enlightened Vegetarianism (and more)

[Aeson]

Re: "Meat"

Originally posted by Blake
A couple with a beautiful child are crossing a desert, they run out of food, are close to death. In order to survive, they kill and eat their beloved child.

They should have brought a camel to ride, and/or eat it if they run out of food.

[DirtyMartini]

Blake,

I'm really not trying to be an ass, so bear with me --

How do the constant gay jokes in your game reports jive with your Philosophy. (Yes, I'm fully prepared for the jokes about my login name -- momentary lapse of reason there).

Is all of this just flamebait? While I am new here, I never would have guessed 6 months ago that Blake the slave-rushing war monger agro AI programmer was a Buddhist vegan in favor of microcurrencies. Not really sure I buy it to be honest.

[SlowwHand]

Do cocoa beans count as vegetables?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
(Yes, I'm fully prepared for the jokes about my login name -- momentary lapse of reason there).

You can fix that you know.

If you decide to change it I would suggest sooner rather than later.

[Zkribbler]

Do cocoa beans count as vegetables?

I think so.

At McDonalds, I count the lettuce, tomato, french fries, cherry coke and apple five as my five servings of fruit & vegetables for that day. So cocoa should also count.

[SlowwHand]

[Wezil]

coffee beans and THC should count too.

[SlowwHand]

This is a great day. My mom is going to be so proud when she hears I now like vegetables.

[Provost Harrison]

I also consider sweets and chocolates with fruit cream centres as one of my five a day too

[Cort Haus]

Hops and barley in beer. That's two.

[David Floyd]

Personally I tend to say that a human is worth about four lions. If I was cornered by four lions and had a gun, I'd hope that I'd let them eat me.

Hmmm. Let's explore this for a second.

I assume you believe that you are no better or worse, intrinsically, than anyone else. That is, if you are worth 4 lions, then you are also worth 1 person. So, taking your example a step further, if two people are going to kill you, but you have the means to prevent them from doing so, and that means is to shoot them, do you do it?

Your "logic" seems to imply not, because saving yourself would cause what I'll refer to as a net negative for the world. You imply that by saving yourself by killing the two would-be killers, you are setting yourself up as more valuable than not only one, but two human lives. Stop me if I'm putting words in your mouth. I'm not trying to build up a strawman, I'm trying to put your lion example into terms we can seriously discuss.

What I really struggle with is your assertion that you would and should do nothing to prevent two people (or four lions) from killing you, if by doing so you would be forced to kill them. Clearly, you wouldn't want to kill two people for no reason. Most of us wouldn't want to kill 4 lions for no reason either. I think we can both agree that humans have a right to life. However, I say that when someone tries to take your life, they forfeit their right to be left alone by you.

If your Way tells you that you have to let 4 lions, or two humans, or 10,000 ants kill you, then what you are really saying is that those people/animals/etc. are better than you, worth more than you, by the simple fact that there are more of them, and that their behavior can never change that equation.

A somewhat valid argument for you would be to claim that if everyone adopted your Way, then this wouldn't be a problem. Note that is similar to the arguments proposed by quite a few groups, most notably fundamentalist religious folks. We both know that's never going to happen, no matter how much you would like it to. This doesn't and shouldn't mean that the "right thing to do" is allow ourselves to be killed, robbed, or otherwise taken advantage of, just because the number of people (or "people equivalents") who want to do so is equal to or greater than one. This theory turns morality and ethics into a simple math problem, but morality and ethics are much, much deeper than 2 > 1.

[Blake]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
Blake,

I'm really not trying to be an ass, so bear with me --

How do the constant gay jokes in your game reports jive with your Philosophy. (Yes, I'm fully prepared for the jokes about my login name -- momentary lapse of reason there).

Is all of this just flamebait? While I am new here, I never would have guessed 6 months ago that Blake the slave-rushing war monger agro AI programmer was a Buddhist vegan in favor of microcurrencies. Not really sure I buy it to be honest.

Well, I haven't always been a Buddhist - and technically I'm not a Buddhist since I don't follow any Buddhist school of teaching :P. I'm a "Genuine not a Buddhist" (okay "Genuine not a X" is a very obscure joke).

One thing I say is this:
"Nothing is so serious it cannot be joked about, nothing is so silly it cannot be taken seriously."

If you restrict your thinking to ways you are comfortable with, then you'll be forever stuck in a constricted mind :P.

So I WILL think about anything in any way.

Okay, getting back to me. I HAVE been non-violent all my life. I've literally never struck another person out of anger, not even once. At school some bullies would try testing me by standing in my way, I'd just push them out the way, not out of anger but just so I could get past :P. Non-violence has always worked superbly for me in real life.

Then again I did enjoy engaging in some creative-destruction in simulation, I've always been acutely aware of the difference between simulation and reality, and indeed, in many ways simulation is like a thought experiment - it's a way to explore a concept without engaging in it IRL, and often these concepts should be explored (see that thing about leaving your comfort zone of thought...).

Lately I've started clearing my head of everything, any lingering doubt and any cognitive dissonance. I've taken non-violence to it's logical conclusion, where not only will I not be violent to others, I also wont cause undue violence by proxy - whether deliberately, out of delusion, or apathy. I can simply say it brings me a lot of joy to not cause harm. As an example of this; and to indicate how serious I am about this.

I have a habit where I'll swat flying insects out of the sky, it's a reflex action, bug flies past - WHAM, dead bug. Every time I've killed a bug in that way, I've had the satisfaction of accurately hitting it, combined with a tiny bit of regret, that it wasn't actually necessary to do. Well, these days I don't bother with those tiny bits of regret, if something would cause even a tiny bit of regret, I don't do it. So I am unlearning that reflex action, and am letting those bugs be welcome in my personal space, they do no harm and it benefits me not to kill them, unlike say if they fly into a spider web and the spider eats them; that benefits the spider.

If I have a GOOD reason to kill a creature, I will do it and I wont regret it. But I wont kill for *any* kind of satisfaction, and that brings me a lot of joy.

So um, with games and stuff. In truth, I've quit playing them now. There's just a few I'm obligated to continue with and obligations are things to honor. Killing and dominating, even in a virtual context, is still "dirty satisfaction", it brings that little bit of regret. In the context of single-player, there are MUCH better things I could be doing with my time in any case - for instance, simply doing nothing. I've been finding that being less busy brings more enjoyment than being constantly distracted, having an immensely clear head is a very, very, very good feeling.

Is all of this just flamebait?

*shrug*

It could be said to be a spectator sport. I know I wont convince anyone who is dead set to argue with me, but people know what resorting to personal attacks means in an argument. My target audience is:
1) Anyone who will actually THINK about what I say.
2) Spectators.

Bear in mind, I'm TOTALLY not above doing something just to "See what happens", once I'm quite certain it will do no harm I will do things to see what happens. Like I've done things like jumping in a frozen ocean in the middle of the winter to see what it was like. My curiosity is much greater than my need for comfort.

I'm kind of impressed by how much I managed to work up some monkey-minds (it's the Buddhist term for the part of the mind which flings sh*t), so in a sense it was flamebait, but not deliberately so.

Hmm random rambling.


"Does less harm than it causes harm", this is an important concept and it's one you need to be able to apply thought to and not just say "It's impossibly subjective!". Use your own value judgment, other people are just as biased.

An always good example is when a plague of animals (Deer or possums or whatever) decimates a forest, the species is out of control because the system has been unbalanced, probably by human actions. I'd say that's the kind of case where it does less harm to kill some deer, than letting them all live. But bear in mind, that I personally would still not condone killing the deer for satisfaction, sure, eat the meat, it is medicine for the body, but treat the activity of killing the deer as medicine for the forest.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Flubber
I feel I honored those animals by enjoying them so thoroughly

QFT

Eating animals is a noble act that gives purpose to their otherwise meaningless existence

Us

[Blake]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Hmmm. Let's explore this for a second.

I assume you believe that you are no better or worse, intrinsically, than anyone else. That is, if you are worth 4 lions, then you are also worth 1 person. So, taking your example a step further, if two people are going to kill you, but you have the means to prevent them from doing so, and that means is to shoot them, do you do it?

Well, that's a bit different.

You see the lions have a very good reason to kill, they HAVE to eat meat in order to survive, and most likely, they don't kill more than they need to in order to eat.
However humans have not nearly so important reasons for killing, they kill for wasteful reasons.

Are these two people killing me because they are very hungry and I really am the only available food? Have we talked it over and agreed that I am the best to be eaten? In that case I'd have no problem with it.

Lets say they want to kill me for other reasons.
Bear in mind, that I'm a total pacifist who wont hurt anyone and will help anyone who asks me for help, or even seems to need help.

You should bear that in mind strongly; I would assume that the fact they want to kill me, means they suffer deeply from some kind of delusion.

You should bear in mind how difficult it is to harm a fearless pacifist - not fearless in the sense of arrogance, but fearless as in completely accepting. Like smiling calmly at the knifeman, and saying "Go on. Stab me. It's okay, it really is. I wont hate you, I've already forgiven you." saying that with the eyes and facial expression, simply not fearing the violent person, from the bottom of the heart.

You see, people are always violent for a reason. That reason is intimidation, if someone is not being intimidated, not in the least, then suddenly the violent person realizes something - their HAMMER has stopped working! Most likely their hammer is the only tool they have in dealing with other people. Also it's easy to kill someone who hates you, it's not so easy to kill someone who doesn't hate you - when you kill someone who hates you, there is one less person who hates you in the world. When you kill someone who doesn't hate you've got a bunch of new people who hate you in the world - and people will be reluctant to suffer that - they want their actions to at least have a tiny sliver of "good", they want their killing to be pointfull, even if it's a really lame point.

Sincere non-violence is a remarkably effective defense and I certainly would trust my life to it. There are two cases where it generally wont work:
1) Chain of command and Separation. Here the person giving the "Execute" order, is detached from the scene. The person doing the execute order, is compelled to obey. When the person doing the executing is further removed from the scene and/or with long range weapons and such, it's much harder to break their resolve.
2) Psychosis. Someone could be genuinely crazy, like they have rabies.

The approach is difference.
Against 1) what is unlikely to be effective is killing the assassins - that just generates more hate, and more assassins will be sent. So the thing to do is to either die pointfully (helping to expose the evil which allowed a man of peace to be killed), or to seek sanctuary. Neither one is particularly favored, although perhaps one will be disfavored, like perhaps there actually is no sanctuary available...

Against 2) this is an excellent example where it's fine to kill, if it's the only way. Obviously a mentally functioning pacifist is a greater blessing than a psycho whose brain has melted. But when I say that it's fine to kill, I don't mean to kill first and ask questions later. People who lost control of their mind are less than formidable opponents and the simple strategy of "Running away" should be more than effective. So in this case, the reason to kill, is the suspicion that the psycho will kill others if he's not killed.
Part of wise action is abandoning the concept of "No blood on my hands", if someone needs to die for the good of the community, the pacifist needs to be prepared to do that killing - "No satisfaction, no regret". Again however, there must be clear need for the killing and it's difficult to find such need, compared with a less-than-lethal (or maybe lethal) means to subdue them.

I honestly find it nearly impossible to place myself in a credible situation where I would have both the means and the justification to kill. Say for instance there's a super-strong psycho who can only be taken down with a powerful rifle and he's running amok through a bunch of toddlers. That would justify killing him - but I'm never going to carry around a high powered rifle because that would inspire fear in many people and truthfully there are very few super-strong psychos running around....

A somewhat valid argument for you would be to claim that if everyone adopted your Way, then this wouldn't be a problem.

Very astute!

And that's EXACTLY the stance I take. In fact it's that very thought I had that STARTED me off along My Way - I decided "Hey wait a second, why not just act in a way which, if everyone acted, the world would be a better place", and I started doing just that - you should bear in mind, I had that thought BEFORE I started the "Better AI" project... I've been traveling My Way for quite a while now.

Here's some rationalized assumptions though:
1) That the benefits of acting in immense good will will bring me more benefits than acting selfishly would.
Think of it this way, by acting out of immense good will, I will make many good friends who will do anything for me. If I only act selfishly I will make far fewer friends.
Here I assume that the social benefits outweigh the social negatives, for me PERSONALLY, not just for the good of society.

This turns out to be completely true. As I've become more skillful I've found that have a clear mind results in being tremendously confident and charismatic individual. I honestly swear that this would be the best thing around for people wanting to be able to effortlessly woo women, except it also comes with a curious desire to empower people rather than mess with their heads .

2) That it's contagious.

If, during my entire life, I can influence even a few people to join The Way of inner and outer peace, then that more than justifies the effort expended.

So far I have managed to influence some people in what I consider is for the better.

Influencing people is a VERY difficult thing, this comes down to wise action:

"Wise action"
Understand the problem.
Commit, for as long as it may take.

If I really want to influence someone, I have to understand them very well, I need to understand what's holding them back from achieving the potential I see in them. Once I understand that, I can then talk to them directly and personally, they'll find it nearly impossible to dismiss what I say, because I AM talking to them personally, persistently and all that jazz.
Wise action involves tremendous commitment, so if I've determined to help them, I can't just "help and run". The personal approach is very effective, but it's also a very slow way to pass out little bits of "The Way".
Of course, this kind of action is not visible to anyone other than the recipient, I can justify it anyway, because anyone I strongly influence, WILL go on to strongly influence and inspire other people...

Note that I fully recognize how terrifying it is to deliberately influence people, it's not something I'd ever do if I wasn't putting my friendship on the line. It's always possible to inadvertently influence someone for the worse (the road to hell ya de da), but if I'm trying to teach something of understanding, then a cherished friendship makes a good wager. "I bet our friendship that I can influence the way you think, for the better".


The other way to influence people, EFFECTIVELY, is this concept:
"Actions speak louder than words"

Words are easy to dismiss, if you talk too much and act too little, then you become someone who is all talk.
Note however that talking is itself an action, if someone knowingly puts their reputation on the line to say something, then regardless of their WORDS, they have made a powerful ACTION.
In fact anytime someone says something, it means that it was important enough to them that they actually said it...

I'd never go preaching where I don't have any reputation, because it would just be all talk. My words are worthless if I don't put any reputation on the line.

More generally, visible actions, which benefit others (and the self), are a good thing, they do inspire. They wont inspire everyone, but maybe one or two people will be inspired.

The point is, that anyone who is inspired, goes on to inspire others, goodness is contagious :P.

[DaShi]

But what if you're assumptions are wrong?