Free-will and Atheism

Post Reply New Topic

Does any part of the eco-system benefit from their existence? Ok, ticks might serve as food for hungry birds and predatory arthropods, but all internal and permanently attached external parasites serve no ecological function whatsoever. The same goes for pathogenic bacteria, protozoa and yeasts. I'd say we should find a way to kill the bastards.[/quote]

Though I really want to agree with the pathogenic bacteria statement, I would argue that we are perceived to be those things to other people in our ecosystem. Think of all the resources we're using on earth so we can live our life. It doesn't matter if it negatively affects other species on this planet, as long as we're happy. It's a bit hypocritical for us to do the same, and not allow anyone else to do it.

Lastly, if we keep on exterminating things, what happens when we go up the ecosystem? Say, we get to birds? Now what do we decide...do we ask the world and take a vote? This is where discrimination comes into play. Where do we draw the line, and who the heck gets to decide what's good and bad?

I also do want to add a realistic statement: not many people, including myself, will die just to prove a point on negatively discriminating between species. Until there's another way to solve this, and until we know more about the implications, we can only ponder.

We've already decided it's not terribly important. There is a mass extinction going on. lol. If we arent eating them, we are taking their habitat.

Factory farms are disgusting. Personally I still eat some meat but I also eat fake meat. i can do a variety of things with it. Once we perfect the growing of aritificial meat I expect factory farms to go the way of the bull fights. Or at least be diminished in scale. But that will take time.

Though I really want to agree with the pathogenic bacteria statement, I would argue that we are perceived to be those things to other people in our ecosystem. Think of all the resources we're using on earth so we can live our life. It doesn't matter if it negatively affects other species on this planet, as long as we're happy. It's a bit hypocritical for us to do the same, and not allow anyone else to do it.

Lastly, if we keep on exterminating things, what happens when we go up the ecosystem? Say, we get to birds? Now what do we decide...do we ask the world and take a vote? This is where discrimination comes into play. Where do we draw the line, and who the heck gets to decide what's good and bad?

I also do want to add a realistic statement: not many people, including myself, will die just to prove a point on negatively discriminating between species. Until there's another way to solve this, and until we know more about the implications, we can only ponder.[/quote]

good and bad are not universal concepts, no one can decide them.

But people are when they discriminate?

people are??

please explain what you mean

My point was that if nothing dies, then all the mechanics that normally govern death must be off too. You do know there are research species of bacteria that multiply wildly so one can quickly observe changes to the organism over generations in relation to changes in conditions, diet, lighting, etc.

In an ideal environment, a bacteria cell can divide approximately every 20 minutes.


Bacterial Growth in a Single Bacteria Cell Dividing Every 20 Minutes over 24 hours.

Time Bacterial Count

9:00 a.m. 1
10:00 a.m. 8
11:00 a.m. 64
12:00 p.m. 512
1:00 p.m. 4,000
2:00 p.m. 32,000
3:00 p.m. 262,000
4:00 p.m. 2,000,000
5:00 p.m. 16,000,000
6:00 p.m. 134,000,000
7:00 p.m. 1,072,000,000
8:00 p.m. 8,576,000,000
9:00 p.m. 68,608,000,000
10:00 p.m. 548,864,000,000
11:00 p.m. 4,390,912,000,000
12:00 a.m. 35,127,296,000,000
1:00 a.m. 281,018,368,000,000
2:00 a.m. 2,248,146,944,000,000
3:00 a.m. 17,985,175,552,000,000
4:00 a.m. 143,881,404,416,000,000
5:00 a.m. 1,151,051,235,328,000,000
6:00 a.m. 9,208,409,882,624,000,000
7:00 a.m. 73,667,279,060,992,000,000
8:00 a.m. 589,338,232,487,936,000,000
9:00 a.m. 4,714,705,859,903,488,000,000

4,714,705,859,903,488,000,000 bacteria at 200 nanometers in size, (very small by the way) is 3,771,764,687,922,790.4 cubic meters of bacteria. From just one bacteria in 24 hours if nothing died. Now think of the seas...or what lives on your skin.

Check my math please.

Now if things that can't find food just going to some suspended state and don't reproduce, (like in the center of the mass), then growth would drop off substantially. But if the bacteria arranged themselves into a microbial mat, complete with micro-piping to distribute food and remove waste, well then it would still grow and reproduce.

I won.

Thanks Pat. I'll take the gift certificate.

I was referring to when we discriminate between what life should and shouldn't exist. I understand your point: good and bad aren't universal concepts, which solidifies my reason. I don't believe we should get rid of life because it doesn't personally appeal to us. Everything is socially biased, or I guess culturally biased might be more appropriate...


I guess this might be a better way to look at it. I'm allergic to tree nuts (go into anaphylaxis shock). I will die if I don't seek medical attention. To me, it would be beneficial to get rid of all tree nuts, but then no one else would be able to eat them. Just like I can presumably eat other things besides tree nuts, certain animals could eat other things besides tics. Tree nuts are off limits to me. Tics would be off limits to them. I can only speak for myself, but I would like the option of eating tree nuts.

discrimination works both ways.

tree nuts are life, in a way the procreationa tool of the specie, much like our embryos.

i cant find a logical reason nor moral reason why one should consider absolutely all life sacred, i think the value of life is immeasurable but that is not the same as saying death is inherently bad.
things die, things get killed and its perfectly natural and unavoidable even in the best of societies.

dont get me wrong i loathe the casual way some people kill, especially when it has far reaching consequences, i just dont think that its realistic even in an ideal world to look at all life as sacred.

What about viruses and prions?

Now there you're heading into awkward territory. Many would say that a virus is not alive (and a prion even less alive than a virus). They're just machines that replicate themselves. The problem is, you could say the same about most so-called living things. Determining the difference between life and non-life is a puzzle that none have yet been able to solve.

Even certain buckyballs and nanotubes can self-assemble, but I would say they do not reproduce.

I can see what you mean when you say death doesn't mean inherently bad; that might be one person's view and not someone elses view. We're potentially placing a meaning on something that might have no meaning at all.


Getting rid of something altogether would leave no view as it would supposedly be gone forever. In this sense, there would be no option. I guess we could leave a sample in a lab somewhere, and take it out if we ever wanted it back. Does anyone think that it could be taken out of hand if we were to start the process of eradicating certain life? Who would decide? I guess if the consequences of eradication are not beneficial, we might have the chance to start over.

I agree that factory farms are horrid places from the animal POV. I'll certainly not argue against humane treatment of animals and that certain practices need to be changed right away. But they do provide a quick and efficient way of growing and processing meat. In some ways, perhaps due to the efforts of animal rights activists, treatment of animals might actually be better than non-factory farm treatment. My grandfather raised his own free-range chickens, usually just for the fresh eggs. I've seen two methods of killing them--one involving bare hands and one involving a hatchet. Either way, you have a chicken running around with a floppy head or spraying blood everywhere; if I did the same thing where I live now I think I'd be just as disturbed by the sight of it as I was when I was a kid, and probably a lot more so if I had to do it myself. I've also seen chickens held by their feet having their heads slammed against a tree trunk--which does little more than disorient the chicken and takes several tries before the bird dies.

If you can handle that, of course, and if it were me I'd hold the bird still after using the hatchet, then you have the prospect of processing the meat yourself. Ever seen the insides of a chicken? I've cleaned my own fish before and had enough trouble with that. I'm not sure I'd enjoy a more complex organism.

The advantage of factory farms is that an animal can go from living to dinner in a few seconds. I don't see why this is a problem exactly. The real issue is the treatment of animals while they're still alive.

I don't have an issue with alternative like synthetic meat. But isn't it a bit like reinventing the wheel? If you can get protein from good ol' Mother Nature and get it easily, what's really the point of synthesizing it? If you object to factory farm practices, raising cage-free chickens in your own back yard isn't really that much trouble. You'd need a fence to keep out wild animals; heavy-duty scissors for periodic wing-clipping on one side to keep them from flying over the fence (and yes, feathers DO grow back); lumber, nails, sheet metal, and door hinges/latches to build a roost and nesting boxes; and water/feed troughs. Ideally you'll want to keep a patch of ground dry and free of vegetation so they can take dust baths, and you have to put sand out every now and then for the birds to eat to aid digestion since they don't have teeth. That's really all you need. For processing chickens, you just need a tree stump (an upright log will do), a hatchet, and a steady hand. Any good kitchen or utility knife will take care of the nasty business of cleaning the innards. You can optionally save the liver and the gizzard if you like (the gizzard is the tough stomach muscle used to grind food before passing back it back into the digestive organs--it has a similar texture as cube steak). The taste of fried liver wears me thin after a while, but I could eat my body weight in fried gizzards! And, of course, I would recommend digging a place in the back of the yard but away from the birds to bury guts and feathers. Sure, it makes for great compost, but more practically discarding remains in the open draws wild animals and other pests--which in turn will discover your live birds. So, finally, it's also a good idea to keep a water hose and a bucket handy for cleaning birds; else you can smell the stench of rot for miles. Just remember to rinse the bucket well after you've discarded the innards and feathers.

I'm hungry...

Anyway...I'm not opposed to synthetic proteins, but I do wonder if it's really necessary when animals like chickens are walking protein factories all their own.

^^

Yeah-but. Should grown up folks continue to believe in fairy tales?

ruveyn