^^^How so? Does "capable" mean "will" or "must"?
Capable - able to achieve efficiently whatever one has to do; competent.
<>
^^^How so? Does "capable" mean "will" or "must"?
^^^Which also brings up the next question if chickens go to heaven and foxes go to hell.
Seems you missed the qualification of "most humans". It would seem grossly unfair to be selective about "moral conduct". As a boy, would stealing an apple from someone's orchard land you in hell?How so? Does "capable" mean "will" or "must"?
Would not put vegetarians down as evilAren't vegetarians evil then by raising defenseles
Yep, the exponential function in all it's glory, unless we switched to "Soylent Greens"...Would not put vegetarians down as evil
I would say misguided
If all humans in the world became vegetarians currently not enough land growing enough plants to sustain current world population
Doing it slowly would still require massive increase in vegetable growing land
I would expect a lowering of
- life expectancy
- energy levels
- increase in infectious disease due to body lower resistance
Again, does "able" mean "will" or "must"?^^^
Capable - able to achieve efficiently whatever one has to do; competent.
Moral judgement about foxes killing chickens.I believe you fundamentally understand the metaphor, however, ....Moral judgement about what?
What changed is our Intelligence, IMO, but that does not imply "moral judgement". It implies that we divorced ourselves from the then natural state and were able to create our own environment, more or less divorced from the natural state. Which prompted the next metaphor of being kicked out from Eden. IMO.
The only selective part is the individual's conduct.Seems you missed the qualification of "most humans". It would seem grossly unfair to be selective about "moral conduct". As a boy, would stealing an apple from someone's orchard land you in hell?
Does it make a difference? All things feed on each other. They always have, starting billions of years ago. Why should humans be punished for that which is fundamental.Moral judgement about foxes killing chickens.
Why would humans be punished for foxes killing chickens?Does it make a difference? All things feed on each other. They always have, starting billions of years ago. Why should humans be punished for that which is fundamental.
What ever happen to peak oil?The problem, IMO, does not lie in survival techniques, but in "greed" which seems peculiar to humans only. It is greed which is depleting the ecosphere and will be punished, not by God but by by Natural Law itself. Its all in the mathematics. Take too much now, later you will run short.
There is actually an expression "strenght through exhaustion". Therein lies our "mortal sin".
A friend of mine once stopped me in my tracks, with a line of argument that had never occurred to me.Would not put vegetarians down as evil
I would say misguided
The only selective part is the individual's conduct.
Isn't there a measure of intent involved in "eternal damnation"?
Do they? Hunting and killing foxes used to be a favorite pastime for the elite. We kill chickens for food, nobody gets damned for eating a chicken sandwich.Vociferous said,
Why would humans be punished for foxes killing chickens?
We're long past that and on the downslope of recoverable oil. It's estimated that in 40 years we will run out of crude oil and will be forced to use a different energy source. If we switch to electrical energy generated with coal, the same thing will happen eventually.What ever happen to peak oil?
Not as far a I know.Do they? Hunting and killing foxes used to be a favorite pastime for the elite. We kill chickens for food, nobody gets damned for eating a chicken sandwich.
Oh, so there's a new peak oil prediction.We're long past that and on the downslope of recoverable oil. It's estimated that in 40 years we will run out of crude oil and will be forced to use a different energy source. If we switch to electrical energy generated with coal, the same thing will happen eventually.
Remember the phrase "limited resource", which means exactly that. When the recoverable limit is reached the resource will be exhausted for practical use. This is the result of the Law of exponential function .
Indeed, our very intelligence is a double edged sword.And I realized that our giant brains gave us ability to manipulate our environment as we saw fit. And that door swings both ways.
When has a human been punished for a wild fox eating a chicken? Who do you sue, the fox?Not as far a I know.
No idea where you're trying to go with this.
As long as we have a steady population growth we will be increasing oil production, but at cost of longevity, it's all in the maths.Oh, so there's a new peak oil prediction.
I don't get it. Did someone argue that?When has a human been punished for a wild fox eating a chicken? Who do you sue, the fox?
But new technology, like fracking and electric cars. Also declining birth rates (even below replacement rates) in many countries.As long as we have a steady population growth we will be increasing oil production, but at cost of longevity, it's all in the maths.
Your original post seemed to suggest it. Perhaps I misunderstood you.I don't get it. Did someone argue that?
I covered that in the qualification of "recoverable oil".But new technology, like fracking and electric cars. Also declining birth rates (even below replacement rates) in many countries.
http://www.worldometers.info/94,703,095 Oil pumped today (barrels)
1,588,602,680,224 Oil left (barrels)
16,567 Days to the end of oil (~45 years)
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/apr/21/oilandpetrol.newsThe end of oil is closer than you think
"The world holds enough proved reserves for 40 years of supply and at least 60 years of gas supply at current consumption rates," said BP this week.
Right, that's why I used it as an example. If it did show that, my using it as an example would have been very odd. Heck, one could own a fox and a chicken, or a dog and chicken, dogs being larger canines than foxes. And this would not prove the owner was insane or dumb. Very different even opposing types of inventions, products, could serve the purposes of one agent. Which contradicts the OP. The OP is a poor argument. It makes no sense. Someone should only create things that are alike in temperment, skills, activity. Nah. Humans, even very smart ones, do not limit themselves this way, why should a deity?^^^
Having a stapler & staple remover does not make it seem 2 people use the desk. Same with having a cat & a dog & all the rest.
<>
If you eat animals, you are causing the deaths of more plants than if you are a vegetarian, since the animals we raise to eat, themselves eat a lot of plants - per pound of edible protein, for example. So we grow plants to feed to the animals we are going to eat. So actually a vegetarian is causing less animal death AND less plant death through their eating.Aren't vegetarians evil then by raising defenseless plants in killing fields just to eat them?
If so, I guess I'm worshiping the banana God right now.
That is so a breakfast prayer.If you eat animals, you are causing the deaths of more plants than if you are a vegetarian, since the animals we raise to eat, themselves eat a lot of plants - per pound of edible protein, for example. So we grow plants to feed to the animals we are going to eat. So actually a vegetarian is causing less animal death AND less plant death through their eating.
Meat can be smoked and stored for winter when food is in short supply.If you eat animals, you are causing the deaths of more plants than if you are a vegetarian, since the animals we raise to eat, themselves eat a lot of plants - per pound of edible protein, for example. So we grow plants to feed to the animals we are going to eat. So actually a vegetarian is causing less animal death AND less plant death through their eating.
Yes, I think you did. I wasn't talking about god's moral judgement. Just human moral judgement about things like killing for food.Your original post seemed to suggest it. Perhaps I misunderstood you.