A world without predators certainly sounds extreme, and it is. But British philosopher David Pearce can't imagine a future in which animals continue to be trapped in the never-ending cycle of blind Darwinian processes. It's up to us, he argues, to put our brains, our technologies, and our sense of compassion to good use, and do something about it. It's part of his overarching Hedonistic Imperative, a far-sighted "abolitionist project" set with the goal of achieving nothing less than the elimination of all suffering on the planet. And by all suffering, he means all suffering. (read more)I thought this was an Onion parody type of article, but, as I read on I came around to the conclusion that it is not a parody. This guy means business.
What do you think? Is this a good idea, or, Is this guy off his rocker?
20 comments:
The Phantom did this years ago on his island "Eden."
It's a brilliant idea. And there is a rich history of success in man's well-intended efforts to alter nature's order of things.
We never fail to get it right. Its a gift humans have that lets us fully and instantly comprehend the results of actions we undertake.
I say go for it! Make Earth better now!
Sorry, but I have to dash off now. It's my day to remove the kudzu from the children before they head off to school.
One of the most powerful tenets of Catholicism is that God tests us to the limits of our ability to endure.
My late wife, who was more Buddhist, taught me that evil has an important purpose in this world, and that attempts to eradicate evil are... well, evil.
This desire to eradicate all pain and suffering is totalitarian. Like all totalitarian ideologies, the hedonism ideology will only increase the pain and suffering that the ideologues intended to fix.
Nothing new ever seems to come along. Wasn't communism supposed to eradicate human pain and suffering by eliminating conflict, competition, class privilege and material want? How did that turn out?
You mean like vegetarians trying to put their dogs (or even worse) their cats on vegetarian diets? How does that work out?
I am all for you laying off the beef, but unless you have a four chambered stomach like mine and the ability to digest grass, I am not going to give you a hard time about getting the protein you need.
He really goes off the rails in the paragraph below "A Pan Species Welfare State?"
His plan boils down to communism, forced mood changes, abolition of consuming animal protein, ending corporate farms, guaranteed welfare for humans AND animal species, etc.
It boils down to global dictatorial communism for all species, along with re-programming them to behave in a manner he believes correct.
The author's plan is deeply evil. Like so many other plans put forth by the progressive left, it first requires that humans give up their birthright freedoms. At its core, the plan isn't about other species; it is about total control of the world's humans.
We've seen that before on a national scale, and it never, never worked.
Nuts.
I thought it was just the far right wing religious fanatics who didn't believe in evolution aka "the never-ending cycle of blind Darwinian processes".
I guess the far left moon eyed fruit bats (no offense eric) also don't believe in evolution.
Very few small animals survive to reproduce. The species strategy is flood the food chain, and a few make it.
Stop eating them, and you'd instantly have wall-to-wall everything.
Figure for cute baby robins, there are three broods of four a year, breeding life say three years, so two produce three dozen offspring.
Of these, two have to survive.
The robin population is not increasing, so I guess two do.
Scratch ANY "progressive" and underneath you'll find a proto-totalitarian.
Perhaps his survival to an age where he can spout these things is the best evidence for an insufficiently robust evolutionary competition. What I think he really fears is the stealthy approach of young lions hungry to devour him in what he recently thought was a safe, tenured, and endowed chair.
"Perhaps his survival to an age where he can spout these things is the best evidence for an insufficiently robust evolutionary competition."
:)
Just have to get rid of all the suffering causers. For the greater good...
Who gets to define suffering? You know who has caused the most suffering? Philosophers. They get people worked up and compose coherentish ways of crushing the little flowers that stand in the way of supposed progress.
Philosophers are much more dangerous than lions or tigers or bears.
Oh my.
rh makes a good point. We'd all be literally picking a path through rabbits (and all the other creatures born to be et) if it weren't for carnivores.
Wasn't communism supposed to eradicate human pain and suffering...?
Even on paper communism is a radical revolt against reality (or the order of things if you prefer) to anyone beyond total innocence. And that's its appeal. But only to that tiny sliver of humanity that lives to make revolutions, to overturn the applecart. ARM knows what I'm talking about.
What do you say we start with the parasitic species first, and even before that, get rid of the parasites within our own species. Start small or you're just a dreamer.
How to defeat the lefty mind set: Just let them talk. Sooner or later they'll offend everyone.
@Armatel, Let them talk? Naw, just cut them off by saying "Anything you say, Robespierre."
Start with the mosquitoes and see how it goes from there. Maybe move up to bed bugs.
Post a Comment