Strategies for Universal Wellness

[thelerner]

As the Ice Bucket Challenge thread was spinning out of control Marblehead wrote this and I thought it might be a good launching point for a discussion. Not another Save the World thread, but a what makes sense, and how does ethics enter into Our and the Worlds future actions.

 

He wrote:

First, I must state that I am an omnivour and I have no problem with some animals eating other animals because that is the way nature designed the planet.

 

In an ideal world, animals could be bred in a controlled environment for the sole purpose of using for testing. And the Chinese could stop causing the extinction of various species for the purpose of tribal medicines that don't work.

 

And all humans could control their birth rate so that the population is sustainable without causing the destruction of habitates that other species need in order to not become extinct.

 

In reality, morality has nothing to do with it. It is simple logic and common sense.

[Protector]

Whenever I hear "ideal world" I want to jump out the window

[dust]

ooo

oo

o

Edited July 5, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Rara]

Whenever I hear "ideal world" I want to jump out the window

Ok but he didn't use that term specifically and it isn't what's being implied. This is merely a discussion about identifying things that are wrong and finding ways that could correct them universally.

 

I'll be the first to say that there are no set in stone solutions, but the thread can be used to help people come together and unify on some points.

 

Unification is so important, and yet so devestating if people unify with evil. So I can't appreciate the attitude of "not another one of these threads". Do you give up this easily always? Running from a challenge?

[Rara]

As the Ice Bucket Challenge thread was spinning out of control Marblehead wrote this and I thought it might be a good launching point for a discussion. Not another Save the World thread, but a what makes sense, and how does ethics enter into Our and the Worlds future actions.

 

He wrote:

First, I must state that I am an omnivour and I have no problem with some animals eating other animals because that is the way nature designed the planet.

 

In an ideal world, animals could be bred in a controlled environment for the sole purpose of using for testing. And the Chinese could stop causing the extinction of various species for the purpose of tribal medicines that don't work.

 

And all humans could control their birth rate so that the population is sustainable without causing the destruction of habitates that other species need in order to not become extinct.

 

In reality, morality has nothing to do with it. It is simple logic and common sense.

Do you think this could be more appropriate to General Discussion? Just a thought.

 

I will start by going off what MH was talking about. We all have our own idea of what is and what isn't appropriate. I am challenging MH in the other thread between the difference between this, or what nature does/allows and morality.

 

Sure we can eat animals - and maybe it's just tough that some HAVE to for survival purposes.

 

But here's where I argue that morals do have something to do with it. For example, is there a moral difference between one that eats just a leg or two of chicken in the evening to satisfy one's needs, to the glutton that piles 4 different meats in a naan bread, covers it in peri peri sauce and gorges? Is there a difference? Is one more moral than the other? The latter is needless...more life could have been preserved (universal wellness)

 

Is universal wellness in our best intererest? Or is it ok to join the "dog-eat-dog" mentality and live more selfishly for one's satisfaction?

 

MH also talks about the things we "could" be doing, and I know what he means. But who can enforce these rules? And what determines whether these are the best ways, or in my terms, moral?

 

Such a big can of worms here, and I feel that being in general discussion, ignoring stubborn trolls/offensive ones, this can be a very powerful debate.

[Rara]

I know why many people are in favour of animal testing -- they want to live forever. They want to control life, tell nature to "go fuck itself" *, and use animals and anything else they can to make their own lives longer.

 

Talking about life in relation Daoism, however... Why are we so concerned with making ourselves live longer? The harder we try to cling on to life, the less of it we 'get'.

 

Planet Earth humans are not going to exist forever. Earth isn't going to exist forever. We concern ourselves so much with population control, saving species, the 'ethical' implications of everything... but in the end, I think people would be better off realising that it's all a waste of time. Just be as nice as you can, and be happy.

 

_{* this isn't a particularly conservative forum, I assume such language is acceptable?}

Absolutely. But ALS for example, fundraising to find a cure for a killer disease. Why should some settle for having a disease early on in life and have their parents outlive them?

 

Could we work in moderation and help people more? Or are animal lives just as important as people's and therefore we prioritise universal wellbeing over just out own?

[GrandmasterP]

If more people cycled regularly then wellness might abound.

 

[thelerner]

I know why many people are in favour of animal testing -- they want to live forever. They want to control life, tell nature to "go fuck itself" *, and use animals and anything else they can to make their own lives longer.

 

Talking about life in relation Daoism, however... Why are we so concerned with making ourselves live longer? The harder we try to cling on to life, the less of it we 'get'.

 

Planet Earth humans are not going to exist forever. Earth isn't going to exist forever. We concern ourselves so much with population control, saving species, the 'ethical' implications of everything... but in the end, I think people would be better off realising that it's all a waste of time. Just be as nice as you can, and be happy.

 

_{* this isn't a particularly conservative forum, I assume such language is acceptable?}

I agree with the conclusion, 'be nice be happy', but along the way make things better. We can use animal testing (within reason and under humane regulations) to understand and find cures for diseases. We may not last forever but the next 100 years will be particularly challenging for our species and most of us will live through at least half of it.

 

These days I'm concerned with the sweet spot. If we're not concerned with living longer, we may eat poorly, live in poor health and die younger. Yet we don't want to live as monks either. There's a sweet spot, where we can find healthy passions that improve our lives.

 

Same with the environment, I don't believe in obsessing, but there are simple things we can do to minimize our footprint.

[dust]

Could we work in moderation and help people more? Or are animal lives just as important as people's and therefore we prioritise universal wellbeing over just out own?

 

I agree with the conclusion, 'be nice be happy', but along the way make things better. We can use animal testing (within reason and under humane regulations) to understand and find cures for diseases.

 

I wasn't trying to suggest that we shouldn't care about people with ALS, or any other debilitating illness. I like to help people, and if everyone was apathetic, the world would be an awful place. But 100% apathy is not possible. There will always be a roughly equal amount of good and bad, happy and sad, caring and not caring. And, in my opinion, no human cleverness has ever made things "better".

 

When we invent machines do help us do our work, the atmosphere becomes polluted and we risk destroying life as we know it; when we discover and utilise antibiotics to help cure ourselves of some horrible diseases, we become resistant to them and potentially worse diseases take their place; when we cure disease and illness itself, and effectively fight global warming, and figure out how to prevent war and intolerance, everyone will live for 100 years, and there will be even more of us than there are now, and we'll all die anyway from lack of resources.

 

Doesn't Laozi warn against trying too hard?

 

 

These days I'm concerned with the sweet spot. If we're not concerned with living longer, we may eat poorly, live in poor health and die younger. Yet we don't want to live as monks either. There's a sweet spot, where we can find healthy passions that improve our lives.

 

If one wants to be happy, and understands what that really means, then I think that a healthy lifestyle will usually play a fairly logical part...

[Rara]

 

 

I wasn't trying to suggest that we shouldn't care about people with ALS, or any other debilitating illness. I like to help people, and if everyone was apathetic, the world would be an awful place. But 100% apathy is not possible. There will always be a roughly equal amount of good and bad, happy and sad, caring and not caring. And, in my opinion, no human cleverness has ever made things "better".

 

When we invent machines do help us do our work, the atmosphere becomes polluted and we risk destroying life as we know it; when we discover and utilise antibiotics to help cure ourselves of some horrible diseases, we become resistant to them and potentially worse diseases take their place; when we cure disease and illness itself, and effectively fight global warming, and figure out how to prevent war and intolerance, everyone will live for 100 years, and there will be even more of us than there are now, and we'll all die anyway from lack of resources.

 

Doesn't Laozi warn against trying too hard?

 

 

 

If one wants to be happy, and understands what that really means, then I think that a healthy lifestyle will usually play a fairly logical part...

Absolutely..and I didn't mean to imply not caring for people with illness. On the contrary, I was talking about us finding more useful ways to care.

 

For there are lots of things that people do where they (in a deluded way) believe they are doing a good thing, but are not aware of the potential damage.

 

Take the war in Iraq for example. That hardly went to plan.

 

So this thread can cover many topics of "universal wellness". "Universal" in two senses: for all living beings and for all scenarios!