The Evil of Man

I find it funny how they say that it takes X amount of grains to feed a cow, and if that grain went to feed people directly, more people can be fed.
My question is; why the hell aren't we feeding these cows grass? I mean, it grows itself and it grows fast.
I suppose if you want to pack a bunch of cows in a pen the grass doesn't grow very well.
So put them in a field, may as well, because all that grain growing takes up space, put cows there instead and let the grass grow instead of going to the trouble and expense and energy use to grow grain.

Then we all win, we have happier cows roaming grassy fields, better tasting meat, less fuel burnt harvesting grain.

To summarize:
Why the hell do we feed cows grain, when they are happy eating plentiful fast growing grass?

PS, I have eaten meat all my life and will continue to do so, animals eat meat, humans eat meat, we aren't going to stop eating it either.
I could not imagine giving up meat.

Ive watched the whole video and cant help but wounder if some people didn't bother watching it before making their criticisms.

In my opinion this was a thought provoking and sometimes disturbing look at human attitudes to other life forms. Most of what i witnessed disgusted me. For me the problem is not whether or not you eat meat, wear leather or keep pets. Its how much you respect the life forms that inhabit this planet.If you kill with disregard, inflict pain for amusement and exploit without thought of the victim... then you are doomed to eventually feel the repercussions of your actions.

Some parts of the video i couldn't agree with. Comparing the slaughter of Animals with the holocaust, or any other human on human atrocity, is not valid in my opinion.

While i feel that we should respect all life i do not see all life as my equal. If i see Dog and a man about to fall off a cliff i would try to grab the man. If the man was not there i would grab the Dog. I respect the Dog because it is a life form, like me, but i value the mans life more because the connection is closer. I know that if the man falls off he could leave a wife, kids, friends, without a loved one, maybe without a provider, So my connection is closer.

I think the biggest problem we have is with the industrialisation of our food. The corporates have got there fingers into food chain and turned it into a commodity. Modern farms often look more like a car production plant then agricultural land and the video reinforced this opinion. I do not blame the farmers or the people who work in the slaughter house's. They are like soldiers in war.... they have seen so much mechanised death that it has become normal. Animal after Animal, sometimes one every few seconds in some chicken farms. Death is an everyday experience and, just like the soldier who has been in to many battles, when it all gets to much atrocities are committed. They are victims like us... us brainwashed people who, when eating a burger, still manages to conjure up some romantic vision of daisy the cow wondering through some buttercups in a lush green field.

I blame the corporates, who brainwash us and put pressure on the farmer. The corporates, with their supermarkets and fast-food chains, have pulled off a maneuver that any great military tactition would be proud of. It started in the 1950's and they targeted young, just like with smoking, they made it cool to buy their products, they get famous people to advertise their company, they put additives in food to make it taste sweeter, colouring to make it look nicer, and they target it at the children. Kids are watching their heroes eating manufactured sloop and making it look cool. Mmmmm tasty!! And once they got that first generation of kids it was easy... And thus the food industry was born... Animals ceased being creatures and became commodities...

I will not stop eating meat because of this video. But it has made me consider the amount of meat i consume (although we always buy free-range)

I think the narrator summed it up well when he said...

"As we look back on how essential animals are for human survival,
our absolute dependence on them for companionship, food, clothing, sport as well as medical research and science, ironically we only see mans disrespect for these non human providers... without a doubt this must be what it is, to bite the hand that feeds you"

((I preface this by saying that I'm an omnivore myself. However, I am seriously debating becoming a vegetarian as a first step towards ending my tacit and passive compliance with the irrational practice of animal farming.))

Man is cruel, nature is cruel, we are not above nature, we are a part of it.
Get over it.

Right, we're a part of nature. But, I refuse to get over it until we've considered another glaring factor:
We are animals with the capacity to _reason_. Thus, we have a moral obligation to nature, and everything in nature -- up to, and including, humans.

Yes, humans were created by nature, but we have 'input-responsiveness'...

It leaves room for us to vary our behavior in response to what we hear or feel or touch or see... It leaves room for us to vary our desires in accordance with what we learn... It leaves room for us to be influenced by information gathered from others. Finally, it leaves room for us to be affected by the attitudes of others. In other words, it makes us responsive to the moral climate.

(taken from Being Good by Simon Blackburn, p. 45)

In short, Nature designed us to be flexible. (And yes, our diets can be flexible while still getting everything that our bodies require to keep functioning.)

It's an evolutionary mechanism. If it wasn't for our ability to efficiently and heartlessly kill, we wouldn't be a successful species. We would have died out a long time ago.

...man's nature demands that we live not by random urges or by animal instincts, but by the faculty that distinguishes us from animals and on which our existence fundamentally depends: rationality.

Moral Values Without Religion (Source is not aligned with the OP; however, it is a thoughtful read, especially concerning those who quote 'god' as the source for their 'moral' code.)

Humans are animals. No doubt, I won't deny or debate that.

However, our humble roots as animals do not dictate our current behaviors because humans have the cognitive capacity to Reason -- we are _rational_ creatures.

Yes, I prefer the taste of a steak as well, and I prefer that it's medium-rare, more rare than medium. The more blood on my plate, the bigger my smile.


Here's my cognitive dissonance: When did preference and convenience overpower Reason? And, most importantly, WHY?

And why is preference dictating our ethics? ...specifically (for purposes of this thread) the INhumane treatment of animals?

Oh yeah, killing puppies, kittens, and fuzzy bunnies should be done in a humane way.

And any other animal....? What, exactly, is the criteria that denotes which animal does or does not get humane treatment?

Oh, wait, that's right, we slaughter some animals because we 'need' meat in our diets.

--- No, we don't. At the very LEAST, meat should be considered a side dish.

Although protein is certainly an essential nutrient which plays many key roles in the way our bodies function, we do not need huge quantities of it. In reality, we need small amounts of protein. Only one calorie out of every ten we take in needs to come from protein 1. Athletes do not need much more protein than the general public 2. Protein supplements are expensive, unnecessary, and even harmful for some people.

source (This site gives an 'example meal' which provides several alternatives to getting the necessary amount of protein.)

Just because something currently has a huge environmental impact doesn't mean it necessarily has to, and incidentally, the impact from large-scale agriculture is also enormous, nevermind the meat!

So, the environmentalist appeal is pretty weak, IMO. We could clean up the slaughterhouses and factory farms, still eat meat, and pollute a whole lot less.

Some of the environmental factors of animal farming were discussed on this thread. I didn't even do a thorough search, and yet some of the stuff I found seriously made me consider what a friggin' hypocrite I am. (Which, if I am at all concerned with ethics and morality, is serious cause for concern. The worst thing anyone can call an ethicist is a hypocrite.)

You may think the arguments are weak (May I ask your Reasoning for such a statement, by the way?), however because this or that cause is so 'small', and would inconvenience our preferences, does that mean that we shouldn't work towards some solution? No matter how small the step, it's still a step. Right now, we seem to be debating whether or not to take a step, rather than picking a problem and working to fix it.

Farmed meat gets veterinary attention, mostly pretty good food, most stress from their natural environment is removed.

Is *that* why we've got to deal with Mad Cow Disease?!

And here I thought it was because the cows were given brains instead of their proper meals...

Dell Allen, food safety director for Excel, the nation's second-largest beef processor, says it is impossible for his company to ensure meat will be completely free of E.coli bacteria. "Nobody can," Allen says. "It's like a roll of the dice or a game of Russian roulette."

E.coli, or Escherichia coli 0157:H7, first emerged in beef herds in the late 1970s and is now present in 28 percent of cattle entering midwestern slaughterhouses, according to the USDA. An estimated 60 people in the United States die each year from E. coli contamination and another 73,000 become ill.

source







It astounds me that we strive to continue to objectify animals (aka a 'product' or 'quality meat') in an effort to maintain profits and preference -- although, to be fair, we objectify humans (and consequently use and abuse them in the name of profits and preferences), so at least we're consistent...

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Diseria]

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Diseria]

I could give a crap how the beast dies, so long as it's nice and fresh on my plate.

....I take it then you didn't bother to watch the video.


A serious ostrich-syndrome, if ever I saw one.

And it is very un-becoming.


Besides that, I shall refrain from further comment on your lack of compassion or empathy, as it will surely get me banned.




[edit on 30-1-2007 by Diseria]

I just got done watching the video. Joaquin Phoenix did an amazing job narrating, his words somber and sonorous. The message eloquent and factual, loud and clear.

Words on a page are easy to dismiss. There's no clear image to see, and we all know that they were written by someone with a presupposed bias. We don't see the person behind the words, looking us dead in the eye as they speak. We don't research and double-check their facts because it's so much easier being blind... willingly blind.

We've been trained to be wary of deceit, so much so that we dismiss the truth -- in the printed words, the news blurbs, the photographs, the clipped and censored footage.

I watched this from beginning to end. I cannot forget now. I cannot erase these images from my memory. I cannot 'just walk away' from the truth. I can't just stuff my head back in the blissful sand of ignorance.

This is the problem with knowledge.

You can't unlearn it.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Diseria]

Man is cruel, nature is cruel, we are not above nature, we are a part of it.
Get over it.

Man...
has: scalped humans alive, tortured, hooked a guys nuts up to a car battery, boiled other humans alive, burnt other humans alive, cut other humans heads off, hung other humans....

Nature...
has: rained and flooded "our" cleverly built civilizations, lightening has set fire to "our" forests... etc etc...

I haven't seen any other animals do the horrible horrible things we as humans do...
so whoever wrote that as an argument is just a little too much like a horse with blinders on...

The point I was trying to make was being nice and gentle and than killing (respectfully) and eating what we CAN and not wasting.
It shouldn't be about the money, or volume, it should be about the quality of life and quality of product.
and a stressed animal will produce "tainted" meat..

The point I was trying to make was being nice and gentle and than killing (respectfully) and eating what we CAN and not wasting.

While I'm all for forward progress, I'm curious...

If I respect you, isn't it contradictory for me to kill/murder you?

Isn't murder a sign of disrespect?

Originally posted by Diseria

The point I was trying to make was being nice and gentle and than killing (respectfully) and eating what we CAN and not wasting.

While I'm all for forward progress, I'm curious...

If I respect you, isn't it contradictory for me to kill/murder you?

Isn't murder a sign of disrespect?

Excellent point and I think this is where the generations previous to us have made mistakes.. or have had a problem in their "mentality" that disallowed them to think that this kind of behavior is acceptable. (Loving an animal and killing them for nourishment)....

So we coped with that problem by hating the things we "had" to kill.. and distanced ourselves from the notion that we can still love the things we kill,
I know what I'm saying may sound a little off-base with some people.. "huh, kill something we love... or Love something we kill???" well thats probably because we fail to make that connection.

[edit on 1/30/2007 by PuRe EnErGy]

Excellent point and I think this is where the generations previous to us have made mistakes.. or have had a problem in their "mentality" that disallowed them to think that this kind of behavior is acceptable. (Loving an animal and killing them for nourishment)....

So we coped with that problem by hating the things we "had" to kill.. and distanced ourselves from the notion that we can still love the things we kill,
I know what I'm saying may sound a little off-base with some people.. "huh, kill something we love... or Love something we kill???" well thats probably because we fail to make that connection.

This is, if I understood it right, the separation in the ideas of materialism. One side thinks of things as objects, providing an psychological distance that allows a complete (or at least majority) disconnect of emotion -- which allows the agent the ability to inflict harm without the prick of conscious.

The other side thinks of things with a level of sentimentality (not the chick-flick gooshy kind, of course)...

The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.]Theses on Feuerbach

*I found a history of materialism, but the debate seems to be using 'materialism' to define the differences between matter/existence, and souls/ethereal. And interesting history, but it does not include the idea I've presented.))

*

"Man is not in nature; nature is not the external world into which he first has to come out of his own inwardness. Man is nature. Nature is his ‘expression’, ‘his work and his reality’ (p. 114). Wherever we come across nature in human history it is ‘human nature’ while man for his part is always ‘human nature’ too. We can thus see provisionally to what extent consistent ‘humanism’ is immediately ‘naturalism’ (pp. 135, 181).

The Foundation of Historical Materialism

I'm starting to think that the reason this particular frame of thought hasn't caught on much is because of its affliation (creation?) with Karl Marx...


In any case, I agree -- there is a disconnect happening someplace that's allowing us to simply 'not feel'... which seems to be denying half of our humanity: emotions (the other half being logic/Reason).

********

After watching the movie, I've 2 questions that I've been pondering, and I'm very intrigued to see what people come up with... (research-wise; opinions are great, but they have intrinsic weight when proven)

1) Do fish feel pain? -- This sounds like a silly question, and my knee-jerk reaction was 'Pfft.. no!' I'm not so sure anymore...

Can animals feel pain?

Pain can be considered to have two components: (1) physical hurt or discomfort caused by injury or disease; and (2) emotional suffering. Most people would agree that animals are capable of feeling pain according to the first definition. But it is less clear whether they also feel emotional pain.

source

Fish do feel pain, scientists say


2) My boyfriend brought to my attention the idea that our brains would not have evolved as they have without meat.

Milton argues that meat supplied early humans not only with all the essential amino acids, but also with many vitamins, minerals and other nutrients they required, allowing them to exploit marginal, low quality plant foods, like roots - foods that have few nutrients but lots of calories. These calories, or energy, fueled the expansion of the human brain and, in addition, permitted human ancestors to increase in body size while remaining active and social.

"Once animal matter entered the human diet as a dependable staple, the overall nutrient content of plant foods could drop drastically, if need be, so long as the plants supplied plenty of calories for energy," said Milton.

The brain is a relentless consumer of calories, said Milton. It needs glucose 24 hours a day. Animal protein probably did not provide many of those calories, which were more likely to come from carbohydrates, she said.
...
Since plant foods available in the dry and deforested early human environment had become less nutritious, meat was critical for weaned infants, said Milton. She explained that small infants could not have processed enough bulky plant material to get both nutrients for growth and energy for brain development.

Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet

Hominid Brain Evolution (pdf file from .edu site) (a study: "Comparative context of Plio-Pleistocene hominin brain evolution")


I'm trying to limit the research/referrence sites to .edu sites and/or news articles... Unfortunately, there's lots of papers discussing the topics, but they require more money than I have.

Anyhow, what do you guys think? _Do_ fish feel pain? Did the human brain evolve because of meat? (got sources?)

[edit on 31-1-2007 by Diseria]

Diseria

While I'm all for forward progress, I'm curious...

If I respect you, isn't it contradictory for me to kill/murder you?

Isn't murder a sign of disrespect?

It seems like that would be the case, but there are exceptions, I think.

Veterans of wars (historical and contemporary both) sometimes speak, with great feeling, about the respect they had for their adversary in that war. In the way one gladiator might respect another, as a mirror of themselves, the other side's equivalent, one can respect an animal and still kill it. Hunters sometimes speak of their quarry with the utmost respect (usually turkey hunters ).

In cases like those, it's not disrespectful to kill a respected entity. It's your 'job' or your 'duty' or whatever else you want to call it, and vice versa.

Maybe what matters more than the killing is the reason, and the circumstances surrounding it. Just speculating...

We all die sometime, no exceptions.

Humans (sorta) need animals, and some animals (sorta) need humans. Same goes for plants. After all, when we die, we feed the worms.

Doesn't mean the worms don't respect us...

respect was a word invented by human beings. I do not think a worm can respect anything.

I would like to touch on that...

man being nature..

I don't think people are understanding that quite deep enough..
as well as people associated with string theory or m-theory (membrane-theory)

We ARE the universe..

Yet we "seem" separate from it.

This IS difficult to understand..

The universe is expanding this we know and acknowledge..
and so is our knowledge and understanding.

parallels I know... weak parallels, strong parallels.. whatever.

To associate everything would take me a long time, but to somewhat validate my claims I'll try and explain this in a practical manner..

as we imagine something.. in our creative centers (Right Hemispheres) it causes vibrations in the strings that make up our cells atomic structure and they resonate and cause ripples among the other strings, and this "flow" of ripples makes its way to the edge of the hemisphere and the "membranes" collide (in the same manner as demonstrated in the double slit experiment) and the places with the most intensity send shock-wave ripples to the other hemispheres associated with logic, function, reason, mathematics, essentially the part of our brain (the left hemisphere) that actualizes the OTHER part of our brain (the creative imaginative Right Hemisphere)...

Now I want to draw this parallel...

All around us, exists vibrations that are in a certain configurations, we call them by different names according to their configurations... Trees, Grasses, Bark, Leafs, Sand, Grains, Wind, Clouds, Heat Waves, Water... etc etc..
all existing in a different state according to individual observation regardless of its "entire" configuration. At one moment its a tree you're looking at, the next its just the leaves, the next you are observing its bark, all of which contain different properties, yet all exist in a communal manner, complimenting each other and working as a single unit.

I'm trying to stay as close to on-topic as possible here...

To tie it in with the animal cruelty..

In trees we see some malformations, cancers etc..
thinking of the tree as a universe on its own
we would call the malformation an anomaly ....

now flipping to our problem here with the animals:
in a peaceful, and HUMANE society, these actions (concerning the maltreatment of our consumed live-stock) are, or SHOULD be seen as an anomaly*
(*specifically: an incongruity or inconsistency)

So we could see that as a cancer to our society, and it is, despite it's actual moral implications, the very fact that society is divided on the issue is a cancer. Should we not ALL agree, should we not all agree upon the SAME CIRCUMSTANCES, under the SAME INTELLIGENCE/INFORMATION?
Knowing full well how our food is processed and handled, WITHOUT some joe behind your back telling you WHY it's done the way it is. (Mostly economical)


I think the over-all way we look at the world around us needs to be re-written, I'm willing to collaborate, but I haven't had any serious takers.

These animals are an outer expression of our inner being, as corny as that sounds, the same elements that make up the stars, make up our being and the animals being.
On other levels the connections are almost a pre-written story all on its own.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
It seems like that would be the case, but there are exceptions, I think.

Veterans of wars (historical and contemporary both) sometimes speak, with great feeling, about the respect they had for their adversary in that war. In the way one gladiator might respect another, as a mirror of themselves, the other side's equivalent, one can respect an animal and still kill it. Hunters sometimes speak of their quarry with the utmost respect (usually turkey hunters

).

In cases like those, it's not disrespectful to kill a respected entity. It's your 'job' or your 'duty' or whatever else you want to call it, and vice versa.

Veterans of wars and their enemies are people. I can understand warriors respecting other warriors because there is (was?) an inherent code of honor involved... nevermind the tactical planning that went into the battles.

But, I cannot see how respect is given (even remotely!) to the animals in the slaughterhouses... I know you've seen video of what happens -- that is not respectful!

Maybe what matters more than the killing is the reason, and the circumstances surrounding it. Just speculating...

Speculate away!! As always, I appreciate it!

The reasons for killing animals... arguably, the most prominent is 'for food'. However, I think we've reached a point in human 'civil'-ization where we are readily aware and able to make use of the alternatives.

However, I guess we're not at the point of human 'civil'-ization that we're readily aware and able to make use of ethics... and refuse the idea of making objects of living beings.

We all die sometime, no exceptions.

No doubt and undeniable.

However, isn't the importance placed on _how_ we die, rather than the unrefutable fact of death?

Every living being dies. Yes.
Do those living beings deserve to die terrified? in pain? I don't think so... I don't think ANY living being deserves that... (with the possible exceptions of truly EVIL human beings...)

Humans (sorta) need animals, and some animals (sorta) need humans. Same goes for plants. After all, when we die, we feed the worms.

Doesn't mean the worms don't respect us...

I know I've told you this story, but it bears directly on this conversation.

My cousins told me about the city kids who drank milk out of cartons with a pink cow as the mascot. Then the kids went to the country and saw real cows, and were completely floored because they honestly thought that cows were pink!

When we go to the grocery store, we don't look look at the pre-packaged meats as animals -- there is a complete emotional disconnect between the 'product' and the source.

My point is the emphasis should be placed on the source -- NOT the product!


In the video of the OP, it said that most pets were put down via a shot (can't remember the name). Point is - there is an alternative to slicing jugulars and hooking and the like. However, that alternative would interfere with profits... so they refuse to do it.

A _complete_ emotional disconnect... I cannot understand it.

I advocate logic all the time, but there has to be a balance of emotion...


Pure_Energy

I think the over-all way we look at the world around us needs to be re-written, I'm willing to collaborate, but I haven't had any serious takers.

Check out Multicriterial Value Incrementalism and Value Incrementalism, Perfectionisn, and Sentient nonhumans -- dialogues between two of my professors.

We ARE the universe.. Yet we "seem" separate from it. This IS difficult to understand..

I'd modify your statement: "We are OF the universe"... which immediately disengages the feeling of separateness.

(I understand what you mean, however: We ARE the universe in that we are made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe. However, the ego tends to get inflated when given such statements... and that is one thing that we ought to be wary of.)

Besides that, it's only difficult because it's a different way of thinking than our prescribed 'norm'... (I had that problem while studying Confucius' philosophy...)

But 'different' does not equal 'bad', nor automatically 'wrong', as many people are inclined to think.

I agree with your parallels. There are so many 'alignments', if you will, that express themselves in various ways throughout existence... It continuously amazes me.

(I understand what you mean, however: We ARE the universe in that we are made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe. However, the ego tends to get inflated when given such statements... and that is one thing that we ought to be wary of.)

Thats what I meant by this is hard to understand..

For me to accurately describe this I'd have to be in person... but I'll give it my best shot.

"We ARE the universe" does not directly mean because we are made of the same substances....
This has nothing to do with the ego; there's no room left over for the ego to be something "else"


We are the universe is a way of saying, we are actually looking at this whole place from a different perspective... From the actual detached state, although we are "attached" to a particular "vessel" for learning/experience purposes; this would mean that YES we (physically) would exist if we mentally were not conscious... We would be akin to the animals..
But we have this uniquely odd ability the other animals don't, and we call this various names, as a whole when we talk about it in a generalized way we call it "GOD", but it is really this uniquely odd ability that we are describing, and not a seperate entity grading us, it is ourselves as a whole that grades our individual habits, even down to our guilty consciousnesses, societal taboos only made taboo but individual people who persuaded others to observe the phenomenon in the same manner they did.
I would have to say we are the most unintelligent intelligent species ever, talk about just evolving from being an animal or what....
I honestly cannot fathom how we ended up doing all of this political/religious/unnecessary work crap instead of actually attempted to purposely evolve and enlighten our fellow peoples and not just our lineages.
We're in this together.
You think people who don't enjoy where they are, what they have around them, or themselves are going to get to live?
You think for one minute that someone who doesn't appreciate even the littlest trivial thing is going to get to LIVE? The pain and the pleasure, The ups and the downs, THE CYCLES! Everything is a cycle, and nothing lasts indefinitely, it flows in a cycle, so expect the crap and guard yourself against it, and anticipate the amazing things, line yourself up and protect yourself, be on guard.
Treating animals like crap just for MONEY because we know we can take advantage of the fact that people HAVE to eat is truly a barbaric action, one I look down upon, especially when it would only take 30 minutes to sit down and think of a better system of housing and treatment for the animals.

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
"We ARE the universe" does not directly mean because we are made of the same substances....
This has nothing to do with the ego; there's no room left over for the ego to be something "else"

But, you do realize how people will take that particular blurb, yes?

Humans _always_ make room for the ego... Because that is one of the blessings/curses of being human.

Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that humans are _defined_ by their egos... (arguably, it's what got us into this mess in the first place...)

Treating animals like crap just for MONEY because we know we can take advantage of the fact that people HAVE to eat is truly a barbaric action, one I look down upon, especially when it would only take 30 minutes to sit down and think of a better system of housing and treatment for the animals.

Very true. However, the implementation would take much longer... simply because people are so adverse to changing their preferences, admitting that their opinions are wrong.

Again, the ego steps in.

Hence why, while I do not disagree with your statement, we have to keep thinking three steps ahead of everyone else.

You think people who don't enjoy where they are, what they have around them, or themselves are going to get to live?
You think for one minute that someone who doesn't appreciate even the littlest trivial thing is going to get to LIVE?

'Live' has become a relativist term, methinks. Will these people be actualized as human beings? No... Do they even realize this? ...no.

Obviously people continue living (their bodies continue functioning, for the most part) regardless of their mindsets towards life, the earth, et cetera.

To appreciate all the twists and turns, the bumps and challenges of walking one's path is adding to the adventure... and I agree, people _should_ pay attention to it. But, because they don't, doesn't mean that they don't live.

Maybe they do not live the best life possible, but even that phrase has been kidnapped and twisted because we changed the face of survival... Instead of hunting for food, we compete for paychecks. Hunting was at least a community affair, whereas paychecks induce/produce individualistic competition. Our 'survival' is determined by our financial worth. That's the system that we've set up in this so-called 'civil'-ization...

I'm afraid that many people do not take the time to look down at their path, but rather at some far off (profitable) 'end' where the means (no matter how terrible in the short or long run) become justified.

I don't think you quite get what I mean..

If you take away the part of us, that allows us to imagine ourselves so well, (our ego) than we would be like animals (the monkey for a good example) intelligent sure, but they aren't aware of a lot of things that we ARE, they cannot imagine themselves doing things differently.. they wouldn't make connections we would because of our frontal lobe.
For instance if you didn't have such a large frontal lobe and you witnessed someone cutting the grass, you couldn't imagine the act of cutting something else similar to grass, like your hair. The two events would be entirely separated, they wouldn't even be able to give examples of how they MIGHT be related, because it would be impossible for them to comprehend.

Our frontal lobe is responsible for our enlarged ego, and it's just going to keep growing. It has it's purpose, it allows us to envision greater things for ourselves. But it can also be used for torturing and murdering. We lay down the sequence and logic/reason behind our actions by imagining them.
We relate our entire past to our entire present and usually our entire future.

Recognizing the functions gives us the ability to thwart the negative aspects of using our frontal lobe in this manner.
We can de-construct the logic and reason we've created and replace it with a healthier sequence.
This isn't an individual act, this is a world-wide event...

We've lived for thousands of years separated from everything, and slowly we've empathized with everything, related the unrelated and made the unknown the known.
We've slowly identified ourselves and our role, and how we function.
We've scientifically realized our connectivity on the atomic and molecular scales.
The project for Global Self-Education should be something that everyone is working towards... but sadly its wars that are our focus.

[edit on 2/1/2007 by PuRe EnErGy]

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGyRecognizing the functions gives us the ability to thwart the negative aspects of using our frontal lobe in this manner.
We can de-construct the logic and reason we've created and replace it with a healthier sequence.
This isn't an individual act, this is a world-wide event...

Individual _and_ world wide... for it to happen world wide, every individual would have to re-align themselves... The individual cannot be actualized without the society (in this case world), and vice versa.

I agree that we need to recognize the functions of the ego. I won't (can't) deny that the ego can do great things, and has gotten us to the point where we are now.

The ego has great potential... but potential doesn't make change. Action does. Specifically, correct action -- praxis: 'thinking-acting, acting-thinking'. A combination of ego and action -- so long as the ego is thinking correctly, the actions should follow.

And you're right - we can deconstruct the twisted logic. But most people don't want to... don't want to even *admit* that their logic needs to be un-twisted...

My point was not to deny the ego itself, but to undermine the ego's ability (rather automatic by this point) to insert itself as the 'big man on the block'.

Humans, very much like monkeys, will take the easiest route possible... and the easiest route is to NOT change. 'It works the way it is, why change it if it's not broken?'