Ungodly Cynic said (modified):
I might disagree with the morality/survival argument. Does anyone here truly believe that we're not destroying the planet? Where's our sense of right and wrong in this regard?
Also, we enable the confinement and torture of animals in order to satiate an irrelevant industry that has lied to the public and manipulated the government. You know, the so-called "food pyramid". Human beings are not a species that requires the consumption of meat, and we are the only species on the earth that makes a choice to consume milk into adulthood. Yet, we allow factory farming of livestock that is clearly unethical. Is it immoral? Depends on who declares what is right and wrong. Apparently it's "right" in the sense that people don't give a rat's ass about other species on this planet and that it's okay to allow the degradation, torture and in some cases the extinction of other species because some asshole somewhere spread the word that humans are the pinnacle of life (clearly driven ideologically by religious dogma; because man was "made" in the image of a god.
People also turn a blind eye to animal testing all in the name of protecting the consumer. Yeah, right, more like protecting industry from lawsuits by making sure products are safe.
We all know poverty is directly tied to crime, "a simple google search" will attest to that. Where the hell is morality on this issue? We allow the spending of half a trillion dollars on a war, the end result of which can never be moral or just. Couldn't we have spent that money on a mission to end poverty? Where is the outcry? The uproar?
Simple, morality has little to do with survival of the species. Survival of the species has mostly everything to do with the ability to procreate. By which I mean providing an environment in a society whereby it is safe, conducive and comfortable to do so. As population on the planet grows, this environment will become evermore fractured as resources become more scarce; water is one we need to look out for. We can survive without oil, albeit archaically.
I believe that the whole creation idea, especially the Christian one; is all a lie...one, and two, has driven people to believe in some odd-ball notion of morality disguised in greed. As an example let's look to some Native American cultures, whereby the concept of personal property was non-existent. Where does the right and wrong notion of thievery apply here? Huh? It doesn't. Personal property belonged to the whole of the tribe (I know, a horrendous thought to most everybody). It was a communal society more suited for sustained survival than the Anglo-Christian one. Native Americans (and other indigenous peoples like the Celts and Gauls) were more tuned to the earth; to sustainability. Yet, what happened to them. They were conquered by a power much stronger and more greedy. Is this survival of the fittest? Or destruction of the whole?
Friday, August 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)