Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

You can propagate plants in various ways, but I was very careful to choose for my silly simile a carrot, an annual plant that propagates by seed. Obviously a plant that propagates by seed and dies thereafter has done its thing from the evolutionary and generational standpoint. To suggest that eating it is somehow more savage than eating, say, a walnut or a tomato, is preposterously foolish. If, as the saying goes, mighty oaks from acorns grow, then a squirrel munching an acorn is a far more murderous fiend than a man eating a parsnip.

Some fruits can of course be eaten and the seeds dispersed, but it is illegitimately teleological to suggest that it offers itself to be eaten, rather than simply being taken advantage of by herbivores. There is in nature a nice symbiotic relationship between some fruits and animals, in which the animal disperses the indigestible seeds after eating the fruit. But there's nothing moral about it, nor does one thing happen because of another. It's just successful. It works. Some fruits work well by being partially digested by herbivores. Some others work well by making enough that they can survive the depredation of seed-eating herbivores. Just as some animals keep from extinction with claws and shells, and some by making so many eggs that a few progeny will survive the carnivorous feast. If you make the sad evolutionary mistake of presuming that fruits are made to be eaten simply because they are, you cannot then deny that animals such as krill are made to be eaten by penguins and whales, or, of course, that the domestic animals we raise for meat were not "made" to be eaten as well, since without the demand for their meat they would not exist.

Or, as Wallace Stevens famously put it in the title of a poem, "
Frogs Eat Butterflies. Snakes Eat Frogs. Hogs Eat Snakes. Men Eat Hogs

Nature should not be purposeless. It does things to keep it in balance which should also be basis of survival of all its constituents. By creation, maintenance & destruction, it can achieve such balance. We just have to see, how we are supporting it to achieve its balance. Whoever eat other, can depend on it and that will be called as nature of that being--if its basic nature. Evolutionary changes are not basic nature so can bring odds. We can also evolved to modern weapons, still it will not mean, they shall be good for us. Simply look at basic nature for truth and secondary nature for rational.

 

[JayUtah]

Nature should not be purposeless. It does things to keep it in balance...

No, it is a system in short-term equilibrium. That does not imply a purpose in keeping it there.

'

Simply look at basic nature for truth...

We have been. You're the one looking at your religious beliefs and wrongly assuming that's nature.

 

[Kumar]

Yes, you should do that.

This is my first choice. Therefore say true religion and true nature. However many times I need to compromise for maintaining harmonious atmosphere. Some new understandings are coming to me, lesser physical energy usage or excess energy absorption may make us physically lazy but mentally strong. Easily digestible foods--say cooked & direct foods can do that.

 

[JayUtah]

This is my first choice. Therefore say true religion and true nature. However many times I need to compromise for maintaining harmonious atmosphere. Some new understandings are coming to me, lesser physical energy usage or excess energy absorption may make us physically lazy but mentally strong. Easily digestible foods--say cooked & direct foods can do that.

Eat or do not eat whatever you want. But don't pretend it must be natural to do so, or that you are morally superior for doing so. And especially do not foist your beliefs on skeptics unless you are willing to deal in facts.

 

[Kumar]

No, it is a system in short-term equilibrium. That does not imply a purpose in keeping it there.

'

We have been. You're the one looking at your religious beliefs and wrongly assuming that's nature.

Yes when moving towards big bang.

Source of true nature can also be truth in some religion. We take many type of foods. Few of them can still ne natural eg fruits.

 

[JayUtah]

Source of true nature can also be truth in some religion.

No. We went over this. Your religion just makes up a bunch of stuff that is contrary to fact, then calls it nature and compels humans to worship it ascetically. That's the opposite of looking to fact.

We take many type of foods. Few of them can still ne natural eg fruits.

You don't know the difference between nature and your religious beliefs.

 

[Kumar]

No. We went over this. Your religion just makes up a bunch of stuff that is contrary to fact, then calls it nature and compels humans to worship it ascetically. That's the opposite of looking to fact.



You don't know the difference between nature and your religious beliefs.

How can you know a religion in full, if it is neither your religion nor your option and even may not be supporting your preferences? Still facts should be faced at least in generalized areas.

Some direct or indirect clues can be got from this link with dedicated efforts:
Jainism and Science
http://jainworld.com/jainbooks/asceticism/ch26.asp

 

[JayUtah]

How can you know a religion in full...

Straw man.

Still facts should be faced at least in generalized areas.

You were shown the facts. You disregarded them in favor of your religion.

 

[JayUtah]

Jainism and Science

Are you a scientist? Yes or no.

 

[Kumar]

Are you a scientist? Yes or no.

Your qyestion was not proper. You have not asked, academically qualified or self studding? Former not later yes.

 

[bruto]

Nature should not be purposeless. It does things to keep it in balance which should also be basis of survival of all its constituents. By creation, maintenance & destruction, it can achieve such balance. We just have to see, how we are supporting it to achieve its balance. Whoever eat other, can depend on it and that will be called as nature of that being--if its basic nature. Evolutionary changes are not basic nature so can bring odds. We can also evolved to modern weapons, still it will not mean, they shall be good for us. Simply look at basic nature for truth and secondary nature for rational.

Oy vey. Nature is purposeless, like it or not. Nature does not seek balance. Balance happens. We did not evolve modern weapons. We invented them. Bad thing to do perhaps, but do not blame evolution. There is no such thing as basic and secondary nature. It's nonsense. Edit to add: cooked foods do not make us lazy. They may at times permit us to be physically lazy since we are able to get more nutrition faster, but they do not make us lazy. People of the greatest diligence and productivity eat cooked food. Do not confuse an option with a result.

 

[JayUtah]

Your qyestion was not proper.

Yes it was. But you've assiduously avoided answering it for days.

You have not asked, academically qualified or self studding? Former not later yes.

Obviously the former. The actual meaning of scientist, not your attempt to redefine it to avoid the unpleasant answer you know you're going to have to give.

Are you a scientist? Yes or no.

 

[Kumar]

Straw man.



You were shown the facts. You disregarded them in favor of your religion.

Disharmony between us is due to: our facts do not matches with other. No end to it.As per me, you have not shown facts to me but I have shown. Just expression of views can not be taken as facts, some valid evidences are required. Minimum, logic from a person well experienced in that area can also be considered. But nothing matches with you in this regard. But still, you are claiming.

 

[Kumar]

Oy vey. Nature is purposeless, like it or not. Nature does not seek balance. Balance happens. We did not evolve modern weapons. We invented them. Bad thing to do perhaps, but do not blame evolution. There is no such thing as basic and secondary nature. It's nonsense. Edit to add: cooked foods do not make us lazy. They may at times permit us to be physically lazy since we are able to get more nutrition faster, but they do not make us lazy. People of the greatest diligence and productivity eat cooked food. Do not confuse an option with a result.

We also invented fire and cooking and claim now we are evolved to it. Any inherent sense can match with evolution....primary or secondary. Cooking is secondary nature because it is not since start of our evolution.

Few things with links about Physical vs mental , I indicated in Consciousness/self awareness topic. Read pls.

 

[JayUtah]

Disharmony between us is due to: our facts do not matches with other.

Because you don't know what facts are or where they come from. You wrongly think your religious beliefs are facts.

Just expression of views can not be taken as facts, some valid evidences are required.

Which you have not shown for your claims.

Minimum, logic from a person well experienced in that area can also be considered. But nothing matches with you in this regard. But still, you are claiming.

Remember when you had to ask me to define all those logic terms? Now try again to claim I'm the one who isn't well experienced in logic. You really are living in your own little bubble.

 

[JayUtah]

Cooking is secondary nature because it is not since start of our evolution.

When exactly did humans start evolving?

 

[Kumar]

Yes it was. But you've assiduously avoided answering it for days.



Obviously the former. The actual meaning of scientist, not your attempt to redefine it to avoid the unpleasant answer you know you're going to have to give.

Are you a scientist? Yes or no.

Provided. We may need to be practical along with theoretical. Both statistical and practical observations hold value in scientific and every field studies. scientists were basically not qualified certified entities. Take it in true sense not in apparent words. Take it in concept not as entity.

 

[JayUtah]

Provided.

No, I don't see where you answered yes or no. Are you a scientist? Yes or no.

 

[Kumar]

When exactly did humans start evolving?

From energy transformation. Most prime unless we also assume energy could had also been created.

 

[JayUtah]

From energy transformation. Most prime unless we also assume energy could had also been created.

And when did humans stop evolving?