fateless
There is no fate. However, you will do what you are going to do, and you are, who you are. If someone knew enough about the universe, they would know the future; this is merely because things are going to happen as they happen. It's not "fate," some sort of mystical power that pulls you a certain way. Quite the opposite - it's you being you.
Would you really prefer that external gods of chaos interjected in your life? Instead of doing what you would do, would you rather do what you wouldn't do? Determinism isn't a trap, it isn't a restrictive, oppressive thing. In fact, it is true liberation - instead of losing control of your very being, you are defined as being wholly you, always doing what you would do.
I asked this question on Zukerberg's little thing earlier: "Is it necessarily fatalistic to love someone so much that you wish they never existed?"
My wife and I have a cat, named Isis, and a dog, named Summer. Beyond the genetic engineering humans have subjected them to the last couple thousand years, canines and felines have millions of years of evolution guiding them to what they are. 50ish million years ago, the common ancestor of dogs and cats (miacoids) must have been one confused animal.
Felines (Filinae) and their cousins the panthers (Pantherinae) come from a phylogenetic family that dates back 25 million years - and even 25 million years ago, it was a solitary creature. The old, pre-historic saber-toothed tiger ran by himself, and only got together to mate. Lions are special in this regard; they actually hang out in packs. But, given their freedom, even a domestic cat will live a solitary life. And, they won't be alone for it; it is very rare that a cat will be co-dependent, after just a very short time to adjust.
Dogs, on the other hand, are a very social creature. "Man's best friend" dates back nearly 40 million years, and was first found in Texas, of all places. Wild dogs in Africa can run in packs as big as 90 or more! Almost all packs are familial-based; an "alpha" only happens in highly stressed situations (think "martial law" with humans) and normally the head of the pack is the mom and dad of the pack. They bond well with humans, and will either fall in to a master/slave relationship, or more of a familial relationship, depending on the humans in particular they are with.
Isis hates all animals other than people. There doesn't seem to be an exception to this. Sometimes, she hisses at/claws at people. She's generally a sweet, affectionate, food-motivated, playful, fun little kitty. She was very kitten-esque for many years. In the end though, she's a cat. She'll sit in your lap...if she wants to, but not if you want her to. She'll let you pet her...if she wants you to, but not if you want to.
Summer is friends with absolutely everyone in the world, unless she's afraid of them. Even then, she'd much rather be their friend. A little over a year ago when someone broke in to our house Summer was right there to lick them to death. Whenever I leave her outside the grocery store while I go in to shop, I almost always come out and find at least one person (if not more) playing with her, who leaves with a huge smile on their face and talking about how great a dog she is.
Isis and Summer are our children; we can't use them as examples. So, lets step out of specifics, and in to generalities. Wild cats are a vital part of many ecosystems, as are wolves. Note though that feral dogs and cats are not as friendly to an ecosystem, generally; sometimes they can be fairly unbalancing. They've lost their sense of what they should and shouldn't do. Dogs however are at least relatively easy to care for, they provide social services (for disabled, or just for people who want a friend), when they go wild they aren't as harmful, and their poo is almost completely harmless compared to the biological disaster that is cat litter. Cat litter is one of the worst things out there; it's really horrible. Cats are also the most carnivorous of all the mammals. A dog can eat grains for a while, but not a cat; give a cat much other than meat, and it will quickly get sick and irritated. Which means, sustaining a cat's life requires lbs/lbs far more death (the contents of the food...) than a dog.
In a utilitarian sense, is the universe better off for them existing?
"I love her, and that's enough of a reason."
"We shouldn't decide whether or not something should exist based on what would be better for the universe."
Sarah is in a animal rescue, spay/neuter group that I sometimes help with. If, 10 years from now, there were 20% of the dogs and cats in TJ as there are right now...that would be an extreme success beyond the wildest imaginations of groups like her's. But isn't that exactly what they're doing? Loving the potential, future dogs and cats so much that they don't want them to suffer...and thus, sterilizing the current dogs and cats, so that those future ones don't ever even exist? Seeing the wretched, miserable lives that dogs (and sometimes cats) live on the streets there? Because many of those future animals that we're denying the existence of could have grown up to be like Summer; there are many, many Summers in that group. Not including say, the bottom 2%...even the least social, worst-behaved dogs on the streets down there are really great, cool dogs. I, and Sarah, love them dearly. We love them so much that we wish they were never born, that they never had to experience what they are experiencing.
Loving someone is not material basis enough to "justify" (as it were) someone's existence; I've described a situation where loving them does the exact opposite. A fair basis has to be "what would lead to balance, sustainability, and the best joy-to-suffering ratio?" Because obviously, if you wipe off all life on the planet - all humans, animals, plants, everything - the next moment, there is no more suffering. That isn't necessary though...and that's obvious. But what is also obvious is how less hospitable the planet is becoming, how more miserable the lives of fauna and humans alike tend to be getting, and how our current rates are beyond merely unsustainable; we're no longer in the risk of unsustainable growth, we're now at a point where we can't even sustain if we merely maintain our current populations. Sure, technology may learn to feed us. Great, you're ignoring the fact that we'll just take the opportunity to make more babies again. You haven't solved the problem.
How far does it go? Surely no one who is reasonable and has seen the horror they go through is against groups like ours that does sterilization clinics of dogs and cats on the streets of TJ. But isn't it because of what I've said above - that we're making a judgement on whether the universe, the dogs/cats included, is better off with, or without, them ever being born? How far does that go? Does it stop at sterilization? We take in every injured dog we see and help them recover. We pray for every healthy dog we see. But, we know their lives are miserable, that they're spreading disease (to animals and people alike), etc. At what point do you consider euthanizing healthy animals out of love for them? Sounds horrible and revolting, I know - and I agree! But...is it different? And even further...if you know a person's life is going to be miserable, and filled with suffering...if you know it will be...at what point do you love them enough to free them from their...fate?
Would you really prefer that external gods of chaos interjected in your life? Instead of doing what you would do, would you rather do what you wouldn't do? Determinism isn't a trap, it isn't a restrictive, oppressive thing. In fact, it is true liberation - instead of losing control of your very being, you are defined as being wholly you, always doing what you would do.
I asked this question on Zukerberg's little thing earlier: "Is it necessarily fatalistic to love someone so much that you wish they never existed?"
My wife and I have a cat, named Isis, and a dog, named Summer. Beyond the genetic engineering humans have subjected them to the last couple thousand years, canines and felines have millions of years of evolution guiding them to what they are. 50ish million years ago, the common ancestor of dogs and cats (miacoids) must have been one confused animal.
Felines (Filinae) and their cousins the panthers (Pantherinae) come from a phylogenetic family that dates back 25 million years - and even 25 million years ago, it was a solitary creature. The old, pre-historic saber-toothed tiger ran by himself, and only got together to mate. Lions are special in this regard; they actually hang out in packs. But, given their freedom, even a domestic cat will live a solitary life. And, they won't be alone for it; it is very rare that a cat will be co-dependent, after just a very short time to adjust.
Dogs, on the other hand, are a very social creature. "Man's best friend" dates back nearly 40 million years, and was first found in Texas, of all places. Wild dogs in Africa can run in packs as big as 90 or more! Almost all packs are familial-based; an "alpha" only happens in highly stressed situations (think "martial law" with humans) and normally the head of the pack is the mom and dad of the pack. They bond well with humans, and will either fall in to a master/slave relationship, or more of a familial relationship, depending on the humans in particular they are with.
Isis hates all animals other than people. There doesn't seem to be an exception to this. Sometimes, she hisses at/claws at people. She's generally a sweet, affectionate, food-motivated, playful, fun little kitty. She was very kitten-esque for many years. In the end though, she's a cat. She'll sit in your lap...if she wants to, but not if you want her to. She'll let you pet her...if she wants you to, but not if you want to.
Summer is friends with absolutely everyone in the world, unless she's afraid of them. Even then, she'd much rather be their friend. A little over a year ago when someone broke in to our house Summer was right there to lick them to death. Whenever I leave her outside the grocery store while I go in to shop, I almost always come out and find at least one person (if not more) playing with her, who leaves with a huge smile on their face and talking about how great a dog she is.
Isis and Summer are our children; we can't use them as examples. So, lets step out of specifics, and in to generalities. Wild cats are a vital part of many ecosystems, as are wolves. Note though that feral dogs and cats are not as friendly to an ecosystem, generally; sometimes they can be fairly unbalancing. They've lost their sense of what they should and shouldn't do. Dogs however are at least relatively easy to care for, they provide social services (for disabled, or just for people who want a friend), when they go wild they aren't as harmful, and their poo is almost completely harmless compared to the biological disaster that is cat litter. Cat litter is one of the worst things out there; it's really horrible. Cats are also the most carnivorous of all the mammals. A dog can eat grains for a while, but not a cat; give a cat much other than meat, and it will quickly get sick and irritated. Which means, sustaining a cat's life requires lbs/lbs far more death (the contents of the food...) than a dog.
In a utilitarian sense, is the universe better off for them existing?
"I love her, and that's enough of a reason."
"We shouldn't decide whether or not something should exist based on what would be better for the universe."
Sarah is in a animal rescue, spay/neuter group that I sometimes help with. If, 10 years from now, there were 20% of the dogs and cats in TJ as there are right now...that would be an extreme success beyond the wildest imaginations of groups like her's. But isn't that exactly what they're doing? Loving the potential, future dogs and cats so much that they don't want them to suffer...and thus, sterilizing the current dogs and cats, so that those future ones don't ever even exist? Seeing the wretched, miserable lives that dogs (and sometimes cats) live on the streets there? Because many of those future animals that we're denying the existence of could have grown up to be like Summer; there are many, many Summers in that group. Not including say, the bottom 2%...even the least social, worst-behaved dogs on the streets down there are really great, cool dogs. I, and Sarah, love them dearly. We love them so much that we wish they were never born, that they never had to experience what they are experiencing.
Loving someone is not material basis enough to "justify" (as it were) someone's existence; I've described a situation where loving them does the exact opposite. A fair basis has to be "what would lead to balance, sustainability, and the best joy-to-suffering ratio?" Because obviously, if you wipe off all life on the planet - all humans, animals, plants, everything - the next moment, there is no more suffering. That isn't necessary though...and that's obvious. But what is also obvious is how less hospitable the planet is becoming, how more miserable the lives of fauna and humans alike tend to be getting, and how our current rates are beyond merely unsustainable; we're no longer in the risk of unsustainable growth, we're now at a point where we can't even sustain if we merely maintain our current populations. Sure, technology may learn to feed us. Great, you're ignoring the fact that we'll just take the opportunity to make more babies again. You haven't solved the problem.
How far does it go? Surely no one who is reasonable and has seen the horror they go through is against groups like ours that does sterilization clinics of dogs and cats on the streets of TJ. But isn't it because of what I've said above - that we're making a judgement on whether the universe, the dogs/cats included, is better off with, or without, them ever being born? How far does that go? Does it stop at sterilization? We take in every injured dog we see and help them recover. We pray for every healthy dog we see. But, we know their lives are miserable, that they're spreading disease (to animals and people alike), etc. At what point do you consider euthanizing healthy animals out of love for them? Sounds horrible and revolting, I know - and I agree! But...is it different? And even further...if you know a person's life is going to be miserable, and filled with suffering...if you know it will be...at what point do you love them enough to free them from their...fate?