[RD] Why is there so much suffering in the world?

[Farm Boy]

I do not understand how you fit entropy into this conversation. It could be interesting though. Help me out. I'll be back in a few hours.

If a being capable of suffering is generated from a biological system, the loss of energy in that system needs to be replaced. It has to eat. The way we eat is by destroying other beings, some capable of suffering. It's necessary. But let's clean it up. Let's assume we could somehow get by with air and light, entirely things devoid of suffering. Cell replication degrades, but then let's assume it doesn't. Then the tragedy is postponed, but not forever. Entropy will catch you with the sun, and that's assuming vastly good fortune. Heaven/hell/the perpetual/the eternal/the perpetually cyclical - all require either input from outside the concept, or a form on encapsulated stasis of perfect recyclical efficiency.

 

[Akka]

I was just pointing out that suffering doesn't necessarily flow from natural selection. I don't know if the evolution of consciousness necessarily happens or if 'fluke' is a better word.

"suffering" as we understand it as humans, maybe not. But "some sort of mechanism which pushes a lifeform to get out of a situation that is detrimental to its ability to keep reproducing its genes", certainly. Which is pretty much the same thing in essence if not in how exactly we, humans, feel it.

Are you just saying that you don't believe in a Creator? Neither do I.

I absolutely don't believe in a Creator (and there was one : who/what created it ?).

I just have no problem with the idea that we lack sufficient morals and that we live in a universe containing natural evils.

The thing is, "morals" and "evil" are human creations, which have no meaning outside ourselves. The universe doesn't contain "natural evils", it doesn't contain "evil" in the first place. It just is, it has no morals nor ethics at all.

In Abrahamic faith, we say we're corrupt in a fallen universe. The underlying principle works for me. I don't need to think a Creator exists to explain why I think there's so much suffering. Life is hard, and we kinda suck.

Abrahamic faith is a human invention fitting human psychology. It's completely irrelevant to how the universe works. We find life hard because the lifeforms who found it easy lacked the drive to improve and were replaced with those that didn't
(and those who found life too hard died of stress or whatever ; evolution has no concept of playing nice, or of nice at all, it's, again, just what works and what doesn't)

 

[El_Machinae]

Sorry, 'natural evil' is just a term. Colloquially it's suffering caused without a moral agent. Often deemed 'undeserved'. The precise definition doesn't really matter to my underlying point

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The thing is, "morals" and "evil" are human creations, which have no meaning outside ourselves. The universe doesn't contain "natural evils", it doesn't contain "evil" in the first place. It just is, it has no morals nor ethics at all.

yes that is certainly the case. humanity is both literally and figuratively the author of all suffering that has ever occured. though one might argue, I think the buddhists do, that suffering is inherent to existance, it is an ontological necessity. it is part of all "being" and therefore not particular to humans. but our definition and our concept of suffering definitely is, it's historical and cultural. I think even deciding whether suffering is an emotional state, or a psychological state, or an outlook, or something else entirely is not an easy issue.

on a worldly level this is an easy question to answer: it is humanity that is responsible for practically all the suffering on this world, excluding non man-made diseases and environmental catastrophes. this might seem like a circular answer, but it's both the human condition and humanity itself that is responsible.

on a metaphysical level however this question seems very difficult to answer. is suffering exclusively a product of consciousness, and does life necessarily come with suffering? I don't know, but I lean towards no and yes.

 

[Akka]

yes that is certainly the case. humanity is both literally and figuratively the author of all suffering that has ever occured.

Err... I said that MORALS are a human creation, not SUFFERING ^^
I'm pretty sure that a lion eating a prey alive causes a lot of suffering too. Just as it suffers a lot from it if it breaks its leg or starves.
Unless you're speaking of metaphysical suffering and so on, but I was more literal here.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think yung means human suffering

 

[Birdjaguar]

I was just pointing out that suffering doesn't necessarily flow from natural selection. I don't know if the evolution of consciousness necessarily happens or if 'fluke' is a better word.

I think it depends upon your definition of consciousness. Typically, one's assumptions determine where you end up.

 

[Tristan_C]

You mentioned externalities, which is usually solved by increasing ownership rights. But other questions, like what happens if someone owns too much? Is it still effective? Not really, it breaks down. Capitalism as a game shuttles wealth up, that's its nature. If wealth becoming too concentrated is a potential breakdown of effectiveness, then the consequences of capitalism can be part of the problem.

Oh for the days before capitalism, when wealth did not shuttle u—




I mean, just look at that thing. Its very shape is the natural trajectory of wealth. The emblem of ultimately-socialized, trans-human civilization, built 4000 years before the word 'capitalism' was uttered.

Which is to say, we have gone in a circle, right back to where I said leftist thinkers should have done some hard thinking about the nature of wealth. Economics and biology are very important thinking-tools developed over the last couple of centuries that can increase one's understanding of human beings and their ecosystems. But instead of using a scientific inquiry to study what are so obviously ancient phenomena, the left, the alleged champions of science, seem bent on fashioning a scapegoat (if your and @Owen Glyndwr 's sentiments are any indication).

 

[Narz]

Because people want it

Nobody wants suffering. We're just not programmed to be good at avoiding it.

 

[Narz]

I was just pointing out that suffering doesn't necessarily flow from natural selection. I don't know if the evolution of consciousness necessarily happens or if 'fluke' is a better word.

A perfectly serene being who didn't strive for better access to mates & resources wouldn't be well-rewarded by natural selection. All of the "deadly sins" make evolutionary sense to possess at least in some degree.

I'd say we're programmed to be stressed & motivated by said stress & also to harbor the delusion that betters days are ahead if we just push a little harder.

 

[El_Machinae]

@Narz, I was talking about pre-sentient life in that post. Natural selection works just fine without sentience.

But instead of using a scientific inquiry to study what are so obviously ancient phenomena, the left, the alleged champions of science, seem bent on fashioning a scapegoat (if your and @Owen Glyndwr 's sentiments are any indication).

The sarcasm doesn't befit you. Look, "capitalism" has an end-game, which is wealth concentration. It's a known failure of the system. If you're not cognizant of this known failure, I think that's not really my fault. You mentioned a series of other arenas in which it can fail, s This isn't a criticism of 'capitalism', it's merely knowing one of the ways in which it can break down. Chess needs the occasional reset, it's not much different from that. Each model has conditions in which it will fail out.

You still haven't explained what you mean by 'effective', upthread.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Now that's a symbiotic relationship!

I should have specified that Sammy (the cat) always ate the mice he killed. Back when my dad used to hunt, he would try for moose. That was a long time ago, though. I haven't eaten moose meat in close to 45 years.

 

[Hygro]

Nobody wants suffering. We're just not programmed to be good at avoiding it.

Nobody “wants” you to suffer but people want you to suffer. Nobody wants themselves to suffer but they sure are getting a lot of what they want.

 

[abradley]

Evidence that Free Will exists is underwhelming. And, if you look at my previous post, I have no problem with the concept that we are corrupt in a fallen universe. Yet, I don't know how to use a concept like Free Will in this discussion, mainly cuz I'm not sure it exists.

Hmmm, why did you post that?
Is that a instance of free will, after all you could have just ignored it and if you ignored it would that be freewill?
Obviously ain't no theologian so I'll use somebody else as my spokesman, hope he doesn't mind;

 

[Hygro]

Or his lack of free will compelled him to discuss his lack of free will, there’s no gotcha anywhere.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Why is there so much suffering in the world ?

Because there are 7.7+ billion of us.

 

[Farm Boy]

People were super into rape and murder when there were a lot less of us. They'd go on very dangerous journeys through empty seas and lands to find and create them.

Calling people closet rapists for having desires they respect and control is not beholden to material scarcity.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Hmmm, why did you post that?
Is that a instance of free will, after all you could have just ignored it and if you ignored it would that be freewill?
Obviously ain't no theologian so I'll use somebody else as my spokesman, hope he doesn't mind;

His logic is faulty.

"In eternity you are going to be with god or not. Those logically are the only two options."

 

[Farm Boy]

"In eternity you are going to be with god or not. Those logically are the only two options."

So how are you going to spend your time? Operating under the assumption we can and should/must create something better than what we are, or waiting for somebody richer/more powerful than us to do it?

Clock's ticking Bird boi. But mostly not just for you and me and Rah and Tim and possibly El Mac(I don't have a good read). For all these other bois that aren't getting any younger either.

They have it in them, I'm just not sure they believe.

 

[Modder_Mode]

I absolutely don't believe in a Creator (and there was one : who/what created it ?).

It's argued that God lives outside the constraints of time, therefore there is nothing before God.