Yes, it painful for me to look at animals in narrow cages where they slowly go mad whith monotony.
(next - by the Thanos voice) But in general I can't understand the logic. In the wild, the animal has hard life. It will sooner or later be injured, sick, starving, and even eaten alive. But these sufferings are considered as normal because they are "natural". In the well-maintained zoo, the animals eat, sleep, and a bit bored, but this sufferings are considered as unacceptable.
For billions of years, animals suffered for a reason: it was evolution. Now biological evolution is complete because it is displaced by the evolution of civilization. Why do animals have to suffer in wild nature now? It may happen that our descendants will look at humanism towards animals completely different: allowing animals to live in the wild will be considered a crime (like living children unattended).
Animals have spent billions of years evolving to live in and handle the world they naturally inhabit. Taking them out of that, putting them in a small cages where they don't feel safe, they don't understand whats happening. They are surrounded by things that are threats in the wild, noises they aren't familiar with, etc..
Putting a wild animal in a cage isn't "boredom", its torture.
> Now biological evolution is complete because it is displaced by the evolution of civilization
That's not a true statement.
>Why do animals have to suffer in wild nature now?
Because animals ARE wild/ARE Nature. You can't remove nature from nature.
>allowing animals to live in the wild will be considered a crime (like living children unattended).
This is... absurd... Animals are not pets, animals ARE wild, they are dangerous. They are also required for life on this planet to continue. The ecosystem depends on animals at all levels of the energy/food web for it to exist and continue and screwing with this on that level would largely ensure the collapse of the worlds ecosystems.
> Animals have spent billions of years evolving to live in and handle the world they naturally inhabit.
Then what about meerkats as pets, for example?
> Because animals ARE wild/ARE Nature. You can't remove nature from nature.
Who say this to you? It was God, animals themselves or some voice of Universe? There is no one here, only us. We can do what we think is right. If we see suffering that has no any purpose, we can stop it. What is "purpose" is just our choice too.
> They are also required for life on this planet to continue.
For what? Now we are life on the planet. Nature has evolved and we are the result and next step.
>The ecosystem depends on animals at all levels ..
>Who say this to you? It was God, animals themselves or some voice of Universe?
This is what I learned by studying biology and ecology
>There is no one here, only us. We can do what we think is right.
You're suggesting interrupting a natural ecosystem that is beyond complex, likely leading to its complete collapse, due to lack of understanding.
You may "think" you're right, but anthropogenic projection and a complete lack of understanding of how the world works doesn't make your view right, if anything your an example of someone with good intentions that would utterly fuck up the world if you were given control
>If we see suffering that has no any purpose, we can stop it. What is "purpose" is just our choice too.
Suffering is a natural state of existence, we all experience it, it's part of life, many philosophers would argue a necessary part of life.
>For what? Now we are life on the planet. Nature has evolved and we are the result and next step.
We rely on a massively complex ecosystem made up of millions of other living organisms. We are not "the life", we are an example of it on this plane.
Nature is continuing to evolve, we're just one point on a long line of changes.
>Now we have a new ecology: mankind and Earth.
That is absurd and unjustifiable. Earth's ecosystem is made up of billions and billions of living things, humans are just one part of it, and one of the most damaging, destructive, short-sighted living things and we cause significantly more suffering than anything else.
I would suggest starting with biology and ecology courses, and some history both geological and human.
> You're suggesting interrupting a natural ecosystem that is beyond complex..
No.We did not understand each other. I'm talking about what we will do when we completely destroy this ecosystem. May be it will take about hundred years.
> Suffering is a natural state of existence..
Then why do we worry about animals in zoos? We are part of nature too. Then why do we separate natural and non-natural suffering?
> Nature is continuing to evolve, we're just one point on a long line of changes.
Wild nature has no time for this. Evolution requires millions of years. We will destroy it before anyway. And even if we disappear and let it to evolve farther, then for what? It has produced conscious cpecies already.
> Earth's ecosystem is made up of billions and billions of living things, humans are just one part of it.
Ok. Another point of view: what do you think about the
anthropic principle?
I think you equate humans with animals. But that is absurd, because it is the judgment of man. Animal cannot judge at all.
You separate nature and mankind and then say that it just part of nature. I do'n understand a point.
> I would suggest starting with biology and ecology courses, and some history both geological and human.
I think I studied it at school 30 years ago :). Last years I finished with quantum mechanics and switched to English language (sorry, the hardest subject for me).
that's a bit too far fetched for me to believe possible for all Animalia. Then again we sorta treat dogs and cats similarly. That took thousands of years to domesticate though.
We have another picture here. Putin is not dictator as Hitler or Saddam Hussein. He just does what most people (not all of them smart) in Russia expect from him. We say that collapse of USSR is a catastrophe not because empire fell apart. It was "catastrophe" because we had the contry where all worked fine (culture, law, technology, aducation ect.) and than it suddenly dissapered complettely and turned to just crowd of criminals and stupid savages on the ruins of USSR. And the country was no longer able to stand up. Democracy did not work and the attempt to restore the authoritarianism did not work either. Nothing works anymore and no one understands why. Yesterday we were a people who can do everything, today we are a people who can not do anything.
You can believe that if the Russians make a film about the segregation of blacks in America, you too will be mad and say that Americans have never been so evil and stupid (and it will be true partly).
Do you imply that I should be also mad at the depiction of heroic Soviet firefighters in Chernobyl? I think, to the contrary, they are like the most brave and heroic Soviet characters I've ever seen in a western movie.
My point is that the West was able to make a more humane and relatable movie about USSR than what all modern Russian propaganda tried and failed to do. This series is shattering the "us vs them" mentality the Russian media tries to instill.
Film is fine. I say that someone else's view of your problems always not fair in some sense. This is the reason why the film annoys many Russians. My two uncles worked at Chernoble. One died after. The second one said us without a doubt that he would also go to the active zone if ordered. No soldiers with guns took part in it or ever existed.
My aunt lived at Pripyat and she was pregnant. She lived in our flat in Minsk temporary after evacuation. She's daugther fine today because of the timely evacuation of the city. Ect..
Or maybe because some people have access to the information and means to get somewhere else, and some are just proles and can be made to march under radioactive rain without being told anything.
It's true. The totalitarianism of the USSR in 80-th is greatly exaggerated. I was born in 1974 and the first time when I heard the words "KGB" and "GULAG" was about 1989. Вefore that, I did't even realise that I lived in a totalitarian country. Everyone said what they wanted and thought what they wanted at home or whith friends (not publically). Agitation for communism was perceived like today's agitation for a green planet.
My mother was a common worker and she became a member of communist party because (surprise!) she dreamed make the world better (it didn't work very well).
And yes, I was a child. But these are my memories of the USSR, this is a fact.
Do you think I'm lying? Now I am for democracy and even ran away from the police when we were protesting against our dictator Lukashenko.
(with a terrible russian accent) USA can be the opened center of the free world or it can be the closed and most powerful contry in the world. If USA uses its position as the opened center of free world to become closed contry that rules the world, we all will have a hard time.
IMHO quantum mechaninc is too simple and fundamental for such complicated explanations. It only claims that probabilities of some elementary observations determined by complex number vectors wich evolve unitary.
As Wheller said "It from bit". It seems to me that when physicists can to consider observation, collapse and physic phenomenas gennerally as some kind of informatinal processes, then quantumn puzzles about reality will be resolved. I think them not sussessed yet because this is incredible difficult task; not because this wrong way. May be it will be something like informational multiverse. Some principle like multiverse branches selection to keep "information conservation law" (as another manifistation of unitarity) can explain nonlocality ect..
