Scholar

Give that a listen. Especially the part when Napeleon exterminated an entire village just because he was frustrated. Hitler established animal welfare regulations, like requiring breaks for the transportation of pigs. There was also this prominent figure who didn't like when soldiers would treat the jews badly before executing them. That hardly makes them saints.

Which is why I told you that it is paramount to find a meat-replacement, like lab grown meat, instead of waiting for cultural changes that might take decades. Again, even if we are the soy that the animals ate, we would reduce the amount of it being produced substantially. Cows require far, far more soy to produce the same amount of calories in meat. Whether people want to eat soy or not is their choice, even if everyone ate soy instead of meat we would be far better off than now. But you yourself recognize that this is not a solution that can be implemented in time. So again, meat replacement is of utmost importance.

Exactly. This is what we are doing here. Figuring it out.

How do you propose to fix the issue?

Because Brazilian forests are not the only thing people are worried about, aside from the fact that humanitarian organisations don't save forests.

Yes but the problem is that the market will find solutions to cheapen the prices at all costs. They will lobby, they will invade other countries and burn their forests down. They will incentivise goverments to support them. Don't forget that they are being funded by everyone who buys meat. That's billions of people. That won't just go away by regulation, especially when people aren't even informed that the problem is the meat industry. Currently you have western goverments subsidizing the costs of meat. Because of the demand of entire populations, goverments will use taxes to make meat affordable. And they have to, it's what the people want. The people want meat. Either we change the people's wants, or we find a better way to produce meat. I don't see any other viable option that will solve this problem in any meaningful way. If we had all the time in the world it would be different. But the facts are that our time is very limited. The only way to stop this it to create radical change.

Ban soy to feed the animals? What else are you going to feed them with? Grass, that requires far more land use than soy? Soy already is the most efficient way of feeding landstock. Again, these solutions will do nothing to change anything as long as people demand and pay for this industry every single day of their life. "I don't want you to burn down the forests!" "Here, take my money, I want me beef." These two actions are contradictory. You can't have both. It's not possible. Sometimes there are no regulations to be made, sometimes the population needs to sacrifice it's own comfort for the greater good. Or atleast be smart about the solutions. Regulations will be effective once there will be an alternative to animal farming, because then we will be able to satisfy the populations need. Do you still consume beef? If so, how can you possibly expect brazil to make a huge economic sacrifice to save their forests when you can't even let go of your steak to do the same?

It would be more helpful for you cease interpreting my words from your own mental framework and instead try to learn from what I am trying to communicate to you. You have no understanding of Goodness and Evilness, you treat them as mental abstrations, when they are a very fundamental part of the way the ego constructs and interfaces with reality. Just look at it, look at how it is here right now, while you are denying that it exists. Your framework is so utterly confused that you still believe morality could reflect the outside world. But both morality and outside world are mental constructions within mind. You intermingle aspects of consciousness and further delude yourself. Just look at what is going on instead of creating new ideas. As long as your ego reacts to everything I am telling you with an attempt to debunk it to show off your intellectual superiority, you will not learn anything at all. Goodness and Evilness only cease to exist once the ego ceases to create them. It has nothing to do with an external world, it has nothing to do with objective prescriptions or moral realism. You keep operating within mental constructions while I am pointing you to the substance of realness itself. The flowing of time exist only as a mental idea in your head. As long as you cannot see that what I just told you is clearly and undoubtedly the case, you will be confused. I am not pointing you to labels, I am telling you that all labels are just that, labels. What you need to see is things beyond labels, which you so clearly struggle to do. Otherwise you would realize that all the questions you asked are like asking what Santa Clause is eating for breakfast.

I don't think it works for him at all, he is deeply confused and anything short of direct experience will just make him more confused and ideological. He doesn't need more fancy non-dual explanation. What he needs is to look at direct experience. This is like arguing what the color red is without ever having experienced it. Once you have clearly seen and identified it, we can move on to mental constructions.

I am not sure you understand the gravity of the problem of animal agriculture. There is no other solution but to replace it. Watch the video Keyhole posted. Theres fires have been going on for years now. Not just in the amazon.

I disagree, I think questions this fundamental require the absence of mental constructions, not a reconstruction. Making him believe that time is an illusion doesn't help him if he doesn't even know what time is, or what illusion is.

You will not find answers by creating more elaborate constructions of thoughts and ideas. You are trapped in your concepts, you replace one concept with another. Time is this, time is that. Time is an illusion. Time is relative. Consciousness is time. All of these statements are utterly absurd and untrue. Time is one thing and one thing only. Time is time. You will not find insight into the nature of reality by shuffling concepts around, you will only find insight by looking at that which you seek to know. The looking is the recognition and the recognition that which it is. Good and Evil exist too. It is clear as day, I can be directly aware of these two fascets of realness. They are as real as anything else could be real. To see the truth you must stop confusing different aspects of realness for each other. Time is time. Good is Good. Evil is Evil. There is nothing that is evil, there is nothing that is time, there is nothing that is round, there is nothing that is fast. Only fastness is fast, only roundness is round and only time is time. Time is not an illusion. Only illusion is illusion. All you have to do is look mindfully. Stop confusing your thoughts for that which is not thought.

I wonder if anyone is using psychedelics in a non-pleasant environment to develope oneself? For example, using it while watching terrible war videos or slaughterhouse footage. It seems like most of the time the more pleasent aspects of reality are being investigated, but why do we not investigate the terrible ones? Maybe we can gain deeper insights into the nature of suffering that we have not yet discovered? I mean saying suffeirng is illusion is a very surface level insight, maybe there is more to it? Maybe there is depth of these aspects, and maybe their unpleasentness makes us avoid to truly dive into them?

But how do you know this? Have you ever taken psychedelics while confronting suffering outside of the psychedelic experience itself? Infact, do you know a single person who did this intentionally? From me it seems like psychedelics are being used in a perfect bubble, instead of the full spectrum of reality, because it is uncomfortable to us. But how can we expect to learn about all aspects of the relative world if we are only willing to face our microcosm of spirituality. Should spirituality and psychedelic use not be all encompassing? Look at people like Christ who was directly confronting suffering. What spiritual teacher, even the most advanced ones like Sadhguru, do you see actually helping the poorest of the poor? I see a lot of talk about Love, but I do not see action. Would Leo for example be able to compose himself in a situation in which those around him suffering greatly, want to kill him etc.? How can we expect to understand Love in all it's fascets if we just sit in our perfectly designed caves? What if a bad trip is nothing compared to a bad trip confronting suffering? And what if it requires that inhuman amount of suffering for us to get a deeper understanding of it? Can you have true empathy for someone who exists in terror, if you yourself have never truly experienced terror yourself? If we knew what terror was, could we still watch idly while others are experiencing it? Would we not behave fundamentally differently if we knew what it is like to be enslaved?

What does it mean for us to ask questions about Love when we have not yet recognized it ourselves?

It doesn't really matter though because the meat demand is going to be there, and therefore a forest will need to be cut down somewhere. The meat demand is going up not down, by a substantial amount. By the time China and India will have the same demand per capita as we have, we will use every inch of the planets viable surface for the soy that we feed the cows with. And even that would not satisfy the demand. If everyone went vegan this instant, we could regrow the forests we have burned down and could use a fraction of the land that we currently use to feed cows to feed us directly instead. The problem would be solved. But that will not happen, so creating a true meat substitude is paramount. Read this article: https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

No government regulation in the world can do something about the billions of people who demand meat. Where will we put all the cows and farmland to feed the cows when the number of people who want to eat cows and milk are increasing globally? Most cattle Brazil produces is for China. Good luck telling the chinese to eat less meat, when they are not even eating a fraction of what we eat per capita. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/02/revealed-amazon-deforestation-driven-global-greed-meat-brazil The only viable solution I see is greater investment into the research and production of lab-grown meat. It needs to become cheaper than regular beef as soon as possible. Meanwhile we have people advocating people to buy pasture raised products instead of factory farmed ones, which require far greater land use and therefore in most cases far greater amounts of deforestation. The solution cannot be "better and more sustainable farming", the solution is a complete replacement of cattle farming. This cannot be achieved through cultural advancement because the greatest markets have not even yet developed, which will be China and India.

Is it self-biased to save a human being over an ant? Is it self-bias to argue that a human being is more worth to save because it has a richer experience of life and has a greater contribution to higher consciousness? How do we justify sacrificing the ant for the human? Can we do that by adopting the position of the ant and the human and deciding which one would prefer to continue to exist? But wouldn't that be self-bias because we are humans and will therefore choose the human? Would a high consciousness being without self-bias choose the human over the ant?

Positive impact for who though? This particular ecosystem, this particular way the earth currently is? Why is an earth with life more important than an earth without it? Is Mars less important that the Earth, and if so isn't is kind of self-bias to say that? What you present is basically utilitarianism in a context of contributing to the current eco system. But the current eco system only exists because the dinosaurs were wiped out. By upholding this current regime of ecology you will surpress any potential different regime that would spawn as a result of absolute catastrophy and death. This is infact true for every decision you make. Any decision you make will create one way reality unfolds over another. Why do you think one way is "better" than the other, without self-bias?

I think I know what the difference in approach is here. I am viewing Pakman from a different reference point than you guys do. If we view Pakman from an orange weighted reference point he will appear quite greenish and even yellowish. It's like if we were to view all people we currently identify to be at Stage Blue from an actual stage Blue culture, they would all seem to be actually stage orange. If we view all current stage green people from a hypothetical stage green culture, they will all seem to be stage orange. Infact, if we imagine a stage turquoise culture, even people like Sadhguru will seem very stage orangey. A stage turquoise individual from a stage turquoise society will be radically different from anyone who has achieved even the highest level of human developement today. Kind of like how we look back at Buddha and see very clear stage blue aspects in him that he was not able to escape. Our current bias is to look at everything from a stage orange reference point. We do not recognize the enormous cultural bias within us, as we all exist in a stage orange environment. Look at the entire world, literally our way of living, our institutions, our entire world is structured around stage orange values. Maybe this is the "You can't escape culture" problem.

It's not about whether they eat meat or not, it's about how the confront the problem. Plenty of "green" people are not even green at all in the moral line, even the entire LGBTQ community is not. Notice that LGBTQ activism is a movement that was spawned from people who themselves indentify as LGBTQ, making it an individualistic movement rather than one created by compassion towards out.groups. Most people think LGBTQ people deserve rights because it makes sense that they would deserve right, they have no rational reasons for taking their rights away. But most peolpe also don't care that much about LGBTQ outside of their political identity. They don't actually feel true compassion for them if they are not their friends or somehow are integrated in their own personal identity. You know this is the case because if it was true compassion these people would probably primarily care about homeless people. This is how stage orange operates, just because they usestage green memes does not mean that the value structure of these people is on all lines stage green. https://consciousevolutionmemoir.com/2013/03/12/the-integral-map-lines-of-development/ I would say that the vast majority of people, including what we might identify as stage green people, are underdeveloped in emotional intelligence, morals and self-identity. They are stage orange, maybe even stage blue on many of these developmental lines. The problem is not what one's current position on animals right is, the problem is how one interacts when faced with these problems. Again we must look at the internal value system rather than ideological positions. If I show you slaughterhouse footage and the first thing that comes to your mind is "That's terrible, but..." you are in my opinion on some of these three lines underdeveloped. A human being who is fully integrated at stage green will see slaughterhouse footage and think "Holy fucking shit this needs to stop at all costs", because they have the capacity to put themselves into the shoes of the beings who they are observing. Most people are not, most people get uncomfortable and immediately react by coming up with some justifications for the state of affairs. This is a wonderful example: Look at how archaic the justifictions are some of these people use when confronted. Even though they might be confused as stage green, they are fundamentally not. They only use stage green memes as long as it serves their individualistic agenda, they go so far that they become completely irrational, use justifications that slavers used to devalue black people. There is no true moral evolution here, there is simply an adoption of higher memes to serve ones own agenda. I would say that our estimates of how far people are evolved is very oversimplified and because of how easily high level memes get distributed in the age of the internet, we might get results that we previously would not have, judging people to be far higher than they actually are. I think in a culture that is so predominantly orange it is not really possible for green to exist in it's fully integration, because it would be so radical that it would not get along with it's culture. Once we will have a dominating green culture we will have fully integrated green people. A fully integrated stage green culture to me would behave kind of like a mass of Jesuses who help everyone they can, and everything being structured around that goal. They would create small robots that go around to pick insects from the sidewalk so noone would step on them. They would create huge fences and bridges for animals to cross highways. They would make sure that noone is depressive, poor or unhappy in general. They would take care of everyone, in a kind of utopian idealistic scenario. Like a stage orange culture makes sure everyone is free and has rights, a stage green culture would make sure everyone feels well and is happy.

I would not say he is even fully green yet. He has a very reasonable and calm appearance, though the values from which his mind operates internally seems to me very orange. This is a very telling sign. He comes off reasonable just in terms of the way he structures his speech, but the actual logic and justifications he uses are pretty basic stage orange dismissals. He is using higher level memes to justify his lower level values. Notice his system of values that determine the way he justifies his response. He has no concern for the well-being of other beings, rather he already has a firm position on the topic which he disguises by appealing to ignorance and some lofty principles that in this context don't even make sense to use. It is crucial that we understand that most reasoning is done post-hoc, meaning they justify values one already holds, which in this case are clearly individualistic "freedom" values. He assumes the position of killing animals for food unnecessarily is acceptable, from there he comes up with a rationel to justify that value system. A person who has evolved morally to stage green will argue the other way around. They will come from a position of already being certain that killing other beings for unnecessary reasons is wrong, and they will structure their arguments that way. You don't need to convince someone who inherently values other beings that they are valuable, they will require no justification, no reason to do so. A stage orange person you have to convince with logical consistency, because they do not actually value animals whatsoever, they are dismissable as long as they do not affect them directly. Don't look at how Pakman appears, look at the value system his appearence represents. He clearly does have some stage green positions, and even stage yellow positions, but they are integrated in a stage orange value framework. It's like a stage blue person can use stage turquoise memes but yet it would not mean he is stage turquoise at all. You cannot fake being another stage, and Pakman is a clear example of that. No person who has evolved to stage green on the moral line will ever answer the question of whether animals deserve rights by saying: "I don't know, I never thought about it."

I think you are making jumps between prescriptive and descriptive morality. You go from stating how things should be to how things are. This is a justification of a prescription, saying that "We do not need to care about this problem because the world is too complex for us to take into consideration what will eventually cause harm and what will not". I criticized this justification as it would also apply to someone who rapes and tortures you for pleasure. You would not accept that kind of justification at all. What people will or will not do due to the nature of their psychology is fundamentally different from what you seek people to act like, what you prescribe yourself to do. So the question is not "What do people act like" but "What, as a high conscious beings, would we want people to act like?". Saving the ant or saving the human? Can we answer that question without self-bias?

Yes but with that logic you could go on and rape and kill people and just say "Well you gonna kill stuff anyway". In the thought experiment we can also remove the chaos. It's just the ant vs the human, leaving out all of the complexities. Who do we save without self-bias?

Yes but isn't it self-bias to structure what is worthy of consideration after what kind of impact they have on our environment? And why is mental distress relevant if we were to be unbiased? So a fully conscious enlightened being should kill the human and save the ant? But what does that have to do with the question I asked?