Do you think every positive idea, side, thought, situation, etc. in life has its negatives (details if you click)?
I’m NOT making small talk here, not this time. I’m talking about BIG radically sustainable choices of life made in life through life. Examples: if humanity became vegans, many animals on this planet would become extinct from destroying cattle, converting forest for farmland, and exterminating wild animals who ate the farm plants. A world of meat-eaters ensures cattle and game animals are abundant, yet those animals live no better than vegetables. Humanity abhors controlling who can have children, yet humanity cannot protect children from physical, sexual and psychological abuse administered from parents who should not have children. Small struggling countries (North Korea, for example) want weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent, but those weapons make them targets of superpowers. Politicians and leaders (Trump, for example) want change, ignoring the damage of that change.
In other words, to choose sides is guessing which is less evil. Hence, to paraphrase the question, the evils of good, or the good of evils, depending on the position. The questions, not the answers, are wrong. To cite still another example, you ask a thief if stealing is wrong. (S)He’ll probably counterquestion something along these lines: “Knowing that stealing is illegal, do the personal and societal benefits of theft outweigh the risk?” A simple scenario, as last example, if you will.
“A building fire is upon you. You can only rescue one thing. Do you rescue the last living doctor, or do you rescue the last copy of medical books that teach a person everything to be a doctor?” Along the given details of the question, a cliché answer would be like: “I rescue based on the fire danger and chances of success per rescue, not based on what is in the fire. To do otherwise is saving on one’s imagined belief regarding the importance of an item or person. What if I rescue the books, but no one left living has the aptitude or interest to read them and become a doctor? Maybe the doctor was trying to destroy the knowledge to protect his own value and self-importance as the last doctor and trapped himself in his own act of malice? What if I die in the rescue? Can I be sure my survival isn’t more important than either of those options? Is it possible that the fire should destroy both and life go on without them, humanity rebuilding itself on survival of the fittest? So, what will have a greater influence on the future and survival of humanity: the doctor, the books, or me?”
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
6 Answers
Each of us has power to affect our lives and situations around us. What we each learn as we mature is that our power is limited. We have to pick and choose how we spend our power. That’s actually a very beautiful thing. We have the freedom to choose where we use our willpower.
I am passionate about LGBTQ rights, so I use what little power I have to advance causes that serve that purpose. I have friends who are passionate about other issues. In the end, it’s quite beautiful how many causes I like but cannot devote resources to get covered anyway by my group of friends.
Some people have more power than others, and they have a lot of responsibility to use their power wisely. National leaders have more power than citizens. Still, these powerful people can’t devote all their attention to every single issue. That’s why they manage groups who in turn manage individual issues. This is what a Cabinet for the President does.
Now to address some things you wrote. Animals will not become extinct if all of humanity became vegan. That is illogical. Humans practice animal husbandry to control animal populations. Becoming vegan does not stop our ability to practice animal husbandry.
Just because we cannot ensure safety for every single child does not mean we should stop having children. That’s illogical. We work to give the best possible life for all children that we can. When that fails, we work to fix it.
The choice of whether to save the doctor or the textbooks is one that I will never face, so I’ll ignore it.
When you’re writing details for questions like this one, please use paragraphs. It will make it much easier to read. This one was hard to get through.
The greatest influence on the survival of mankind would come from mankind itself, if it could act in unison. But, unfortunately, IMHO, that ship has long since sailed…
I will try and shorten this to make it easier for all to read and understand quicker.
You have so many suppositions plus choices that are narrow especially in regards to the subject manor which would allow much more choices in real life .
1. Re: Animal scenario
Animals provide more than just food to mankind as they are the workforce when it is
too hard or too long to complete by man alone.
Ex: Farm animals, plowing,pushing, pulling ,dairy cows provide food and so on.
2. Re; North Korea” reason” for weapons ( supposition)
A small country requires a protector that is bigger and more powerful as a friend.
Hence the weapons being created to advertise to these superpowers that they are in
business of selling to them, so that those superpowers can fight among themselves.
North Korea is playing both sides in order for protection from either one.
3. Re: The Building Fire
”..a building fire is UPON YOU…”
Then the first recourse is to save yourself , then other lives, then put the fire out.
4. ” What will have greater influence on the future and survival of humanity?”
The choices that ” WISE” and compassionate people have to ensure our continued
existence on this planet.
Over the lifetime of humanity countless civilizations perished while civilization continued.
Its not the survival of the fittest, but rather the wisest,that will ensure our planet continues on.
Just my opinion.
Yep. EVERYTHING has some downside if you want to look at it. We decide if the benefits outweigh the detriments.
Response moderated (Spam)
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
