• @CybranM@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 year ago

    Given the choice between people suffering needlessly or people living without suffering yeah I would pick option two. I don’t understand how anyone could pick option one.

    • sousmerde{retardatR}
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But if you were born in option 2, and lived all your life in Paradise, wouldn’t you want to experiment something else than this homogeneous unity, if only to know yourself, to distinguish yourself from your equals ?
      If you don’t follow the thought, that’s because you’re asking for the disappearance of all evils, a perfect world will have nobody better than someone else, we’ll all reach the maximum conceivable potential, every single being would be as absolutely perfect as the laws of the universe allows a being to be.
      That’s not what you want, you don’t want the absolute end/perfection but something in between, we’ll get there, and it could realistically be argued that this halfway towards perfection is long behind us, that’s the goal but i’m glad we still have stuff to do instead of an aimless/useless existence in a perfect world.

      Furthermore suffering is rarely pointless, please pick an example it’d be less theoretical, here’s an old comment if you’d like to see a few of them in the first paragraphs.
      If carnivores didn’t killed vegetarians then they would destroy everything, and if trees didn’t die they wouldn’t let enough place for new generations, but eating/killing stays a bad thing, which is why it should be avoided whenever possible(, e.g., not to die ourselves). We don’t live in the best possible world, but the trip may be more enjoyable than having reached the ultimate destination millenias ago.

      (It’s out of topic but the universe is so big and it’s so easy to spy on planets by building trillions of automated probes that it’s weird we’re still feeling/being free from external/alien influences, w/e 🤷‍♂️)