Quote Originally Posted by Ash256 View Post
If we were dropped into the jungle somewhere we'd very possibly be bitten by a poisonous creature and die a slow and painful death involving some kind of paralysis. But that doesn't make shooting a person in the head morally neutral.
I should reform my response a little. At first I thought your response was to a different post of mine, so that changes my first response by a little, but not a lot

I'll just reform it by saying that I merely consider a "normal" level of suffering as normal and unavoidable. I won't get my panties in a wad over organisms living normal lives and enduring what they've been mostly evolved for, but I will most certainly get my panties in a wad over artificial suffering taken to extremes. That's the primary reason why I lament modernism over tribalism. Yes, tribalism does involve some suffering, but it's not even remotely close to the levels in modernism. I consider the levels in tribalism to be "acceptable" while the modernism levels are unacceptable. That's getting into fairly tale land, but I think the example can illustrate where I'm coming from

Also, I think if you look at our lives, you'll see that we consider a certain level of suffering as normal. Like a baby has to cry or a child has to confront a bully or an adult has to experience a broken heart. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't imagine that suffering that should be considered normal to be extreme. I only say this because animal activists are oblivious to it. They get mad because humans butcher a cow, but they don't realize that if things were left up to nature, it'd be lions and hyenas and wild dogs butchering the livestock instead