Possibly some of them where Sherpas who died while slaving their body to westerners.

Considering what we have done and are doing to the planet and life on it, we should have better just put that rock right back where it was.

But eating 370,000 calories per day WOULD change your body drastically.

Some just use their hands…

Here is an article that shows some contra points to the theorie, in case you want to have a look at that too.

The evidence for it is rather shallow, realy.

It’s pretty clear that persistent hunting is one of those myths concocted by someone to justify a world view that humans are “more special” than animals and has no more scientific basis than the “science” coming out of the Disney movies in the 1950s about nature.

That would be cruel to the people hit by a natural Desaster, people that might not be on board with this law at all.

Further it would just give the right wings nuts a reason to point to how evil Democrats are.

I instead propose to create a safety fund on the federal level that can be used to support states hit by natural Desaster. Just call it something realy obvious, like the “Climate Change Damge Mitigation Fund”. Make it a requirement that states publicly announce how much money they are asking for from said fund.

Well, considering the number of killings David did he is not wrong.

Look at it, it’s cuts as hell. (I’ll hide it behind a spoiler tag. A phobia is a phobia, after all)

That would be nice, wouldn’t it? I am less optimistic, given the way the world is going. It it would be nice.

The declaration:

The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness

Which animals have the capacity for conscious experience? While much uncertainty remains, some points of wide agreement have emerged.

First, there is strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and to birds.

Second, the empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects).

Third, when there is a realistic possibility of conscious experience in an animal, it is irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal. We should consider welfare risks and use the evidence to inform our responses to these risks.

I’ll reflect on my noodles a bit then. Maybe it’ll show me the sauce of your confusion.

But it is your own biased suggestion based on your beliefs.

I think I am not the one in this conversion who is biased, if you need my view to aline THIS HARD with your idea of religion even if I have explicitly made clear that it is not.

I don’t care what you belive or don’t. But you can’t see past your idea of that believing and religion is.

But you state it in a way that suggests if everyone on the planet followed your beliefs, then the world would be at peace and everyone would think logically, and start cooperating to fix all the world’s problems.

I am sorry, but neither have I writen this nor have I implied it. If you read it that way then okay, you can interpret it that way if you wish so. But I am, rest assured, not of the opinion you statet here.

Religion isn’t for everyone. Buddhism isn’t for everyone. Nor is Atheism. I think what view of the world you choose or don’t choose should be up to you and you alone. I don’t support preaching about it, I for sure don’t support trying to convert others to your way of thinking.

I think every person should make up their own mind about those things, while staying open to others arriving at a different conclusion. That is the mindset we would need to arrive at a true level of global cooperation.

But your opinion also seems to lean towards dictating certain things to people, based on your beliefs and opinions.

Could you specify this a bit, please? I honestly don’t see what you mean here.

I assume that you are American. And I assume that when you are talking about religion, you are talking a about the Christo-Fashist flavour of Protestantism that is all too common there these days.

And I understand the bitterness. I see and agree on the harm done by said group.

But.

Speaking about humanity, there is a lot of religion going on. Some is clearly bad and does indeed separate their participants from the rest of humankind. Christian Fashism, Islam, Hinu Nationalism. I see that.

Some is just neutral tough. Most of Europe these days has a Christian flavour of some kind that happens more in the background and isn’t in the way of progress, science or a secular moral system.

I am a Buddhist, and it has done nothing but help me become a more logical and a more compassanate person. I don’t see a downside so far. Have there been harmful Buddhist movements? Absolutely. Look at Myanmar and you can see how the Dharma can be used as a tool of hate.

I guess what I’m trying to say is: When religion becomes a tool of othering people, of creating a “us and them” dichotomy, then it is harmful, I agree with you.

But by making such a broad statement as yours, grouping every singe person on the planet that has some theistic belive together, you are too and I don’t think that is a good thing to do. Certainly not when we need unity more than ever, as the article does point out correctly in my opinion.

Your comment is a good example of the us vs. them mindset they are talking about in the article.

First author Lukas Reinhardt (Leader of the Global Cohesion Lab at the Centre for the Study of Social Cohesion [CSSC], University of Oxford) said, “Us-vs-them thinking is on the rise in many places all over the world, exacerbating conflicts and complicating finding solutions for pressing global problems.”

Thanks for the fix.