They are a bit rather literalist, but they have a point.
Only “do less and consume less resources” won’t end suffering. It will limit certain kinds of suffering.
Feeding those without enough healthy food may require more resources (many reasons people don’t have enough food, sometimes those reasons are “war”.)
There are other kinds of suffering as well. Bad governments abusing people. Weak governments not protecting people. Not enough medical care, or the wrong kind of medical care. Unsafe neighborhoods, and unsafe homes.
Undoubtedly, there are hundreds of ways humans are suffering right now that I am not touching on.
I was more thinking of the PETA-style can’t-harm-one-animal-hair issue. The people who get upset if you trap rats that are eating native birds; that kind of thing.
But on the other hand, ending all suffering is such an unrealistic demand that no one would say it seriously. Stubbing your toe is suffering but would anybody prioritize ending it? You can read it as a hyperbole if you will.
So given the choice between a reading with addressable solutions, and one that can never be achieved and so no one would ever argue for, you intentionally selected the second interpretation. Because this allows you to reduce the argument to an absurdity, and then disregard it. But you’re just fucking lying to yourself, you’re not really achieving anything except finding a way to arrive at the conclusion that you had pre-selected.
End deliberately human caused suffering is not the same as end all suffering.
End all suffering implies preventing all animals starving or eating each other. Or animal genocide so nothing is left to suffer.
I think that’s a pretty hyperliteralist take.
So is the original meme.
They are a bit rather literalist, but they have a point.
Only “do less and consume less resources” won’t end suffering. It will limit certain kinds of suffering.
Feeding those without enough healthy food may require more resources (many reasons people don’t have enough food, sometimes those reasons are “war”.)
There are other kinds of suffering as well. Bad governments abusing people. Weak governments not protecting people. Not enough medical care, or the wrong kind of medical care. Unsafe neighborhoods, and unsafe homes.
Undoubtedly, there are hundreds of ways humans are suffering right now that I am not touching on.
I was more thinking of the PETA-style can’t-harm-one-animal-hair issue. The people who get upset if you trap rats that are eating native birds; that kind of thing.
In rough order of plausibility:
End human-caused human suffering
End human-caused human-or-animal suffering
End anything-caused human suffering
End anything-caused human-or-animal suffering
You just inserted the word “all” and hoped, we wouldn’t notice but I did
I would argue that ‘end’ implies ‘all’, aka ‘eliminate suffering’.
If it said ‘reduce suffering’ or ‘minimise suffering’ that would be different.
But on the other hand, ending all suffering is such an unrealistic demand that no one would say it seriously. Stubbing your toe is suffering but would anybody prioritize ending it? You can read it as a hyperbole if you will.
But that’s kind of the point of the OP in the first place. End all suffering, wait not that suffering.
So given the choice between a reading with addressable solutions, and one that can never be achieved and so no one would ever argue for, you intentionally selected the second interpretation. Because this allows you to reduce the argument to an absurdity, and then disregard it. But you’re just fucking lying to yourself, you’re not really achieving anything except finding a way to arrive at the conclusion that you had pre-selected.
But that’s kind of the point of the OP in the first place. End all suffering, wait not that suffering.