[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Where do you get that assumption from?

It would be illogical to single out any one disease, surely? Therefore the assumption must be that we have a right of cure from all of them.

If the cure of the disease is available,
the only thing that prevent us from getting it is the cost and benefit consideration for the society deciding to grant the right.
Imagine if someone has two serious diseases, for which only one has available cure, albeit it's still expensive. Curing that disease won't give much benefit as long as the other one is still there. Then the expensive cure should be prioritized for someone else.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Because we have changed the environment, not adapted to it!

Some people like The Bajau has free diving adaptation.
Other genetic variations across humans from different regions indicate adaptation to environmental conditions and lifestyle.

[alancalverd]

Their family members can make the additional efforts for them.

So we should all have lots of children in the hope that they will keep us alive? The objective, presumably, being an unsustainable population supporting its useless ancestors. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Their family members can make the additional efforts for them.

So we should all have lots of children in the hope that they will keep us alive? The objective, presumably, being an unsustainable population supporting its useless ancestors. 

It depends on their tolerance level to sufferings.
When the actions lead to different result than the goal, we call it alignment problem.
To solve it, we need to define the goal unambiguously, and make adequately accurate and precise model of the universe, at least in the parts where it's relevant to the goal.

[alancalverd]

One fairly common goal is to bequeath your children a better life than you have had. Unfortunately the government imposes an inheritance tax on the middle classes (neither the poor nor the rich pay it) and whatever your bequest, whether it be land or money, obviously the more children you have, the poorer each will be  as a result. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

One fairly common goal is to bequeath your children a better life than you have had. Unfortunately the government imposes an inheritance tax on the middle classes (neither the poor nor the rich pay it) and whatever your bequest, whether it be land or money, obviously the more children you have, the poorer each will be  as a result. 

People behaviors are affected by their expectation. Some people are so scared from being poor when they're old, hence they try to accumulate excessive wealth while they still can, even to the point of crossing moral and legal boundaries, sacrificing others. They are expecting to get easy lives during their retirements.
It motivates politicians and business persons to be involved in corruptions, which benefits few people in the short term, but hurts many people in the long run, and makes the system unsustainable.

[alancalverd]

People behaviors are affected by their expectation.

But surely more strongly affected by opportunity and ability? We all expect to get sick and die, but some have the opportunity to live better than others in the meantime.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

People behaviors are affected by their expectation.

But surely more strongly affected by opportunity and ability? We all expect to get sick and die, but some have the opportunity to live better than others in the meantime.

Opportunity and ability affect the results. But their decisions, actions, and behaviors are more affected by their expectation. Someone who has the ability to jump across a cliff, but doesn't expect to successfully do it, are not likely to jump.
On the other hand, someone who doesn't have the ability to jump across a cliff, but does expect to successfully do it, are more likely to jump.

[alancalverd]

So expectation depends on opportunity. No cliff, no reason to jump. Why rob a newspaper seller (easy, but scant reward) when you could rob the bank next door? Or, if you are a politician, tax the newspaper seller and give his money to your banker brother, in the expectation of becoming a director when you are voted out in disgrace.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's a video discussing morality of veganism.

?You Wanna Talk About MORALS?!? Neil deGrasse Tyson vs Vegan Activist

Here's a video defending veganism. You may see the sarcasm in the title.

There is one argument vegans can't debunk (vegans kill animals too)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So expectation depends on opportunity. No cliff, no reason to jump. Why rob a newspaper seller (easy, but scant reward) when you could rob the bank next door? Or, if you are a politician, tax the newspaper seller and give his money to your banker brother, in the expectation of becoming a director when you are voted out in disgrace.

Expectation depends on many things, such as education, experience, actual ability and opportunity.
Just like before, even if you have the real opportunity, you won't take it if you don't expect it to bring you success.

[alancalverd]

The vegan argument is sound. Animals are a very inefficent source of food and a very significant source of carbon dioxide, so if you want to feed more people and reduce atmospheric CO2, don't farm animals.

I don't agree that those objectives are necessary (or even desirable in the case of increasing population) but I'd be quite happy to retain the status quo, which means eliminating farmed meat.

[alancalverd]

even if you have the real opportunity, you won't take it if you don't expect it to bring you success.

Circular, surely? How else could you define opportunity? 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

even if you have the real opportunity, you won't take it if you don't expect it to bring you success.

Circular, surely? How else could you define opportunity? 

No. An opportunity is a situation where you have better chance to succeed compared to otherwise. People may or may not realize when they are having that opportunity.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

?You Wanna Talk About MORALS?!? Neil deGrasse Tyson vs Vegan Activist

The vegan activist seems to assume that feelings and emotions are fundamental aspect of morality, especially fear, pain and suffering. He offered no justification for it. I guess he's influenced by Yuval Noah Harari's view of morality.

He also seem to evaluate their magnitudes based on their perceived expression, such as screaming and facial expressions, just like himself and other humans.
He thinks that it's an immoral action if you don't want others to do it to you.

He dismissed right away the possibility that plants might have their own ways to express those feelings, and equates them with rocks. I wonder what he would say about humans or other animals in vegetative state. Is it OK to eat them?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

To be clear, I'm not against veganism for its own sake. I just support it for a different reason, namely efficiency, compared to current practice of meat eating cultures. If someday a more efficient way is found to sustain life, I'll support it more.

[alancalverd]

He thinks that it's an immoral action if you don't want others to do it to him.

I'd agree with him - we discussed this several pages ago!

He dismissed right away the possibility that plants might have their own ways to express those feelings, and equates them with rocks.

But he's wrong here. There is plenty of evidence of plants responding to harm and even fighting back.

Way back in Biology 101 we were taught the differences between plants and animals: animals cannot synthesise protein from simpler chemicals, and must therefore eat something that was previously alive. Some animals can eat mostly plants, others eat mostly animals, and apes, pigs and dogs eat a mixture. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I'd agree with him - we discussed this several pages ago!

You added another term to patch the hole in the rule created by sadomasochists and non-selfish individuals, which may implement kin selection. Even then, there's still a hole left which is created by psychopaths and nihilists, and the crazies or mentally ill people.

Your rules asked people to use their own feelings to evaluate morality. But when their results contradict your expectation, you tried to reject them without giving a clear reason.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Way back in Biology 101 we were taught the differences between plants and animals: animals cannot synthesise protein from simpler chemicals, and must therefore eat something that was previously alive. Some animals can eat mostly plants, others eat mostly animals, and apes, pigs and dogs eat a mixture.

There are photosynthetic animals.  They acquire photosynthetically-fixed carbon by forming symbioses with algae and cyanobacteria.
Plants themselves are thought to be a product of endosymbiosis.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Fact checking moral arguments.

Moral realists argue that positions in morality can be judged by the correctness of facts used to support them.

Some assumptions used here need to clarify:
- Plants don't suffer, i.e. non-sentient.
- Animals suffer. Does it include brainless animals?
- Sentience or capability/vulnerability to suffering is a good measure to give something rights, as the basis of morality.