Outline of steps to take in forming the Governing Body

Henry, we are all resources, we all use each other to one degree or another wether we know it or not. You are using me right now do you not see that? I am not insulted I understand that as these creature that we are it is a needful thing for each of us to thrive and survive. There would never be force , never be any behind the back none zero zip. Its all right out in front. You see it you willingly give it. As do I

I do enjoy you Henry. You are good for the soul

HA!

In the manner of ipecac?

ROTFLMAO,, hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that one. No, in the manner of keeping the mind thinking.

HA!

Kind, but inaccurate, I think.

All I ever do is point out how simple 'living' truly is (and how folks tend to complicate 'living' unnecessarily), how there is no 'we' (there's only you and me and him and her, etc.), and that reality is amoral (what's 'right. 'wrong', 'good', 'evil' are in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is guided by nothing but personal inclination and what he or she susses out by him- or her-self, for him- or her-self).

Can't see how my pointing out the obvious would lead any one to do anything ('cept, maybe, yawn).

Ever do a chinese finger puzzle or try to remove a childproof cap, how about just trying to figure out what to do with raw chicken?
Sometimes simple requires thinking and sometimes simple is not so simple. Sometimes simple is just too damn complicated. what is simple for one may require another to wrap their brain around it.

Yep.

Frustrating.

The solution, of course, with either is robust violence.

Rip the puzzle to shreds!

Take a hammer to the bottle!

#

"...what to do with raw chicken?"

Burn the hell out of it...

aah, caveman philosopher. It is refreshing since most that enjoy thinking actually rely on others to do it for them. Youngsters now tend to quote everyone else and have little imagination of their own. Caveman tactics have a real place in philosophy and governments.

"Caveman tactics" are the foundation for EVERYTHING.

The blunt, amoral, unthinking, universe is nothing but force and counter-force in its entirety.

Life (in its broad, biological, definition) is nothing but an on-going exercise in the (re)distribution of energy.

More narrow: all morals, ethics, philosophies, etc. are thin veneer applied to dress up the blunt, direct, straightforward, nature of the World.

These, to me, are unremarkable, obvious, observations.

So you think nature is blunt,direct and straightforward? Do you not see that morals ethics and philosophy are natural to the world? All critturs have them , they are not manmade.

Then you and me have different definitions for "morals, ethics, and philosophy".

As I see those (sometimes useful) fictions, only a human individual can craft and hold them in his or her head.

What prevents a carnivore from eating an herbivore that it has lived with and was raised by that herbivore? A Pitcher plant camoflages its intent to eat a bug by using a sweet smell, other plants do the same but, they do not eat the bugs. Camoflaged changing colors becoming a shape are all about what? And what are ethics morals and philosophy about at their core? Survival. Why do animals not attack and kill each other in their herd or pack? Survival . But how can they actually know this?

"What prevents a carnivore from eating an herbivore that it has lived with and was raised by that herbivore?"

Training, for one. The owner of both animals discourages the eating of one by the other.

A satisfied appetite, for another. If the meat eater is 'not hungry' then it's not so likely to eat the plant eater.

Can't see how anything approaching a moral or ethic is involved (except as either pertains to the 'owner').

#

"A Pitcher plant camoflages its intent to eat a bug by using a sweet smell, other plants do the same but, they do not eat the bugs."

Natural selections of traits or qualities that enhance the survival of any particular animal or species seems, to me, quite distant from the esoterica of morality.

#

"Camoflaged changing colors becoming a shape are all about what?"

Continued living, or (as you say: survival).

#

"And what are ethics morals and philosophy about at their core? Survival."

In part: yes. Ethics, morality, and philosophies are also (perhaps, mostly) about control, establishing and maintaining 'status quo', about domestication.

The differences between 'natural selection' and 'morality' far outweigh the similarities (of goal).

#

"Why do animals not attack and kill each other in their herd or pack? Survival . But how can they actually know this?."

Most animals 'know' nothing as they, the animals, are just bio-automata (clusters of instinct and impulse). The few non-human examples that may have 'self' and 'self'-consciousness are dim and tenuous when compared to any human being (sharp, clear, robust 'I'ness). So: IF pack members don't attack each other, it has far more to do with innate, instinctual, hierarchies (alpha, beta, delta, gamma, etc.) than conscious choice. Reality is, however, alphas are challenged all the time, litters are eaten by rival males and females and on and on.

Insofar as is observable: only human individuals possess the capacity for complex language (rather than simple communication), ascendant 'I'ness (rather than simple consciousness/awareness), personal autonomy/choice (rather than simple 'drives') all which conspire (along with other aspects unique to humans) to make man the pattern seeker and maker (which fundamentally is what a morality, an ethic, a philosophy, is: a pattern, a map, by which to navigate the World).

Another way to look at it: morality, ethics, philosophy are attempts at de-liberation (removing options from the table)...only humans do this.

As I say: morality, ethics, philosophy are (sometimes useful) fictions...none should or can be discounted, all have parts to play, but all are only fictions (existing and empowering only to the extent any one holds them in his or her head).

I was not thinking domesticated animals only. There have been documentations of wild creatures adopting those infants not of their species and classification, male and female.
And as far as pertaining to the owner what keeps carnivores from killing the owner? I have a pack of 19 dogs most are large. Food is not the only control for animals. they eat only once a day, what about the rest of the time? What keeps them from attacking when they get excited or nervous or upset? Built in ethics and or morals about not eating pack members or killing pack members.
Survival carries ethics and morals to lie about one's own actual physicalness is an ethical thing. Be it plant or animal. You/ it is hiding truth. So survival does use ethics/morals.
Sure humans take a base thing and make it complex but then , our societies are more complex and need complex rules and regulations.
what I am saying is all that you just posted are the basics of morals and ethics. all survival actions are those in simplistic base form. We kill or not kill based upon survival. We act and react based upon survival and is not self survival the base of being ethically and morally responsible to yourself? If an animal has no survival instincts then it would have no self control. It would kill , be killed or expire. Survival is at the very core of ethics and morals. It is our behavior towards ourself. Wether you think animals have no sense of self at all or not they still have to have a sense of self preservation, they still must decide what is in their best interest.