Technical compassion. Animals have little or no compassion for example animals rarely take care of their own sick and injured and certainly do not empathetically conserve other species as humans do. What you are about to read below is a metaphorical example. When I say prehistoric man had no compassion, I mean less compassion not zero. In fact, I think the further you go back in time the less and less compassion hominins had. Also when I say that you must for instance first attain gunpowder, nuclear weapons, roads, bridges and skyscrapers etc before you can or will be compassionate toward animals, do not take it literally, they are only metaphorical examples. For all I know it could have been a military in the recognisable sense such as the Roman army that was the key to compassion toward animals. It could have been agriculture, domestication and the Neolithic revolution that made us invincible masters of the animal kingdom and that consequently led to compassion for animals. It could have been spears and bows and arrows. It could have been trains. I don’t know. All I know, is that the further you go back in time, the more primitive technologically humans were and, therefore, the less compassionate they were toward animals and each other. For example, 17th century Europeans were less compassionate than us today toward life, animals and even humans, because for example they slaved and were generally a lot harsher than us. This is because they had relatively less advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure than us and were a little less secure in the natural world and not as invincible as us today. For example, they had no tanks, therefore, if you have tanks you can be more compassionate towards animals and each other. For example, the last Scottish wolf was killed by Sir Ewen Cameron in 1680 in Killiecrankie, which means that 17th people were not did not have a conscience regarding conservation of other species as we do today. And the Romans were obviously less compassionate than us because they enslaved, and had gladiatorial sports for entertainment etc. Again this is because they had relatively less advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure than us and were a bit less secure in their environment and not quite the invincible masters of the world as we are today. For example, how can Australopithecus or Lower Palaeolithic man be compassionate toward animals, when they themselves were not yet masters of the animal kingdom or even worse still prey themselves? It is impossible, compassion simply did not exist. Compassion is technical, in that you must, for instance, first attain advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure such as gunpowder, muskets, rifles, nuclear warheads, automobiles, militaries, police, emergency services, roads, buildings, bridges and skyscrapers etc before you can be compassionate toward animals. It is not a case of hey compassion for compassion's sake like the Buddha. Compassion is not free of charge, it is a definite and tangible deal or bargain. Only now that I am invincibly safe and secure from wild animals in my city, town or fortress and surrounded by guns, and now that I have an overabundance and surplus of food, energy and resources etc can or will I be compassionate toward animals. Consider this, Bill Gates is the richest man on earth with a 105 billion dollar net worth. Because Bill Gates does not have to worry about food or bills anymore, he can probably be more generous and compassionate to animals and humans than most of us. Therefore, imagine if a being had a googolplex dollars, this would probably enable this being to be extremely generous and compassionate. Therefore, imagine if a being had infinite dollars or infinite energy, how kind and compassionate could this being be? This being could potentially be the Buddha, Jesus Christ, God or YHWH? Prehistoric man needed to kill, it is simple if they did not kill they would die. Therefore compassion did not exist, in fact, it was probably wrong and even heinous at that time. It is only when you do not need to hunt or kill animals, can you then be compassionate. Therefore, the Buddha and Jesus Christ could not have come prehistoric men and only came at a certain level of civilization, when we no longer needed to hunt or kill animals in order to survive. The Buddha and Jesus Christ were blessed compared to prehistoric man. Therefore, compassion toward animals was probably only attained with sophistication, collective development and civilisation (perhaps through agriculture, domestication and the Neolithic revolution etc) because then and only then did Homo sapiens become invincible and masters of the animal kingdom. Compassion requirements: Must have attained advanced weapons, technology and infrastructure, such as gunpowder, rifles, cannons, nuclear weapons, military, police, emergency services and architecture etc. Must be masters of the world and the animal kingdom. Must no more or rarely be prey. Must be top of the food chain. Must not need to hunt or kill animals anymore in order to survive. Must have overabundance and surplus of food, energy and water. Must have agriculture. Must domesticate animals. Must be sedentary. Must have villages, towns and cities etc. Must have architecture. As a species you must have no other competition. Compassion is not free of charge. It is a definite or tangible deal or bargain, in that you must physically have all the above before you can or will be compassionate. Like the being with infinite energy, this determines that the more advanced you get the more compassionate you will get towards other species, therefore, if there exist other extremely advanced alien civilisations in the universe, they will probably be extremely if not infinitely compassionate towards other species. Therefore, if it is a law that the more advanced you get the more compassionate you get, this determines we probably do not have to worry about meeting hostile Klingons, Romulans or Predators etc. Don't get me wrong compassion is a very good thing, but it is advanced, however, this does not mean as Buddhists or Christians we should look down at prehistoric people because they had less compassion. It was equally good for them to have no compassion. I think it is a case of it was wrong for prehistoric people to have compassion and it is equally wrong for us today to have no compassion. Now think of this, Adolf Hitler did not have much compassion, in fact, he was the opposite of the Buddha when it comes to compassion, nor did Jeffrey Dahmer for that matter. However, bear this in mind, because as will be seen this lack of compassion must determine that such as Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile were, in fact, ancient or prehistoric men in the 20th century and therefore, relatively, this must mean that they existed in the wrong place and the wrong time. It is ironic that despite Adolf Hitler’s claims of racial “superiority” that in reality, he was probably a prehistoric man, an ape or (and I quote) a “subhuman” himself. You may say aha! If it is a law that the more advanced you get the more compassionate you get, how come the Buddha was 2500 years older than Adolf Hitler? That is exactly my point, in that Adolf Hitler was anachronistic, he spoils it, he spoils the theory of compassion. This is why he gets into so much trouble in the 20th or 21st centuries. Therefore, if Adolf Hitler went back time millions or hundreds of thousands of years he would be in less trouble. https://technicalcompassion.com
explicitClick to confirm you are 18+
0
remove_red_eye21