Janic wrote:This is to presuppose that these "wise men" were precisely not, that the philosophers had not thought of them and that these religions were ignorant of human nature.
It is not a question of discrediting the wisdom of certain masters or philosophers, quite the contrary, but of realizing that humanity is a super-organism that is very difficult to reprogram.
How many masters of wisdom have ended in indifference? Much assuredly!
Christianity, for example, owes its salvation to the existence of the Roman Empire and its geographic and cultural expansions, without which this cult would have ended up in the oblivion of history ...
To change society, it is necessary to convey information quickly and to as many people as possible.
Sweet illusion contradicted by history. At each birth, you have to put your work back on the job, that is to say, try to raise the level of consciousness and, to this day, it has remained a failure despite the armies of psychologists and the religions of all kinds.
It is a peremptory statement, it is like saying "we have never seen stolen men" until the day when the hot air balloon lifted its first bipeds ...
Gandhi had told his people that responding to violence with violence would only generate millions of deaths without resolving their situation since England was better armed, better trained and might even have had the support of others. slave nations. His path has been passive resistance with a few thousand deaths which have avoided millions.
Gandhi applied the "wu wei" or principle of non-action, as Christ said:"if someone hits you on the cheek ..., it is a ... martial principle!
When a group is in inferiority (numerical, military, etc.) it is much more effective to advocate non-violence and to attract the sympathy of other groups.
Absolutely not ! Boxers are not in a state of self-defense (hence the use of this term: legitimate!), Bullfighters no more, hunters even less.
Self defense has nothing to do with it!
For there to be LD there must be an unjustified attack, outside boxing it is the fight of two consenting people.
In the same way, one cannot compare a boxing fight with a bullfighting killing, I doubt very much that the bull is consenting ...
Indeed, but without the will to harm, injure or kill, this is all the difference with humans
Oh no!
Young cats, dogs, wolves, ibex etc ... only train in the struggle for dominance.
Outside the dominance is everywhere, better your exteriorized healthily than the repressed.
However, people are more afraid of shrinks than of combat arenas. Because the shrinks face each other and it is a much more difficult opponent to face. From where these physical derivatives can, partially, evacuate tensions accumulated during many years, but which will resurface one day as for the cancers mentioned elsewhere.
People who practice combat sports are not disturbed, nor are pétanque players, it is a means of martial exercise (such as climbing, running, swimming), the theme here is focused on combat, quite simply.
It's when you want to run a diesel engine with gasoline or vice versa: it's not for. Or when a hunter picks up his rifle to shoot someone!
Except that life is not a block of monolithic, it evolves.
Completely wrong! They want us to believe with some cave paintings supposed to represent hunting scenes (more and more disputed besides) that we (all therefore) humans were hunters.
And precisely studies of bones show that humans were omnivorous, changing their food according to the regions frequented.
Likewise, it is observed that monkeys consuming meat (such as baboons and chimpanzees) have developed techniques and tools (for the latter) increasing their memetic capacity, which by causal effects leads to an evolutionary phenomenon.
But what interests us nowadays is precisely to question its eating practices in order to make them evolve towards ethical nutrition, sanitary and compatible with the preservation of our environment.
It is because the consumption of meat was only a last resort, an occasional supplement, that we are still here because, unlike the images of Epinal which are presented to us, where there are animals, there too there is vegetation and if the vegetation is reduced or disappears the anatomically constituted beings to feed on plants, move or disappear as observed by Darwin and that he expresses strongly in his work "the origin of the species" which served as a motor for evolutionism.
This theme has already been addressed in another subject, so I will not answer it, your answer especially underlines your desire to believe in a vegan past, apart from the facts are very different.
Plateau culture is not recent and is practiced in Japan as well. However, animal husbandry consumes immense areas which compete with agricultural areas for human use. It is therefore a choice of society because where we feed a cow, a goat or other we can feed 5/10 humans.
It is for this reason that Japan is largely focused on fishing.