>>2849946
Let’s assume conservatively that half that many insects would have lived and died on the land if it wasn’t rewilded and that insects suffer 1% as intensely as people (which I think is an underestimate https://benthams.substack.com/p/betting-on-ubiquitous-pain in expectation). https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/welfare-range-estimates/ Then we get the result that rewilding a single square mile of land produces about as much pain as that of nearly 2,927,400,000 extra human deaths. And if we count soil animals, then things get worse, in expectation, by orders of magnitude. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/6qfNSYDW6rWjc3jdr/increasing-the-welfare-of-soil-animals-will-remain-much-more Each square mile of land rewilded is a very serious moral atrocity. There could very well be more suffering in a thousand miles of rewilded land over the course of a few years than all suffering that’s existed so far in human history.

Now, it would be one thing if this suffering was compensated by a similar increase in well-being. But it’s not. As I’ve argued at length, https://benthams.substack.com/p/most-animals-have-bad-lives?utm_source=publication-search nature contains vastly more suffering than well-being. Most animals live only a few days or weeks and die painfully. They have nowhere near enough well-being over the course of their life to outweigh their extremely painful deaths.

>>2849947
If you lived just a week, and then starved to death or got eaten alive, your life wouldn’t have been worth living. But this is the fate of almost all animals who have ever lived. Nearly all of them have very short lives that culminate in a painful death. A few fleeting moments of joy aren’t enough to compensate for the intense suffering at their end of life.

And while there might be deontological prohibitions against destroying nature, these certainly don’t justify bringing nature back. There is no reason to bring nature back, forcing countless beings to live a brief life of misery, terror, and agony. Compassion demands better. If there are deontic prohibitions in this area, then they certainly militate against forcing countless beings to be eaten alive and starve to death.

Now, what defenses are there of rewilding? One is that nature is very pretty. Humans benefit from having nature nearby. These benefits are small and uncertain. They’re completely swamped by the impact on wild animals.

Others suggest that nature is a good thing intrinsically. I find this perspective baffling; if nearly every creature in nature is running for its life, very soon to be dead, likely to starve or be eaten alive by the end of the week, then nature isn’t worth preserving. It’s extremely implausible that https://benthams.substack.com/p/against-biodiversity?utm_source=publication-search nature has intrinsic value if you try to make the view precise, it collapses completely. More importantly, even if nature has some intrinsic value, it doesn’t have enough to justify causing more suffering than has ever existed in human history, every few years, in relatively small plots of land.

>>2849948
Now, maybe you just don’t care about the interests of wild animals. But this is a fairly baffling moral perspective one that cares deeply about nature, but doesn’t care one lick for the beings in nature. If we should care about an abstraction like nature, then we should care about the real sentient beings that live in nature. An abstraction like nature never feels anything. An individual deer, ripped limb from limb by lions, does. This view strikes me as like caring about a country but not caring about any of the people in the country.

And it is very difficult to see why it is that beings in nature wouldn’t matter. Surely humans mattered a few hundred thousand years ago, even when we were part of nature. So merely being part of the natural ecosystem doesn’t strip one of moral worth. But then it’s hard to see what about wild animals would make them not deserving of moral consideration. One can’t say that it’s being part of nature and being unintelligent (as wild animals are) because that would imply that mentally disabled people didn’t matter before the dawn of civilization (when they were part of hunter-gatherer societies).

Come to think of it, it’s not at all clear that there’s a precise definition of being part of nature https://wonderandaporia.substack.com/p/there-is-nothing-natural?utm_source=publication-search arguments against caring about wild animals, then, inevitably turn into arguments against caring about animals at all. They’d then imply it would be fine to torture dogs for trivial reasons. https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/readings/norcross.pdf

And as I’ve argued many times, it’s bad to suffer because of how suffering feels, https://benthams.substack.com/p/were-not-the-center-of-the-moral not extrinsic characteristics like whether one is a wild animal.

>>2849949
The fact that wild animals experience many thousands of times more suffering than all humans combined, in expectation, makes their suffering an urgent priority. https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-worst-thing-in-the-world-isnt?utm_source=publication-search

Now, the only serious argument for rewilding (if one grants that wild animals mostly live bad lives, which I think there is a very powerful case for) https://benthams.substack.com/p/most-animals-have-bad-lives?utm_source=publication-search is that doing so can reduce existential threats. The argument goes: rewilding reduces existential risks by improving environmental quality and reducing global warming. Because the future could be so enormous, this outweighs the harms to wild animals in the present.

I find much about this argument extremely dubious.

The people who make it generally would not accept this logic in other domains. Virtually no one would support torturing billions of people if doing so would reduce existential threats by .00000000000000001%. We don’t normally think it’s worth causing hideous, unfathomable quantities of suffering to maybe reduce existential risks by a tiny amount.

>>2849950
Rewilding has no serious impact on existential risk. The primary existential risks it could reduce are from biodiversity and climate change. But neither of these are major existential risks. John Halstead, after producing the most detailed report on climate existential risks done ever, https://benthams.substack.com/p/what-the-most-detailed-report-ever?utm_source=publication-search guessed the odds of climate change existential risk were way below .1% there’s just no coherent mechanism by which it would spell doom, the world has survived past periods of significant warming without facing catastrophic collapse, and the impact of climate change on food production will be largely insignificant. And rewilding has relatively limited impact on climate change.

The scenario for climate change causing extinction generally involves refugee crises triggering a nuclear war. This is very implausible; the places where climate change is likely to cause extra wars are mostly in Africa, which has no great powers. The overall impact on wars is likely to be fairly negligible, as the studies Halstead reviews find, and there’s no plausible mechanism by which such conflicts would go nuclear. Even the IPCC found that there’s little evidence for climate change causing interstate wars rather than civil wars which are the only kind that could plausibly go nuclear.

Biodiversity loss as an existential risk is even more unlikely you can read Halstead’s report https://whatweowethefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Climate-Change-Longtermism.pdf for more detail but many places have lost nearly all their biodiversity without facing any societal crisis. When you account for most species loss being on island nations, biodiversity isn’t even declining by that much. And even a collapse of biodiversity wouldn’t endanger food sources; pollinators only are responsible for about 5% of crop yields, and the rest of biodiversity contributes little to food production. There is, of course, no coherent way that rewilding a bit would have any effect on the kind of biodiversity crisis that would kill off the pollinators.

When you ask those who think that biodiversity loss will cause extinction how it would do so, you get one of two explanations. The first is pseudoscience, like that the loss of biodiversity will lead to us running out of Oxygen. This is laughable as Oxygen cycling works on scales of millennia and the net effect from biodiversity loss on Oxygen is likely to be very minor a textbook on the subject https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt4cgd8h recounts “changes in atmospheric oxygen concentration, although measurable, will be trivial until coupled, global-scale geologic/ biological processes conspire to change them. This would likely take millions of years.”

>>2849952
The other way of arguing involves vague innuendo about tipping points and the like. It involves tossing about lots of apocalyptic words (brink, tipping point, and so on), but few specific scenarios. These risks are not generally taken seriously by climate scientists, but instead promulgated by activists. In light of the poor track record of such claims, and the fact that humanity has survived fine despite exterminating most European forests (contra claims of existential tipping points), they should not be taken very seriously unless backed up by strong evidence, which they never are. And in any case, rewilding would have a minuscule impact on the global climate, so if we’re otherwise doomed, rewilding is extremely unlikely to save us.

Given that existential risks affected by rewilding are so minor, they could very well be outweighed by the opposite risks the risks caused by rewilding. Rewilded areas could introduce new diseases that pose existential risks, for example, or the economic delay could result in America losing a technological arms race to China. Given how low the risks of extinction are in the other direction, these could be more significant.

>>2849954
In my view a much bigger risk from rewilding is that we’ll get in the habit of rewilding, and then spread nature across the universe. This could be the cause of many terraformed planets and utterly incomprehensible quantities of suffering. By delivering successful rewilding, a pro-nature coalition might be built, which would spread incomprehensible amounts of suffering to the stars. This could be an S-risk https://www.lesswrong.com/w/risks-of-astronomical-suffering-s-risks a risk of astronomical suffering, on the order of existential risks in moral horror. And while I expect most future people to be digital, the impact on spreading wild animal suffering to the stars seems more significant than rewilding’s trivial impacts on existential risks. The values we have today will influence what we do in the future; if they are environmentalist pro-rewilding values, the future may be hell for countless quintillion beings.

As Bostrom has argued, we might currently be in a simulation. If we are, then our actions potentially are mirrored across all simulated worlds. If so, then rewilding doesn’t produce astronomical suffering just in our universe, but in all universes. Thus, as Brian Tomasik has argued, the simulation argument weakens the case https://longtermrisk.org/files/how-the-simulation-argument-dampens-future-fanaticism.pdf for caring almost exclusively about the future, which is the only sound basis for prioritizing the minuscule possible existential risk reduction over the enormous present suffering caused by rewilding. A tiny reduction in the risks of the 8 billion people alive today is paltry compared to the impact on the quintillions of suffering wild animals.

>>2849955

It would be one thing if we were comparing major impacts on existential risks to major suffering reductions. But we’re not. We’re comparing tiny and highly uncertain in terms of their overall sign impacts on existential risks to very sizeable increases in suffering. In such a choice, given moral uncertainty, one should refrain from causing huge amounts of extreme suffering.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I’m pretty Longtermist. I think the most important thing to do today is make the future go well. But I’m not so Longtermist that I’m willing to cause extreme suffering to countless beings for a wildly unclear and certainly tiny impact on existential risks.

All of this is to say that if you are a consequentialist, you should be very opposed to rewilding. It causes countless innocent beings to suffer horribly. Because nearly all wild animals live short lives of intense suffering, rewilding is a major moral catastrophe just about the worst thing we could do collectively.

>>2849946
except that the nature can always recorrect. this study is making a false equivalence to the human carrying capacity of earth which IS massively overshot at this point. billions of humans must die.but animals are always in proportion eventually.

>>2849958
>which IS massively overshot at this point. billions of humans must die.but animals are always in proportion eventually.
um, humans are also in proportion eventually, nigger
you're gonna give up that easily because of some studied thing on small scale populations of animals with like a 2x increase in population capacity, and the more long-term effects of that?
you think it DEFINITELY applies to humans on a global scale, and furthermore that there's nothing we could possibly do to change it?
fuck you

>>2849959
>nothing we could possibly do to change it?
Education + safe social securiy = apparently 1,7 kids per woman on average

>>2849954
>>2849955
>>2849957
Your a fool when an animal is ripped limb to limb in nature what you are witnessing is perfect order in a system.

what is this schizobabble?

>>2849946
If we respect animals capacity for suffering, we can also respect their capcity for self-determination. If animals want to procreate and cause suffering in their offspring, that's on them, not on us.

>>2849966
No more cancel culture

>>2849966
some mental illness is good...

Make less nature to create less suffering. Pave over the entire planet with blacktop, keep anything from growing. It's better to disallow life. That's your point, and you're entirely full of shit. You're so retarded, I'm honestly wondering how you were still able to write in coherent sentences. If you want there to be less life in the world, you can start with yourself. The rest of us want there to be more life, not less.

File: 600px-SFM16-4.jpg (35 KB, 600x338)

35 KB JPG

Your existence and food and electricity ability to post all relies on countless layers of suffering, you should off yourself to stop it.

>>2849978
you could also use the faculties you were born with to try and alter the systems of suffering, or create better systems
better to try and make the world dope as fuck than just forfeit it to whatever's running things
>>2849975
maybe....

>>2849946
Ah yes why dont we strip mine the whole planet! Are you with the German Green party by any chance?

>>2849978
>>2849978
Humans have astronomical impacts on insects. The average human, each year, reduces insect populations by about 14 million. In total, given how short insects lives are, this means that the average human could prevent hundreds of millions or billions of insects from coming into existence. Civilization may have reduced insect populations by about 78%, though that’s probably an overestimate. At the very least, it’s beyond doubt that our actions impact utterly mindboggling numbers of insects.

Most insects, unfortunately, don’t live very pleasant lives. Most are R-strategists, meaning they give birth to huge numbers of offspring, only a few of whom go on to reproduce. The overwhelming majority of insects who have ever been born live short lives of intense suffering. Most live just a few days or weeks before painfully dying from disease, starvation, or predation. If you lived a few weeks and then starved to death, your life probably wouldn’t be great. For similar reasons, I suspect almost all insects have net negative lives (for a longer defense of this, see here, here, and here). Thus, that humans’ actions likely drastically reduce wild animal suffering and this is quite a good thing. This is one reason human civilization is awesome!

So, in light of this, how should you live?

3.1 Give to organizations helping insects especially and also human charities
The easiest thing you can do at very little cost is to fill out this form telling the UK government that you’re against insect farming. It takes just a few minutes and could help utterly unfathomable numbers of insects. Read more about it here—which also provides sample answers if you’re not sure how to answer their questions. The last day to fill it out is today, so do it now!

>>2849978
>>2849990
Probably the best place to give if you’re concerned about insect welfare is here. The next few years are likely to be the most consequential in history for the insect industry. These insects are overcrowded, crippled by disease, starved, boiled, and microwaved to death. They’re then fed to factory farmed animals who themselves live in hellish conditions. The conditions on insect farms are about as bad as conditions can be for insects and there are quite literally zero welfare regulations. Slight improvements to conditions on farms are astronomically important.

Organizations focusing on helping insects also have the ability to bring insect issues more into the public consciousness. This raises the likelihood that we’ll eventually do something about the incalculably greater suffering of wild insects. This is one reason to give to the Wild Animal Initiative which is trying to build broader concern about wild animal suffering.

Another pretty good way to help insects is to save humans. Brian Tomasik conservatively calculated that a dollar given to the against malaria foundation likely prevents about 14,000 years of insect life. If insects live bad lives, then this is a very good thing (and in the off-chance it’s not, you’re still saving people). For this reason, the top human charities are probably better than all the top animal charities that focus on the welfare of vertebrates—only potentially being beaten out by the shrimp welfare project and organizations helping insects.

I currently give about 40% of my donations to help insects, 40% to the shrimp welfare project, and 20% to Givewell charities.

>>2849991
>>2849990
>>2849978

If you want to do some other practical things that likely reduce insect suffering, you can:

Convert a grass lawn to gravel.

Avoid eating insects.

Avoid homicide.

Avoid worm-bin composting.

(Maybe) try to eat fewer grains and more beans and nuts.

Overall though, the most important thing is probably donating.

3.2 Support civilization and habitat loss
Civilization has likely dramatically reduced the total number of insects. If each human reduces insect numbers by about 14 million each year, that’s a pretty damn good effect. So you shouldn’t become a misanthrope based on this depressed about the horrors of humans—instead, you should think human progress has been a really awesome thing @Lyman Stone.

You should also support habitat loss. More habitats=more animals experiencing very intense suffering. For this reason, habitat loss very likely reduces wild animal suffering. If you’re concerned about wild animals, therefore, you should support paving over ecosystems. At the very least, you should be extremely opposed to and horrified by rewilding—efforts to bring areas of nature back to industrialized areas.

Rewilding is probably worse than factory farming. We’ve rid various locations of torture chambers, and the rewilders want to bring back the torture chambers.

https://benthams.substack.com/p/insect-suffering-is-the-biggest-issue?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true

>>2849991
hmmm...
did you write more about the conditions in insect farms in your other posts?

>If you lived just a week, and then starved to death or got eaten alive, your life wouldn’t have been worth living.
it's not the writer's place to make that judgment
it's not his place to reduce all pain of every living creature either
schizophrenic technocrats

>>2849964
Utilitarian le trouble of being born shit. The most interesting thing about it is that the believers don't immediately kill themselves.

>>2849995
Yes

>>2849998
something like that, yeah
i forgot the word utilitarian

>>2849998
They consider it their moral duty to talk others into killing themselves first.

>>2850002
Strawman

>>2849992
>>2849991
>>2849990

>>2849999
i see

>>2850015
https://benthams.substack.com/p/how-to-help-potentially-trillions?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true

I'm not the author

File: [stares in pure hate].jpg (133 KB, 1024x903)

133 KB JPG

I hate gnostics so much it is unreal. OP fuck off back to /x/ or /pol/ with your heretical and poorly thought out garbage.
>inb4 but le hecking demiurge and evil of the material world! Look how this insect got eaten!

>>2850016
i will keep it bookmarked, ty
>>2850017
i think there's some overlap with utilitarian and gnostic thought, but idk how much or if they're the same or if that's fair

>>2850017
>with your heretical and poorly thought out garbage.
i'm inclined to agree
it's a thought experiment & nothing more, or SHOULD be nothing more
based on things which we can't observe and will probably never be able to observe

>>2850019
>based on things which we can't observe and will probably never be able to observe
like trying to quantify subjective suffering
and even then, to make judgments based on that/those quantities
seems fucky

BLOW UP SERVER FARMS
FU CK
DON'T LET THEM BILD A GOD MACHINE

>>2850018
You're very welcome

>>2850020
You can be a deontologist and believe in animal rights

File: 1593400131777.jpg (110 KB, 851x843)

110 KB JPG

>The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. (Gen 2:15)
Turning the entirety of our natural world into parking lots and data centers while destroying ecosystems is not what would be considered "taking care of" it. The Bible establishes this right off the bat.
>God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. (Gen 1:31)
Even earlier before that it establishes that the natural world created by His hand is good; written as clearly as day.

>>2850028
Scriptural inerrancy is false. Genesis is nearly impossible to reconcile with modern science
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/40952000/#q40952000

>>2850028
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18059907/#q18062454

>>2850028
I am extremely confident scriptural inerrancy is false.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe1tMOs8ARn3Uy9dvxyqhBvEldBgkqtN5

Were I to be a Christian, I would not be an inerrantist. I think the case against inerrancy is about as convincing as the case is for anything. The Bible is filled with bits that look like obvious errors. For instance, Genesis 4 and 5 have related but contradictory genealogies.

Genesis 19 tells the story of Lot having [incestuous sex with his daughters, who then gave birth to what ultimately became the enemy nations](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&version=NIV) of Israel. It’s obviously far more likely that the Israelites would make up mean stories about how their enemies got there than that a single act of incest with two daughters would result in two pregnancies, which then founds two separate enemy nations.

In Exodus 3:6 God says “And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make myself known to them by my name [Tetragrammaton].” However, in Genesis, God was known by the Tetragrammaton. The modern scholarly view of the Torah—which claims different stories got fused together—has quite an easy explanation of these facts. However, inerrancy does not.

>>2850031
The book of Joshua is dedicated almost entirely to discussing the glory of the conquests by which the Israelites conquered and pillaged with little regard for innocent people. Joshua 6 describes what happened after they conquered Jericho:

24 Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord’s house. 25 But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho—and she lives among the Israelites to this day.

Joshua 8 describes similar brutality after conquering Ai:

24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed [ [a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%208&version=NIV#fen-NIV-6029a) ] all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the Lord had instructed Joshua.

One can, of course, cook up elaborate justifications for Israeli conquest. But the ubiquity of the conquest combined with its alleged divine sanction makes this quite hard to swallow. The odds primitive militaristic Israelites would think God loved it when they conquered are much higher than the odds that God actually would love it when they conquer and senselessly murder women and children. Almost everyone thinks the gods approve of their sieges and conquests.

>>2850033
Not only is Joshua morally objectionable, it’s also [factually doubtful](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Jericho#Academic_consensus) . The dominant historical view is that it was written long after the events it purports to describe, and was primarily fiction. In particular, archaeology [seems to put pressure](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel-Browning-Jr/publication/338633396_The_Hill_Country_is_Not_Enough_for_Us_Recent_Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Joshua_Southwestern_Journal_of_Theology_411/links/5e20add6a6fdcc10156f7808/The-Hill-Country-is-Not-Enough-for-Us-Recent-Archaeology-and-the-Book-of-Joshua-Southwestern-Journal-of-Theology-411.pdf) on the claims made in Joshua.

As James Kugel [explains well](https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Read-Bible-Guide-Scripture/dp/0743235878) , nearly all of the Bible is better explained as primitive mythmaking than recording actual history. It’s not just the early books. The Psalms—the music of the Bible—often contains passages [like this one](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20137%3A8-9&version=AMP) (talking about Babylonian babies):

How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.

Or look at Isaiah, and its routine and violent fulminations against Israel’s enemies. Talking about the Babylonians, for instance, [it says](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2013&version=KJV) :

9 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

…

15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.

16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

>>2850034
17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

Isaiah 49:26 contains the delightful sentiment:

I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine. Then all mankind will know that I, the Lord, am your Savior, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.

It’s not hard to find passages like this. The Hebrew Bible is filled with obviously morally objectionable sentiments. One can find things that seem like errors on almost every page. A sizeable portion of the Bible is dedicated to either gloating about past conquest or hypothetical future conquest.

This will obviously be evidence against Christianity. If the Bible were extremely wise, just, and temperate throughout, that would raise the odds of Christianity, so the fact that it’s run through with errors is evidence against it. The Bible—certainly the Hebrew Bible—looks much more like what a non-Christian familiar with its contents would expect than what a Christian would.

>>2850035
More troublingly, Jesus seemed to have a high view of scripture. John 10:35 [asserts](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010&version=KJV) “scripture cannot be broken.” In [Matthew 5:17-18](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A17-18&version=NIV) , Jesus notes that he has “not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” He claims “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Jesus seems to repeatedly take scripture to be authoritative as people at his time did. Thus, Jesus seems to have had a much higher view of scripture than is correct. Jesus seemed to believe the Bible was without error, but it’s plainly not.

Now, one can, of course, posit that he was exaggerating the veracity of scripture to fit into the surrounding culture. But it’s much more natural to suppose instead that he was simply mistaken about scripture, and that Christianity is false. Making excuses for false statements is always a cost. If Jesus isn’t God, given the surrounding context, we’d expect Jesus to have a high view of scripture. If he is, him viewing scripture as highly as he does is extremely surprising.

Bump

>>2850028
The Bible verses you're likely thinking of describe a future era of perfect peace (often called the "peaceable kingdom"), where natural enemies like predators and prey live harmoniously without harming or killing each other. There are two very similar passages in the Book of Isaiah:

### The most commonly quoted one:
**Isaiah 11:6** (NIV)
"The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them."

(Continuing in verses 7–9, it adds that the lion will eat straw like the ox, and explicitly: "They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain...")

### A nearly identical passage:
**Isaiah 65:25** (NIV)
"The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,” says the Lord.

These prophecies symbolize the end of violence and fear in God's restored creation—predators no longer kill or eat their natural prey. (Note: There's no exact Bible verse saying "the lion shall lie down with the lamb"—that's a common paraphrase or mix of the two passages above, sometimes blended in hymns, artwork, or popular memory.)

Did anyone actually read all of this crap?

>>2850067
If people could read they wouldn't be Christians

>>2849946
holy fuck chatgpt thread

>>2849946
This is by and far the strangest psyop Ive ever seen on /out/. Begone, industrialist.

>>2850085
Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's a psyop

>>2850082
It's written by a human https://m.youtube.com/@deliberationunderidealcond5105/streams

>>2849955
All that to get to the point of wanting to reduce suffering but not having the balls to go full anitlife.
Gay,

>>2850144
Intrinsic goods like pleasure and relationships exist

Bump

>>2850142
too many videos about skydaddy mumbo jumbo. ill pass

>>2850172
Tell that to all the scientists, phds, Nobel winners, etc who believe in God