What a wise man would do

What then is your un-stretched definition of ignorance?

There would be nobody for noticing the “better Earth”, for having the thought “oh, what a better Earth this is”.

Yes, that all is bad, but what should the humans do according to you?

Ignorance:

  • Lack of knowledge, information, or education

or

  • The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed

thefreedictionary.com/ignorance

Do you consider desire to be an object of awareness; a “knowable” object to consciousness?

I’m not interested in playing word games.

I thought that you had some insight into wisdom so I asked you for an example.

Nuff said.

The humans should stop reproducing, ideally.
Or, they could change, so that they are less evil.

Phyllo, there are no word games being played but instead there is a search for insight.

Humans can only be humans.

And how does that effect everything?

I do not understand what you mean by your question, Dan. Humans are not really capable of being dogs (for example).

I remind you of my thread: “Will machines completely replace all human beings?”.

Will that be a solution?

If we can’t change, then there is no use trying to change.
Human limits can be stretched.

Humans are not evil. Some humans are evil sometimes.

In what way do you want to stretch them?

The lower your standards go, the nicer and greater humans seem.

Mostly in the field of morality and medicine.
But that is not the point of the thread.

The only person that you control is yourself. Therefore, it makes sense to apply standards to only your own conduct. If you expect people to conform to your standard, then you may well be disappointed.

That said, the conduct of the majority of humans cannot reasonably be called evil.

We control our children until the reach a certain age of accountability, at which they are expected to control themselves. Control of others could be the province of parents, ministers, teachers, bosses, even of the internet.

History has shown that all so-called „human rights“ have almost always been hidden rationales and hidden justifications for exploitation everything and everyone the exploiters want to exploit.

The more rhetoric laws amd rhetoric rights the humans invent the more human they are. This is meant in a negative and a positive way, but the negative one prevails the positive one the more the more laws or rights are invented. At least, this is the case in modernity. So, if we use your way of morality, we have merely two small „chances“ (it is questionable whether they are chances or not): (1) we stop inventing rhetoric laws and rhetoric rights, (2) we stop modernity.

I do not understand the term rhetoric as applied to laws and rights.

I mean that the said laws and rights are full of rhetoric, elocution, thus: speaking technique (it is more or less the same as faking technique).