PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Most would not agree they had been harmed.
TINNY: Few people are aware of the subtle effects of how what they experience influences them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It has been said that only those who have some basic flaw in their personality are badly affected by seeing violence on television or in the movies.
TINNY: Who among us does not have some basic flaw in their personality? The fact that any person finds watching violence, even fictional violence, entertaining is a flaw in itself. We can look back now to the time of the gladiatorial contests and think how primitive and wrong people were then to be entertained by that real violence. In the future people will look back to these present times and think how primitive and wrong people were to be entertained by that fictional violence. Really, it's not a very nice thing to enjoy seeing people killed or otherwise harmed even in the fictional world of entertainment. It is important for all of humanity to come to this realisation if we are ever to achieve our beautiful destiny, a world of love and peace.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If this is all true, and it certainly seems to be, why would anyone include murder and violence in television programs and movies.
TINNY: There is a very simple answer to that question. Murder and violence is so predominant in television and movies because it makes money.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I gather what you mean is that television programs and movies that portray violence are popular and therefore make a profit.
TINNY: That's the way things are.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't the executives who make the decisions to include acts of violence in their programming say they are only giving the public what they want?
TINNY: They could say that, and they do say that. It allows them to deny personal responsibility for their actions. There are two objections to that claim, which is in reality only a form of rationalisation. First, the market for violence was at least in part not naturally occurring, but was created by those who produced the entertainment which portrays violence. Second, and even more compelling, is that it is wrong to give someone anything that can harm them, even if they want it. It is our ignorance of the harmful effects that allows us to seek violent forms of entertainment. Children before they know any better must be protected from things that will harm them. The human species, yet in its infancy as an envolving form of self-reflective consciousness, must be protected from those things which will cause harm. As a child matures the desire to touch the burning flame disappears in rational thought. So too, as the human race matures, will the desire to be entertained by violence disappear in rational thought.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All that is surely true, but how can you expect those who produce the television programs and movies portraying violence to stop doing so when it brings them great financial reward?
TINNY: The desire to see violence and the desire for material gain are but two of the huge number of social problems destroying human society. One cannot be solved while the others remain. The answer is to find a solution to all the world's problems at once. The many and varied problems are all caused by the current misunderstanding of the true nature of our reality. The many and varied problems can all be solved by the widespread realisation of the new, more correct world view.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the spread of violence the only problem created by the various forms of entertainment?
TINNY: There are lots of others. Much entertainment promotes socially abnormal behaviour as the norm. It disparages the socially right perspective which is in accord with natural law. It dwells on the negative aspects of human society rather than the positive. It encourages materialism by continually showing the many viewers who have little a make-believe world where everyone seems to have a lot. It creates discontent among viewers whose lives are not as opulent and exciting as the fictional characters in whose lives they become so involved.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the various forms of entertainment you are talking about create a general negative influence in many areas of human social behaviour. Would you give me an example of another major problem area besides violence?
TINNY: Sexual behaviour is another area of human life which has been very negatively influenced by the various forms of entertainment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Human society has always had a problem with sexual behaviour.
TINNY: In the past few decades problems in sexual behaviour have become much more widespread and serious.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Considering what you described earlier as right sexual behaviour I think much of what you will be describing as problems will be considered by many as fully acceptable in this modern age.
TINNY: That wrong beliefs are so widespread is probably the greatest harm brought about by the influence of the various forms of entertainment. Television and movies are extremely powerful tools of propaganda. They have been used both consciously and unconsciously to destroy the moral rightness which had developed in human society over many thousands of years.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would anyone want to destroy the moral right in human society?
TINNY: Some who did this were misled by the new philosophies of ethics and human freedom. These new insights into the nature of our existence appeared logically sound and true. They turned out to be neither.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So some of the people creating this powerful social influence through the various forms of entertainment actually meant well?
TINNY: That's true. Some were only misguided. Others were not so well intentioned. There were many involved in the entertainment industry who only wanted to satisfy their selfish personal needs. They saw the opportunity to push their wrong values and material desires onto a naive and susceptible public. The wrong ideas of the abnormal few became the wrong beliefs of the many. That which was truly wrong became believed to be right. Virtually anything became acceptable. The fine quest for freedom became an ugly rush for license.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You were telling me about the problems in sexual behaviour caused by the entertainment industry.
TINNY: Sometimes I just can't believe how sick so-called entertainment has become. One of the things that bothers me greatly is that the depiction of rape is so often a part of the entertainment. Such things show so clearly the illness of our society. If entertainment shows lots of violence then violence in real life increases. If entertainment shows lots of rape then rape in real life increases. How horrible. Human sexual behaviour should be beautiful and loving, not ugly and hateful.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is rape the only sexual problem caused by the entertainment industry?
TINNY: No, just as murder was not the only problem of violence that was caused. The range and types of harm caused in violent behaviour and sexual behaviour are almost identical. There was conditioned into human society a general acceptance of the great amount of wrong sexual behaviour portrayed as entertainment, which generalised into a similar acceptance of wrong sexual behaviour in real life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Not everyone is so brave as to call certain common types of sexual behaviour wrong.
TINNY: I'm never afraid to speak truth. I'll be very specific. Promiscuity, homosexuality, and adultery are all wrong. They are wrong because they stand in the way of the continued progression of the human race.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You already explained why, so I won't ask again.
TINNY: Promiscuity, homosexuality, and adultery are all seen on television and in movies thousands of times by children before they reach adulthood. Through a subtle conditioning process these wrong sexual behaviours become an accepted part of life. Those who are not involved in any of those wrong sexual behaviours are made to feel that they are missing out on something, even that they are in the wrong for not accepting these abnormal sexual behaviours, if not actually participating. The important sexual aspect of human life loses its real meaning and true beauty as it becomes no more than a search for more and greater sense gratification.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some of the sexual relationships between people who are not permanently paired, or affairs between married people, or even homosexual relationships are portrayed through the various forms of entertainment as being meaningful and beautiful.
TINNY: That is part of the subtle harmful influence. While the people involved in any of those sexual relationships may very well believe them to be meaningful and beautiful, the reality is that they bind humanity to the physical existence through the quest for sense gratification without aiding the progression of the human species, thereby impeding the advancement of the human species toward its destined goal of perfection in every aspect. The feelings of love between the people involved in any of those relationships may be meaningful and beautiful, but the natural order of existence does not allow the sexual behaviours between the people involved in any of those wrong relationships, promiscuity, adultery or homosexuality, to be meaningful and beautiful. They are hurtful to the entire human race.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some would say promiscuity, homosexuality, and adultery are no more common today than they have ever been, it's just that it's all done more openly now than in the past.
TINNY: That is false justification and rationalisation. It's just not true. All of those types of sexual relationship are more prevalent today than in the recent past.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's pretty obvious what homosexuality means. I'd like you to define adultery and promiscuity for me.
TINNY: Adultery is a sexual relationship between a person who is permanently paired and someone other than their permanent mate. Promiscuity is a sexual relationship between people who are not permanently mated. Adultery is a form of promiscuity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Adultery is usually defined as a sexual relationship between a married person and someone other than their lawful spouse.
TINNY: As we have discussed before, a permanent bond between a man and woman is more powerful than marriage. The legal contract of marriage itself means nothing, the emotional and spiritual bond between man and woman means everything. It is this permanent pairing that should be free from the eroding effect of sexual relationships outside that bond. Such a permanent bond is too important and too beautiful to be destroyed by the selfish desire to partake of sexual pleasure outside that bond.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What you say is true for both the man and the woman isn't it?
TINNY: Absolutely. I think that one of the sad things that happened as women fought for equal rights with men is that women didn't discriminate between right and wrong behaviour in men. They wanted it all, the right and the wrong. Since men more often strayed from their mate and sought other sexual relationships women in great numbers in the purported quest for true equality also sought adulterous relationships. In this women were greatly influenced by adulterous and promiscuous women's roles being portrayed as acceptable, meaningful, and rewarding on television, in movies, and in literature. In doing these things women were wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What should women have done as they sought equality between men and women in this area of human sexuality?
TINNY: They should have been proud of how women had long maintained the sanctity of the permanent pairing of a man and woman. They should have taught men the rightness and importance of fidelity in the family bond. Women should have raised men to their level in the search for equality; instead they fell to the level of men.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Sometimes for many different reasons a man and woman after forming a bond they planned to be permanent find something wrong with their mate. Divorce is a much used solution to that problem.
TINNY: Divorce or the breaking of a permanent bond between man and woman is no solution. Divorce is a social problem in itself. There should be no divorce. The true nature of a permanent bond is of course to remain permanent. Unfortunately human society is presently very sick, many people are so wrong in thought, word, and deed that they cannot successfully contribute to the permanent bond between man and woman. We will continue to have divorce until people become more right. When a man of high consciousness and a woman of high consciousness form a permanent bond in the future it will be an eternal bond. They will both have chosen well and intelligently. They will be good in thought, word, and deed so as to be able to successfully contribute to the paired relationship without problems, and they will not be looking for something new and exciting outside their permanent bond.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Usually the word promiscuous refers to sexual relationships with a lot of partners; but I notice your definition says nothing about number but only that it is sexual relationship between a man and woman who are not permanently mated.
TINNY: Yes, that's how promiscuity should be defined. It really has nothing to do with the number of partners involved. One sexual experience with one person can be enough to constitute promiscuity. The word promiscuous can refer to that which is done casually, without particular purpose, and it is in this context I use the word. Sex between a permanently mated man and woman always has meaning whether it be for reproduction or for developing the loving closeness of the family unit. Sex between people who are not permanently mated cannot have either of these purposes and there are no other right purposes, so therefore it is by definition without purpose and wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is easier to see how a sexual relationship between a man and woman who are not permanently paired could be considered not right than it is to see how it could be called wrong.
TINNY: I understand what you mean. What I am going to say applies to all aspects of human life, but it is particularly apt in referring to sexual behaviour. If we don't do the right thing, we will be doing the wrong thing, and we will just be another part of the sickness of human society and not be part of the cure.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Before we go too far off the subject I'd like to ask a few more questions about the effects of entertainment on human society.
TINNY: Ask away.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you ever watch television or movies?
TINNY: I do, but seldom for entertainment. Television and movies are a part of the way I have learned about the world and the social influences that affect human society.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have you been negatively affected by what you have seen?
TINNY: I am sure I have been harmed to some degree, but I have learned how to see all things objectively. When the influences which affect human social development are understood it is possible to maintain inner control over the effect of those influences. When I watch television or movies I evaluate what I am seeing as potentially helpful or potentially harmful. With my thoughts I can then enhance the positive influences and inhibit the negative influences.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you ever watch television or movies for enjoyment?
TINNY: Almost never for enjoyment alone, I have too many other things to do. Usually I watch to learn, which is a very enjoyable experience.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean you usually watch educational programs?
TINNY: That isn't what I really meant, but I do often watch educational programs. I meant much can be learned about social influence by watching television and movies.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since many of the things shown are those which you know to be wrong and harmful, does it make you feel bad to watch?
TINNY: Sometimes it is hard to watch, sometimes though some of these scenes become almost ludicrous. Those who produce the shows often seem locked into a pattern regardless of whether or not what they include has any intrinsic meaning to the story being told. An example of this is the ubiquitous sex scene. The story will be proceeding along, everything falling into place as the plot is developed, and then all of a sudden the hero or sometimes the heroine will fall into bed for a boring and meaningless sex scene, having nothing at all to do with the plot. I have seen this happen time after time. I have gotten so tired of this that I always think to myself, "Oh no, not another obligatory sex scene."
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you think those who produce television programs and movies do that?
TINNY: I guess they think viewers will enjoy it; and people may have when it was an original idea, but anything repeated too often can lose its appeal. Actually, I have noticed that much of what is supposed to be entertaining has been showing less and less originality and becoming more boring.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have been particularly describing the negative social effects of television and movies. What about theatre, literature, and music?
TINNY: The negative effects of theatre and literature are virtually identical to those of television and movies except not as many people are affected. Music though is another matter. Perhaps I shouldn't say music but instead specify song because it is the lyrics that have had such detrimental effect. There is one form of music that has recently changed the world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is it called?
TINNY: Rock and roll. Since almost the beginning of rock and roll the lyrics have extolled the virtues of casual sex, alcohol, and drugs. Increasingly those lyrics also portray violence. It has come to represent a particular lifestyle. The dissolute lifestyle of the rock star has in some ways probably been the single most powerful role model in the history of the world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does dissolute mean?
TINNY: An uncaring or indifferent attitude to moral values.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When rock and roll first began what you are saying was said by many conservative parents, politicians, and religious leaders.
TINNY: I have heard that was the case. They were held up for ridicule and the impact of their dissenting voice virtually disappeared. Rock and roll overpowered them. They had no chance in the face of all the pleasures and license offered by rock and roll. It was a time of rebellion against old restraints. I can see why the voices in opposition were so impotent. It was a time when the consciousness of humanity was under great pressure for change due to new knowledge that had quickly swept the world. When these times come social change must occur. These are critical periods in human development and sudden unexpected influences can result in cruel damage as well as beneficial change. Rock and roll unfortunately became a harmful influence. A generation was beguiled by what rock and roll offered, and subsequent generations are still being influenced and are still suffering. Rock and roll was a social phenomenon without precedent. Too bad it wasn't for the good of humanity. It could have provided a big boost. If all the time, money, and energy that has accompanied the negative influence of rock and roll had been directed positively the human race would not be in the present dire circumstances.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Has rock and roll really had that much influence?
TINNY: Although it's hard to believe songs and music could have so great an effect on all society, it is true. Social influence never ceases to amaze me.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you like music?
TINNY: I like all kinds of music.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even rock and roll?
TINNY: Yes, even rock and roll. I don't like the lifestyle that goes with it and I don't agree with many of the ideas presented in the lyrics; but it is a very rich and varied musical form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems there is some good in all things.
TINNY: Since rock and roll music has such wide appeal, it could be a very powerful influence for the good. All that is needed are lyrics with a positive message and musicians and singers who are good role models for their fans.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You always ask for a lot.
TINNY: I never ask for more than is right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I suppose television and movies could also become a positive influence.
TINNY: All forms of entertainment could and should be a positive influence and aid in the progression of the human race. All aspects of human life should work in complementary ways to achieve our shared goals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If this was done, would entertainment still be fun?
TINNY: It would be different, but it would be more enjoyable than entertainment has ever been.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's good that entertainment has a place in the future of human society.
TINNY: No one should ever think the future will be dull and boring just because the total energy of the human race will be dedicated to achieving our grand destiny. The quest for perfection will be richly satisfying. As every thought, word, and deed is directed toward the betterment of humanity there will be a never ending increase in personal enjoyment and satisfaction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me an estimate of how much human thought, word, and deed is presently directed toward the betterment of humanity.
TINNY: I couldn't be sure how much but I know it is only tiny fraction. I would be surprised if even one per cent of all our thoughts, words, and deeds are truly directed toward the betterment of the human race.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is a very poor effort, particularly when, as you say, every thought word, and deed should be directed toward that grand purpose.
TINNY: What is presently being done to better humanity is virtually nothing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this discourage you?
TINNY: Actually, that is one of the reasons I feel quite optimistic about the future. If we were now working to improve humanity at ninety nine percent of our capacity and the world was as bad as it is I would feel very discouraged; but, since we are probably working at less than one per cent of our capacity for improvement then our potential for improvement is incredibly huge. It is for this reason that I say the world could be a veritable utopia in a generation or so after this new level of human consciousness is reached. Our potential for the future is unlimited.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well then, we had better continue our discussion about this new world view which will help open new vistas in human consciousness. The more that is known about the problems caused by the present world view the more will be known about the new world view.
TINNY: Next I'd like to talk about something very different. Obviously the way people think about and relate to each other is important to the future development of the human species. An increasing number of people are coming to realise it is also important how we think about and treat animals in order for us to have a peaceful and loving future. Ideally that attitude should be taken further to include our feelings toward, and treatment of, all physical forms we now share this material plane of existence with.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let's go through this systematically. First, how should people think about and relate to each other?
TINNY: We should think about each other with love and respect. We should treat each other lovingly and respectfully.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And we should relate to animals in the same way?
TINNY: All animals deserve our love and respect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you say all animals do you just mean all the more developed animals like dogs, cats, cows, and horses?
TINNY: I meant the whole animal kingdom, from the most highly developed animals to the most primitive one celled animals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you really mean one celled animals deserve love and respect?
TINNY: I really do. It's very important to realise the importance of all forms of life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why are all forms of life so important and deserving of love and respect?
TINNY: There is one very basic reason and innumerable other reasons.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Just tell me the one essential reason.
TINNY: All forms of life, all physical forms, are stages in the development of perfected being.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you say that more simply?
TINNY: All physical existence is part of God's Grand Cosmic Plan.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say all physical existence is part of God's Grand Cosmic Plan?
TINNY: That every bit of matter in the physical universe is of God's nature and is involved in the developmental progression toward perfection, toward a godlike existence. Nothing can be separate from God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the name of that belief?
TINNY: I don't know if it has a name and I don't think it really needs one. It is part of the unified theory of existence. Some things are so grand that to name them diminishes their glory. I think that is the reason I prefer the term 'perfected being' to the word 'God'. The term 'perfected being' is descriptive. It describes perfect and infinite existence. God, while a very beautiful word, is not descriptive but instead is a name.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean it is wrong to call perfected being God?
TINNY: I would never say that. I think each individual's relationship with perfected being is such a personal thing that no one should presume to place restrictions on any aspect of that most intimate of relationships. Actually, I often refer to perfected being as God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does God have a personal nature?
TINNY: Perfected being is the ultimate manifestation of all true characteristics. Perfected being is the one absolute personality. God has the ultimate personal nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the physical universe, which you describe as the womb of God's nature, a manifestation of the one absolute personality?
TINNY: The physical universe is a manifestation of God's infinite personality. All existence is a manifestation of the one absolute personality of God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there more than one physical universe?
TINNY: Physical universes exist without number.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are all physical universes the same as ours?
TINNY: They all serve the same purpose, to allow the development of material form to progress from a simple deterministic beginning to a perfect transcendental existence. The actual characteristics manifested by these universes fill the range of possibilities which allow that purpose to be achieved.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So all material form, from the simplest to the most complex, in all these physical universes are stages in the development of perfected existence.
TINNY: They are, and this is why all physical forms, no matter their level of progression are deserving of love and respect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think I understand what you mean when you say all physical forms, but would you be more specific.
TINNY: I mean from the human and highest order animal forms to the least developed forms of plant life; and I mean from the highest order molecular forms to the least developed sub-atomic particle.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you really feel love and respect for simple animals, plants, molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles?
TINNY: I truly do feel love and respect for each and every physical form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even an electron?
TINNY: Yes, an electron is very beautiful. It is like when I was describing how life and consciousness have no definite point where it can be truly said they came into existence. Both life and consciousness should be seen as direct lines of progression from the beginning of the physical universe. All things which exist are on that continuum which stretches back to the beginning of the physical universe. Just as there is no cut-off point where life and consciousness cease to exist, there is no cut off point at which love and respect cease to be deserved. An electron is a very simple physical form expressing the most rudimentary aspects of life and most simple characteristics of consciousness. But an electron is an important part of the overall progression of matter toward perfection as is a human being. Without the developmental stage of the electron the human developmental stage would never have the opportunity to exist.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I agree with all you say, but you would have to agree that an electron hardly brings about as much emotional feeling as a cuddly kitten.
TINNY: Obviously that is true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Might not this mean that the amount of love and respect we should give to an electron could be minimal?
TINNY: I think some questions will be best answered in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'll let you get away with that answer. I'd like to know more about what this all means in a practical sense.
TINNY: It means we should re-evaluate our attitudes and behaviour toward all that exists. We should not look upon anything that is not human as having no self worth. We should not see that which exists around us as ours to control and use for our pleasure. The world is not ours to control and use; it is all part of a complex environment of life and consciousness sharing with us a common goal, to progress toward perfection in every aspect. We don't own the world, we share the world. We should exist in harmony with all material forms with which we share a common environment and a common purpose.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some religions teach that human beings are given dominion over this planet and all that exists on the planet.
TINNY: They are correct. We human beings have been given dominion over this planet and over all that exists on this planet. We have the power to do as we will with this planet and its inhabitants. We also have the responsibility to never misuse this power. Since we have free-will to a degree never before known on this planet we are under high moral obligation to behave in a right manner toward the planet and those less developed life forms which inhabit the planet. Our dominion is not to control through power, but is instead the obligation to nurture with love. We have been given the most glorious opportunity to learn to act in a godlike manner toward the planet and its inhabitants as part of our path of progression toward the perfection of God. We are to act, within the limits of out present abilities, toward the planet and all forms of life inhabiting the planet as God acts toward us while exercising dominion over us.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can human beings be expected to behave in a right manner to other forms of life when we can't even treat other human beings right?
TINNY: Until we can treat less developed forms of life in a right manner we will never be able to treat each other right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many forms of animal and plant life are used to sustain and provide comfort to the human race. Is this right or wrong?
TINNY: When I was defining good and evil I said that at the human level of development there are some things which, while evil from the absolute perspective, are necessary to maintain human life. When this situation occurs it is right and good from the relative point of view to do what must be done to maintain life. From a relative viewpoint that which aids the progression toward perfection is good and that which impedes that progression is evil. From an absolute perspective it is always evil for a human being to destroy any form of plant or animal life, even if it is for sustenance. From the relative point of view there are occasions which necessitate the utilisation of various forms of animal or plant life for the survival benefit of humanity.
(NOTE: I had been a vegetarian for many years when I wrote this; and, while I am no longer a vegetarian I still have sympathies somewhat similar to these writings. I do not, though, oppose the correct slaughter of animals for food, or the eating of meat; but I think these are issues that may in some future time come under further scrutiny. Muhammad al'Mahdi, 2004)
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean, for example, the butchering of animals for food?
TINNY: I most certainly didn't mean that. Let me leave no doubt about this important question. It is wrong to kill animals for food.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you just said that from a relative viewpoint it is all right to use animals to provide sustenance. It seemed you meant food.
TINNY: I didn't mean for food. It seems quite horrible to me that people are willing to slaughter many millions of innocent animals each year for food. If human beings were carnivores or had no other way to survive then I would agree that it is necessary, therefore right, to eat meat. Human beings are not carnivores and there are now many alternatives to eating meat. Animal flesh is not now necessary for the nutritional requirements of human beings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you say it is wrong to eat animal flesh do you just mean of the higher animals or all animals?
TINNY: Well, I don't want to get caught up in telling others exactly what should or should not be eaten. I would rather speak generally and then let others determine the specifics for themselves. Obviously human beings have not yet progressed to the point where they can survive without eating. This does not give license to eat any food and to do anything to get that food. The right path is to maximise the goodness and minimise the evil in all that we do. In relation to what foods we eat and how we obtain them the restrictions on maximising good and minimising evil would seem to be as follows: We should be sure we are meeting our nutritional requirements and not merely seeking the experience of pleasure; we should obtain our food in a way that causes the least possible harm to any other life forms and while acknowledging the present necessity to eat other life forms, we should choose those that, while meeting our nutritional requirements, are at the lowest developmental stage possible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say what we eat should be at the lowest developmental stage possible?
TINNY: Human life has the most highly developed level of consciousness on our planet. The lower the level of consciousness of the potential food for human beings the better. It is for this reason that it is generally preferable to eat plants than to eat animals. Plants are lower on the continuum of consciousness than even the most primitive animals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All plants are also living beings. Is it all right to take that life from plants as we use them for food?
TINNY: We should have love and respect for all life, therefore even the taking of life from a plant is a moral issue. It is always best to gather food in the least harmful way possible. There are ways to obtain food from plants without the taking of life. To all these ideas there are limits of practicability. We are not yet perfect; we cannot yet be perfectly good. This is why our task must be to maximise good and minimise evil. We are as we are at the moment; we should always strive to be better.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How much harm can it really do if we continue to eat meat?
TINNY: It could mean the human race would fail to survive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you mean?
TINNY: In the world today some of the main sources of meat are cows, sheep, and pigs. These are, relatively speaking, animals of very highly developed consciousness. It is an act of great aggression by humanity to kill so many millions of these animal beings of high consciousness each year. A society that can accept that much aggression toward other highly developed life forms will continue to manifest a great deal of aggression among its own members. As long as we kill animals for food we will have war. If war remains a part of human society then we don't have a future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I understand, the connection between killing animals for food and warlike behaviour is clear.
TINNY: Human society to survive must be in harmony with nature. If we cannot exist in harmony with the animals with whom we share this planet then we cannot exist in harmony among ourselves.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about all the other ways in which people use animals? For instance to do farm work, to carry loads, and to ride, are they all right?
TINNY: It is never right to use an animal but this doesn't mean the things you described are wrong. Animals, just as humans, have a wide range of behaviours they can engage in. The actual things done from within that range depend on the particular environment in which the animal exists. When human life developed this changed the environmental circumstances, and greatly broadened the range of behaviour animals could engage in. Since animals and humans share this planetary environment there is no reason that animals and humans should not relate to each other in many different ways. There is no reason animals and humans should not work together. Any animal that does farm work, carries loads or carries a person should do so because that relationship with a human being is complementary. It should not be a one way relationship. The animal should have its physical and emotional needs met, just as should the person. In this relationship the animal should come to no harm and should not be overworked. The relationship should be one of fairness and caring. The human being, having greater free-will and power within the relationship, has the greatest responsibility to see that the relationship is a right one. If the animal is treated with love and respect it will respond with love and respect. We humans are not to be the masters of animals, but should be their caring guides and benefactors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't animals adapted by nature to living free in the wilderness?
TINNY: And so are human beings. Any relationship between an animal and a human being in any environment is acceptable so long as all the previous requirements are met. The relationship and circumstances should have freedom, love, care, and respect. There should be no harm caused, the physical and emotional needs should be met, and opportunities for developmental progression should be maximised.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there any circumstances which could justify taking the life of an animal?
TINNY: Yes there are. In a situation where taking the life of an animal would save the life of a human being it would be justified.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are some who would disagree violently with that belief.
TINNY: Violence should never be part of any disagreement. I acknowledge some do not like to believe that the life of a human being is more important than the life of an animal, but to believe otherwise is to deny the logic of our reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know you don't say anything is true without good reason. What is the logic behind your claim that the life of a human being is more important than the life of an animal?
TINNY: First I'll explain the reason then show the logic behind the reason. It is true that a human life is more important than an animal life because the purpose of existence is to become perfect in every aspect. Human level consciousness is the closest life has come on this planet to reaching that perfect nature. While all levels of progression are necessary to the ultimate achieving of this goal the levels which have been passed, while still progressing themselves, also serve as a base for the more advanced levels of conscious development. The higher the level of consciousness the greater the importance because of the greater amount of energy that has been expended to have reached that level. The logic behind this can be seen by a series of comparisons. If there must be a choice between the life of a human being and the life of an animal, the human takes precedence. If there must be a choice between an animal life and the life of a plant, the animal takes precedence. If there must be a choice between a plant's life and the life of a molecule, the plant takes precedence. If there must be a choice between a molecule's life and the life of an atom, the molecule takes precedence. And if there must be a choice between an atom's life and the life of a sub-atomic particle, the atom takes precedence. It is the degree to which the purpose of material existence has been fulfilled which determines the relative importance of any particular physical form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once again your reasoning seems unassailable. Are there many instances when this should be put into practice, when the lives of animals must be taken to save a human life?
TINNY: There are very few. Any that do exist should be used only as a last resort and even then alternatives that do not require the sacrifice of animal life should be sought for the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I don't suppose the life of an animal should ever be taken only for pleasure, or sport.
TINNY: Such reasons are never justified.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We have talked a lot about how animals should be treated. How about plants?
TINNY: Just as we cannot take animals for granted and use them however we please, neither should we take plants for granted nor use them however we please.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's quite clear how badly we have mistreated animals. Have we done as badly with plants?
TINNY: We surely have. Since human life developed we have been responsible for the deaths of billions of animals and the extinction of many thousands of animal species. The human race has also been responsible for the destruction of many billions of plants and the extinction of many thousands of plant species. Our whole planet is a complex living system which requires a harmony between all who share this environment to continue a healthy existence. The living beings that share this planet have long cooperated to maintain this delicate balance of nature. One of the most pervasive and critical of these complementary relationships is the oxygen/carbon-dioxide cycle. All animals need oxygen to exist and plants supply this oxygen. All plants need carbon-dioxide to exist and animals provide this carbon-dioxide. The plants that provide the greatest amount of the oxygen to fulfill the needs of animals are trees. Until fairly recently in the history of our planet there were plenty of trees to provide the needed oxygen, but in recent times the human species has destroyed most of the world's trees. The number of trees destroyed is so large that the balance of nature is severely threatened. If we continue at the present rate most life on our planet could become extinct because of our wrong treatment of trees and other forms of plant life. If there is no longer enough oxygen for the animals they will die. When there are fewer animals there would be less carbon-dioxide so plants would die. As more plants die more animals will die. As more animals die more plants will die.
