Why Humanity’s Next Step Is to Stop Killing: A Conversation with a Skeptic

Imagine a group of thinkers trying to convince someone who’s skeptical that humanity can really avoid killing—not just people, but animals too. This means choosing to avoid unnecessary harm, including no meat-eating or actions that harm others. Let’s see how they make their case!

Skeptic: So, you all think we can just stop killing? That sounds impossible. Humans have eaten meat and fought each other forever. Why should we suddenly change that now?

Stoic Philosopher: You’re right that humans have historically been involved in killing, but Stoics believe that humanity should strive to live wisely and with self-control. When we choose not to kill—even animals—we gain greater inner peace and stability. Killing, whether it’s animals or people, often leads to violence, fear, and revenge. By choosing not to harm, we build trust with others and even with ourselves. In a way, it’s a step toward personal mastery.

Skeptic: Personal mastery? How does not killing animals, for example, help with that?

Stoic Philosopher: When we don’t give in to desires or impulses, like eating meat just because we want to, we’re strengthening our control over our own actions. This self-control is at the heart of Stoic philosophy. It means living wisely and resisting impulses that could harm others. Choosing not to kill allows us to act with intention and dignity, which creates a stronger character and a more peaceful society.

Evolutionary Psychologist: And from an evolutionary psychology perspective, killing isn’t just harmful to animals; it also affects our social bonds. Humans evolved by working together, forming trust-based communities. The less harm we do, the more trust and cooperation we foster. Even among animals, non-violence encourages loyalty and collaboration, which are crucial for a stable society. Choosing not to kill strengthens the social fabric, reducing conflict and increasing our ability to survive as a species.

Skeptic: But what about survival? Isn’t killing for food just natural? Isn’t it part of the cycle?

Buddhist Monk: Buddhism teaches that while survival is important, our awareness and empathy are what set us apart. By choosing a compassionate path—like not killing animals for food—we break the cycle of harm and create a more peaceful existence. Compassion brings inner peace, which is a kind of happiness that doesn’t rely on taking lives. You’re right, survival matters, but in today’s world, we have ways to survive without causing harm. Our choices now affect not just individual lives but the future of humanity’s path.

Skeptic: Okay, so you’re saying that I’d feel more at peace. But wouldn’t avoiding harm make us weaker? Doesn’t strength come from power, including the power to kill if we need to?

Evolutionary Psychologist: Actually, strength doesn’t necessarily come from power over others; it often comes from cooperation. Human evolution shows that survival is more successful when we work together and reduce conflict. By not killing, we demonstrate self-control and reliability, which makes us better partners and leaders. Imagine a society where people know they won’t be harmed. It creates a stable, trusting environment, which is far more powerful and productive than one based on fear.

Ecologist: And let’s consider the bigger picture. By reducing our impact on animals and nature, we allow ecosystems to flourish, which ultimately supports humanity. When we kill, especially for food, we put pressure on natural systems, which leads to environmental problems like deforestation and climate change. By choosing not to kill, we’re not only avoiding harm but also creating a future where resources are more abundant and ecosystems are balanced. It’s actually an investment in humanity’s survival and comfort.

Skeptic: So not killing would help the environment. But humans have been eating animals forever. How realistic is it to expect us to change that?

Behavioral Economist: You’re right; habits are hard to break. But people also adapt when they see long-term benefits. When we choose not to kill, we’re investing in a future that’s more sustainable and healthier for us all. In behavioral economics, this is called “delayed gratification”—we give up something small now (like meat) to gain something much bigger later: a stable environment, more resources, and less conflict. It may feel unrealistic, but we’ve seen people make similar shifts when it benefits their future well-being.

Skeptic: But doesn’t this way of thinking go against human nature? Don’t people naturally want to dominate and survive at all costs?

Stoic Philosopher: Human nature includes many impulses, but our greatest potential lies in our ability to grow beyond those impulses. Stoicism teaches that we don’t have to be controlled by urges for dominance or survival in violent ways. Instead, we can find fulfillment in living wisely and harmoniously with the world around us. Choosing not to kill is a way to rise above base instincts, showing that humans have the unique power to choose a path of peace and wisdom, not just survival.

Buddhist Monk: And, from a Buddhist perspective, there’s great freedom in non-violence. When we let go of harming others, we also let go of anger, fear, and resentment. Imagine a world where people are not afraid of each other and where there’s no underlying fear in relationships with animals and nature. That’s true freedom—living without fear or regret. By choosing not to kill, we free ourselves from negative emotions and create space for deeper happiness.

Skeptic: Okay, so a peaceful world and deeper happiness. But it still sounds like a big ask. Is there any other reason I should believe that humanity could actually live without killing?

Ecologist: One last thought. By not killing, we align ourselves with the natural balance of the earth. Every part of nature is interconnected; when one part suffers, everything suffers. By reducing harm, we’re allowing natural systems to heal and thrive, which, in turn, supports humanity’s growth. Not killing isn’t about “sacrificing” anything; it’s about working with the world rather than against it, which makes life easier, safer, and more fulfilling for everyone in the long run.

Skeptic: So, if I understand correctly, not killing could lead to a better world: a more sustainable environment, stronger relationships, and even more control over my own life and emotions. You’re saying that the world would actually be more beneficial for me, personally, if we chose not to kill?

Buddhist Monk: Yes, exactly. A world where we don’t kill is one where people and nature can truly thrive. You don’t have to become a different person; you’re simply choosing a path that ultimately supports your own well-being by supporting everyone’s well-being.

Skeptic: Alright. Maybe humanity’s next step isn’t just about what we can do, like eating meat or hunting, but about what we should do to create a better, stronger world. I think I see your point.

Philosophers: And that’s all we ask.