Carrying on from Food Availability
The obvious, eat or die brings up the same polarization and both cannot be addressed for what eats must by definition kill in turn and so will either be killed or die as ability to kill diminishes.

So we survive to kill another day, we kill so we can kill more. Is this the basis of conscious choice? That we perform to the DNA programme or refuse Does a plant have choice, does the sun? What of the consciousness of either are they unaware that their existence depends upon the annihilation of other beings, sentient or otherwise. Some plan!

The choice to feel, not just the warm or chilling breezes, the sun and see, the salt and sweetness, but the acquisition of security of consumption the company of other killers afraid to die but not to kill. A partner to justify and proliferate the killing DNA. These feeling generated by the mind of success in achievement and company. So is it a sunny holiday with a friendly killer on the beach of alone in the hills.

Is there really any benefit in one experience over the other? I can't seem to weight them like a speck of sand or a mountain, let alone a planet or solar system. That these experiences can be instilled by electrical impulses to the brain directly, without the holiday implies that it can be done without the killing, but can it be done without consumption.

What is this killing consumption we fight so hard for and call it life when it is only an idea of keeping at bay the fear that each of us may die and loose the ability to choose what to kill and at almost every turn it is really who should die for us to continue to kill. We best not kill the seed of killing but only the fruit, but is that enough or more properly is there enough fruit to consume - obviously not. Back to food availability