|
Harold Fjord posted:I agree that a cow can suffer. I don't know that I agree that it has "interests" the way people do. On top of what DrBox posted, if you want a non-PETA source of how cows interact/show personalities, here's a University of Sydney study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-54968-4 Kalit fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Sep 8, 2022 |
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
DrBox posted:Yeah I agree. Rather than shy away from the reality and downplay the sentience of these animals we should have real conversations and try to be morally consistent. Trying to end animal agriculture and brutal exploitation of animals does not have to come at the expense of, or be mutually exclusive to mitigating human suffering too. No human wants to work in a slaughterhouse if they have another choice available. assuming we end animal agriculture, what happens to all the cows? where is the place set aside for cows to live wild and free?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 05:44
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:assuming we end animal agriculture, what happens to all the cows? where is the place set aside for cows to live wild and free? If it suddenly occurred due to magic, this would be an issue. Realistically I don't see society as a whole going vegan and any change would be gradual. So farmers will over time reduce herd numbers. I know here in New Zealand we just sold off a 1100 hectare sheep and beef farm to the parent company of IKEA. Presumably they will both use the wood and get carbon credits from the land.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 06:58
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I agree that a cow can suffer. I don't know that I agree that it has "interests" the way people do. All the vegans I know, including myself, accept that humans are also animals; so when you have the part in the definition that says veganism "seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for [any purpose]", that supports a philosophy that opposes human suffering. Veganism can be looked at not only as a individual diet, but also as a larger social movement that just generally embraces non-violence when possible. I guess what I'm saying is, not only can we act both to relieve animal and human suffering, but those two beliefs can support each other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 08:21
|
|
|
I’ve been following this thread for a bit now and I have to say that I’m pleasantly surprised. In the past threads on vegetarianism and veganism have been uniquely bad on SA, as posters can’t seem to help but post bad faith arguments about niche cases or shitpost about how good cows taste or whatever in a way they don’t for other issues. This time around the overall level of discourse is pretty good. Anyway, I’ve been vegetarian for a bit over a decade now, and I’ve been eating vegetarian food my entire life as my mom was vegetarian and cooked most meals meat-free in our household. Being vegetarian, and especially vegan, does require some more thought than regular diets, but in practice for most people that’s a good thing (the average person could benefit from thinking more about what they’re consuming), and adapting to climate change will require that kind of awareness in many aspects of our lives. My wife and I are both pretty active, and my wife does regular weight training as a part of a gym program that includes diet monitoring. We’ve found that an air frier really takes preparing meat substitutes to the next level — it can do amazing things to tofu if you marinade or batter it, for instance. Here’s a selection of high protein meals we regularly prepare, in addition to basics like lentil soup and veggie burgers: Pea-based pasta with veggie substitute (mycoprotein) meatballs Bibimbap with eggs and smoked tofu (or just tofu to keep it vegan) Palak paneer with tofu instead of paneer Barbecue tofu burritos Meat substitutes are light years ahead of where they were even 5 years ago, and they’re only getting more varied and widely available all the time. Just a few months ago I found that the generic grocery store down the street started selling a great vegan version of pastrami that in a Reuben sandwich was honestly almost indistinguishable from the real thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 11:01
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Doing something wrong a little better is still wrong. It would be more morally consistent to stop. Even in idyllic conditions and even if the suffering is removed, breeding and killing animals at a fraction of their lifespan for a sandwich is still harm. As I said, though, I think cruelty is an intrinsic state of existence for animals because they don't have any means to escape it on their own, I would personally suggest they have the potential to be better off as livestock than living in the wild, because I don't think ideas like self determination apply to animals. An animal that is kept in decent conditions and then slaughtered for food I think is better off than one that is left to fend for itself until some other animal kills it or it starves to death. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 11:14
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:assuming we end animal agriculture, what happens to all the cows? where is the place set aside for cows to live wild and free? Obviously, all of the animal species bred for domestication would have to mostly go extinct. Maybe some can stick around on hobbyist/artisan farms, if that is considered to be morally acceptable. Hobbyist/artisan farms might be good from an animal welfare point of view, but almost certainly they are bad from an environmentalist/economic point of view. For example, the energy inputs needed on a kg of crop or kg of meat basis on a hobbyist/artisan farm are almost certainly higher than what they would be on an industrial farm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 11:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As I said, though, I think cruelty is an intrinsic state of existence for animals because they don't have any means to escape it on their own, I would personally suggest they have the potential to be better off as livestock than living in the wild, because I don't think ideas like self determination apply to animals. I don't think they would be living in the wild. Likely eventually they would mostly die off, and eventually there would be much less suffering of cows, pigs, chickens, etc. I abstractly understand how/why people personally choose to be vegan from an animal welfare point of view. To change your diet to veganism is a pretty big thing if vegans are a minority in your culture, but it isn't like it totally dominates your life and hugely prevents you from doing other things. Following a strict vegan diet does prevent you from experiencing a huge amount of foods from most of the cultures in the world. Food is very important culturally, but it isn't the totality of human experience, so maybe it isn't that big a loss. What I don't understand is animal rights activists who dedicate most of their lives to the political issue. There are so many injustices in this world, and animal welfare is what they selected as their moral crusade? Come on. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 11:37
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I don't think they would be living in the wild. Likely eventually they would mostly die off, and eventually there would be much less suffering of cows, pigs, chickens, etc. Yes but presumably unless you do plan to pave over the former farmland, other animals would be living in that space instead, wild. While natural ecosystems are obviously necessary for the planet to be livable, I don't really think they are good from an ethical perspective because I think that most naturally occuring life is horrible and predicated on constant suffering, humans could potentially change that, although I am not sure if they ever will. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
MeinPanzer posted:Meat substitutes are light years ahead of where they were even 5 years ago, and they’re only getting more varied and widely available all the time. Just a few months ago I found that the generic grocery store down the street started selling a great vegan version of pastrami that in a Reuben sandwich was honestly almost indistinguishable from the real thing. While I bemoan that lots of restaurants have replaced their bean burgers with impossible/beyond burgers, I feel like it has been a net good overall because on the flip side many places that would never have dreamed of offering any vegan options besides maybe a salad (that you gotta modify!) will now at the very least offer an impossible or beyond burger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 11:49
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:What I don't understand is animal rights activists who dedicate most of their lives to the political issue. There are so many injustices in this world, and animal welfare is what they selected as their moral crusade? Come on. The annual killing of 80 billion sentient beings is a pretty big injustice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 11:49
|
|
|
"We must make the lives of wild animals pleasant" is an interesting, if inevitably conclusion of animal welfare movement. How would that work though? Would there be people working to grow food to feed rabbits that live in some sort of fenced-off, predator free preserve? What about wolves, do we make fake meat for them and then like drive it around on R/C cars so they can "hunt"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 11:49
|
|
|
It would be extremely weird yes. As I said I don't think it would ever happen, I don't even really think humans will figure out how to make human lives not predicated on suffering to be honest. But I think that idea should be taken into account when considering human treatment of animals, there is no real option that does not involve animal suffering. Stopping human exploitation of animals does not mean that animals no longer suffer, it just means that they suffer in different ways. Depending on how you look at it, the entire biosphere suffers for human benefit whether we actively participate in it or not. So you should think about that when considering human use of land and animals, it does not have to be free of suffering, it just has to be compared to a space full of animals doing their normal behaviour, which itself is pretty abhorrent. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 11:54
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:What I don't understand is animal rights activists who dedicate most of their lives to the political issue. There are so many injustices in this world, and animal welfare is what they selected as their moral crusade? Come on. Why do you look down upon those who do? And do you think the people who you’re talking about aren’t fighting [directly] against other injustices too? Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 12:55
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Why do you look down upon those who do? And do you think the people who you’re talking about aren’t fighting [directly] against other injustices too? If someone is making the noble decision to dedicate their entire life to a moral/social/political cause, and the issue they select is animal welfare, I think it reveals that their sense of morality is wack. There are so many greater injustices in this world for moral crusaders to dedicate their lives to than the well-being of animals. OwlFancier posted:So you should think about that when considering human use of land and animals, it does not have to be free of suffering, it just has to be compared to a space full of animals doing their normal behaviour, which itself is pretty abhorrent. Yeah, this is a good point--I didn't think of this. But I don't think most people would consider animal suffering in the 'new wilderness' to be equal to animal suffering induced by raising animals for food. The animal suffering induced by animal agriculture would be considered worse because it is more directly caused by humans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 13:11
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If someone is making the noble decision to dedicate their entire life to a moral/social/political cause, and the issue they select is animal welfare, I think it reveals that their sense of morality is wack. There are so many greater injustices in this world for moral crusaders to dedicate their lives to than the well-being of animals. You don't have to be a moral crusader to go vegan, you can just stop paying for animals to be abused. It's really easy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 13:15
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:You don't have to be a moral crusader to go vegan, you can just stop paying for animals to be abused. It's really easy. silence_kit posted:I abstractly understand how/why people personally choose to be vegan from an animal welfare point of view. To change your diet to veganism is a pretty big thing if vegans are a minority in your culture, but it isn't like it totally dominates your life and hugely prevents you from doing other things. Following a strict vegan diet does prevent you from experiencing a huge amount of foods from most of the cultures in the world. Food is very important culturally, but it isn't the totality of human experience, so maybe it isn't that big a loss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 13:17
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If someone is making the noble decision to dedicate their entire life to a moral/social/political cause, and the issue they select is animal welfare, I think it reveals that their sense of morality is wack. There are so many greater injustices in this world for moral crusaders to dedicate their lives to than the well-being of animals. If you accept that the suffering of animals is a legitimate injustice, then why not? This is the kind of thinking that can be used against pretty much any kind of moral crusade, FYI. Why are you a moral crusader for abortion rights? There are homeless people starving in the streets. Why are you a moral crusader against homelessness? There are people being ethnically cleansed in other countries. Etc. etc. For the people I know who are really active in animal rights, they are passionate about it because they view the human-inflicted suffering of animals as an in injustice and see that so few people care enough even to make minor changes to their lifestyle, and so they feel they need to act.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 13:27
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If someone is making the noble decision to dedicate their entire life to a moral/social/political cause, and the issue they select is animal welfare, I think it reveals that their sense of morality is wack. There are so many greater injustices in this world for moral crusaders to dedicate their lives to than the well-being of animals. But why do you think it’s more inferior than whatever else? Do you think, for a single example, someone who spends their life advocating for rescuing/re-homing dogs from inhumane conditions (dog fighting, abusive homes, etc) also have a wack sense of morality? Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 13:51
|
|
|
This is why I take a few minutes out of every day to scream at the those horrible people running the animal shelter about human suffering in Pakistan and opportunity costs and their whacked out morality
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It would be extremely weird yes. As I said I don't think it would ever happen, I don't even really think humans will figure out how to make human lives not predicated on suffering to be honest. If suffering is the natural state of being mortal, then you might as well go full utilitarian supervillain and advocate wiping out all humanity while you're at it. Surely that would lead to the minimization of suffering? It's not like humans don't suffer or fear death even in the absence of specific dangers. I think you are making an absurd argument. In a more general sense though, I don't think there is any empirical or scientific basis to claim that human suffering is more vivid or "real" than animal suffering. In the old days people used to appeal to the immortal soul, and more recently the concept of "sapience," but both are equally unintelligible from a purely empirical perspective. There have been many attempts to define what makes humanity different: self-awareness, tool use, language, but every single one has failed to stand up to even the slightest experimental rigor, or rather as we start observing more and more animals. Why should the next definition be any more meaningful, and not just a way of moving the goalposts because you already know in your gut that humans are special, but can't articulate why? Or, I suppose, you could go the other way and accept dolphins and chimpanzees and magpies and octopuses(?) as sapient, but not cows and chickens? But that feels equally arbitrary to me. Like, I don't think it's practical to eliminate all suffering forever (except, of course, as the utilitarian supervillain), but I find it intellectually dishonest to try to make up reasons why we shouldn't care. Clarste fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 14:01
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:What I don't understand is animal rights activists who dedicate most of their lives to the political issue. There are so many injustices in this world, and animal welfare is what they selected as their moral crusade? Come on. This isn't a compelling argument because you could replace animal welfare with anything else and it would still work. Why be an activist against policy brutality when climate change is going to kill millions more people than police do? Why focus on climate change whose worst effects are decades away when there are homeless people dying in the streets right now? And so on. There is no objective Worst Thing In The World that everyone should be focusing on. You are basically just making a subjective argument that you don't find animal welfare as important as other issues in the world. Which is fine - there are a lot of things wrong with our society and they can't be equally important to everyone. That being said, I don't think it's very helpful to essentially say "the things I care about are more important than the things you care about" and turn it into an activism pissing contest. What's more important than the specific issue people focus on is that they try to maximize good in their life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 14:06
|
|
|
A maybe unsavory truth is that most people who dedicate themselves to a political/social/moral causes beyond posting about them on the internet do it because the issue personally affects them and solving the issue would improve their own status in society. I don’t see how you get that for animal welfare. Also, the mainstream ethical view is that there is a very big jump between animal welfare and the welfare of human beings. I think dedicating your life to animal welfare is almost as absurd as dedicating your life to ending circumcision (well maybe not quite that absurd). The reason why someone might dedicate their lives towards e.g. ending poverty in their local community instead of Subsaharan Africa is because they have greater power/ability to improve the lives of local people than people under the rule of a foreign government. VitalSigns posted:This is why I take a few minutes out of every day to scream at the those horrible people running the animal shelter Most people who volunteer at animal shelters probably mostly do it because they personally really enjoy being around pets. The number of people who do it who don’t really like pets that much and do it purely out of concern for animal welfare is probably close to zero.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 14:26
|
|
|
Or, for that matter, why spend your time posting on a message board complaining about animal welfare when you could be doing something to fight the real injustices. Or if you only have enough time to complain on the internet, and you really believe what you are saying, you should be spending that time complaining about the humans making the world worse for other humans, not the humans who are trying to do something good but (allegedly) not good enough. E: silence_kit posted:A maybe unsavory truth is that most people who dedicate themselves to a political/social/moral causes beyond posting about them on the internet do it because the issue personally affects them and solving the issue would improve their own status in society. I don’t see how you get that for animal welfare. Some people actually do care about other beings beyond what they personally can get out of it, strange I know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 14:26
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Most people who volunteer at animal shelters probably mostly do it because they personally really enjoy being around pets. The number of people who do it who don’t really like pets that much and do it purely out of concern for animal welfare is probably close to zero. You really are projecting here. I have volunteered at many animal shelters and I have not met a single person who is there just to have some fun time with animals. Everyone deeply cares for the animals and wants to make their lovely lives just a little bit better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 15:10
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:A maybe unsavory truth is that most people who dedicate themselves to a political/social/moral causes beyond posting about them on the internet do it because the issue personally affects them and solving the issue would improve their own status in society. I don’t see how you get that for animal welfare. I'm sorry, but it sounds like you simply don't understand empathy? Yes, people sometimes fight injustice for self-serving reasons, or do so in specific ways because it helps them. But, believe it or not, people also have moral convictions independent of their own self-interest based on reasoning and logic. quote:Also, the mainstream ethical view is that there is a very big jump between animal welfare and the welfare of human beings. I think dedicating your life to animal welfare is almost as absurd as dedicating your life to ending circumcision (well maybe not quite that absurd). By this logic, it was absurd for abolitionists in the Antebellum South to dedicate their life to ending slavery. After all, the mainstream ethical view was at odds with their own! MeinPanzer fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:A maybe unsavory truth is that most people who dedicate themselves to a political/social/moral causes beyond posting about them on the internet do it because the issue personally affects them and solving the issue would improve their own status in society. I don’t see how you get that for animal welfare. Most vegans just don't fit the strawman example you have created to complain about. People are seldom going to say that a single issue is the only problem in the world. Assuming I can acknowledge multiple issues with society, in what way is my diet harmful to you? There are valid criticisms and plenty of situations where the decision to go vegan will complicate an individuals life. There are hypothetical issues that arise in an all vegan world, which will remain hypothetical. If you feel the need to keep posting, please engage with those.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:assuming we end animal agriculture, what happens to all the cows? where is the place set aside for cows to live wild and free? Buddy I've got some bad news about what is going to happen to them if we don't end animal agriculture. quote:"We must make the lives of wild animals pleasant" is an interesting, if inevitably conclusion of animal welfare movement. How would that work though? Would there be people working to grow food to feed rabbits that live in some sort of fenced-off, predator free preserve? What about wolves, do we make fake meat for them and then like drive it around on R/C cars so they can "hunt"? I think this is an interesting avenue to go down, but ultimately animal agriculture involves such a huge number of animals that it feels like a later question to me. I think you either would have to make a non-utilitarian argument against it, or some argument based on the fact that we have pretty limited understanding of how wild animals experience life (but what then of claims that they suffer in animal agriculture? most forms are obviously cruel but not all). distortion park fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
distortion park posted:Buddy I've got some bad news about what is going to happen to them if we don't end animal agriculture. it just seems like this is going to lead to a terminal culling of entire species which is hard to fit into the broader, loftier idea of animal welfare animal welfare is often used by activists to stump for a vegan diet. i think this is an effective argument to draw attention, but i think it falls apart a bit given how much humans have modified the biosphere for our own purposes. you can't uncrack that egg, but you can (and we have) mandate more humane treatment of livestock. if the position that having livestock is inherently immoral this leads to some weird implications. i can see calling for shifting our exploitation of the biosphere primarily towards plants because this is healthier for people and the environment, but it also seems like the best way to optimize animal welfare is by keeping pets and hobby livestock which i've seen a lot of mixed opinions on from folks who advocate the animal welfare side of veganism Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
Clarste posted:If suffering is the natural state of being mortal, then you might as well go full utilitarian supervillain and advocate wiping out all humanity while you're at it. Surely that would lead to the minimization of suffering? It's not like humans don't suffer or fear death even in the absence of specific dangers. I think you are making an absurd argument. I mean yes if you gave me a button that zapped all life out of existence I would have to have a very big think about not pressing it. The conclusion is abhorrent, of course, but I don't find that a persuasive argument against the process of arriving at it. Clarste posted:In a more general sense though, I don't think there is any empirical or scientific basis to claim that human suffering is more vivid or "real" than animal suffering. In the old days people used to appeal to the immortal soul, and more recently the concept of "sapience," but both are equally unintelligible from a purely empirical perspective. There have been many attempts to define what makes humanity different: self-awareness, tool use, language, but every single one has failed to stand up to even the slightest experimental rigor, or rather as we start observing more and more animals. Why should the next definition be any more meaningful, and not just a way of moving the goalposts because you already know in your gut that humans are special, but can't articulate why? Or, I suppose, you could go the other way and accept dolphins and chimpanzees and magpies and octopuses(?) as sapient, but not cows and chickens? But that feels equally arbitrary to me. If animal suffering is just as real as human suffering then that is an even bigger argument in favour of my position, it is in no way predicated on the idea that animal suffering is somehow less valid than human suffering, merely on the idea that only humans currently have the hypothetical capability to escape the cruelty of the natural world, or to offer the same to animals (though I again point out that we are very good at creating new cruelties to inflict on each other, even if we hypothetically could do otherwise.) I would suggest that in fact the best argument I know of against a universal anti-life position is that it is possible, at some point in the future, that human intelligence (or conceivably some other intelligence) could overcome the natural brutality that we and all other life on earth, arise from. Life perhaps does not have to be cruel, but that does not mean that its current incarnation is not full of cruelty. It is a common belief that "natural" is equatable to "good" but I would generally take the position that good is something we have to construct, above the natural course of things. If animals are just as important as humans then the state of their natural existence is even more horrific. It would be very nice to think that their suffering is not "really real" or somehow less so than human suffering, as there are more of them than us. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Be nice to think a lot of lies, my gut tells me you struggle with that though. Probably why you would hesitate before pressing the imaginary button.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:it just seems like this is going to lead to a terminal culling of entire species which is hard to fit into the broader, loftier idea of animal welfare As other posters have pointed out, there is not going to be any need for mass culling of animal herds in any realistic scenario. Most live on the order of months or years depending on species. It's true that there's a question of whether livestock existing is morally positive but I'm pretty confident that for the vast majority of animal's farmed today that isn't the case (e.g. factory farmed chickens, pigs).
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
distortion park posted:As other posters have pointed out, there is not going to be any need for mass culling of animal herds in any realistic scenario. Most live on the order of months or years depending on species. in the short term, who is responsible for caring for the animals raised for meat who are spared the slaughterhouse? in the long term, shifting away from livestock means an overall reduction in the population of livestock, as then people aren't keeping them for any purpose other than curiosity. its possible this would lead to a collapse of the population and functional extinction. personally i'm a little uncomfortable with the realization of the idea of minimizing suffering by just slowly killing off all the sentient beings who might suffer
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:in the short term, who is responsible for caring for the animals raised for meat who are spared the slaughterhouse? Why would simply not breeding food animals anymore make you uncomfortable? Is it cruel to prevent something from being born? If so, is every wasted horse sperm an injustice because we could have made a baby horse with it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:in the short term, who is responsible for caring for the animals raised for meat who are spared the slaughterhouse? The point is that this just isn't going to be an issue - veganism or vegetarianism isn't something that large masses of the population are going to take up over a short period of time under any proposed scenario. Maybe if the question was "Should the UK immediately ban all meat eating?" then it would be something to briefly consider. Otherwise the expectation would be that over time demand for meat as more people reduce consumption -> via state or market forces less animals are bred and grown for consumption. Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:in the long term, shifting away from livestock means an overall reduction in the population of livestock, as then people aren't keeping them for any purpose other than curiosity. its possible this would lead to a collapse of the population and functional extinction. personally i'm a little uncomfortable with the realization of the idea of minimizing suffering by just slowly killing off all the sentient beings who might suffer Do you think we should increase the number of livestock? Or is it just the idea of there being 0 of some breed of broiler chicken that you are uncomfortable with?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
distortion park posted:The point is that this just isn't going to be an issue - veganism or vegetarianism isn't something that large masses of the population are going to take up over a short period of time under any proposed scenario. well we can all agree that mass vegetarianism is unlikely to ever happen but, its still an interesting thing to discuss! or not, if this is asking me what the point of posting in this thread is anyway, i could bow out distortion park posted:Do you think we should increase the number of livestock? Or is it just the idea of there being 0 of some breed of broiler chicken that you are uncomfortable with? as i stated, what i'm uncomfortable with is the idea of reducing the suffering of sentient beings by reducing the number of sentient beings. this hews a little too closely to doomer anti-natalism, "why should i birth a child into this hell world" stuff. surely we can figure out ways to make things better for the animals we've effectively created as co-habitants in the human dominated biosphere, rather than simply evicting them when their existence is deemed ethically uncomfortable. this is what we'd do for people, after all i also want to restate that i think the arguments for vegetarianism/veganism re: climate change and the health of the human diet are very sound, i'm really just interested in this question of how to define and optimize animal welfare. i dont think that eventual extinction is the answer Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
Conversely I wholly support the argument of reducing the number of suffering-capable creatures, very good idea 10/10 would recommend, very good vegan argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
Do you think the world would be a better place with 5% more or 5% fewer farmed animals? Does that answer change if you get to specify the method of farming?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:as i stated, what i'm uncomfortable with is the idea of reducing the suffering of sentient beings by reducing the number of sentient beings. this hews a little too closely to doomer anti-natalism, "why should i birth a child into this hell world" stuff. surely we can figure out ways to make things better for the animals we've effectively created as co-habitants in the human dominated biosphere, rather than simply evicting them when their existence is deemed ethically uncomfortable. this is what we'd do for people, after all Sorry, why is family planning unethical? That's one reason to do it right, reduce suffering by not having more kids than they can care for? If someone can only support 2 kids, are they obligated to be barefoot and pregnant their whole lives anyway pumping out kids they can't afford to take care of because it would be wrong to reduce suffering by reducing the number of sentient beings created? Plenty of people choose not to have kids at all. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sorry, why is family planning unethical? i didn't say it was? unless you're equating anti-natalism with family planning, which is a hostile misreading and i can only assume you're trying to pick a fight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:14
|
|