|
OwlFancier posted:I feel like veganism specifically is odd from an environmental point of view because volume matters a lot more than your personal elimination of every particular product. If everyone cut like, I dunno, a tenth of the meat they eat it would have the same effect as making one in ten people completely vegan. I would interpret it as a very after-the-fact argument. The personal moral one is more consistent. veganism is a combo of just maximizing good, "if 1 good is good then 2 good is better" kinda stuff, along with just being Ethically Correct in regards to the treatment of sentient beings personally i'll point out that vegetarian/veganism and philosophies of ethical food consumption are as old as human civilization itself yet meat eating remains broadly popular, and also it is disrespectful to the species we've spent thousands of years breeding as livestock to not eat them
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2022 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
in a world of completely vegan humans, how would we handle pet cats and other obligate carnivores?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Content to Hover posted:Using your argument though, aren't you just as uncomfortable with maximising suffering through the process of the forced breeding of sentient beings that might suffer? sure, which is why i'm saying its possible to modulate the level of suffering by methods other than simply reducing the number of beings who suffer. in my ideal livestock-for-meat scenario, we would walk back as much as possible from industrial methods of controlling the population to methods which more resemble the animal's natural lifecycle, even if it does reduce yields of product Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And I explained why I asked the question, your argument would appear to make family planning unethical i dont know what to tell you to give you satisfaction. i've already told you that you have an incorrect perception of my argument and i cannot help you any further along your journey towards understanding. you'll have to puzzle out the differences between contraceptives and anti-natalism yourself distortion park posted:Do you think there would be more or fewer animals being farmed for meat in this scenario. probably less, but it doesn't really matter because the idea here is to enforce better care for animals as a method of improving their lives rather than improving their lives by simply preventing them from living bad ones anyway this is getting repetitive and i've said my opinion
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
distortion park posted:I really want the answer to be "rewilding" but idk! i think we've disrupted the biosphere too much for a natural rewilding. for example, is it a good idea to release genetically modified trees into the environment, to better resist introduced invasive pest species? is it possible for human-bred animal species to thrive in an unmanaged environment? pigs would be fine, sheep would be hosed
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:I've thought a lot about how best to respond to this but I think the issue is just that you don't consider imprisoning and enslaving animals to be a harm, or would even call it "imprisoning" or "enslavement". If I thought it was okay to imprison and enslave animals so that we could use them for our benefit then yeah, I might agree with the assertion that enslaving our biological and mental lessers is actually good for them because they're happier living on a plantation, because they're not capable of living full lives without us to take care of them. i find this kind of confrontational language similar to that of christian missionaries - it is not meant to persuade, when you compare animal livestock to human chattel slavery. it is only meant to reinforce within the group that the people on the outside are morally defective, because they do not see the obvious truth that keeping livestock is equivalent to slavery you really must consider the fact that many of these animal species exist in the form they currently do because they were bred by humans over thousands of years to be the way they are. it makes sense that species created to be exploited by humans would gain advantages from being exploited by humans. my pet cat certainly would not want to try to make a living in the wild. trying to draw a precise equivalence between animal species bred for human use, and human beings being enslaved by others, is deeply charged language meant to provoke and confront. you are trying to highlight the depths of your feeling by equating it to a human-made horror. which is fine and all, but if your comparison is imprecise (which i feel like it is) you just come off as a fanatic who can't be reasoned with. if i were walking through the public square and someone had signs up equating chicken farms to the actual Holocaust, i would do everything i could to avoid speaking to that person
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
you have every right to compare industrial farming of animals to mass murder of millions of human beings, but i guarantee most people who hear you argue this point will dismiss all of your subsequent arguments
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
personally i think child molestation is worse than eating animals
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2022 05:16
|
|