Justify your meat consumption

[wet vapor]

Thanks for indulging me! I am out of questions for now

[lilac fable]

Yea, I agree with you. From reading that verse I don't get an impression of superiority. This seems to talk more about control rather than being of a higher value.

[remote pendant]

More like "the world is your oyster"

type thing

[lilac fable]

Ah, so dominion wouldn't be literal in this context?

[remote pendant]

It speaks of stewardship. But depending on where you are, the world has dominion over you (lions, tigers, bears). I mean the verse is a fact, we do have dominion. We exploit the dominion given to us as well. Its seems more like the keys to a house that we wreck.

[muted mountain]

Well seeing as God only offers humans salvation, then we are of higher value.

[lilac fable]

Anyhow, we got to this point since I asked this question: #1193050842283126936 message

Would you like to provide your input?

[remote pendant]

I would interpret "his image" as the value. Salvation means needing saved in the first place. Animals don't have blame. I believe salvation is a gift, not an offer (much like "his image" was).

Life is a broad term. Are you talking about animals, plants, fish, insects?

[muted mountain]

true

[lilac fable]

I'm asking about what aspects humans have that other beings don't that makes it immoral to kill people but not other beings such as animals.

[remote pendant]

The need for food creates death as the part of the food chain. That is why unnecessarily kill is the best term.

[lilac fable]

So my follow-up is would it be the same the other way around? Like if an animal was hungry and saw a tourist that got lost, so the animal proceeds to hunt and kill the person.

Could that still be considered moral?

[remote pendant]

Killing for food is part of life and that would be nature taking its course. Now there are animals that get a taste for human flesh. Those are put down as fast as possible (for obvious reasons).

Maneater was not invented for agressive women.

[lilac fable]

Okay so lemme see if I understand your position correctly.

Killing animals in order to survive is a moral act.

Killing animals when it's not necessary is an immortal act.

Did I get anything incorrect?

[remote pendant]

Killing animals in order to survive does not need justification (being part of life) and has no morality attached to it. Animal treatment does have morality attached to it.

[lilac fable]

Gotcha, so it's the treatment before their killed that can be seen as moral/immoral and the killing itself doesn't have morality attached to it.

[remote pendant]

I have always stipulated humane killing for food but yes.

Humane raising and killing animals for food doesn't require justification.

[solemn raptor]

morality is just a concept humans have invented. It's a way for human societies to differentiate between what's ok and what is not. Different societies have different moralities. There are societies, in which it is considered moral (under certain circumstances) to kill other humans.
So, since morality itself is somewhat arbitrary, answering that question in a round-about way is rather difficult. Near impossible, even.

[lilac fable]

I would be careful by calling it "arbitrary" since that would imply randomness. Although morality is different depending on the society, said society would craft a foundation to operate on using their own reasoning.

Yes, arbitrary wouldn't be random but using that phrasing gives off that impression.

[remote pendant]

If morality doesn't exist, punishment, by that framework, is immoral.

[solemn raptor]

Logically speaking, if morality didn't exists, nothing could be considered moral or immoral.
That aside, I didn't say morality doesn't exists. What I did say is, that it's convention, therefore you cannot say x is moral, y is immoral without first establishing which convention you are reffering to.

[solemn raptor]

that impression wasn't intended. I merely wanted to point out that there can be vast differences between societies in regards to what is considered moral or immoral.

[remote pendant]

Invention is usually done through observation. You believe its more arbitrary than that? What observations would bring the conclusion that its near impossible to answer differences between humans and animals in general and in regard to morality specifically?

[solemn raptor]

"Invention is usually done through observation. You believe its more arbitrary than that?" Again, I merely wanted to point out that there can be vast differences between societies in regards to what is considered moral or immoral. For example, there are societies that practice cannibalism as part of their culture, which in most other societies would be considered highly immoral.

"What observations would bring the conclusion that its near impossible to answer differences between humans and animals in general and in regard to morality specifically?" The example above ties into that: how can you generally say that there is a difference in the morality of killing animals for food and killing humans for food, when societies can (and arguably do) exist, that don't make that difference? You cannot.

[remote pendant]

Ok. What I observe is that every society in existence today that can be cited, treats humans and animals vastly different. Other than a small percent of the 1st world population that is turning vegan, all societies eat animals (other than specific animals, cows in India, for example). I take that as human observation pattern. Even in past cannibalistic societies animals were treated differently. Slaves were often treated as less value than animals, but that is a different dynamic. I can observe this pattern along with a bunch of other factors (including the need for food) and come to logical conclusions about an objective morality of eating animals. Its actually mostly other factors than observing the worlds societies (except for the need for food). Its actually an easy question for me. I was just demonstrating the convention path.

As far as cannibals go eating humans, that was usually enemies (not themselves) if I am remembering correctly. This was their justification of the action. The pattern of human observation throughout history points to a different objective moral that can be deduced through other factors. Although knowing all their justifications (such as a village sacrifice by lots or something) can further solidify deductions about it.

[rustic marsh]

This is easy to justify.... 🤤🤤🤤

That said if you can get me artificial meat I don't care as long as it turns out right.

But it does have to be animal. No plant protein bs 🙂

[solemn raptor]

Regarding cannibalism: there are a lot of different forms of cannibalism and there are also forms of it, where members from within their own society are beeing eaten (it's called endocannibalism). But overall one has to say "Cannibalism has been poorly understood and has seldom been studied, since it was often suppressed by missionaries and colonial administrators, and very few societies still practise it.", as a paper in the South African Medical Journal puts it.

[remote pendant]

Societal justifications of cannibalism would be extremely interesting.

[remote pendant]

Eating requires no justification.

Eating too much probably does.

[solemn raptor]

Quite honestly, not eating our deceased fellow citizens could be seen as food waste of sorts. Also there is the notion of carrying on the heritage of your elders in a far more physical sense than the usual "they'll live on in our memories"...

Not saying that cannibalism is a good thing per se, but it sure as hell is more nuanced than it's usually described as.

[remote pendant]

You mean the ones you don't like or the ones you like a lot? /joke

[solemn raptor]

I imagine they'd both taste good, if for different reasons 😂

[remote pendant]

Lab grown neighbor meat is interesting.

[dusty marten]

Is justifying your meat consumption different from justifying your consumption of plants?

In both cases they impact the environment in one way or another, i assume.
And in both cases it involves killing animals in one way or another, i assume.

The closest you can come to justifying either seem to be circumstantial (how that wich you consume is produced)

[gentle locust]

The act of justifying anything follows the same logic generally.

But of course, the parameters vary depending on the sussiness of the action you're trying to justify.

[covert tundra]

Oh entirely my interpretation

[bronze elk]

I'm not so sure..... 🙂

[covert tundra]

lol

[steel pewter]

Recently switched to a high protein diet with much more meat and dairy. At least 1,5 gram per kilogram bodyweight per day

In addition I lowered the easy refined carbs dramatically and replaced them with bit more.m vegetables and bread

[pliant sentinel]

Wow. My school council were considering a vegan day each week.

Fuck that 😭😭

[vapid marlin]

Why so angry about eating vegan once a week?

[gentle locust]

Ooh that's a good choice!

The campus restaurant of my uni did that for a while

It was such a success, they now have 3 vegan days

Basically, by experiencing a vegan day, the meat eaters were like "Hmm, it's not that bad after all 🤷".

[pliant sentinel]

Isn't very tasty

But its kinda a joke, like sure I wouldn't mind vegan once a week but it wouldn't be enjoyable. The school food is already ass 💀

[gentle locust]

Since that day is vegan, it can't be ass 😜

[rustic kiln]

meanwhile the meat at school

[soft bluff]

to be fair though, the only thing even remotely appetizing in that picture would be the corn

[gentle locust]

If I die and end up on a plate like this, please kill me

[soft bluff]

I can´t help but read this as you desperately wanting to end up on the plate.

Since being dead is the prerequisite and you state "please kill me"

[gentle locust]

No I mean double dead hahahah

[vapid marlin]

I mean that has nothing to do with the food being vegan and everything to do with the caterers not being able to prepare a proper meal

[solemn raptor]

Doesn't look like anything to me.

[pliant sentinel]

Yes

But also the vegan stuff tastes worse in general

[pastel niche]

I'd argue that raising a living being (bringing it into life) purely for the purpose of eating it directly contradicts the freedom of choice for that being - it didn't get to choose to live on its own terms, it mostly gets put in a tiny 2mx3m space and that is its life.
If you instead have the animal raised in the wild and comes in by its own free will and it can come and go as it pleases, when it dies I don't think it would care what happens next.

It kinda leans into where farmed animals tend to come from and be treated though, if it was humans raised like this it would be considered outrageous - but because it provides meat at low prices, people don't really care enough to know where it comes from - just the end result - which complicates the morality of consuming it - as majority will not have a clue anyway.

If a short clip of the lifespan of all items going into everything you buy at a store, there would be much more of an incentive for people to choose the pretty plants lifecycle instead of the animals one, because we are social creatures that have a fundamental dislike towards suffering.

[covert tundra]

So your ok with killing some life for your gain but not others?

[pastel niche]

I don't approve of either, but I think one is more unjustifiable than the other

[dire remnant]

Cheeseburger taste good

[rustic kiln]

There's a lot of cruisines where it's super easy to substitute out the meat though. Like chipotle sofritas are actually better than all the other protein options

[covert tundra]

But it's even easier just to order a cheeseburger rather than a "cheeseburger but can you please turn the patty into plants or fungi and make it taste like meat?"

[soft bluff]

That is one thing I never understood about vegans.

Why bother making imitation dishes, that are never going to be as good as the original, when you have the chance to use some 1000+ ingredients, that you can use in original dishes.

Like I'm pretty sure the Indian cuisine, has a ton of vegetarian options, and could use a renaissance, so why not study Indian food and improve upon that, instead of making insanely overengineered fake meat, that still does not taste correctly?

[rustic kiln]

Yeah there's definitely like an all or nothing feel with vegans that I disagree with. Like your dietary restrictions should be different between you are at a big family bbq, and your average Tuesday night meal. There's definitely a bit of overly dogmatic that drives the whole attempting to 1-1 substitute real for fake meat.

[dim kraken]

I am reducing suffering by eating hamburgers. I eat as many hamburgers as possible, because when animals get killed to be my food they can't suffer anymore. We should all eat as many hamburgers as possible.

[gentle locust]

That's actually the main thing vegans do. Hardly any vegetarians/vegans that I know structurally eat fake meat.
I think it' s mainly for those that struggle to eat vegetarian/vegan because they don't want to miss the taste of meat.
And then they obviously think the imitation meat is gross and just keep eating meat.

[rustic kiln]

The texture and the macros matters so much more than the taste for me with plant based meats.
It's a bit cursed food but I'm kinda a fan of how you can just directly take fake meat out of the fridge and dump it on a salad without cooking it

[gentle locust]

I use "taste" as an umbrella for all of those, because otherwise I'd have to use something like oral sensory pleasure and that's not something I want to associate with animal meat 🤣

[covert tundra]

Lol, I wish I could favorite a message or upvote like reddit.

[gentle locust]

When I was 12, I used to joke that I would rather eat unhappy chickens than happy chickens for that reason, too 😋

[covert tundra]

Yea lol, like why make them as happy as you want just to kill them when you can go after the chickens that were raised unhappy??? I mean one of these is obviously better.

[faint cypress]

Here in Germany, we do not have a functioning ecosystem. Deer and wild pigs are multiplying uncontrollably as we do not have the necessary size forests and wilderness to host wolves in many parts of the country. Wild game thus needs to be controlled by other means. Said means are for example hunters, who arguably kill deer and wild pigs way more humanely than wolves would. Could eating game meat thus even be considered morally right? The other options being overpopulation, starvation and predatory animals that all would cause more physical harm and suffering than hunters hunting said game?

[little folio]

The bigger issue germany has with wolves, is they're scared if one steps foot into the country lol. I remember reading news about a single bear in the alps, or a small pack of wolves in the middle of nowhere, with concerns of possible attacks lol

[faint cypress]

yes, that is also a sad truth, yet another sad truth is that we don't have many big forests anymore, so we could put wolves in the black forest and in parts of bavaria, sure, but wild pigs are an issue even if there's just a few hectars of forest 😦

[solemn raptor]

There are lots of wolves in germany, actually. Just not everywhere.

if you don't mind the german, here's a map:
https://www.nabu.de/tiere-und-pflanzen/saeugetiere/wolf/deutschland/index.html

[little folio]

I stand corrected, that's fantastic to hear!

[faint cypress]

Well, as I said the biggest issue is probably that our potential habitats are way too small. We do not have wilderness at all in Germany. Within a 10 mile radius you'll definitely have some kind of civilization. It's crowded over here, sadly 😦

[faint cypress]

I dearly wish there were more places in Germany with wolves. Especially here in the south... Those are simply amazing animals that are such a balancing factor in our ecosystem that we'd be blessed to have more of them... Especially here in the south...

[stiff trail]

You're aware that the 'balancing' factor wolves provide will include killing humans at some point, right? There are tons of records of wolves killing people when they were more common in Europe. Maybe it's a bit less likely now that humans tend to travel long distances in cars as opposed to being on foot. But still, a hungry wolf pack is definitely going to consider a children's playground or a campsite as a food source.

Screw wolves. We got rid of them for a very good reason. We are literally their prey.

[latent sluice]

Not really. Wolves don't hunt humans. Humans hunt wolves. It's always been that way, even if they occasionally pose a danger. We have more capability than ever to defend ourselves, and your own personal feelings don't negate the real benefits they provide nature.

[solemn raptor]

It's sad that people still think that way. Attacks from wolves are very rare. Europeans are far more likely to be injured by cows than they are by wolves. [1]
When an incident does occur, there is usually either a pet dog or rabies involved, the latter being a fast acting disease that always results in the death of the wolf. There is only a very short period of time in which the afflicted wolf is actually a serious threat.

Let's put some numbers to it: in the years 2002 - 2020 there have been 489 attacks of wolves on humans in europe, asia and north america combined, 26 of which lead to human loss of life. 380 of those attacks and 14 of the mortalities where due to rabies. In europe alone, there have been 77 attacks in total, of which 69 where caused by rabies and none of the incidents lead to loss of human life. [2]

The real reason why wolves have been driven to extinction is, that they often caused problems with livestock, especially sheep. This however does not outweigh their usefulness to the ecosystem and most certainly doesn't give enough justification for their extinction, imho.

[1] https://rewildingeurope.com/blog/the-key-to-living-with-wolves-in-europe-ramping-up-livestock-protection-measures/
[2] https://wolfcenter.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PDF_NINA_2021_RAP_1944_Wolf_attack_update_Linnell.pdf

[stiff trail]

I don't have any personal feelings on the matter. I just think it's insane to invite dangerous animals closer to us. Wolves do attack humans, it was relatively commonplace back when there were more wolves around, and most of us have no way to defend ourselves other than not venturing into places where the wolves are. Sacrificing humans to wolves so that wolves can help control the numbers of other animals seems like a bad bargain.

[stiff trail]

Of course attacks by wolves are more rare.....now. There are a lot fewer wolves than there were. But 489 attacks is still 489 more than I'm comfortable with. Yes, increasing the number of humans killed by wild animals does outweigh the usefulness of wolves to ecosystems. We're part of the ecosystem too, and I value human life more highly than the rest of it.

Places with wolves are places where humans can't go safely. Let's not put wolves in places we want to go.

[solemn raptor]

489 attacks over almost 20 years spread over 3 continents. These are extremely low numbers. For reference: dogs killed 45 europeans in the year 2016 alone. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073820304540)

by your logic, we should outlaw dogs

[stiff trail]

We absolutely should outlaw dangerous dogs. And we do.

But getting rid of wolves from places where humans live is a success story from our past. It is an entirely false argument to look at the current situation with wolves and assume it would remain the same if wolves became widespread in human areas again. Where the wolves are, and how many of them there are, matters a great deal.

Regardless of which adjective we use to describe 489 attacks over 18 years, it still seems like a bad idea to increase that number for future years.

[solemn raptor]

19 years - though I believe to you it makes no difference either way. There is a huge difference between not increasing their numbers beyond a certain point and driving them to extinction, causing massive problems to the ecology in the process. Brandenburg, a part of germany, actually has the highest concentration of wild wolves in the world, still most germans are surprised that there are wild wolves at all - as we've seen an example above already. Yet the benefits to the ecosystem are already immense. Coexistence can and does work. What we need is better education on the subject and more countermeasures against rabies. That way we can lower the number of incidents even with a rising population of wild wolves. It's a win-win scenario. What we don't need is even more fear mongering on the subject. Evidence just doesn't support it. The bad wrap the wolf has is a relic from the past and should be kept in the past.

[stiff trail]

I'm not arguing that they should be hunted to extinction. I'm arguing against encouraging them to become more widespread.

If coexistence can work, let's make sure it can work first, by reducing the attacks down to zero. You can't claim that wolves don't pose a danger while they are still killing humans. And you certainly can't claim they wouldn't pose a greater danger if there were more of them in places closer to humans.

Fear of wolves isn't a relic of the past. Wolves haven't changed their ethics in the last few hundred years. Yes, some changes to human behaviour reduce our chances of being attacked a little, but the reduced number of attacks is also down to there being fewer wolves around. Until you can prove humans can be kept safe from wolves by preventing all attacks and deaths, wolves still have to be considered as dangerous animals.

Make them safe first. Then we can have a conversation about allowing them or helping them expand.

But you simply cannot claim that the evidence doesn't support the view that wolves are dangerous to humans. There is clear evidence that they are, while they are still attacking humans on any number of occasions. But you don't just need to demonstrate that wolves don't pose a danger in their present numbers, you would need to demonstrate that they also wouldn't pose a danger in greater numbers. We're nowhere near that yet.

[soft bluff]

Just curious but what about mosquitos?

Little buggers have been a detriment to every summer of my life, and kill roughly 1000 people each year via spread of malaria (maybe outdated data).

Yet I don´t see anyone, at least seriously, calling for their extermination, despite having an arguably less impact on the ecosystem than wolves?

[stiff trail]

There is more than one way to solve problems, and people seem to be focussed on the diseases that mosquitos carry rather than the mosquitos themselves. Maybe people would consider exterminating mosquitos if that were possible, I don't know. But I suspect that would prove somewhat more challenging. But in any case, the point is that all dangers to humans need to be looked at and made more safe. We don't need to go to extermination of a species if there are alternatives, but we can only choose between the options that actually work for human safety.

[solemn raptor]

Lots to unpack... sorry for the wall of text...

I'm not arguing that they should be hunted to extinction. I'm arguing against encouraging them to become more widespread.

Your statement "But getting rid of wolves from places where humans live is a success story from our past." gave me the impression that you were, because hunting them to extinction is exactly what we did back then. Thanks for the clarification.

If coexistence can work, let's make sure it can work first, by reducing the attacks down to zero.

This is an unreasonably high bar to set. Do not confuse attacks with injuries or deaths. If a wolf only so much as chases you while you're riding a bike, even with no physical contact made, this is already in the statistics as an attack. How many people get scratched by their cats? How many people get bit by their dogs? That goes to show just how unreasonable that zero tolerance policy you're suggesting actually is.

You can't claim that wolves don't pose a danger while they are still killing humans.
Until you can prove humans can be kept safe from wolves by preventing all attacks and deaths, wolves still have to be considered as dangerous animals.
But you simply cannot claim that the evidence doesn't support the view that wolves are dangerous to humans. There is clear evidence that they are, while they are still attacking humans on any number of occasions.

Firstly: the entirety of Europe. A 19 year timespan. 15000 wolves. 0 deaths. Zero. With an o.
Secondly: This is what the study I mentioned found regarding this: "it is apparent that the risks associated with a wolf attack are above zero, but far too low to calculate". Nobody is arguing that wolves pose no danger to humans. What I'm claiming is that this danger is neglegible and the evidence we have is backing this up.
Also again you are setting the bar extremely high. By your definition cows and dogs and probably many more would have to be concidered as dangerous animals as well.

And you certainly can't claim they wouldn't pose a greater danger if there were more of them [...]
But you don't just need to demonstrate that wolves don't pose a danger in their present numbers, you would need to demonstrate that they also wouldn't pose a danger in greater numbers. We're nowhere near that yet.

If we could have the same population density as found in Brandenburg across the entirety of germany or even europe, it could already be seen as a massive success story. Since we can use Brandenburg as a reference point, our current data is already pretty solid for an extrapolation.
It's also worth mentioning: I'm not advocating for no population control, quite the opposite. We absolutely should keep a keen eye on the wolf population and adress issues when they occur. We have to be reasonable.
But the facts remain:

• There are large portions of germany and europe that are practically devoid of wolves that historically weren't
• The lack of wolves in these areas causes severe ecological issues
• Humans hunted wolves to extinction in those areas

If we don't have very good reasons to restrict the resetlement/migration of wolves to those areas, we absolutely should allow if not encourage them to move back in in numbers that we know to be reasonably safe.

[...] in places closer to humans.

Europe is very densely populated. In germany, for example, there is practically no true wilderness anywhere to be found. Yet Brandenburg has the highest density of wolf population in the world. You cannot get much closer to humans than that. If there are no significant issues there, it's unlikely they'll pop up everywhere else.

This is not to say that there aren't any issues at all, wolves walking into towns in order to raid trash cans happens from time to time, for example, but these are very managble. It just goes to show why it's important to improve education on the matter and put systems and regulations in place to prevent behaviour like this to become commonplace.

Fear of wolves isn't a relic of the past.

There are tons of examples of negative stigmatisation of wolves in history, some of which hold up to this day. The popular image of the wolf is significantly influenced by the Big Bad Wolf stereotype from Aesop's Fables and Grimm's Fairy Tales. The Christian symbolism where the wolf represents the devil, or evil, being after the "sheep" who are the living faithful, is found frequently in western literature.

Wolves haven't changed their ethics in the last few hundred years.
Applying the concept of ethics to animals is very questionable at best.

[stiff trail]

I'm not interested in technical definitions of "attack" according to collectors of statistics, I'm simply talking about a situation where wolves are not a threat to human life. That is not a high bar or in any way unreasonable. It's the only sensible bar.

Firstly: the entirety of Europe. A 19 year timespan. 15000 wolves. 0 deaths. Zero. With an o.
There is absolutely no point in quoting statistics about the current numbers of fatal wolf attacks. It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion we're having. We're not talking about whether wolves are a big danger in the current situation, since we both agree they are not. Of course wolves aren't a big problem now. Wolves used to be a problem, we took steps to address that problem, and the problem mostly went away. We already (mostly) solved that problem, specifically by reducing their numbers.
This conversation is about whether wolves would be a danger if we returned to the situation we used to have, where wolves were more widespread. They did use to be a danger when they had greater numbers. If you're talking about undoing our solution to the problem of wolves posing a danger to us, then you need to present a different solution to the problem. Otherwise the problem will return. So far in this discussion, nobody has demonstrated that anything has changed that would mean that wolves would no longer be be a danger to humans in greater numbers.

If we don't have very good reasons to restrict the resetlement/migration of wolves to those areas, we absolutely should allow if not encourage them to move back in in numbers that we know to be reasonably safe.
Firstly we DO have a very good reason. Human safety. Lifestock safety is another very good reason.

Secondly, we don't know what the maximum safe number of wolves in an area is. It will likely be different for different areas. But artificially bringing wolves back into areas is a very dangerous thing to suggest. Some kind of measures need to be taken to make sure humans (and other animals that we care about) are kept safe.

[stiff trail]

wolves walking into towns in order to raid trash cans happens from time to time, for example, but these are very managble.
How do you propose 'managing' a situation where hungry wolves and humans are in the same place?
It sounds like you're suggesting that you're ok with forcing humans, in places where wolves don't currently exist, to learn about how to protect themselves from wolves and take steps to do so. That would be making those people's lives harder and, yes, putting their lives at risk since humans are not perfect and will regularly make mistakes. You need to demonstrate that the benefits outweigh that threat, which as a minimum includes demonstrating that no safer measures to manage the ecosystem exist, and that the benefits of a better-managed ecosystem outweigh the threat to human life.

[stiff trail]

Applying the concept of ethics to animals is very questionable at best.
Exactly. My comment about wolf ethics not changing was a tongue in cheek comment meant to illustrate exactly the fact that wolves don't consider ethics. Wolves haven't changed. They will still attack and eat people if the situation arises.

Wolves are historically stereotyped negatively because they are dangerous creatures that have posed a severe threat to humans in the past. This isn't some unfair stigmatisation, this is a completely fair and grounded assessment of some of the most dangerous predators of humans on the planet. The traditional image of big bad wolves, or wolves stealing sheep, is entirely accurate. The stupid thing is the modern romanticising of deadly creatures, and people assuming they are not as bad as we make them out to be simply because they don't pose a significant threat currently.

My point is not that the stigma doesn't exist. My point is that the stigma isn't a relic. It's a very real, useful and practical fear of a deadly creature.

[latent sluice]

You seem to be very inconsistent and illogical in your arguments. You worry about human death, then ignore the fact that there were no deaths despite high density. Logically, an equally high density should translate to similar results, but you argue against this by using emotional arguments and explicitly refuse to consider the available data. There's no real reason to take your viewpoint seriously at this point.

"Show me evidence that we can get death to zero, and then I'll consider it."

"Deaths are at zero."

"I'm not interested in looking at actual evidence, I meant you should just agree because I'm uncomfortable with wolves!"

[stiff trail]

Did you reply to the wrong message by mistake? I don't see how any of that applies to what I wrote. 🤔

[stiff trail]

If you are trying to suggest that the fact that there is one region in Germany where there are a lot of wolves and haven't been any wolf-caused human deaths recently, means that there would be no deaths if the same number of wolves were present in any other area, I would suggest that you don't understand the ecological environments you're trying to improve. Number of wolves in an area isn't the only factor that determines the likelihood of attacks on humans. There are a lot of other factors at play, such as the availability of food sources, the number of humans, the prevalence of diseases like rabies, and the activities of humans in the area. As I said above, not all areas are equal.

There is a reason why wolves still exist in some areas, and not in others, and I would suggest that the reason is because their presence is much more of a problem for humans in some areas than others. We got rid of them where they were a problem, and didn't bother getting rid of them where they weren't a problem.

[latent sluice]

It's not entirely surprising that you would say that.

[stiff trail]

If you want to have a discussion about the subject (or any subject) you're going to need to avoid just making personal attacks. You're the one making appeals to emotions rather than talking about the actual rational points right now, not me.

[latent sluice]

Every one of your arguments is based on emotion, specifically fear. Nothing is based on data. When presented with data, you argue that you should be allowed to ignore it. There's no use making rational points if you're committed to ignoring them and refuting them with emotional ones.

[stiff trail]

Ok, let me try and clarify what you're saying. You think it's not rational to be afraid of wolves?

[latent sluice]

The rational points are that wolves are beneficial to their environments, that they present less danger than is commonly believed, that there are areas where they are present in relatively large numbers in close proximity to humans without causing significant problems, and that they could be safely reintroduced to many areas in ways that would benefit the environment.

You've heard each of these points, and refuted them with your own personal fears and feelings, ignoring data presented.

It is no more or less rational to be afraid of wolves than to be afraid of sharks or drive-by shootings. The possibility may exist, but it would make much more sense to be deathly afraid of driving in cars, since that is far more likely to kill or injure you.

Anyway, I don't really care much about wolves. I was just pointing out my observation. I think @solemn raptor has been much better at discussing the relevant points and data. Peace ✌️

[stiff trail]

Ok, well there are a number of problems with what you have just written.

When trying to keep humans safe, we don't need to focus just on one danger. It seems like you're saying that we shouldn't be worried about the danger posed by wolves because cars are more dangerous, which by that logic would mean that we would ignore all threats to human life except the biggest one. For my demographic, suicide is by far the most common killer, so do that mean I don't need to look both ways when crossing a road?
No, of course not. How a danger compares to other dangers is irrelevant when deciding what action we need to take. All that we need to look at is the situation in question.

If wolves are introduced back into some areas, would humans in those areas be in danger from them? Well, we have thousands of years of evidence of wolves being a danger to humans all over the world, including evidence of recent danger in some parts of the world. The only evidence being presented to suggest that humans may no longer be in danger from wolves, is from one area in Germany. All we can rationally conclude from that, is that wolves are a problem in some areas and not others.

[stiff trail]

I agree that there are areas where wolves are not currently a big problem with respect to human life. The wolves in those areas are still causing problems for the humans there by killing livestock, but at present that doesn't seem to extend to a threat to human life.

We can agree that wolves provide some balance to their environments. But the way they provide that balance clearly comes at a cost to humans. So it's not a no-brainer of a situation, but rather a complicated balancing act. My suggestion is that the need for the balancing force that wolves provide, does not outweigh the cost to humans of reintroducing wolves in some areas.

We agree too that wolves do not currently pose a big danger to human life in most parts of the world. However, I maintain that the common societal fear of wolves is based on a rational understanding of the dangers wolves posed for humans in the past before humans eradicated them from large parts of the world. Wolves did pose a significant danger to humans, that is entirely factual, and if nothing about the wolves themselves has changed since then, they still can pose a significant danger. We can't just dismiss the idea that they are dangerous when they are in a particular area without having some reason to believe something has changed.

All of this is rational, logical reasoning.

If someone wants to suggest re-introducing wolves into areas, they need to make a convincing argument that the harm that those wolves will cause, and the danger they will present, will be outweighed by the benefit they provide.

So far, I haven't seen a convincing argument that wolves will never again pose a danger to humans even if re-introduced into areas they were removed from. There's no evidence anything's changed. I also haven't seen any mention of any benefit that would outweigh even a relatively low-risk to human life. So without either of those things, the drawbacks seem to outweigh the benefits.

[solemn raptor]

I think I've made my point of view clear enough, and so have you. We're never going to agree if I base my arguments on scientific evidence which you dismiss as irrelevant, and you base your arguments on "thousands of years of evidence", which I dismiss as unscientific. There is no common ground here. Lets just agree to disagree and call it a day. The entire wolf debate was only very loosely related to the main topic, anyways.
Cheers.

[faint cypress]

So absolute safety trumps everything, according to you? Well, then we should stop driving first and foremost, because that kills a lot of people, social contacts that result in dissease transmissions (influenza kills tens of thousands per year)... you see where this is going? Life is deadly. I'm sorry to break it to you, but there isn't absolute safety without sacrificing everything that's even remotely convenient or fun. And you do not want to make cars illegal, do you? So what is acceptable danger for you then?

[rigid sage]

I hate humans and animals, but I like the taste of their flesh

[stiff trail]

For the record, I think historical records are entirely valid scientific evidence, and I don't think your arguments are based on scientific evidence.
But no problem. We don't have to discuss it further if you don't want to.

[stiff trail]

That's not what I said. What I actually said was it would be fine to reintroduce wolves to areas as long as the benefits outweighed the dangers.

It's just that based on the evidence presented in this conversation so far, I don't think the benefits do outweigh the dangers. If you can show me a benefit that is worth risking human life for, then we can talk.

[solid garnet]

What evidence do you have to justify the claim that animals are rational actors? For the sake of the argument even if I granted that assertion, why should I accept your moral compass on this matter (premise 3) as true? Without sufficient justification for your claims, I have no reason to not eat meat. Therefore my meat consumption is justified.

[rustic kiln]

I was hoping that by using rational actor (or being) we can dodge the whole discussion of "what level of sentience counts as murder." I'm hoping to establish that the observation that all animals actively avoid death is enough to establish at least some level of rationality.

For premise 3, an important qualifier in this is the "without justification" part of it. Like if we were to apply this to normal human murder, we'd be able to justify killing through arguments like self defense, etc. Whether or not that justification is sound is another debate, but all premise 3 is trying to do is establish the need for the reasoning behind the killing.

Premise 3 is also intended to be a moral axiom, which means that if you don't accept it, you would rightfully reject the conclusion. I'm also a moral subjectivist, so the only way to have any productive conversation and progress past the subjective part is to agree on baseline moral premises like "killing another rational actor requires justification." Rejecting the statement means going full on moral nihilism, where you can't even say human murder is immoral.

[solid garnet]

I’m not sure that placing an arbitrary boundary of “actively avoiding death grants rationality” helps you out of the spectrum problem you want to avoid. It just kicks the can down the road, because then we can go back and forth about the line for “actively.”

I agree with your premise 3 insofar as it relates to humans, but I would use the distinctive “person” to replace “rational actor.”

I agree that accepting baseline moral premises we agree upon is the basis for fruitful discussion, but I don’t think that rejecting your particular formulation of premise 3 leads to moral nihilism. I can just propose (as I did above) an alternative “premise 3” which excludes animals. And with your view of moral subjectivism, what can you posit that would compel me to change my view?

[rustic kiln]

Do you have anything that would make eating dog or cat meat morally wrong but eating beef morally acceptable?

[solid garnet]

Great question. It reminds me of a PETA advertisement which had a cat, dog, horse, pig, and cow and asks “where would you draw the line?” I don’t think it is morally wrong to eat dog or cat, categorically speaking. I think eating your pet dog or cat would probably be wrong, though I would need to ponder what argument I would use to defend that proposition.

[latent sluice]

It would be equal to the argument that eating your pet cow is morally wrong. If you spent thousands of dollars on a vet, which most people do for pets, then there are a number of reasons why it would be wrong to eat such an animal, most of them financial. Then there are further reasons of invested time and companionship. Most moral arguments against dog or cat meat in general immediately fall flat.

[muted mountain]

Its wrong to abuse your pet dog you've loved all of your life because it isn't conducive to human flourishing. Its demented to want to hurt anything just to watch it suffer. Its bad not because an animal is dying, but because you are causing pain simply for your pleasure. If you make a habit of scaling live fish, just to watch them squirm, thats wrong. We've talked earlier on this thread how non-sentient fish are. It doesn't matter. Yes, they can't even comprehend whats happening, all they have is an instinct to survive (just like all living things). That doesn't mean it ok to harm them for your pleasure.

The line is drawn at humans, as we are the only rational actors. If a human takes pleasure in harming animals for fun, even non-rational animals, its bad for them. If you kill a cow for fun, and to watch it suffer as you slowly draw the life out of it, everyone knows thats wrong. If you kill a cow to eat steak, and not to satisfy your sadist inclinations, its not bad for you, nor is it morally wrong just because you had to kill an animal.

[rustic kiln]

I'm curious if we can find some common ground with the idea that eating a steak made from a hypothetical lab grown meat (not a meat substitute) would be more ethical than one that came from a real cow because the lab grown meat doesn't not require the killing of any cows

[muted mountain]

I don’t think it’s more ethical from my (Christian) perspective. God gave us the natural way of doing things, and that’s what I’ll be sticking to. Same thing with things like surrogacy, same-sex marriage, transgenderism, etc. It’s not Gods intention for us to function outside of His design. If I didn’t believe in a Higher Power I’d probably be on board with lab-grown meat replacement, so we kindve have common ground. I understand why people think that way, and believe it’s better that way, but it isn’t from my perspective. Not that I’m forcing that on others. If people want to be vegan, eat bugs, or eat fake meat, good for them. But I personally won’t be.

[latent sluice]

There are many unintended consequences of avoiding meat. There are many unintended consequences for growing lab meat. Most wouldn't say native Americans were cruel to nature, but they killed animals all the time. A lot of the moral rules we impose today seem quite foolish for other historical times.

[orchid spear]

Full disclosure: I like eating meat and fish. A decent amount too. I have never tried to not eat meat, and I do not feel guilty about it. So let me try to explain my thoughtprocess behind it.

We live in a natural ecosystem. More clearly, we are part of it. We are not better than animals, we ARE animals. Animals, or lifeforms more broadly, from the smallest microbes to the largest blue whales, what we all have in common is that we eat other living matter. Some animals eat exclusively plantlife, some eat exclusively meat. We humans evolved to eat both.You can't blame a cow to eat grass, you can't blame a cat to eat meat.

To blame a human for eating both plants and meat is to elevate a human beyond the label of a mere animal. Which is arrogant and simply untrue. The more we find out about our bodies and our brains, the more we understand that we are in fact not different at all. Let me go into detail:

When looking at brainsize, we have a absolutely massive brain relative to our bodysize. And yet, dolphins, elephants and whales have much bigger brains. A similar amount of neurons though, which is interesting because it means our brains have them on a much denser space. What we also have is that a lot of our neurons, specifically our axons, have a thin layer of fat over them called myelin. This allows our brains to transmit signals hundreds of times faster than without myelin.

In conclusion, we are animals with faster brains. That is literally the only thing seperating us. And animals do what their dna tells them to do and be. In other words, you can't blame a man for acting in accordance with their nature.

(Also no shade to vegans or vegetarians here, I respect your choice, and ask you to respect mine. You asked for a justification and here it is)

[rustic kiln]

In conclusion, we are animals with faster brains. That is literally the only thing seperating us. And animals do what their dna tells them to do and be. In other words, you can't blame a man for acting in accordance with their nature.
With this line of reasoning it'll be hard to make any moral claim at all. Like you could even justify murder/slavery with this reasoning if those align with evolutionary instincts and survival.

(Also no shade to vegans or vegetarians here, I respect your choice, and ask you to respect mine. You asked for a justification and here it is)
Probably buried hundreds of messages up, but I don't actually consider myself a full on vegetarian. I usually cook vegetarian on like the average weeknight meal, or when eating somewhere super easy to substitute like chipotle or taco bell. When going out, in a group or social setting I usually eat anything.

[orchid spear]

The difference is that murder and slavery are not something that was hardwired into us for the sake of survival. We are omnivores because that was apparently the best choice evolutionary.

I suppose you could say we have instincts to kill another human if we are attacked by them. But you could also argue that this is self defense and not murder.

Slavery is also very indirectly linked to our nature I'd say. Maybe in a "I make them plow my field so I will always have food to eat" kind of way, but its a bit of a stretch imo. Both of those things aren't really in our dna.

(Also ya I did try to scroll up, but after a few minutes I eventually just gave up, and went with the title :))

[latent sluice]

You've got animals beating each other into submission quite often, which isn't that different from slavery. Add some neurons, and we just find more sophisticated ways of doing it.

[orchid spear]

Thats territorial conflicts, mating conflicts, hunting for food etc. I don't see how that relates to slavery at all

[solemn raptor]

Generalizations don't help. The animal kingdom is vast. Sure there are animals that beat each other into submission. You'll also find animals that eat their young or kill their partners directly after mating.
Humans are animals that form complex social structures. Murder and slavery are harmful towards these structures. That's all there is to it.

[latent sluice]

Pretty sure that's still a generalization. There are some complex social structures that are only possible through murder and slavery. Some of those are currently either in use in certain countries, or are actively being advocated for today. So like you said, generalizations aren't helpful.

[copper ridge]

I eat meat because I require a higher level of nutrition to provide my cerebral cortex with free glucose and my body with adequate protein. I don't consider the morality of this because we are all carbon-based lifeforms in competition with energy-based and non-carbon based life forms. Any animals eaten thusly are helping me to help propel carbon-based lifeforms to higher levels of existence, bettering existence for all carbon-based lifeforms.

[placid python]

The blunt answer is most humans don’t care about the animal they just want to eat. We evolved to hunt and kill for food and that’s just the fact. Call meat eaters selfish sure that would be completely accurate. We just don’t care about some animals enough to stop killing them for food. 🤷‍♂️

[gentle locust]

Some of us do care about those animals others want to kill for food, though. What do you think the correct moral response should be from our perspective?

Just let injustice happen, ask them to justify, or take action?

From my perspective, your response is not that different from saying "Some humans just don't care about other people enough to stop killing them for pleasure".

Of course they are somewhat different, but I care so much about animals that these situations are pretty similar to me.

I can't change the empathic abilities of others, so this disparity between us will always exist. So then, what should the moral response be from my perspective?

[placid python]

Yea no I totally understand if you see meat consumption as morally wrong you should fight it as such and I don’t blame anyone that does

[gentle locust]

I mean, it's not that black and white like "morally wrong" to me. I'm not 100% plant based or whatever 😋

Morally "preferable" would be a better fit

[placid python]

I don’t see it as morally wrong because I just don’t care enough. should I? Idk maybe but at the end of the day I just don’t care enough and that’s not something I can change

[gentle locust]

I don't know, have you thought about it a lot, or read into the details of the animal food industry?

[placid python]

And I do see humanity in the future looking back at meat consumption as barbaric. I think that future is incredibly likey

[gentle locust]

If you haven't yet, that might change. But if you have put time in it and still don't care enough, I don't know if caring is possible.

[placid python]

I have I understand that there are some practices that aren’t ideal

In the future there will be better was to make food at a large scale at the same nutritional value and cheaper and at that point maybe I’ll start caring but I don’t think that is in my lifetime

[gentle locust]

I mean, depending on where you live, it might be pretty doable to reduce meat consumption at least 😇

[placid python]

Don’t care enough 🤷‍♂️

Vegans can get mad and I understand why from their worldview

[gentle locust]

Yeah I think it's pretty useless to try getting a logical justification from people who just don't care, so I'll leave it there ^^

I have the same struggles at work. I tried to prevent the city from investing a million into public security cameras, showing tons of research that it doesn't increase safety. But my colleagues were like "I don't care about the facts, I just want people to feel safe" and now we're investing that money in cameras instead of mental healthcare that would actually make people less aggressive.

[placid python]

At the end of the day that’s morality comes down to, values, people font feel the need to provide a logical argument for why they can break a stick, because no one values unbroken sticks.

Also denying facts is different from an having an apathetic state of mind on something. One is objectively incorrect and one is subjectively incorrect.

[gentle locust]

If you're talking about my colleagues, they don't deny the facts. They just don't care about the facts, because they have their own predetermined preference.

I know what you meant, but I'm trying not to misrepresent their view here 😋

I hope you don't take that as an attempted gotcha, like "you don't care about the facts either"

[latent sluice]

There are few things more insufferable than a passionate vegan. I say that as someone who rarely eats meat and was a vegetarian for 20 years.

If you're just doing it for your own personal reasons, awesome. But I've never met someone with a consistent life philosophy that involved criticizing others for their choice to partake in eating meat.

[short reef]

In an animal world. " we are the apex predators" so just like a snake eats the eggs of birds we eat what we want to. People forget we are also apart of " nature"

This is relating too the moral part of it

[sinful kindle]

not reading allat but meat is tasty

plus its healthy

and dont get me started on greenhouse emissions

MORE FOSSIL FUELS!!

[thorny cedar]

but meat is way to cheap. and some people eat a lot. just having one vegetarian day is already a good change

[sinful kindle]

@placid python change that mf L to a W

I LOVE THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

[mint slate]

It's delicious

[serene vapor]

Idk, if anyone said that before, but from an environmentally-conscious point of view, traditional methods (including animal breeding) are usually better in terms of food production than mass producing factories.
I think I didn't became the part of culture for nothing.
Also, I cannot imagine a lab-grown alternative ever be more energy-efficient than a natural piece of meat.

[vapid marlin]

Idk, if anyone said that before, but from an environmentally-conscious point of view, traditional methods (including animal breeding) are usually better in terms of food production than mass producing factories.
Yes, but that would imply a significant reduction in meat consumption compared to the average consumption now.

Also, I cannot imagine a lab-grown alternative ever be more energy-efficient than a natural piece of meat.
Theoretically less time and resources invested to achieve a similar output. Instead of growing and keeping alive a living animal, you only grow the meat of said animal. For example, in humans about 80-90% of energy consumption goes to the brain; which would be redundant energy use for consumption. Now ofcourse this is less in other animals, but it illustrates the point of ''energy waste'' for growing meat.

Just because you cannot imagine something being true, does not mean it is not true.

[sinful kindle]

meat mmm steak

[summer jasper]

1. Why do you consider killing an animal wrong?
2. Being a rational actor doesn’t necessitate my morality to not kill them for my consumption.
3. Killing another rational actor against their wishes without justification is not necessarily morally wrong, you haven’t proven that.
   That all being said, I think others have shown you the justification. But you have not proven your point from first principles.

[serene vapor]

@vapid marlin nice points there

Let's just say that the ethics of it don't bother me, rather than the environmental impact. I don't eat meat every day, so... I think i suited my answer to my own consumption/situation.
Also, maintaining a stable lab environment also requires energy, that was my main point there.

[gentle locust]

The most climate friendly method of keeping food animals is industrial mass production, this is mostly due to transport being more environmentally friendly for 1 massive truck than 20 small trucks and similar reasons.
And research into lab grown meat is still in its infancy, but with current data it's expected (so not confirmed) to end up a better way to combat climate change than keeping live food animals.
The most concise way to explain that is: You're trading land use (and burping cows) to produce meat for energy, which is expected to become greener. But I wouldn't see lab grown meat as any solution to anything.

[serene vapor]

What about localising? so no transport is needed?

[wispy tulip]

1. Roadkill in it's own category almost made me think that it isn't murder. But by the logic given I would say it is. it's our responsibility to care for the lesser sentient beings right down to an ant hill or a fly.
   I see where you are going with. No. 2 and 3. However following that logic what about the hunting party of lioness that track and kill their herbivore hoofed fellows. You an semi I right about your diet though you can't get natural protein like meat. There a quite a few study's that show that

But what you failed to mention and this is everything all encompassing. It is written in the Bible that everything on this planet can be used and consumed by God? 3authority

[sinful kindle]

every animal burps, why keep pets then?
any animal that has anaerobic bacteria in them produce methane? Why draw the line at food?

i eat meat every day and the only thing i can tell you is that too much red meat isnt good so balance your meat consumption around chicken, rabbit, turkey etc

[gentle locust]

It just happens to be mostly cows that contribute to climate change in that way

[sweet flax]

not really

humans do most by far

Cows are giant methane pumps yes but no where near the climate polluters as the average human

[sinful kindle]

The climate argument is completely braindead

Everything you use is made out of fossil fuels

from the fossil fuels powering your electronics which you use to communicate and switch your lights on and also not freeze to death

to the plastics in practically everything you use

most fossil fuels come from our industrial activity which is nessecary to keep our enormous population alive and fed

cows produce some methane which if anything is wasted

we should be collecting it and using it as a form of biofuel (not sure if we already do that to be honest)

I personally believe in the future of Nuclear Power (fission for now until effective nuclear fusion technology is discovered)

Besides any herbivore produces methane

when the bacteria in their guts ferments the food they eat

should we kill all herbivores?

In that case by eating meat i am saving the environemtn

[gentle locust]

Dude, I have literally no idea what point you're trying to make 🤣 Modest had some thoughts about vegetarianism in relation to the environment, and I responded with a minor detail attached to it, and you're completely sidetracking on those 2 words 🤣

I can't help the fact that cow burps contribute more to climate change than other animals' burps 🤷

[sinful kindle]

cows burps dont contribute more to climate change than other herbivores do

And the ethical argument doesnt make sense

The entire animal kingdom preys on other animals for meat, territory and straight up hunting for sport

just because we have a monopoly on it doesnt mean we shouldnt do it

[gentle locust]

Sorry, I didn't know google was banned in your country

I'll be more considerate with facts next time

[sinful kindle]

no really all herbivores produce a lot of methane simply from the bacteria in their guts

there just happen to be a lot of cows

[latent sluice]

Pretty toxic response there, @gentle locust.

[sinful kindle]

dont worry just by looking at her profile i have enough to stoop down to her level but its not worth it

and anyways quick question

@gentle locust do you have any pets?

and if you dont why are you opposed to owning pets?

[gentle locust]

As stated before, I was just responding to Modest, and I'm saying your nitpicking on a side note, while also incorrect about it, is not something I'm interested in. I made that very clear in my responses, so please don't try.

[latent sluice]

I think it's pretty clear that you were specifically replying to a number of comments that weren't from Modest. There's the DM function if public forums where anyone can respond makes you uncomfortable.

[gentle locust]

I'm allowed to tell a person in public that I'm not interested in discussing the subject they're focusing on. Do you disagree with that?

[latent sluice]

I mean, yeah. You're allowed. It doesn't really make sense, when you can just not respond, but there's no law forbidding it.

[gentle locust]

I like to be clear about that, instead of leaving someone confused about why I didn't respond.

Might be an interesting subject for later, but not at this time.

[sinful kindle]

@gentle locust

[summer jasper]

I'm still going with it's tasty

End of discussion

[atomic remnant]

Morally wrong to who(

To you?

Everyone abide their own morals and ablidge and pledge themselves to their beliefs

If I don’t find something bad then it ain’t morally wrong in my eyes

And it happens to be that most people eat meat bc it’s tasty and they don’t deem it morally wrong

You can’t throw the word morals around cause everyone’s morals differ

And it’s suppose to be like that

[rustic kiln]

So the way you have a productive conversation about morals is agree to some baseline moral axioms, and then continue from there. My moral axiom is:

3. Killing another rational being against their wishes without justification is morally wrong.

If you don't agree to this it then I'm not sure if any conversation about morality could really take place.

[rustic kiln]

"it's tasty" is a viable justification that I do include in my original post lol. Like enjoying a really nice steak is definitely a better justification for killing an animal than eating a piece of bone dry chicken breast.

[flat plank]

I didn't read this all so if I'm just repeating someone's words, tell me please.

Here is just an observation I have : it is a crime to kill animals, but it's okay to kill plants?
We identify more to animals so I understand it can feel wrong to kill them, but, what makes killing plants any better? They also are living beings. And we don't know whether they have emotions or not or anything to which we can identify to, us, as humans. But they could

[rustic kiln]

You could establish a rough sentence hierarchy for this that would probably be widely accepted. I would probably just say that killing a plant would require less justification. So something like "I need the calories" to be sufficient justification for killing plants, or even something like a cricket.

I'm sure there's some hard scientific way to draw up the sentience hierarchy, but I think it may be enough just to say that we all have some semblance of such a hierarchy already, or at least a strong revulsion to killing certain animals for food. (Okay to eat chicken but not dog)

[flat plank]

I mean, I honestly just don’t like eating/consuming in general because I feel a sort of shame in doing so, but I think it would be better if I would be the one to produce what I’m eating/consuming. I would feel like I “earned” it in a way, that without me wishing it to exist, it wouldn’t have, but that is another topic…

If I try to focus on meat consumption,
I guess my point would be that I feel almost the same way killing animals than I feel killing plants. It is the same justification : I need calories.

[atomic remnant]

i find it wrong

but you have to consider the fact you really dont know if its agains their will bc they havent said so for themselves

[atomic remnant]

i mean either way we need meat to survive other wise we have to eat extra pills which i forgot what they were called

BUT

to be ethical you gotta be egotistical to some extent

and i prioritze my own health above some cows or chickens

and in most cases the animals dont even realize they are dying

bc its done safely

[gentle locust]

Only strict vegans need supplements, by the way. Vegetarians can get everything from (among other things) legumes, cheese, eggs, etc.

But even then, what you're saying is that there is an alternative to meat. (We need meat to survive, except for when we don't)

However, I do understand your argument, most people think that way

And I respect that

[gentle locust]

Especially this, I prioritize my own health and happiness way below others, including cattle.
Just a fundementally different experience of the world that dictates how we think about these subjects ^^

[atomic remnant]

YEAH but they asked abt killing animals which vegetarians also do

[gentle locust]

They absolutely do, and even vegans to be honest!

I'm always of the opinion that this stuff doesn't have to be black and white, because there is no world without suffering. Minimizing suffering is great, reducing is perfectly fine!

[covert tundra]

Life has to die to support life whether is be plant life or animal life. Where people draw the line is just personal opinion at that point

[gentle locust]

Luckily opinions can change over time. In the Western world, nearly all vegans are vegan by choice, and nearly all meat eaters were raised eating meat.

[latent sluice]

Yeah, I mean no. A lot of people raised to be vegans start eating meat. They just aren't vocal about it.

How do you ask someone if they're vegan?

[gentle locust]

Less than 3% of the west is even vegan, then there's a subset even having children, then there's a subset of those parents raising their children vegan as well. Then there's a subset of that starting to eat meat. Sure, there could be a lot of those among the subsets, but absolutely that can only be a small number.

I can believe most of them wouldn't be loud about it, that's true for any general group of people. But even if they were, it wouldn't be a significant number compared to those raised eating meat.

[latent sluice]

You're arguing that people are vegan by choice and don't choose to eat meat. I don't think that's the case. You'll find all sorts of people who tried vegan for a while and chose to eat meat again. You'll find people raised without meat who choose to eat it. If the point is that it's a choice to be vegan, well that's just inherent in any restrictive diet. The default is always no restrictions, even if you're raised with the restriction.

So to contradict myself, sure. People choose the restriction.

[gentle locust]

I was raised with restrictions, for example human meat or dog meat.

[covert tundra]

I don't think that goes against Falcon's point. As default human nature, without any sort of moral institution that is still a default setting for people. Such as those isolated cannibal tribes.

I don't see the point of this entire argument though from Falcon. Not sure the goal is.

[latent sluice]

Maybe that's because you see everything as an argument? Some people just feel like discussing topics and sharing ideas.

[latent sluice]

But cats were fine, right?

[gentle locust]

Nope

[latent sluice]

Yeah, same.

I don't know if I made it clear enough, but I did actually convince myself that I agreed with you, for the most part.

[gentle locust]

That's good to know. That statement wasn't my main message there, but it does support the fact that I'm happy that people can learn, change their minds, and make these decisions, even when raised in a society that is mostly used to consuming meat.

[latent sluice]

Yeah, I grew up in a culture with a lot of vegetarians and vegans, so it's pretty common for people I know to have chosen to start eating meat. There's just not usually much reason to bring it up. If you're vegan/vegetarian, you pretty much have to bring it up the moment you eat with people, whether you want to or not. Thus, the common joke about vegans telling you they're vegan.

[gentle locust]

True. I'm not vegan or fully vegetarian myself, but I do try to reduce whatever I'm able to. And in a society where meat is the standard, I need to be explicit about it.

[covert tundra]

Is that not the point of philosophy, to give views and justify them while other people try to either also justify or critisize the view?

[gentle locust]

I would say that's only the dialectic method of philosophy, it can be broader

[latent sluice]

Coming onto a discussion board and then questioning why people are discussing the topic at hand seems a bit odd, don't you think?

And just to be clear, I'm not mad about it or anything. I just found it odd when you called me out for simply being part of the discussion.

[covert tundra]

I wasn't trying to call you out, I was just trying to stick to the question of the thread. Either way, I did agree with what you were saying. It just seemed to me like it wasn't related to the overarching topin, which is why I was mostly asking what the overarching point was. If humans choosing to have restrictions has an effect on why we should eat meat or not.

But, now that I'm typing this I think I actually do see the point lol. It's in our nature to consume meat, as well as plants. It is only our brains that convince some people not to eat meat, or for some people any products that come from animals.

[atomic remnant]

thats bold to say

and impossible to say as a fact

bc u dont know that

people make their own choices and being vegan and abnormal in the social scale is a choice

Its very hypocritical of vegans etc to say they are saving lives

bc they are still killing things

if u really want to make permanent changes u should kys and be done with it

then a lil sum of death has been reduced

alot of spiders in ur house will survive bc u wont squash them

more mosquitoes wont be killed

etc....

We dont have to justify our meat consumption

and u dont have to justify being vegan

either way both branches kills animals

and harms nature

just bc one is worse (eating meat) doesnt glorify that veganism is all fine and hinged and doesnt cause murders

and the animals we kill 90% of the time doesnt understand that they are going to be killed

and they are killed harmlessly

[atomic remnant]

but reducing or minimizing the problem will still exist

if we ban smoking all over the world smoking is still gonna come alot and regularly happen

Yes reducing or minimizing is better

but theres basically no point to and even if it does make u feel better millions still die u barely make a difference u maybe save tens if not hundreds of animals in ur lifetime by not eating meat

but either way millions die

and eating meat is gonna continue to happen and arise

allover

so in that case that we have to justify it bc we are killing animals u have to justify being vegan or vegetarian bc u are also killing animals

so the argument doesnt work

[atomic remnant]

there is no strict vegan

either ur a vegan or not

u cant say i dont smoke then proceed to smoke once or twice per year

if u smoke u smoke not regularly but u smoke

if u consume meat sometimes then u arent vegan then u vastly eat greens and plant based alternatives which most of the time substitute meat however meat still occurs on the meny

[atomic remnant]

and no most people dont believe in this argument

bc this argument is objective

most people wont agree with objectivity when it comes to arguments

bc people dont like the truth

its that simple

[atomic remnant]

well thats great for u

but i hope u understand they dont feel the same

way

they are wild animals as we once were

we were primates we have consumed meat all throughout time

we have existed

same as lions

we might have better understanding of the world

but in the base of it all we are natrually meat eaters like it or not raised in a meat eater family or not

if u were raised in a vegan family that didnt remark or care if u are vegan or meat eater

u would most prob turn out a meat eater

same in a meat eater home

[atomic remnant]

also going back to this

we feel alot more advanced emotions that cattle

and we have alot more thoughts and ideas

so prioritising something that wont understand what u have done ATLEAST IN MY POV is foolish

[atomic remnant]

AND maybe unbeknownst to u they are developing cattle that wont be consious or have awareness

biological engineering that is

playing god

which i in no form or shape enjoy or support

but its happening

these animals that we are breading for food and resources and that we use to purvey and mend society cant live in the wild

because they are biologically modified

and most subjects do infact live a better life subjectively in captivity than in the wild

They dont have to worry about food

about water

about predators

about sickness

all of this we purvey to the subjects hence giving them a more healthy life actually not better OBJECTIVELY but healthier OBJECTIEVLY

[atomic remnant]

there is no black or white in anything

everyone thinks different and responds differently to different things

we can never truly 100% agree on something cause EVERYSINGLE ONE dont share a single correlating belief

[gentle locust]

Well, yeah. And the justification is sustenance to stay alive. That is a perfectly good justification, also in the case of eating meat.

Justification just means giving a good reason for whatever harm you're inevitably causing

And staying alive is definitely a good reason

[gentle locust]

For context: The goal of a vegan is to use the minimum amount of products for which animals are exploited by humans.
The thing is, as long as humans live, that can never be zero.
Therefore, if you say that you are either vegan or not, then with this in mind, vegans don't exist.

So we should either abandon the word, or use it in a more meaningful way.

That is why I can acknowledge a difference between strict vegans and more tolerant vegans.

You're free to use your definition of course, but then we will need a new term for the kind of person that I'm describing here

[latent sluice]

Where I grew up, vegan just referred to your diet, and nothing else. Didn't know people used it to refer to a whole lifestyle of avoiding animal products until I was older.

But yeah, you can absolutely say you're "mostly vegan" or "mostly vegetarian," which just means that you avoid animal products or meat most of the time. The language isn't particularly ambiguous.

[gentle locust]

Exactly ^^

[covert tundra]

Yea as a kid I just considered vegan and vegetarian as the same thing becuase I didn't know vegetarians didn't consume meat but did use animal products while vegans didn't use anything from animals.

[atomic remnant]

Being vegan is a lifestyle

Eating a plant based meal plan is still a diet

[atomic remnant]

But then the goal is flawed

There are a lot more effective ways to go about life if u wanna save animals

And plus it’s necessary for us to kill and steal some animal products for the better of the world

Cow milk nurtures young kittens dogs and goats and alongside other animals

And if we stopped gathering honey from bees a lot of eco systems would die because when bees get an overflow of honey nectar etc… they stop gathering it

[vapid marlin]

You guys use cow milk for that?

[atomic remnant]

Yeah

Along other milks

But still

[vapid marlin]

thats interesting

[atomic remnant]

And plants die of their nectar isn’t collected

Making bees a big part of survival for almost all eco systems and most eco systems would eventually die if we stopped gathering honey from bees

And a lot of animal fosters would pass away due to the fact we wouldn’t have milk or anything with the right nutrients these infants need for survival

[vapid marlin]

But this only started because we damaged the ecosystem in the first place, for example by restricting the access of natural predators.

[atomic remnant]

Natural predators being?

Bears?

Bears rarely eat honey in the wild and often only eats it as a desert or a light snack

But ofc we revolutionaize the world

[vapid marlin]

No mostly other insects, e.g. wasps

[atomic remnant]

Depends on the breed of wasp

But ofc I might be wrong I’m 16 and not that educated

[vapid marlin]

But what i meant is, your argument that we HAVE to intervene within a natural process only holds because we historically have already intervened in such a way that the original natural 'state' of the ecosystem was already changed by us humans

[atomic remnant]

Correct

[vapid marlin]

Okay i want you to think about this

what happened to bees before humans started collecting honey on a large scale like we do today, say before humans even existed like 300.000 years ago

did they just all die because there were no humans to farm their honey?

[atomic remnant]

Well the environment was a lot different back then

They had other predators

[vapid marlin]

did ecosystems die out because the bees died cus no one took the honey?

No the environment was in geological terms very similar to today

[atomic remnant]

You can’t compare the animals from today to 30k years ago

[vapid marlin]

And why not?

[atomic remnant]

So much evolution and biological diversity has happened since then

[vapid marlin]

300 thousand years is nothing in terms of evolution

[atomic remnant]

Perhaps not but in the span of 300 thousand years we have came quite a bit

[vapid marlin]

they are very much comparable scenarios

[atomic remnant]

Do u think u could beat up a chimpanzee?

[vapid marlin]

Thats technology, not biological evolution

300.000 yeras ago, a human then was pretty much exactly the same as you and me

[atomic remnant]

Not really

[vapid marlin]

Well yes, that is the whole point of ''anatomically modern humans''

[atomic remnant]

I have a perfect example

[vapid marlin]

sure

[atomic remnant]

Do you see that many people today have crooked teeth?

Open bite over bite under bite

[vapid marlin]

yes

[atomic remnant]

That didn’t exist back then

Basically

When we started making processed food

[vapid marlin]

and why is that

[atomic remnant]

Soft food

Etc

We started chewing less

Which weakened our bones in our jaws and dental structure

Compacting our jaws

And making our teeth cramped

[vapid marlin]

So there has been a physical change in our appearnance

doesnt say anything about evolution

[atomic remnant]

Yes

[vapid marlin]

in a span of 300k years

also

there are many other reasons for this to happen

e.g. inbreeding

genetic deseases

etc

But i am quite willing to look at the evidence for it if you have any studies on this you recommend

[atomic remnant]

https://youtu.be/li1kO3hg4iE?si=DV3ASixgXcNMNI7s

[vapid marlin]

all im saying is that the general consensus among anthropologists is that anatomically modern humans appeared around 300k years ago, meaning that people who are for the most part similar to you and me in the way they behave, think etc.

No i mean that it is general concensus that this is some form of macro evolution

because since you said that there were really big changes between us now and 300k years ago, that implies macro-evolution to me

[atomic remnant]

We evolved

And changed

Due to the fact our environment changed

[vapid marlin]

I agree

[atomic remnant]

Our food got softer and mushier

[vapid marlin]

yeah i dont challenge you on that

[atomic remnant]

And our teeth became crooked and our jaw became weaker

[vapid marlin]

but i challenge you on the way you interpret that to come to the conclusion you come to

[vapid marlin]

i dont challenge that either

Im saying that a slight change in phenotype does not warrant a conclusion where you state that ''everything is different from back then''

because in reality MOST things stayed relatively the same

[atomic remnant]

alright

fair enough

i can agree to that

my point was that a sudden change in balance or food chain or eco system can cause a drastic evolution

[gentle locust]

That's my goal, too. Whatever I can change to reduce suffering in the world, I will try to. That's not flawed.

[vapid marlin]

And my biggest argument is that the scale to which humans have a direct impact on their environment has only very recently been high enough to make a worldwide impact on full ecosystems

lets say it started only at the brink of the agricultural revolution(s)

[atomic remnant]

but there are alot more effective way to carry this out no?

[vapid marlin]

thats about 10-15k years ago

[gentle locust]

Yeah, that's why I'm not a vegan

[vapid marlin]

meaning the bees have co-existed with humans for about 290k years, without any problems for the bees

and now your argument is that bees NEED human intervention in order to have ecosystems survive

[atomic remnant]

but u do value animals and most life above u?

[vapid marlin]

i think that logic is flawed

[atomic remnant]

Not necessarily

i said i might be wrong

[gentle locust]

I'm fully convinced that it's a systemic issue, economically and socially. So I'm working at a more top-down level, to get more people educated while still accepting that they live in a flawed society.

[gentle locust]

Yup

[atomic remnant]

Three hundred thousand years ago, bees faced a variety of predators, some of which are no longer present today. Here are a few examples:

1. Extinct Birds and Insects:

   • There were likely many species of birds and insects that preyed on bees but have since gone extinct. Prehistoric species of birds with different feeding habits and extinct insect species might have posed significant threats to bees.

2. Prehistoric Mammals:

   • Certain prehistoric mammals that have since gone extinct, such as early insectivorous mammals, might have preyed on bees.

3. Giant Ground Sloths:

   • Although not direct predators of bees, these large herbivores could have disturbed bee nests while foraging for food, indirectly affecting bee populations.

4. Ancient Reptiles:

   • Some species of reptiles that are no longer around today might have included bees in their diet.

The extinction of these species over time, due to various factors such as climate change, habitat destruction, and evolutionary pressures, has led to a shift in the predator-prey dynamics for bees. While bees still face numerous threats from modern predators and environmental changes, their historical predators from 300 thousand years ago paint a picture of a different ecological landscape.

[vapid marlin]

Nice ChatGPT'ing you did there

[atomic remnant]

ty

[vapid marlin]

it was not a compliment

[atomic remnant]

no shit

i was being sarcastic

[gentle locust]

Okay, now ask ChatGPT how many times the letter "n" appears in "mayonnaise"

[atomic remnant]

so apparently its faulty to ask the all knowing web what predators preyed on bees?

[gentle locust]

You're not asking the web

[vapid marlin]

Well what is faulty for one is that you assume that the web is all knowing

[atomic remnant]

Yes gang lets get all our knowledge of the back of a cerial box

[gentle locust]

And it's certainly not all knowing

[atomic remnant]

no but the web has an amalgamation of knowledge within every subject and often its impartial and objective

[gentle locust]

The information might be correct, but with the rise of AI, it might be conpletely inaccurate

[vapid marlin]

the second point is you are asking a GPT, a generative pre-trained transformer. it does not understand your question or even have a mechanic to understand whether the answer it gives you is correct, it just spews out letters that it ''thinks'' fit into the sentence

[vapid marlin]

The web is in no way impartial or objective, where did you hear that?

[atomic remnant]

chat gpt is objective

[vapid marlin]

Do you know the extent of for example racial bias that is present on the internet

[atomic remnant]

the web no

[atomic remnant]

i was talking about ai

[vapid marlin]

this made my day lmao

[atomic remnant]

but alright

[vapid marlin]

GPTs are anything but objective

[gentle locust]

Humans have that knowledge, human knowledge is reachable through the web.

[vapid marlin]

A generative model is by definition biased towards the information that it is trained on

[atomic remnant]

chat gpt is objective and impartial

[gentle locust]

If you remove humans from the equation, the knowledge is meaningless

[atomic remnant]

but its sources might not be

[vapid marlin]

You cannot create an AI model without bias

its physically impossible

[vapid marlin]

No thats my point, its impossible to create an objective generative program

[atomic remnant]

i mean yeah ai if used in the right term is its on concious bneing

[atomic remnant]

well then chat gpt is impartial and objective however its sources arent

if i create a virus using shutdown /s /t 0

[gentle locust]

Look at it this way:
GPT output = GPT + Input + Sources

[atomic remnant]

its not gonna care about my feelings of if i got unsaved projects on my pc

its still gonna turn off my pc

[vapid marlin]

Okay if you want to go down that route, then since chatgpt is nothing as it cannot think so it can not be partial nor impartial

but yeah, assuming that the information you get from a generative transformer is correct or even impartial is a big no-no to me

[atomic remnant]

then its literally impartial

its a software

it doesnt care what it spews out

a rock is impratial

impartial

[vapid marlin]

no because for it to be impartial it needs to have the agency to be parial or impartial for that matter

[atomic remnant]

my lighter is impartial

[gentle locust]

That is literally the problem

[vapid marlin]

which it does not

no your lighter is not impartial cause it does not have the agency to be impartial

[gentle locust]

ChatGPT is impartial to its output, so it doesn't care whether it's correct or not.

[vapid marlin]

Can you explain how a gpt is impartial to its output?

[vapid marlin]

like how anything without agency can be impartial or partial in the first place

[atomic remnant]

bc it doesnt personally think anything

[vapid marlin]

which is exactly why it cannot be partial in my view

[atomic remnant]

if u literally dont care then ur impartial

if ur just going off of facts

[vapid marlin]

but maybe this is just semantics, we probably agree for the most part

[atomic remnant]

ur objective

[vapid marlin]

okay then i agree, its impartial but not objecitve

going by that definition

[atomic remnant]

we cant prove this right or wrong tbf

[gentle locust]

It's wrong

[atomic remnant]

So imo its subjective

[gentle locust]

There is no last 5 digits of pi

[atomic remnant]

i mean we truly dont know that

[gentle locust]

Yes we do

[vapid marlin]

Pi is irrational

it has no end

[atomic remnant]

ok fair enough

[vapid marlin]

a rational number can by definition be written as a fraction a/b. There are many ways to proof that this is impossible for the number pi and that you could only approach it as a value between two fractoins a/b and c/d. Therefore, there is no end to the number, since if there were an end to it, there would always be a set of 2 numbers e and f that as a fraction e/f would result in pi

[atomic remnant]

this has kinda spiraled into an unrelated topic to animals

[vapid marlin]

Now i agree that chatgpt can be a very useful tool for many things, but I would just like to remind you that the output will always be unverified information, therefore using at as a ''knowledge base'' is a bad idea.

[atomic remnant]

true

imo though idk why this thread exists

i dont think u should justify alot of things especially not meat consumption

[gentle locust]

Depends on your idea of what justification means

In philosophy, it means to have a good reason for an act or belief.

(But I know that some people think you only need justification for bad things)

For example:
I eat meat about once every 2 weeks, sometimes once a week.
Why? The amount of energy it takes me to have a varied vegetarian diet in my rural town, where society hasn't adopted a general understanding of vegetarianism, is greater than the amount of energy it takes me to 1) create a larger scale change at work, by means of legislation or education, or 2) create more social acceptance of the diet by speaking to people in public.

And other things, of course.

[latent sluice]

We generally term that adaptation or microevolution. It has nothing to do with macroevolution.

Impartiality doesn't mean correct. You have to care about accuracy, which ChatGPT does not. Partiality also doesn't mean inaccurate. You can come to correct conclusions even with bias present.

I've seen several people comment that they don't understand why a thread exists. Why join a discussion if you don't want to be part of it? Can't you ignore a thread if you don't know why it exists? There must be a little man somewhere forcing users to respond to discussions that they aren't interested in.

[vapid marlin]

If cause by a change in allele frequencies it is microevolution, however a phenotypical change can also occur without a change in allele frequencies, so it does not neccesarily have to be evolution

[latent sluice]

Can you explain what allele frequencies are? I haven't heard that term in connection with adaptation.

[vapid marlin]

In genetics, an allele is a certain type of a gene. The allele frequency therefore is the frequency of a certain type of a specific gene. It is the amount of that specific allele relative to all other alleles of that gene. For a gene with 2 alleles, you can approximate this by the hardy-weinberg equation which is nothing more than (P+Q)^2=1

What i find interesting is that you say you never heard that term. Did you not learn this stuff in school? It is basic biology... We teach this stuff to our kids that are 13/14 yo

[latent sluice]

So if humans in desert environments ended up with darker skin, while those in cold environments ended up with lighter skin, is that an example of adaptation? Or if a particular bird's beak grows longer over time, enabling it to eat bugs more easily, is that allele frequencies changing?

[latent sluice]

I'm sure I learned a lot about basic biology in elementary school that you never learned about. We didn't use that particular term, but the concepts were there.

[vapid marlin]

Yes

[vapid marlin]

I doubt it but you can believe that if you want

[vapid marlin]

So across both groups of humans, the genes for skin color are the same, but within those genes, the relative abundance of certain alleles on that gene can vary within groups, which can show in phenotypical traits

[latent sluice]

Based on your attitude towards someone simply asking a normal question, I absolutely believe it.

Mocking curiosity has a way of greatly reducing the amount you learn.

[sinful kindle]

why should we not eat meat when animals do it?

[gentle locust]

Why should we not be vegetarian when animals do it?

[blissful torrent]

Animals turn scraps and waste into protein and fat. They store it very well for long periods of time, including off growing season.
If you live withing the tropics you might be able to grow year round but places that get true winter cannot, and have for millennia relied on animals for those essential amino acids and fats that cannot come from anywhere else

Also, bacon is delicious

I accept it's a luxury, but I make sacrifice elsewhere to reduce my footprint, including eating local, farming much of my own food during productive months

How do you justify having children. Every "issue" you squirt out has orders of magnitude more impact than just my meat consumption

[sinful kindle]

because our stomachs arent 4 chambered fermentation factories

[covert tundra]

Humans are omnivores, designed to eat both plants and meat, not one or the other.

[gentle locust]

I'm not telling anyone to eat grass lol XD

Or are you saying humans can't process vegetables?

[sinful kindle]

not as efficiently as animals do, leading to greater waste

[vapid marlin]

As other* animals do. Humans of course are themselves also animals.

[sinful kindle]

yeah mb i just woke up

[vapid marlin]

dont worry about it

[gentle locust]

I mean if you want to go that route, we have to cook meat first, because we haven't developed the right protection against all the bacteria inside raw meat 😅

It's just a ridiculous argument, is what I'm saying

[sinful kindle]

actually we used to be able to avoid it, but we started cooking meat to get more nutrients out if it which made it pointless to survive those pathogens from an evolutionary point of view

[gentle locust]

"to get more nutrients out of it" so you're saying that humans can't process meat at efficiently as animals can

Again, it's just a ridiculous argument, and "Because animals do too" is a ridiculous argument.

Many animals eat their young after birthing, should we?

95% of animals aren't monogamous, do you think we should abandon that?

Some people in this thread come with actual justifications, I think that's way better.

[sinful kindle]

because we cook our food, we have still been designed to eat meat

Our bodies have been designed to eat meat, its in our biology

using it to very inefficiently digest vegetables is wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLjr3dzOUpQ

[gentle locust]

Earlier, you said that because we cook our food, we're worse at eating meat. Which is it?

[sinful kindle]

we cook our food because we know it gets more nutrients out of that

we have now adapted to eat cooked food

but at the end of the day, our dentition, our alimentary canal is still designed to eat cooked meat

and vegetables

were adapted to eat COOKED meat

[gentle locust]

And how about tools?

Meat was a lot harder to eat before we could cut it

[sinful kindle]

we never really had problems with eating meat as our intelligence allowed us to cut it

which is why were the dominant species on this planet

[gentle locust]

What do you mean never? You think humans were created with tools in hand? XD

[sinful kindle]

bruh.

[gentle locust]

That's the natural argument again

You could make the same argument for murder, cannibalism, etcetera

[sinful kindle]

nope

[gentle locust]

We have the intelligence to make choices here

[sinful kindle]

because we have evolved to look down at those things

its in our culture not to

[gentle locust]

We have developed complicated systems of ethics.

[sinful kindle]

and then some cultures have no problem with it

look at eating dogs

some cultures find it acceptable

some dont

[gentle locust]

Exactly

So why dogs, and not other animals, right?

[sinful kindle]

i mean i personally wouldnt want to eat a dog unless im starving to death

but I wouldnt blame someone who would

my culture sees it as wrong because we have evolved with dogs as companions

a pig never really was a companion to us

its just ingrained

pig = food
dog = hunting buddy

[gentle locust]

That's not evolution, that's culture

[sinful kindle]

culture stems from evolution

[vapid marlin]

I mean, evolutionairy speaking, wolves most likely started out as food too

[gentle locust]

It's not the same

[sinful kindle]

true yes

but we probably didnt hunt wolves if we could avoid it since the risk to reward ratio probably wouldnt be worth it

[sinful kindle]

i come from a meat eating culture

[vapid marlin]

But yeah, it is not correct to state that we are evolved to eat meat but not evolved to eat veggies, cus in reality we are omnivores and we are evolved to eat both

[sinful kindle]

because in the northern regions of europe good fucking luck growing any crops

[gentle locust]

Me too, and yet I'm making choices that positively affect animal welfare.

[vapid marlin]

Oh, like we have done for thousands of years you mean?

[gentle locust]

Are you saying you're less evolved than me? XD

[vapid marlin]

you know that for example vikings were mostly farmers no?

[gentle locust]

I think the argument is just useless.

[sinful kindle]

So you believe in the concept of people being less evolved than others?

[gentle locust]

Absolutely not

I'm asking if you think that

[sinful kindle]

evolution occurs due to needs, in northern europe evolution favoured pickled food, animals are a very dense source of nutrients and theres only so much pickled vegetables can get you

in the Mediterranean for example farming was very viable

soil is fertile and climate is perfect

[vapid marlin]

Misconcept alert: evolution does not occur due to needs. Evolution is a random spontaneous process that occurs just because. There are some driving forces that can make certain things within evolution more competitive, but evolution itself is completely neutral

[sinful kindle]

i very much simplified it down yes

[vapid marlin]

yes and that is a problem

[sinful kindle]

evolution doesnt occur to needs but its a completely random process

beneficial traits are selected for and harmful traits are selected against

[gentle locust]

No, harmful traits can be selected for

[sinful kindle]

not commonly

and the harmful trait may also be beneficial in other ways

sickle cell anemia for instance

[vapid marlin]

In reality, most traits have pros and cons, just like everything in life

[sinful kindle]

but generally harmful traits are selected against

[vapid marlin]

so depending on the environment, a certain trait is beneficial or harmful

but it is gneerally not inherent to the trait itself

e.g. you cannot say: ''trait A is harmful''

[gentle locust]

Yeah, it's about whether the trait fits the environment, aka survival of the fittest

[vapid marlin]

but you can say: ''under condition X and Y, trait A decreases the odds of reproduction / odds of passing genes''

[sinful kindle]

which is what im saying??

[gentle locust]

But I do agree that fit can be simplified to need

[sinful kindle]

im saying that in certain environments certain traits are selected for whilst certain traits are selected against

[vapid marlin]

No the point is that that is not what you are saying, maybe it is what you intend to say, but it is not what you are actually typing

[vapid marlin]

Yeah i read that, but my point still holds

''evolution occurs due to needs'' is categorically untrue

[sinful kindle]

its true in a broad sense

[gentle locust]

Ohhh you interpreted that like the giraffe neck growing?

[sinful kindle]

look i studied evolution and im not looking to get back into my notes

[vapid marlin]

Yes

[gentle locust]

Ah then I get your response

[vapid marlin]

thats what he's saying no?

[gentle locust]

I interpreted like saying that a ball falls down due to gravity

Like it's not literally "gravity" pulling the ball down or whatever

[vapid marlin]

Its just that for a long time, there was a very archaic and linear view of evolution, and with many people this is still the idea they have when talking about evolution

[gentle locust]

Just the concept of need guiding what evolution does

[vapid marlin]

So whenever someone makes ''shortcuts'' in talking about evolution im very wary

[gentle locust]

Yeah true

[vapid marlin]

like the idea that good traits get selected for and bad traits get selected against assumes some sort of linearity and inevitebility about the course of evolution

but in reality thats not what happens

it is a simple model of evolution for sure

but yeah as long as we are all on the same page with that, we can use the simplified notions

[sinful kindle]

i know enough about evolution, im just trying to not nerd out here

honestly i was not a big fan of those subjects

its interesting and all but its just not my favourite

[vapid marlin]

Okay but you made two statements previously:

• We are inefficient at eating plant material
• We have evolved to eat meat

But then tanyao made an argument that we are also inefficient in eating meat, which you supported by saying we solved that by cooking our food. So then what is the difference between eating meat and plant? Arent we ''evolved'' to eat both?

[sinful kindle]

we are

Im not saying we shouldnt eat vegetables

that wouldnt be healthy to eat purely meat

but the ideal is a balanced diet

We have always been evolved to eat meat

from our primate ancestors

we developed the ability to hunt more effectively and use tools

then from there we learnt how to create fire and cook our meat

which enabled us to

1. get rid of pathogens
2. get more out of our meat

[gentle locust]

Many primates stick to a mostly or fully vegetarian diet, other primates do eat meat

But even then, it's the natural argument.

The fact that we can, doesn't mean we have to.

There's ways, especially with humans getting good at technology, to get all the nutrients you need without meat.

And if you want to say that developing tools and tech counts as "evolution", that means we have "evolved" to be able to process meatless diets perfectly fine.

So we should, according to the natural argument.

[sinful kindle]

In that case I can ask, would you never eat anything but bugs again?

[gentle locust]

Bugs are better in my opinion

[sinful kindle]

because technically speaking that may be the best source of nutrients

[gentle locust]

First of all, we don't need bugs, so why would we? Same with bigger animals.

[sinful kindle]

what do you mean by that last sentence?

[gentle locust]

But if I could choose right now to live in a society where bugs were the main protein source vs livestock and fish, then yeah sure.

[gentle locust]

As I said, we can get all the nutrients we need without eating animals.

[sinful kindle]

Easier to cultivate per calorie

then why draw the line at bugs?

they have nerves too

[gentle locust]

Yeah, I would prefer a bug eating culture over a cow eating culture

But I prefer none of those to a vegetarian diet

[sinful kindle]

cows have been bred to be eaten

if we dont eat cows anymore they will all starve to death

no one is going to feed a cow that wont be eaten

their entire existence is to end up as my burger

[gentle locust]

They are being bred because humans eat them. If we phase that out, we don't have to breed that many anymore.

I really don't get why people keep spewing that argument

[sinful kindle]

we wont breed any cows in that case

they will die out

[gentle locust]

They won't

That is ridiculous

[sinful kindle]

cows will not survive in the wild

[gentle locust]

Animal rights activists fight for the most obscure animals in the world

Do you think they'll just forget about cows?

[sinful kindle]

what are they gonna do?

[gentle locust]

That is ridiculous

Cows are cute

Some people own cows without using them as meat

And without taking their babies away so we can harvest their milk

But it's just that they have a big backyard with grass and the cow chills there

Are you saying that if we can't eat cows, cows won't be cute anymore?

[sinful kindle]

few people will take care of them

besides meat is in so many cultures, do you support forcefully taking away cultures from people?

[gentle locust]

First of all, I think clinging on to culture and tradition is stupid

That's why I'm progressive and not conservative

Second of all, I'm for education and slow meaningful change.

Any forceful change can be undone with the same force

But again, I don't know why people keep reverting to the force argument. It really seems like those people have never actually listened to a vegan argument honestly before.

It's old and chewy at this point

I think a way better justification that we saw a couple of times in this thread is: I don't care about animal welfare

[sinful kindle]

To be very frank with you I dont

Humans first

it is to our benefit to eat them

therefore i will do what my biology tells me

and I will eat meat

and I will have a damn good time doing it too

[vapid marlin]

i think this is stated very bluntly. Eating meat has more negative implications other than animal welfare. There are other arguments you could make why NOT eating meat should be the default, for example land use or climate pressure. So if you would go with this rethoric, you kinda imply that they not only care about animal welfare, but also not about land use issues, the climate etc.

I dont know if i can subscribe to that

Most people care, but they don't care enough to change their habits

[gentle locust]

That is true, but at least there are ways to combat climate change and land use that don't involve giving up meat

[vapid marlin]

Hmm i politely disagree

[gentle locust]

I mean, you reduce your footprint by eating meat from industrial livestock

[vapid marlin]

or no let me rephrase

[gentle locust]

Because several small scale local farmers will cause more transportation emissions

[vapid marlin]

Yes there are ways, but without tackling meat consumption it will never be a full solution

[gentle locust]

Than one mega delivery

[vapid marlin]

Meat consumption is an integral part of many of the problems we currently have and without tackling it, those issues simply cannot be solved adequately

[gentle locust]

I appreciate this argument. We have different moral frameworks that decide how we deal with this issue.

I'd rather get that argument than the same 5 talking points over and over.

[sinful kindle]

i personally dont see animal lives as equal to mine

I have a loyalty to my species think of that what you may

[vapid marlin]

Okay but if by eating meat you directly endanger yourself and other humans, then would it need to be justified to consume it?

[sinful kindle]

does the harm outweigh the benefit?

no it doesnt

[vapid marlin]

I guess its your personal opinion it does not

I see people on island states being forced to move cus due to sea level rises their island literally disappears, personally i think that is more harm than the benefit one has from eating meat

but thats my personal opinion

Or entire patches of the amazon being burnt in order to produce animal feed

Shifting complete marine ecosystems by overfishing

[sinful kindle]

sea level rises not due to cows burping but rather due to our industrialised world which is another conversation on its own

[blissful torrent]

Livestock, the clearcuting of forests for pastures and the 40:1 conversion has a huge part to play in the "industrialized world" explicitly for livestock

But also, we cook most of our food, including to a greater or lesser extent our water

Cooking of both meat and vegetables increases the bioavailability of most nutrients

It's also a very easy way of getting rid of pathogens, especially in the modern way most people get their food (grocery store) where it has more exposure and takes far longer to get to table

I eat meat because it tastes good. Evolution has made me desire the proteins, fats etc. as a valuable source of nutrition

I also eat vegetables and grains because they taste good

As previously mentioned, I also eat fish and meat because they are a good local source of those nutrients outside of the growing season.

I live where we get this thing called winter. Without livestock and/or wild game humans would not survive

[vapid marlin]

Well no it is not another conversation cus de industrial scale of meat production is one of the major causes of worldwide emissions at about 1/6th of total worldwide emissions. And no, the majority of emissions does not come from cows burping, but even bringing that up seems absurd to me

[covert tundra]

Yea that's actually really fascinating to learn about, teeth on humans in earlier days used to be almost perfect, until technology came along. Cutting food and cooking it made it much easier for our teeth to get through, thus reducing the need for our canines and chewing, leading to smaller jaws and thus cramped teeth, so more people have un-aligned teeth.

[sinful kindle]

ayo @fallow stag is typing

bros typing an essay 👀

[fallow stag]

Calling animals rational actors presumes a bit too much in my mind. They are certainly feeling creatures, although on some level all living things are, since one the basic requirements for life is the ability to in some way sense and react to one’s surrounding. But rationality is, to me, made up of a specific set of historically based forms of thinking that were created by people. I don’t think we could presume that in animals, even if they may mimic what we think of as rationality.

I’ll grant that industrialized animal production is horrific, but, for myself as an American, I also think there is very little I can buy that is not in some way built upon he suffering of others, human or otherwise. At a certain point, by following your logic, one could come to the conclusion that one should buy nothing at all. Which, maybe to be “completely moral” (a dubious prospect, in my opinion), one should buy nothing at all, but that would certainly make it very hard to survive.

I guess this is not so much a justification of meat as it is a statement that, in our society, there is no purely ethcial stance, and one cannot escape from the horrors of production. I do not see meat eating as worse than he sweat shops that produce our clothes or the mines that collect the materials for almost all of the products we buy.

I can imagine a world where meat eating is done in such a way that gives respect to the animals eaten, as part of the great cycle of life, death, and decomposition, though I find it unlikely modern society would move towards that in it’s current configuration.

[fallow stag]

Lol, I didn’t think it was that long, tbh.

[sinful kindle]

bro that was a solid 20 minutes 😭

https://tenor.com/view/wall-of-text-sebi-gif-3902865978262177436

but regardless

very good points

[fallow stag]

Typing on a tablet is slow. 😅

[blissful torrent]

We also cook grain and vegetables for the same reason. It enables for more bioavailability of nutrients.

One of the things it does do is kill some enzymes in plants, so you should always eat a tiny bit of raw cabbage / broccoli at the beginning of a meal with cooked, that way you get the best of both sides

[dim kraken]

1. Suffering is bad.

2. Most of life is suffering.

3. Killing ends suffering.

4. You need to kill animals to make and eat hamburgers.

5. Ending suffering makes you virtuous.

Conclusion:
I am virtuous for buying and eating hamburgers.

[drifting vortex]

My justification is I like meat. Whether there's a true justification or not I'd just be selfish and eat animals because my life I'd say is significantly better with meat products in it. That's not to say I don't care about animals at all, but I do have to admit I selfishly choose to eat meat.

[regal garden]

I was wondering whether there was a discussion on this! In all my years speaking to thousands of people about consuming animals and animal products, I have not heard one convincing argument or reasonable (without flaw) justification other than survival. And for me, survival includes inaccessibility (whether due to financial or availability reasons).

Regarding morality and sentience, there is without a doubt subjectivity. But I think that’s true of morals towards humans as one of the fundamentals of morality is the sentience (or subjective experience) of another. A plastic cup is not sentient so moral consideration is irrelevant.

Finally, the three most common arguments:

1. Taste pleasure
2. Convenience
3. History/culture;
   are not justifiable reasons. They are flawed excuses. Alright, let’s see the backlash I get from this! 😃

[trim flint]

It just depends on the subjective framework for your worldview. Most humans centralize the advancement and well being of humans in their moral framework. And by that framework the killing of other "lesser" creatures is seen as justifiable and part of the greater good.

I don't necessarily subscribe to this idea, because if there is some other more advanced civilization out there would we want them to treat us in a similar manner to hiw we treat thise we consider lesser? I doubt most people would. Here's looking at you Kanamits.

But like all things it will take a long time to get most people on board. Meat substitutes becoming more and more like the real thing at a cheaper price will be helpful.

[toxic aspen]

if we operate under the premises that

1. there is no objective distinction in value between animal and man

2. killing others is a form of harm (goes against self determination)

3. needless harm is immoral

4. we are morally obliged to stop needless harm that we are responsible for

than, we should eliminate/reduce our consumption of meat as far as we can that does not cause harm unto us.

I don’t operate under the framework because i don’t accept the first principle. I believe humans have intrinsic value greater than animals and dominion over them

[regal garden]

I honestly think eating as much meat as we do is bad for the environment and causes unnecessary suffering but I eat meat anyway because I'm weak willed 🤷

[toxic aspen]

yeah environmental concerns would definitely be a valid cause, though that might not be inherently tied to the consumption of meat, just a byproduct of the way meat is currently produced in mass

[regal garden]

Yeah definitely

[mortal creek]

Meat is yummy

[regal garden]

Humans having more value than non-human animals is a flawed justification to eat them. You can believe humans have more value and still choose not to pay for them to be slaughtered. Humans are a species of animal.

[toxic aspen]

its not necessarily that we have more (which i still believe we do) it’s that by virtue of being human, i believe we are valued entirely differently than animals

but yeah i get that it’s dumb for someone else to accept that premise without some sort of religious influence as far as i understand

[regal garden]

I think the first premise that needs to be addressed is whether you believe other non-human animals are sentient and have the ability to feel pain, suffering, and joy (among others).

[toxic aspen]

yes, but I do not believe sentience is a determinant for moral weight (sorry if my wording is a bit off, im multitasking a game of risk rn lol)

[regal garden]

It’s all good. That doesn’t make sense though. Other humans deserve moral consideration because they are sentient, feeling beings, not because they are called the word, human. Sentience and morality are intertwined.

[toxic aspen]

thats where we disaree. I dont believe sentience is what gives humans value, I believe that humans have intrinsic value which means nature of being human you are valuable beyond any living thing

for example someone who is a vegetable or someone incapable of feeling emotions or pain would still be just as valuable as someone with those capacities

[drifting vortex]

How can you hold this and work under your 1st premise that there's no distinction between the two?

Scratch this based on me being a dumbass

[toxic aspen]

"I don’t operate under the framework because i don’t accept the first principle. I believe humans have intrinsic value greater than animals and dominion over them"

[drifting vortex]

Whoopsie

[toxic aspen]

I was saying if i were vegan and non religious, that would be the framework which seems most justifiable

[drifting vortex]

That's on me

[toxic aspen]

vegan argument, or at least the argument for the least meat consumption without harm to oneself definitely is the most defendable argument secularly

[regal garden]

I understand this perspective and have heard it many times. It is very flawed as you may be aware. Do you accept that humans are animals?

[toxic aspen]

no

anatomially yes (biologically or evolutionararily is probably a bit more accurate)

our essence or what we are ordered to, no

[regal garden]

If science is thrown out the window, it’s difficult to have a discussion where justification is the principal component

Just to wrap this piece up though, there are many religious vegans. Believing that humans are special and above all others does not prevent you from making a conscientious decision when it comes to killing other animals. If God gave us dominion over other animals and we no longer need to eat them to survive, should we not have an obligation to do what we can to protect them and save as many of their lives as possible?

[toxic aspen]

why is it thrown out the window? scientifically i concede we are animals, but my point is that the essence or order of a human is intrisically different than that of animals. I believe we have dominion overthem and they are to serve humanity. We in turn should be good stewards of them not causing unusually cruel harm to them that serves no purpose of our own

[toxic aspen]

If eating animals had no utility for us humans than sure I'd agree. However, eating meat is not only what we are ordered to do naturally (which sure alone isn't sufficient in proviving its moral validity), but it is what is often most healthy in moderation.

so, combining that with the previous understanding, animals are to serve the needs for us humans first and then if there is no utility to be derived, I would agree that we should reduce our cruelty as much as possible that we ourselves inflict

[regal garden]

The US and UK academies of dietetics have determined that plant-based diets are healthy at all stages of life. As a result, slaughtering animals when not in a survival situation is unnecessary and cruel. We therefore have a responsibility to look after and protect these animals.

[regal garden]

This is an extremely egocentric view and is not a properly proved justification

[toxic aspen]

1. humans have intrinsic value
2. the essence of humans is greater than animals
3. humans have domain over animals and nature
4. animals and nature are to provide utility to humanity
5. we have an obligation to not cause pointless or excessive harm to animals/nature

eating meat in moderation undoubtedly provides sustenance, and it provides some nutrients more difficult to be supplemented in a purely plant based diet. Even if purely plant based nutrition were some how as robust as a completely open diet, using animals for food still qualifies as providing utility to humans. It is what I believe the nature of animals is ordered to do.

hunting purely for sport, (not for conservation or population control) I agree is unethical because it causes undue harm. Massive commercial animal factories is unethical because it is excessive, causes harm to the environment, and often results in inhumane quality of life for the animals.

it is for these reasons, and on those religiously grounded premises, I stand by my conclusion that meat in moderation is morally permissible. You might disagree with my premises, but to call them egocentric is not operating in good faith.

I've already conceded that if I were not operating under the lens that there is an objective moral truth that dictates humans to have dominion over animals and nature, than reducing our consumption of meat as much as possible would be the most moral course of action for the reasons I had conceded in my initial post.

[regal garden]

I appreciate the discourse. As we are currently going in circles, I’ll just end with this:

1. You do not need to eat animals or animal products to be healthy.
2. You do not need to eat animals or animal products to be healthy. You do not need to eat animals or animal products to be religious.
3. You do not need to eat animals or animal products to be healthy.
4. You do not need to eat animals or animal products to be healthy.
5. Agreed.

Well, we agreed on one thing, so that’s not bad.

I also hope you don’t use the bible to justify all of your actions. There’s some pretty outrageous things in there. I guess it’s just convenient to pick this piece from the bible in order to excuse your consumption of innocent, sentient beings.

[drifting vortex]

Ngl animals just kinda tasty

[vapid marlin]

1. What is the intrinsic value of humans and how would you determine that humans have it?

2. What do you even mean with ''the essence of humans" and how would you determine it's greater than other organisms? Where does the superiority complex come from?

3. Humans don't, tools do. You aint gonna dominate other animals unless you have the tools to attack them or defend yourself.

4. What is this based view of the natural world? You honestly believe that all of nature is here just to provide for humans? Where would you even get those kind of ideas? Let alone how would you even defend those views, as in, what motivation do you have to actually believe that?

5. According to what principle do we have any obligation?

Why would you make five claims without motivating a single one of them?

[toxic aspen]

i thought i made it pretty clear, especially at the end that these are premises which i accept based on religious beliefs. Once again, i feel like debate is stupid because multiple times now, (if people read all the way through my messages) i have already conceded that If i were not operating under that religious worldview and if there was no value distinction between human and animal, then reducing meat consumption as much as possible would be the most morally correct position.

[vapid marlin]

I mean, even though you operate under religious values, it is still not really clear what you mean with a lot of the things you say, for example the meaning of ''essence of humans'' is so vague that we may as well just dismiss the full statement.

[toxic aspen]

i explained it earlier, what i mean by that is that yeah, we are evolutionarily/biologically animals. but the essence of what makes a human is different than animals. somewhat Aristotelian concept of essence if you are familiar with that

[vapid marlin]

Well I am still confused. I believe I understand the aristotle concept of essence, however explaining it will always give some sort of circular reasoning, as the essence of humans is what makes human human. But that still does not give any logical conclusion in why that would be higher in humans than in other animals. I understand that this is your belief, but I fail to understand what your motivation is for believing this. Your answer is religion, but that's not satisfactory, as there are religious people that do not believe the same thing, meaning there must be more to it.

As to my understanding, the goal of these topics is not only to postulate your views, but also to explain your views and motivate why you hold them.

So if you don't do that, my first instinct is to wonder why you posted a reaction in the first place, and I am going to start asking you questions to clarify the statements.

[trim flint]

This isn't specifically directed at you, but this position is the answer to the question many theists ask of atheists

"Why do you try to convince people their religion isn't true if you don't believe?"

Because religion permeates into all other areas of life and causes serious harm in many cases. So it's very important whether the underlying basis for all of those beliefs is valid.

As you said, if not for religion you'd think reducing meat consumption was correct. And this type of thinking goes into so many other areas where the objectively best course of action for the well being of humanity and the planet clash with religious dogma.

[toxic aspen]

i understand what you are saying, but the fact of the matter is, i see my religious perspective as the one, true truth, even if you or anyone else might disagree. Because of this, i believe that my religious philosophy is the best course of action. When i was essentially saying that if reality was different than what i believe it to be, reducing meat would be permissible, that does not mean that eating meat is in fact in conflict with the best interest of the world which we live in. It was simply a concession that if my worldview ends up being wrong, that would likely be the best course of action. Keep in mind that I have mentioned the dangers and harm of massive meat factories that inhumanely sourced their meat and also pollute the earth in mass. We can agree on the at. My position is solely that meat consumption in moderation in of itself is not morally wrong because of the aforementioned religious premises.

[vapid marlin]

In extention to that, would the same line of reasoning hold for any other justification? I justify action X or Y because those are my religious beliefs.

Or does it only hold for a particular set of beliefs, and if so, how would we define this set of beliefs?

And maybe even more interesting, what if two different religions hold opposing beliefs regarding a subject. Then how is it determined what justification is ''correct''.

[toxic aspen]

i’d say that it would hold for any set of beliefs founded on an objective moral truth, so most religions. and to your second question, it’s impossible, that’s why it’s called faith because you put your faith in what resonates with you and speaks to you

[vapid marlin]

So, in order to inflate the absurdity of the situation a bit, if I decide I want to commit some terrorist attack because my religion justifies it, then you believe that to be a proper justification?

[toxic aspen]

to them yes, but to my informed conscience no

[vapid marlin]

Okay that makes sense, at least its a somewhat consistent position

Thank you for clarifying

[toxic aspen]

no problem, i appreciate the intellectual stimulation even if my position isn’t fun to debate lol . and as to your terrorism example, you could try to reason with the would be terrorist that committing an act of terrorism would contradict their own beliefs in some way, but any attempt to argue against the set of beliefs in of themselves is ineffective. thanks

[vapid marlin]

I mean, there are plenty of religions out there that glorify terrorism, so I'm not sure whether it would contradict their beliefs in the example. But yeah, it was more an example to approach the position from an absurd perspective to see whether the position is consistent or not.

[toxic aspen]

yeah

[compact flume]

We are able to eat meat, just as other animals do. Its literally nature.

[gray fjord]

• Eating meat is not directly connected to the killing of the animal. Surely, if our concern was preventing animal suffering, our best course of action would be to steal meat from the supermarket (and to eat it) to reduce the profits of those farming the animals.
• I have yet to hear a good argument that food is not sufficient justification for killing animals. Why can we justify killing pests (e.g. mosquitos) for being a nuisance, but not killing livestock (e.g. cows) for food? If they are sentient, do we have an obligation to prevent them from suffering at the hand of other carnivores, who no doubt kill them more brutally?
• The ethical killing of animals provides many benefits beyond just being nutritious and tasteful. Animal parts are used in manufacturing lifesaving medications. A decline in recreational deer hunting has caused deer overpopulation in much of the eastern US. Are we not culpable for the run-on effects of our action/inaction?

My own conclusion is that we have an ethical obligation to be aware of the suffering caused by our actions and to minimize the inevitable harm caused by our existence. We have a duty to make ourselves aware of the animal abuse (which is absolutely inexcusable) caused by the mass demand for meat. To the extent we are able (open to interpretation), we should vie to reduce our meat consumption and to purchase that meat from ethical producers.

[compact flume]

But what if i dont wanna eat less

[toxic aspen]

(avid meat eater here) this is called appeal to nature fallacy because just because something is in our nature to do based on evolution, doesn’t make it moral. One could argue that the whole concept of morality is humanity going against parts of our nature which consists of vices and replacing them with logically driven virtues that might be unnatural

[compact flume]

Alot of people defending vegeterianism their arguments are that humans are animals, and are not higher than any other lifeform. This is kind of my response to it. Also what's wrong with appealing to nature? This has made us survive for thousands of years, dont u think it should be respected a little?

[toxic aspen]

it’s important to note that this is a debate on morality. Animals don’t have a moral code that they follow, they operate purely for survival. Not to mention, most animals don’t have the option to make rational choices as to what they do and eat in this regard. Simply because something has been done as a means of survival in the past does not justify its moral use currently. example would be a poor man stealing some food to survive vs a rich guy stealing food that is not needed

[compact flume]

But the rich guy does not have to steal food to have it equally as convenient

[toxic aspen]

can you rephrase that?

[compact flume]

If eating a plant based steak was equally as convinient id do it

[toxic aspen]

oh i see

[compact flume]

English not my first language sry

[compact flume]

Its not tho

[toxic aspen]

all good, convience i don’t think is relevant in this case

like it’s less convenient to return the shopping cart but we still do it

[compact flume]

I think its very relevant

[toxic aspen]

because it’s the right thing to do

[compact flume]

No

Bc its overall more convenient

If everyone does it u wont have to search one

[toxic aspen]

i might be more convinient to kill a political opponent than to beat them in an election

[compact flume]

Making it more convient gor you to return it

[compact flume]

Not really since u risk revolution etc etc

[toxic aspen]

but murder is wrong and we value fairness

[compact flume]

Its more convenient to win than to murder

[toxic aspen]

you are arguing against the example, not the argument

[compact flume]

Whatq tha rgument

[toxic aspen]

you are basically disagreeing over a subjective perception

convience is not objective, what is convinient for me might not be for you

therefore

[compact flume]

Id argue it is objectivz

[toxic aspen]

it cannot be morally weighted

[toxic aspen]

well that’s just wrong lol

imagine this example:

[compact flume]

Give me an example

Aght ty

[toxic aspen]

you live in the wild

there are no laws

besides our inner moral code

there is no penalty because there is no government

you are a hunter

the deer population is decreasing so it’s hard to catch and eat a deer

your neighbor is currently skinning a deer he caught

and is not looking

you have a huge rock in your hand that if you hit him in the head he dies

you can steal his deer far more easily than it would take for you to catch one yourself

the only thing stopping you is your moral code that dictates murder is wrong

[compact flume]

Aight u got me lol

Im rly bad at this psychology stuff lol

[toxic aspen]

all good

[compact flume]

I like more debates witj facts and shit

Altough there would be alot of people that would do it bc its more convenient

[toxic aspen]

the point is that fundamentally convience does not determine what is right or wrong, simply it determines which is the easier choice to make

[compact flume]

Ye but my moral code isnt that harsh on animals

That arent humans

If it was a horse sure smack it in the head

[toxic aspen]

so species has a moral implication?

[compact flume]

But i have work tomorrow, imma dip

[compact flume]

Ye

[toxic aspen]

okay gn

[compact flume]

Ifc

Ofc

But alr gn to u 2

[regal garden]

I agree! Convenience is a subjective excuse, not a moral justification. And appeal to nature is extremely problematic. The non-human animals in the wild that are carnivores (which is the minority) are obligate carnivores. As well, you wouldn’t justify killing your child because some animals do it in the wild. Using nature as justification is inconsistent and flawed.

Also, there have been many studies to show that some non-human animals do make decisions that we as humans would perceive to be based on morals. So to say that all non-human animals simply act out of instinct and survival would also be incorrect.

I understand the religious perspective may negate evolution, but if you accept evolution, it’s really not so crazy to think that other animals have morals as well given that we evolved from them. Even without scientific studies proving that.

[toxic aspen]

no i don’t believe my religious perspective negates evolution, but could you share what animals you are talking about? i could see an animal being altruistic, but making a rational moral decision seems wild

[regal garden]

Altruism is part of ethics and morality. It implies empathy for others. You can check out this study:
“Wild Justice and Fair Play: Cooperation, Forgiveness, and Morality in Animals.” As as well: “Animal Morality: What It Means and Why It Matters.”

This last study also references previous studies which have found empathetic, altruistic, and moral behaviour among mammals and birds.

[toxic aspen]

maybe we have a difference in definition, but altruism might overlap with morality, but it does not implicate that. We might be hard wired to be altruistic to some extent, but morality in my opinion involves making rational, logical determinations. it’s a choice

[vapid marlin]

Maybe I am confused by what you mean, but as you stated that you are religious, you fundamentally believe that morals are given upon us by god. How can you then 2 messages later make a claim that morality is a choice? I don't really understand the logic there

If morality is objective and given by us by a deity, then I would argue there is absolutely no choice in morality

[toxic aspen]

yeah to clarify, we have a choice to defy morality

we choose to be follow what is morally right, animals im saying have less capacity to make informed choices like that

[vapid marlin]

Do you believe that humans are in some way special relative to other organisms? And if so, what attributes to humans make them ''more'' special than any other organism?

[vapid marlin]

Is this meant as a hypothesis framed as a statement, or is it meant as a factual statement?

[toxic aspen]

ability to make logical reasoning and have concept of morality

[vapid marlin]

Like, are you saying it is an objective fact that animals have less capacity to make informed choices?

[toxic aspen]

in regards to morality and existential meaning

[vapid marlin]

Or are you saying that you believe that to be the case, regardless of whether it is actually true or not?

SOrry for the questions, i'm just trying to understand exactly what your position is

[toxic aspen]

but regardless, humans are intrinsically valued differently by virtue of being human

[vapid marlin]

Are maple trees intrinsically valued differently by virtue of being a maple tree?

Im trying to understand the reasonign

[toxic aspen]

yeah they are valued beneath humans

[vapid marlin]

Valued according to what?

[toxic aspen]

God

[vapid marlin]

Alright

[toxic aspen]

humans are made in His image and likeness, have a redeemable soul

plants and animals don’t

[vapid marlin]

Well I disagree but at least I can follow your reasoning now

[toxic aspen]

but there are some things which i believe humans have such as rational choice and understanding of morality that animals don’t have, at least that they are conciously aware of

[vapid marlin]

And this statement/line of reasoning is what I am trying to oppose though

You don't know whether animals or other organisms have the ability to be conciously aware of complex feelings and emotions

Its merely a guess

[toxic aspen]

i think that’s a bit deductionalist

it’s not merely a guess

we can observe their behavior

and it’s pretty predictable overall and there is ways to understand it

their brains are not as developed

[vapid marlin]

But thats only under the assumption that if other animals/organisms would have these attributes, they would display them in the same way humans do

which you don't know

[toxic aspen]

and it follows that have less capacity for the same level of consciousness

[vapid marlin]

so thats a fundamental flaw in the reasoning in my opinion

[toxic aspen]

alright well I guess we just disagree on that premise then

[vapid marlin]

Sure

no hard feelings

[toxic aspen]

yeah likewise

[vapid marlin]

Again, i wasnt really wanting to start a discussion here

just trying to understand the statement about morals you made earlier

[toxic aspen]

yeah np

[vapid marlin]

cheers

[regal garden]

Glad scientific studies are meaningless to you as long as you believe something to be true, it is

[regal garden]

Again, there are many many scientific studies that prove otherwise, but hey what do I know?!

[toxic aspen]

someone’s mad

[regal garden]

Again, science has proved otherwise

[toxic aspen]

i disagree with a definition of morality

[regal garden]

lol nice ad hominem 😑

[toxic aspen]

says yo

u

i’ve kept things very cordial and respectful but you lost your temper

[regal garden]

Again, nothing you have said or presented is based on any proof

Hahaha

You have not presented any evidence for your argument and therefore is an invalid justification

Every time I present scientific evidence, you either ignore it, or just say, “I believe in God and choose which parts of the bible to live my life by”

[toxic aspen]

strawman

[regal garden]

You may disagree but most academic institutions would agree that morality, empathy, altruism, and emotions are connected

[regal garden]

Incorrect

How am I refuting an argument different from the one under discussion? If anything, I’ve tried to stay on topic as best I could by presenting studies that show morality of animals. Your argument is based solely on God but your reasoning is inconsistent because there is no way that you follow everything that is in the bible. That is your argument.

[toxic aspen]

i feel like you do not read what i say. you saying altruism is connected to morality which i do not disagree with. altruism can overlap with morality but it does not in my opinion (cannot be scientifically proven) determine morality

[karmic swan]

@toxic aspen do you agree that humans can lead healthy lives on a fully plant based diet?

[toxic aspen]

while this is not the best comparison, your cells killing themselves when they get infected with bacteria to save the rest of the body is altruistic

but they do not rationally do fhat

[regal garden]

That is not altruism

[toxic aspen]

altruism: as in looking out for the survival of good of others even when it does not clearly benefit you

now if you saw homeless man and gave him your only burger to eat because he’s more hungry would also suffice, and humans have the capacity to be aware and rationalize our behavior, assuming you believe in free will

we do it because it’s the right thing to do

animals i do not thing have a conscious rationality of their actions, even if some of them in our eyes would be moral

[regal garden]

Believing it’s “the right thing to do” is emotional and not rational. If we were emotionless, we would like morality

[regal garden]

You may not think it but it’s been proven

[toxic aspen]

right thing to do = morally right

[toxic aspen]

i believe you are very lenient in interpretation of the data and are reaching a stretched conclusion to fit your narrative

[regal garden]

And I believe you will not read and have not read one complete scientific study on the topic.

Look man, you wanna pick and choose pieces from the bible and pieces from science that fit your life, go ahead. Non-human animals do not need to be murdered in order to live a happy and healthy life. Non-human animals are sentient, have emotions, and are capable of moral decisions. They deserve our moral consideration.

[toxic aspen]

what am i picking and choosing? when have i ever mentioned picking and choosing 😭

that’s not even the topic of the discussion, clearly just trying to shift the goal posts

[regal garden]

Not gonna debate religion here. The focus is the animals. Your belief apparently prevents you from not killing animals, so that’s unfortunate

[toxic aspen]

again strawman

it doesn’t not prevent me from not killing animals

[regal garden]

Nice quadruple negative