This was long and I have to say, you got a lot of things wrong. I don’t blame you because our society really aims for us to get those things wrong.
Is it the act of killing a conscious animal we’ll have issue with? Will that sentiment focus on the smart animals like pigs and cows, and leave chickens and fish as acceptable? Will it rule out all animals even though some of them are so dumb that their form of consciousness is unrelatable? What about insect biomass based food?
Firstly, fish and chicken and other animals that communicate in ways that are more foreign to us have been shown to be very intelligent. I can tell you that my family had pet chickens and they are very intelligent. Once you learn their behaviors you find out that they are very similar in their intelligence to cats and dogs. There are even papers that show a significant reason to believe that even small insects like ants and bees do feel and in fact have some form of consciousness. Another important thing to remember is that intelligence does not equate with the ability to suffer. For example, you can take a baby. A human baby is very, very dumb, barely has any intelligence, but can suffer greatly, just like an adult human.
Will it spread to certain plants or fungi as we learn more about their forms of awareness and how they experience the world?
As for plants suffering, there are two arguments against it. Argument number one is that growing animals costs us more plants than growing plants for ourselves. Meaning that even if we wanted to assume that plants have feelings and can feel pain, the best way to make sure the least amount of plants and animals feel pain is to eat plants ourselves. The second argument is that as far as we can tell right now (and I agree, it could change) Plants do not have a consciousness and don’t seem to feel pain but rather react in predictable and consistent ways. Unlike animals that we know can feel pain and suffering.
Where is the line going to be drawn?
Maybe we don’t need a line. Maybe it’s just about doing the best we can. If we suspect that someone can suffer, we don’t make them suffer. And it’s pretty easy when it comes to our diets, because all you have to do is be vegan. And that’s the best you can do for the animals, the plants, our health, and our planet. As a vegan, I don’t advocate for absolute terms. I advocate for everyone to do the best they possibly can in their situation. I don’t expect that some tribe in Africa would suddenly develop some amazing morals of only eating plants, because they don’t reasonably have the option to do so.
We don’t view any other animals killing their prey as immoral
Simply put, one must know of morality, and have a choice, to be able to be moral or immoral. What I mean is that a person who does not have a choice but has to eat meat. Let’s say a deserted island and they can’t find other sources of food. That person would not be immoral to do what he needs to survive. For animals, the issue is that they are not aware of the concept of morality and cannot place themselves in the position of the prey. So they cannot actually think about morals. They can’t do it. The other thing is that they don’t have a choice. A lion has to eat meat as they cannot sustain themselves on plants since they are carnivores. A modern person is both an omnivore and lives in a society where they have all the choices in the world. When you go to the grocery store, you can choose to buy meat or you can choose to buy plant-based food. And, as been shown by other commenters and generally in science, it is agreed that plant-based diets are statistically the healthiest for humans.
they [meat growing labs] suck an undetermined but certainly super high amount of energy from the grid just to perform these relatively rudimentary feats.
Though that may be true, the question is do they do worse or better than regular meat and do we need them? Because technically we don’t need any meat, lab grown or natural grown. As far as I know, and I have to say that I did not research this deeply, meat-growing labs are not actually that power hungry while animal agriculture very much is (not to mention the environmental impacts of animal agriculture)
I understand where you’re coming from. And honestly, it sucks that our society pushes the whole meat industry so hard. But seriously, it’s just one big lie. And it’s crazy that our society has not caught on it. I seriously hope that in the future society would understand these issues and would show compassion even where nobody forces them to.
I don’t agree. Morality is in its own context. There is no objective morality and no action is always good or always bad. At the end of the day, killing someone for your own gain is immoral, but only if you have that choice. If you do not have a choice, there is no morality to argue with. You can argue about whether you truly have a choice or not.
it is agreed that plant-based diets are statistically the healthiest for humans.
this simply isn’t universally true. you’re not a dietitician, or, if you are, you aren’t my dietician and you’re not (likely to be) the dietician of the person with whom you are speaking.
Scientific papers have shown time and time again, that is statistically the healthiest diet. I say statistically because every person is different and some people won’t align. Kind of like how statistically it’s healthy to eat nuts, but some people are allergic to nuts.
Look, if I told you that 1+1 is 2 and you said “prove it” I would say, go learn because I don’t have the time or willingness to teach someone who nitpicks every word I type.
If you want, check out the youtuber Earthling Ed, he shows plenty of sources for these claims and you can find it there and verify it yourself
you’re not postulating simple arithmetic. you’re claiming studies support your position, but you have provided no evidence. by contrast, I cited a study which was well known to support your position, but which is debunked.
If we suspect that someone can suffer, we don’t make them suffer. And it’s pretty easy when it comes to our diets, because all you have to do is be vegan. And that’s the best you can do for the animals, the plants, our health, and our planet
i disagree that changing your diet does any good for the planet or the animals or the plants. it may benefit your health, but i don’t believe that’s universal, either.
There are plenty of papers and meta papers that show that plant-based diets have a much, much lower impact on our environment than non-plant-based diets. And you have to remember that cows eat more plants than you do, therefore eating cows ends up using more plants, on top of the environmental impact of the animal itself.
There are also papers that already show that as far as personal lifestyle changes go, going vegan is the best thing you can do for the environment, for the average person.
And you have to remember that cows eat more plants than you do, therefore eating cows ends up using more plants, on top of the environmental impact of the animal itself.
livestock are mostly fed plants or parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat. this is in addition to grazing, which i am not convinced can’t be done responsibly, even if some farmers have not been grazing responsibly.
There are plenty of papers and meta papers that show that plant-based diets have a much, much lower impact on our environment than non-plant-based diets.
they do not show that choosing to eat non-animal products has actualy improved the environment, and they can’t, since the environment continues to be degraded.
There are also papers that already show that as far as personal lifestyle changes go, going vegan is the best thing you can do for the environment, for the average person.
no paper i’ve seen establishes this. the closest i’ve seen this claim is joseph poore discussing his 2018 metastudy, but the study itself does not contain this language and no other methods of helping the environment were studied as a part of that paper.
For animals, the issue is that they are not aware of the concept of morality and cannot place themselves in the position of the prey. So they cannot actually think about morals. They can’t do it.
this is speciesist: you are making a categorical judgement about another’s abilities due to their membership in a group, rather than addressing each of them as an individual. personally, i’m fine with this, but since it’s an accusation often brought against people who are not vegan, i thought you might be interested to see speciesism in your own system, and think of ways to eliminate it.
edit: i started that paragraph “first,” but like… there was no second, lol.
Look, saying you’re a horrible person because you’re black is racist, saying you’re dark-skinned because you’re black is a fact. Animals are not as intelligent as us for the most part. Some of them may be pretty intelligent, some of them may be a lot less intelligent, but considering that moral points of view are hard even for adult humans, it’s not that crazy to say that most animals cannot understand morality.
Argument number one is that growing animals costs us more plants than growing plants for ourselves. Meaning that even if we wanted to assume that plants have feelings and can feel pain, the best way to make sure the least amount of plants and animals feel pain is to eat plants ourselves.
if we believe plants suffer, then how can we quantify their suffering against another things suffering? and should we? it seems, if we could establish that plants do suffer, then we must resign ourselves to the fact that some suffering is necessary to eat, and there is no reason, in my mind, to make a million stalks of wheat suffer, but not make a cow suffer for food.
The decision is not between killing a million stalks of wheat or a cow, but between a million stalks of wheat or a cow AND a million stalks of wheat, it’s just that in the latter case the wheat was fed to the cow instead.
there are other differences, like vitamin a, b12, cholesterol, and macro ratios. and why should we disregard the (in this hypothetical) known suffering of the wheat but spare the cow? that’s speciesism.
edit: i think it’s important to point out that most ethical systems don’t attempt to simply weigh suffering, and i don’t personally subscribe to one that does, so i’m arguing at the edge of my personal belief here.
This was long and I have to say, you got a lot of things wrong. I don’t blame you because our society really aims for us to get those things wrong.
Firstly, fish and chicken and other animals that communicate in ways that are more foreign to us have been shown to be very intelligent. I can tell you that my family had pet chickens and they are very intelligent. Once you learn their behaviors you find out that they are very similar in their intelligence to cats and dogs. There are even papers that show a significant reason to believe that even small insects like ants and bees do feel and in fact have some form of consciousness. Another important thing to remember is that intelligence does not equate with the ability to suffer. For example, you can take a baby. A human baby is very, very dumb, barely has any intelligence, but can suffer greatly, just like an adult human.
As for plants suffering, there are two arguments against it. Argument number one is that growing animals costs us more plants than growing plants for ourselves. Meaning that even if we wanted to assume that plants have feelings and can feel pain, the best way to make sure the least amount of plants and animals feel pain is to eat plants ourselves. The second argument is that as far as we can tell right now (and I agree, it could change) Plants do not have a consciousness and don’t seem to feel pain but rather react in predictable and consistent ways. Unlike animals that we know can feel pain and suffering.
Maybe we don’t need a line. Maybe it’s just about doing the best we can. If we suspect that someone can suffer, we don’t make them suffer. And it’s pretty easy when it comes to our diets, because all you have to do is be vegan. And that’s the best you can do for the animals, the plants, our health, and our planet. As a vegan, I don’t advocate for absolute terms. I advocate for everyone to do the best they possibly can in their situation. I don’t expect that some tribe in Africa would suddenly develop some amazing morals of only eating plants, because they don’t reasonably have the option to do so.
Simply put, one must know of morality, and have a choice, to be able to be moral or immoral. What I mean is that a person who does not have a choice but has to eat meat. Let’s say a deserted island and they can’t find other sources of food. That person would not be immoral to do what he needs to survive. For animals, the issue is that they are not aware of the concept of morality and cannot place themselves in the position of the prey. So they cannot actually think about morals. They can’t do it. The other thing is that they don’t have a choice. A lion has to eat meat as they cannot sustain themselves on plants since they are carnivores. A modern person is both an omnivore and lives in a society where they have all the choices in the world. When you go to the grocery store, you can choose to buy meat or you can choose to buy plant-based food. And, as been shown by other commenters and generally in science, it is agreed that plant-based diets are statistically the healthiest for humans.
Though that may be true, the question is do they do worse or better than regular meat and do we need them? Because technically we don’t need any meat, lab grown or natural grown. As far as I know, and I have to say that I did not research this deeply, meat-growing labs are not actually that power hungry while animal agriculture very much is (not to mention the environmental impacts of animal agriculture)
I understand where you’re coming from. And honestly, it sucks that our society pushes the whole meat industry so hard. But seriously, it’s just one big lie. And it’s crazy that our society has not caught on it. I seriously hope that in the future society would understand these issues and would show compassion even where nobody forces them to.
i believe that morality is in the action itself. if it’s immoral to kill animals, then some potential benefit doesn’t make it moral.
you should be clear that you are only espousing your own moral system here, and not some universal truth.
I don’t agree. Morality is in its own context. There is no objective morality and no action is always good or always bad. At the end of the day, killing someone for your own gain is immoral, but only if you have that choice. If you do not have a choice, there is no morality to argue with. You can argue about whether you truly have a choice or not.
i’m sure you can see how your stance can be horrifying for people who believe in deontological ethics.
this simply isn’t universally true. you’re not a dietitician, or, if you are, you aren’t my dietician and you’re not (likely to be) the dietician of the person with whom you are speaking.
Scientific papers have shown time and time again, that is statistically the healthiest diet. I say statistically because every person is different and some people won’t align. Kind of like how statistically it’s healthy to eat nuts, but some people are allergic to nuts.
the only one i can think that came close to showing this is the china study which has been roundly denounced by most of its researchers.
Well, try to research instead of remembering off the top of your head.
try presenting evidence.
Look, if I told you that 1+1 is 2 and you said “prove it” I would say, go learn because I don’t have the time or willingness to teach someone who nitpicks every word I type.
If you want, check out the youtuber Earthling Ed, he shows plenty of sources for these claims and you can find it there and verify it yourself
you’re not postulating simple arithmetic. you’re claiming studies support your position, but you have provided no evidence. by contrast, I cited a study which was well known to support your position, but which is debunked.
earthling Ed is a charlatan and citing a whole YouTube channel is not be evidence
TrY pReSeNtInG EvIdEnCe
this is a great approach, and helps you avoid line-drawing fallacies!
i disagree that changing your diet does any good for the planet or the animals or the plants. it may benefit your health, but i don’t believe that’s universal, either.
There are plenty of papers and meta papers that show that plant-based diets have a much, much lower impact on our environment than non-plant-based diets. And you have to remember that cows eat more plants than you do, therefore eating cows ends up using more plants, on top of the environmental impact of the animal itself.
There are also papers that already show that as far as personal lifestyle changes go, going vegan is the best thing you can do for the environment, for the average person.
livestock are mostly fed plants or parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat. this is in addition to grazing, which i am not convinced can’t be done responsibly, even if some farmers have not been grazing responsibly.
they do not show that choosing to eat non-animal products has actualy improved the environment, and they can’t, since the environment continues to be degraded.
Sounds like climate change denier argument.
I said that the environment is getting worse. what did I deny?
Your argument is as stupid as climate deniers saying that it’s just not man made.
You can prove plenty of things about what helps or degrades the environment even if climate change is still worsening.
being vegan hasn’t helped
no paper i’ve seen establishes this. the closest i’ve seen this claim is joseph poore discussing his 2018 metastudy, but the study itself does not contain this language and no other methods of helping the environment were studied as a part of that paper.
this is speciesist: you are making a categorical judgement about another’s abilities due to their membership in a group, rather than addressing each of them as an individual. personally, i’m fine with this, but since it’s an accusation often brought against people who are not vegan, i thought you might be interested to see speciesism in your own system, and think of ways to eliminate it.
edit: i started that paragraph “first,” but like… there was no second, lol.
Look, saying you’re a horrible person because you’re black is racist, saying you’re dark-skinned because you’re black is a fact. Animals are not as intelligent as us for the most part. Some of them may be pretty intelligent, some of them may be a lot less intelligent, but considering that moral points of view are hard even for adult humans, it’s not that crazy to say that most animals cannot understand morality.
this is ableism and speciesism.
i mean i agree, but i also don’t eschew speciesism.
but it’s not universally true. not all black people are dark skinned.
Not all humans are smarter then animals, what is your point?
if we believe plants suffer, then how can we quantify their suffering against another things suffering? and should we? it seems, if we could establish that plants do suffer, then we must resign ourselves to the fact that some suffering is necessary to eat, and there is no reason, in my mind, to make a million stalks of wheat suffer, but not make a cow suffer for food.
What does the cow eat?
i don’t care for your socratic interrogation. if you have something to say, say it.
The decision is not between killing a million stalks of wheat or a cow, but between a million stalks of wheat or a cow AND a million stalks of wheat, it’s just that in the latter case the wheat was fed to the cow instead.
there are other differences, like vitamin a, b12, cholesterol, and macro ratios. and why should we disregard the (in this hypothetical) known suffering of the wheat but spare the cow? that’s speciesism.
edit: i think it’s important to point out that most ethical systems don’t attempt to simply weigh suffering, and i don’t personally subscribe to one that does, so i’m arguing at the edge of my personal belief here.
Speciesism? I can’t tell if you’re just a troll at this point so I’m not going to continue this discussion, sorry.
have a nice day.