5 ms·

I am the descendant of a countlessly long line of meat eaters. I'll stick with the slaughter version, it has worked well thus far. If it ain't broke, don't fi

by Crito 11y ago

I am the descendant of a countlessly long line of meat eaters. I'll stick with the slaughter version, it has worked well thus far. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

SwellJoe 11y ago
You're also the descendant of a long line of either oppressors or oppressed (white in America=long line of oppressors). You aren't using that to excuse stealing land from your Mexican neighbor, today, I would hope. So, why use that as a reason to continue the environmental and ethical disaster that is eating meat? If you want to keep eating meat because you just don't care, say so. Don't excuse it with "the way my great granddaddy did it", because there are plenty of things about the way great granddaddy did it that are morally repugnant to us today. Unless you are also supporting slavery/segregation, returning to no legal interracial or LGBTQ marriage, a world without child labor laws, a world with no vote for women, etc. you really shouldn't use that excuse.
- nemothekid 11y ago
  > You aren't using that to excuse stealing land from your Mexican neighbor, today, I would hope. While I understand your statement, I read it more as he was continuing to eat meat for the health benefits, not moral ones. Of course you could then say "If all your ancestors smoked cigarettes would you too..."
- such_a_casual 11y ago
  Who cares if one dude wants to eat slaughtered meat? That is completely irrelevant. If fast food places like McDonalds and frozen food companies like Stouffer's get on board, it's going to make a massive difference. Plus, it means that meat will be cheaper for those who have difficulty affording it now. I don't see a need to change anyone's mind on this. Being a much cheaper product, capitalism will take care of everything.
- necessity 11y ago
  >the environmental and ethical disaster that is eating meat? I'd say there is arguably no environmental disaster in meat production, and even if there is, the mere act of eating meat does not imply in it, it would depend on the amount of meat eaten per person and the production scale required to supply that. The ethics of it depends on who you're talking with. Your position is not "the righteous one", it might be "the right thing to do according to X school of thought", but never an absolute ethical truth.
  - espadrine 11y ago
    > I'd say there is arguably no environmental disaster in meat production As you may know, human population is growing exponentially and has been doing so for a century. To meet the demand for meat, we have grown the poultry and cattle's population accordingly, increasing the energy, water and food spendings uphill (after all, they too need to be nourished). Especially in the US, to maintain low prices, those who set the customer price (such as McDonalds) have been forced to rationalise the whole chain of production, putting a lot of stress and liability on farmers. However, the human population is still accelerating tremendously, and meat is still among the most costly food per kilogram we eat, not in terms of money spent by the customer, but in terms of energy wasted along the whole chain. Fishing has a similar crisis; regulation became necessary to maintain fish population to a sustainable level, and avoid having fish locations simply disappear. At a fundamental level, the reason life can thrive on earth is energy from the sun and the Earth converted to plants which are consumed by animals and fungi. Every step of consumption between plants and humans is wasted energy, given that the planet's energy is not limitless, and that we humans must tap that supply carefully if we ever hope to colonize another planet.
  - Falling3 11y ago
    If we have a healthy, satisfying alternative - the ethical question of "Is it acceptable to kill or harm individuals unnecessarily?" has a very clear answer no matter who you're talking with.
    - necessity 11y ago
      "unnecessarily" -> it is already unnecessary to eat meat, thus unnecessary to kill animals. Anyone can live a perfectly healthy life being a vegetarian, it's even cheaper depending where you live. Thus, by your logic the question "is eating meat nowadays ethically wrong?" should have "a very clear answer no matter who you're talking with". Which obviously is not true. You mention "healthy, satisfying alternative". You accept people eating meat nowadays because according to you it is more satisfying than eating the current alternatives (even though it's not necessary!), so you should always accept the eating of meat (or hunting of animals) as long as people want it over whatever alternative exists. Furthermore, people will always think differently. What is ethically wrong to you is not to me and vice-versa.
- Crito 11y ago
  >"You aren't using that to excuse stealing land from your Mexican neighbor, today," I am satisfied with the land I have. But let's not kid ourselves, the only reason wars of conquest are uncommon today is because the cost typically exceeds the potential reward. > "ethical disaster that is eating meat?" I cannot derive sympathy for food from my value system. Unless you are prepared to impose your value system on me by force (in your value system, is that so different from wars of conquest?), that isn't going to change. > "If you want to keep eating meat because you just don't care, say so." Didn't I just? > "Unless you are also supporting slavery/segregation, returning to no legal interracial or LGBTQ marriage, a world without child labor laws, a world with no vote for women, etc. you really shouldn't use that excuse." Do you find that meat eaters usually back down when you compare them to racists and homophobes? I don't. I've never seen somebody become a vegan in response to this line of rhetoric, which could just as well be applied to any tradition. I am sure you must have some traditions of your own; will you abandon them if I tell you that racism is also a tradition? It's not effective persuasive rhetoric, so what is it? It's combative rhetoric which is meant to shame people into silence.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    > "Didn't I just?" You made an appeal to tradition. I don't believe tradition is sufficient cause to not acknowledge something is damaging the environment on a massive scale. Fossil fuels are also a tradition (though a short lived one), but it doesn't make it "right". > "I cannot drive sympathy for food from my value system." Then how do you feel about climate change? Because that is part of this ethical equation, as well. Billions of people eating meat is comparable to billions of people driving cars and burning coal for electricity. > "Do you find that meat eaters usually back down when you compare them to racists and homophobes?" Actually, I usually find that I am shouted down or voted down whenever suggesting that eating meat is unethical. I don't expect meat eaters to back down, as they are in the huge majority and will never have trouble finding support among almost any group.
brandon272 11y ago
The way we eat meat today is very "broke" and certainly not sustainable over the long term.
- Crito 11y ago
  The sustainability of meat is not a serious long term concern. Worst case scenario is we enjoy it while we've got it, then miss it when we don't. And precisely what is the sustainability of lab meat? What makes you think lab meat will be more efficient that raised meat?
  - henriquemaia 11y ago
    > And precisely what is the sustainability of lab meat? What makes you think lab meat will be more efficient that raised meat? Yuval Noah Harari, on the second video (ca. 0:40) states the reasons why he thinks cultured meat will have a smaller ecological footprint. He says: "When you don't have to raise an entire cow in order to get a steak, when you don't have to raise an entire chicken to get a schnitzel, you just need this particular piece of meat, these particular cells, it reduces considerably the amount of water, the amount of fuel, the amount of nutrients that you have to invest in it, and also the amount of pollution that you are creating."

by Crito 11y ago

I am the descendant of a countlessly long line of meat eaters. I'll stick with the slaughter version, it has worked well thus far. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

SwellJoe 11y ago

You're also the descendant of a long line of either oppressors or oppressed (white in America=long line of oppressors). You aren't using that to excuse stealing land from your Mexican neighbor, today, I would hope. So, why use that as a reason to continue the environmental and ethical disaster that is eating meat? If you want to keep eating meat because you just don't care, say so. Don't excuse it with "the way my great granddaddy did it", because there are plenty of things about the way great granddaddy did it that are morally repugnant to us today. Unless you are also supporting slavery/segregation, returning to no legal interracial or LGBTQ marriage, a world without child labor laws, a world with no vote for women, etc. you really shouldn't use that excuse.

nemothekid 11y ago
> You aren't using that to excuse stealing land from your Mexican neighbor, today, I would hope. While I understand your statement, I read it more as he was continuing to eat meat for the health benefits, not moral ones. Of course you could then say "If all your ancestors smoked cigarettes would you too..."
such_a_casual 11y ago
Who cares if one dude wants to eat slaughtered meat? That is completely irrelevant. If fast food places like McDonalds and frozen food companies like Stouffer's get on board, it's going to make a massive difference. Plus, it means that meat will be cheaper for those who have difficulty affording it now. I don't see a need to change anyone's mind on this. Being a much cheaper product, capitalism will take care of everything.
necessity 11y ago
>the environmental and ethical disaster that is eating meat? I'd say there is arguably no environmental disaster in meat production, and even if there is, the mere act of eating meat does not imply in it, it would depend on the amount of meat eaten per person and the production scale required to supply that. The ethics of it depends on who you're talking with. Your position is not "the righteous one", it might be "the right thing to do according to X school of thought", but never an absolute ethical truth.
- espadrine 11y ago
  > I'd say there is arguably no environmental disaster in meat production As you may know, human population is growing exponentially and has been doing so for a century. To meet the demand for meat, we have grown the poultry and cattle's population accordingly, increasing the energy, water and food spendings uphill (after all, they too need to be nourished). Especially in the US, to maintain low prices, those who set the customer price (such as McDonalds) have been forced to rationalise the whole chain of production, putting a lot of stress and liability on farmers. However, the human population is still accelerating tremendously, and meat is still among the most costly food per kilogram we eat, not in terms of money spent by the customer, but in terms of energy wasted along the whole chain. Fishing has a similar crisis; regulation became necessary to maintain fish population to a sustainable level, and avoid having fish locations simply disappear. At a fundamental level, the reason life can thrive on earth is energy from the sun and the Earth converted to plants which are consumed by animals and fungi. Every step of consumption between plants and humans is wasted energy, given that the planet's energy is not limitless, and that we humans must tap that supply carefully if we ever hope to colonize another planet.
- Falling3 11y ago
  If we have a healthy, satisfying alternative - the ethical question of "Is it acceptable to kill or harm individuals unnecessarily?" has a very clear answer no matter who you're talking with.
  - necessity 11y ago
    "unnecessarily" -> it is already unnecessary to eat meat, thus unnecessary to kill animals. Anyone can live a perfectly healthy life being a vegetarian, it's even cheaper depending where you live. Thus, by your logic the question "is eating meat nowadays ethically wrong?" should have "a very clear answer no matter who you're talking with". Which obviously is not true. You mention "healthy, satisfying alternative". You accept people eating meat nowadays because according to you it is more satisfying than eating the current alternatives (even though it's not necessary!), so you should always accept the eating of meat (or hunting of animals) as long as people want it over whatever alternative exists. Furthermore, people will always think differently. What is ethically wrong to you is not to me and vice-versa.
Crito 11y ago
>"You aren't using that to excuse stealing land from your Mexican neighbor, today," I am satisfied with the land I have. But let's not kid ourselves, the only reason wars of conquest are uncommon today is because the cost typically exceeds the potential reward. > "ethical disaster that is eating meat?" I cannot derive sympathy for food from my value system. Unless you are prepared to impose your value system on me by force (in your value system, is that so different from wars of conquest?), that isn't going to change. > "If you want to keep eating meat because you just don't care, say so." Didn't I just? > "Unless you are also supporting slavery/segregation, returning to no legal interracial or LGBTQ marriage, a world without child labor laws, a world with no vote for women, etc. you really shouldn't use that excuse." Do you find that meat eaters usually back down when you compare them to racists and homophobes? I don't. I've never seen somebody become a vegan in response to this line of rhetoric, which could just as well be applied to any tradition. I am sure you must have some traditions of your own; will you abandon them if I tell you that racism is also a tradition? It's not effective persuasive rhetoric, so what is it? It's combative rhetoric which is meant to shame people into silence.
- SwellJoe 11y ago
  > "Didn't I just?" You made an appeal to tradition. I don't believe tradition is sufficient cause to not acknowledge something is damaging the environment on a massive scale. Fossil fuels are also a tradition (though a short lived one), but it doesn't make it "right". > "I cannot drive sympathy for food from my value system." Then how do you feel about climate change? Because that is part of this ethical equation, as well. Billions of people eating meat is comparable to billions of people driving cars and burning coal for electricity. > "Do you find that meat eaters usually back down when you compare them to racists and homophobes?" Actually, I usually find that I am shouted down or voted down whenever suggesting that eating meat is unethical. I don't expect meat eaters to back down, as they are in the huge majority and will never have trouble finding support among almost any group.

brandon272 11y ago

The way we eat meat today is very "broke" and certainly not sustainable over the long term.

Crito 11y ago
The sustainability of meat is not a serious long term concern. Worst case scenario is we enjoy it while we've got it, then miss it when we don't. And precisely what is the sustainability of lab meat? What makes you think lab meat will be more efficient that raised meat?
- henriquemaia 11y ago
  > And precisely what is the sustainability of lab meat? What makes you think lab meat will be more efficient that raised meat? Yuval Noah Harari, on the second video (ca. 0:40) states the reasons why he thinks cultured meat will have a smaller ecological footprint. He says: "When you don't have to raise an entire cow in order to get a steak, when you don't have to raise an entire chicken to get a schnitzel, you just need this particular piece of meat, these particular cells, it reduces considerably the amount of water, the amount of fuel, the amount of nutrients that you have to invest in it, and also the amount of pollution that you are creating."