5 ms·

>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

>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.
  - Falling3 11y ago
    Show me a person who genuinely believes killing others unnecessarily is acceptable and we've got much bigger problems than the ethics of meat. The problem isn't getting people to agree with moral axioms. It's getting people to be consistent with their application of them.
  - Falling3 11y ago
    And yes - by my logic, it's unethical to eat meat. I don't accept it now either.

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.
- Falling3 11y ago
  Show me a person who genuinely believes killing others unnecessarily is acceptable and we've got much bigger problems than the ethics of meat. The problem isn't getting people to agree with moral axioms. It's getting people to be consistent with their application of them.
- Falling3 11y ago
  And yes - by my logic, it's unethical to eat meat. I don't accept it now either.