7 ms·

When "even" bees are intelligent enough to teach each other skills, i really marvel at the mental gymnastics/machinery that goes into convincing oneself that hu

When "even" bees are intelligent enough to teach each other skills, i really marvel at the mental gymnastics/machinery that goes into convincing oneself that humans are somehow a class apart from animals, and it's totally okay to eat them after having kept them pent up in atrocious conditions. Makes mental note to be a better vegetarian (and FWIW: i'm not being morally superior here: i believe that in reality, probably being vegan is the only morally defensible position, but the flesh being weak and all... And in actual fact, probably even that is a tricky position: by surviving one is probably making the calculated decision (conscious or not) to put one's own survival above the cost of some other's demise.)

webkike 10y ago
Well, consider the numerous animals that are physically unable to eat vegetarian.
whatshisface 10y ago
Well, you can claim a little moral superiority - humans are the only animals on earth that might choose to be vegitarian!
- Neliquat 10y ago
  That is exactly the bigoted thing I would expect an internet vegetarian to say. Way to live up to the stereotype dude.
  - lovemenot 10y ago
    I don't get the need for ad-hominem here. Though I don't necessarily agree with your parent, it's a valid point of view, and does not require the speaker to be vegetarian or not themselves. The argument reminds me a little of the religious morality argument that only humans are capable of allowing God into their life. Again, I am not making either such claim, just rejecting your negative reply.
- wewiereiuyui 10y ago
  do we know which other animals have chosen to be vegetarian ? Apparently squirrels are usually vegetarian but they'll eat meat if their survival depends on it
stanfordkid 10y ago
Either that -- or our perception of morality is wrong. Maybe it's okay to eat animals as long as we treat them well. After all if they live a long happy and decently full life that's what really counts right? I think this video really gives a good idea of how humanity used to think of hunting and eating animals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o We've really lost touch with our empathy for other creatures In the old days people would respect the animal, hug it after killing it... on some level I think animals understand that their own death is a part of life.
- wewiereiuyui 10y ago
  If someone lets you live a happy life then hunts you down and kills you to eat, is that OK with you ? If it's ok for you to rule on the life of a pig, say, then why isn't it ok for another human to decide on your life ? (I really don't agree with this position - just playing devil's advocate)
  - mehwoot 10y ago
    If someone lets you live a happy life then hunts you down and kills you to eat, is that OK with you Yes, definitely. If the alternative was that I didn't exist at all- most pigs wouldn't be around if we didn't eat them (https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/). The way I ethically decide whether it's ok to eat meat is whether, if that animal could express a choice, it would likely choose to exist and then be eaten or not exist at all. If an animal is kept in so much pain that it would rather not exist, then I think that's unethical. But if it would still choose to exist, then it's better than nothing- don't forget that living in the wild is generally a pretty harsh life as well.
    - pingec 10y ago
      Sorry but I completely disagree with this view. It's not about what options they have. They are already here and they do not want to not exist nor be treated badly, they want to live a happy life. It's us who deny them this because we prioritize our convenience over their life and suffering. If you applied the same thinking to slavery many people would be outraged.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
> i really marvel at the mental gymnastics/machinery that goes into convincing oneself that humans are somehow a class apart from animals One can even characterize the history of science as a timeline of refuting humanity's exceptionalism starting with Copernicus's technical and metaphorical discovery that we are not the center of the universe. Lately, I've been wrestling with the issue and come to the conclusion that consciousness is either something that all life possesses or simply does not exist.
- cgriswald 10y ago
  > One can even characterize the history of science as a timeline of refuting humanity's exceptionalism starting with Galileo's technical and metaphorical discovery that we are not the center of the universe. Nonsense! The history of science is one of the things that makes humanity exceptional on Earth. As for the rest of the universe... The search for life is telling us that life may be abundant throughout the universe, but that animal life and intelligent life may be rare or even unique to Earth. Our solar system is a freak compared to what we've found out there so far: Our star isn't a red dwarf. Our solar system is arranged with gas giants as outer planets and small terrestrial planets as inner planets, and has exactly zero super-Earths. Our planet has an incredibly large satellite. We live inhabit a relatively peaceful, but still resourceful part of our galaxy. We're alive relatively early in the history of the universe in terms of the materials for life being available, and a huge amount of the universe still being in information contact with us... > Lately, I've been wrestling with the issue and come to the conclusion that consciousness is either something that all life possesses or simply does not exist. How can one come to the conclusion that consciousness does not exist? "I think, therefore I do not think." My own personal view is that consciousness is either an emergent property of the brain, in which case only brained organisms could even hope to have consciousness, and depending on which part of the brain, not even all brained organisms might be conscious; or a fundamental property of the universe which the brain has evolved to take advantage of because it provides a selective advantage, in which case again, not all organisms will have consciousness. It isn't clear to me why the distinction between conscious and unconscious would be between living and non-living. Why would an amoeba have consciousness and a volcano not have consciousness? I'd be willing to accept they BOTH have consciousness before I would be willing to accept only one of them does. The former implies something fundamental, the latter implies arbitrary distinctions among chemistries. But consciousness, in my experience, at least, seems linked in some way to the state of my brain. If I am knocked out, my consciousness stops. In a sense, it disappears. By what mechanism does it get saved and reappear? My memory saves it, my brain restarts it when I wake up. If I sleep, I might dream, in which case my consciousness is altered as is my brain state. Consciousness seems localized in my brain, aware only of the things my brain can be aware of through the senses.
Someone 10y ago
"I believe that in reality, probably being vegan is the only morally defensible position" I don't see much morally wrong with eating an animal that died from old age that one finds in the field Also, thinking of microorganisms, being vegan is impossible. There always are things on the stuff that you eat that could be classified as being animals.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Seems like a medium-term problem. If we cannot manage lab-grown meat within a few generations, enough went wrong that such questions are functionally meaningless.
akvadrako 10y ago
Plants and viruses are also pretty smart. At least, I don't see a fine line anywhere between the simplest living organism to the most intelligent. But you have to eat other organisms to survive. It's kind of like delegation of work - they do the initial processing of resources and then become part of you. Things can't be immoral if they are mandatory for survival - that means your morals are wrong.
- fpoling 10y ago
  One needs to kill much less plants if one avoids anymal products. Cows, pigs, dogs etc. are very inefficient at converting plants they consume into flesh that can be eaten.
  - akvadrako 10y ago
    The resource efficiency argument is quite separate from the moral argument based on the intrinsic value of animal life. Unless you are arguing it's more moral to eat 1kg of grain than 10kg of grass or something like that.
    - fpoling 10y ago
      I was referring to "Plants and viruses are also pretty smart." that implied that killing plants is not OK. Clearly humans have to kill living creatures to survive, but a moral problem only raises when one has a choice. And we do have a choice between eating, say, a ton of grains or feeding a cow 10 tonn of grass and then killing the cow.
PepeGomez 10y ago
I think the more important question is, if even insects can be this smart with their tiny brains, what the hell are our huge brains for?
- fpoling 10y ago
  It just shows that mammal brain is rather inneficient and has to compensate with size for that.
nurettin 10y ago
First world problems.

webkike 10y ago

Well, consider the numerous animals that are physically unable to eat vegetarian.

whatshisface 10y ago

Well, you can claim a little moral superiority - humans are the only animals on earth that might choose to be vegitarian!

Neliquat 10y ago
That is exactly the bigoted thing I would expect an internet vegetarian to say. Way to live up to the stereotype dude.
- lovemenot 10y ago
  I don't get the need for ad-hominem here. Though I don't necessarily agree with your parent, it's a valid point of view, and does not require the speaker to be vegetarian or not themselves. The argument reminds me a little of the religious morality argument that only humans are capable of allowing God into their life. Again, I am not making either such claim, just rejecting your negative reply.
wewiereiuyui 10y ago
do we know which other animals have chosen to be vegetarian ? Apparently squirrels are usually vegetarian but they'll eat meat if their survival depends on it

stanfordkid 10y ago

Either that -- or our perception of morality is wrong. Maybe it's okay to eat animals as long as we treat them well. After all if they live a long happy and decently full life that's what really counts right? I think this video really gives a good idea of how humanity used to think of hunting and eating animals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o We've really lost touch with our empathy for other creatures In the old days people would respect the animal, hug it after killing it... on some level I think animals understand that their own death is a part of life.

wewiereiuyui 10y ago
If someone lets you live a happy life then hunts you down and kills you to eat, is that OK with you ? If it's ok for you to rule on the life of a pig, say, then why isn't it ok for another human to decide on your life ? (I really don't agree with this position - just playing devil's advocate)
- mehwoot 10y ago
  If someone lets you live a happy life then hunts you down and kills you to eat, is that OK with you Yes, definitely. If the alternative was that I didn't exist at all- most pigs wouldn't be around if we didn't eat them (https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/). The way I ethically decide whether it's ok to eat meat is whether, if that animal could express a choice, it would likely choose to exist and then be eaten or not exist at all. If an animal is kept in so much pain that it would rather not exist, then I think that's unethical. But if it would still choose to exist, then it's better than nothing- don't forget that living in the wild is generally a pretty harsh life as well.
  - pingec 10y ago
    Sorry but I completely disagree with this view. It's not about what options they have. They are already here and they do not want to not exist nor be treated badly, they want to live a happy life. It's us who deny them this because we prioritize our convenience over their life and suffering. If you applied the same thinking to slavery many people would be outraged.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

> i really marvel at the mental gymnastics/machinery that goes into convincing oneself that humans are somehow a class apart from animals One can even characterize the history of science as a timeline of refuting humanity's exceptionalism starting with Copernicus's technical and metaphorical discovery that we are not the center of the universe. Lately, I've been wrestling with the issue and come to the conclusion that consciousness is either something that all life possesses or simply does not exist.

cgriswald 10y ago
> One can even characterize the history of science as a timeline of refuting humanity's exceptionalism starting with Galileo's technical and metaphorical discovery that we are not the center of the universe. Nonsense! The history of science is one of the things that makes humanity exceptional on Earth. As for the rest of the universe... The search for life is telling us that life may be abundant throughout the universe, but that animal life and intelligent life may be rare or even unique to Earth. Our solar system is a freak compared to what we've found out there so far: Our star isn't a red dwarf. Our solar system is arranged with gas giants as outer planets and small terrestrial planets as inner planets, and has exactly zero super-Earths. Our planet has an incredibly large satellite. We live inhabit a relatively peaceful, but still resourceful part of our galaxy. We're alive relatively early in the history of the universe in terms of the materials for life being available, and a huge amount of the universe still being in information contact with us... > Lately, I've been wrestling with the issue and come to the conclusion that consciousness is either something that all life possesses or simply does not exist. How can one come to the conclusion that consciousness does not exist? "I think, therefore I do not think." My own personal view is that consciousness is either an emergent property of the brain, in which case only brained organisms could even hope to have consciousness, and depending on which part of the brain, not even all brained organisms might be conscious; or a fundamental property of the universe which the brain has evolved to take advantage of because it provides a selective advantage, in which case again, not all organisms will have consciousness. It isn't clear to me why the distinction between conscious and unconscious would be between living and non-living. Why would an amoeba have consciousness and a volcano not have consciousness? I'd be willing to accept they BOTH have consciousness before I would be willing to accept only one of them does. The former implies something fundamental, the latter implies arbitrary distinctions among chemistries. But consciousness, in my experience, at least, seems linked in some way to the state of my brain. If I am knocked out, my consciousness stops. In a sense, it disappears. By what mechanism does it get saved and reappear? My memory saves it, my brain restarts it when I wake up. If I sleep, I might dream, in which case my consciousness is altered as is my brain state. Consciousness seems localized in my brain, aware only of the things my brain can be aware of through the senses.

Someone 10y ago

"I believe that in reality, probably being vegan is the only morally defensible position" I don't see much morally wrong with eating an animal that died from old age that one finds in the field Also, thinking of microorganisms, being vegan is impossible. There always are things on the stuff that you eat that could be classified as being animals.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

Seems like a medium-term problem. If we cannot manage lab-grown meat within a few generations, enough went wrong that such questions are functionally meaningless.

akvadrako 10y ago

Plants and viruses are also pretty smart. At least, I don't see a fine line anywhere between the simplest living organism to the most intelligent. But you have to eat other organisms to survive. It's kind of like delegation of work - they do the initial processing of resources and then become part of you. Things can't be immoral if they are mandatory for survival - that means your morals are wrong.

fpoling 10y ago
One needs to kill much less plants if one avoids anymal products. Cows, pigs, dogs etc. are very inefficient at converting plants they consume into flesh that can be eaten.
- akvadrako 10y ago
  The resource efficiency argument is quite separate from the moral argument based on the intrinsic value of animal life. Unless you are arguing it's more moral to eat 1kg of grain than 10kg of grass or something like that.
  - fpoling 10y ago
    I was referring to "Plants and viruses are also pretty smart." that implied that killing plants is not OK. Clearly humans have to kill living creatures to survive, but a moral problem only raises when one has a choice. And we do have a choice between eating, say, a ton of grains or feeding a cow 10 tonn of grass and then killing the cow.

PepeGomez 10y ago

I think the more important question is, if even insects can be this smart with their tiny brains, what the hell are our huge brains for?

fpoling 10y ago
It just shows that mammal brain is rather inneficient and has to compensate with size for that.

nurettin 10y ago

First world problems.