3 ms·
I hear this kind of argument pretty often. It's bizarre, because debunking it is pretty trivial. Even if we assume destroying plants is 100% equivalent to destr
by the_gastropod 10y ago
I hear this kind of argument pretty often. It's bizarre, because debunking it is pretty trivial. Even if we assume destroying plants is 100% equivalent to destroying animals (this is obviously a position not many would agree with), destroying animals is worse because animals require plant food to grow. And since animals burn calories that don't go directly to growth, it's an inefficient means of producing food (beef is especially inefficient).
So the choice is: destroy a plant to eat directly OR destroy an animal who needed n plants destroyed to grow sufficiently large to eat. Option A definitionally requires less destruction.
- d0lph 10y agoIf you do assume animal life is equivalent to plant life, all you're saying is that consuming animals is less efficient. It would be like saying we shouldn't consume icecream because drinking milk directly saves more milk (not sure if this example is true).
- the_gastropod 10y agoThe assumption I pose is that (given the very generous notion) if plant life is equivalent to animal life, and destroying life is undesirable, then eating animals is worse (in this regard) than eating plants because it destroys _more_ life.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoIts pretty complex. For instance, growing plants means essentially sterilizing the ground under them, killing tens of thousands of small rodents. Millions of insects. Billions of soil microorganisms.
- codezero 10y agoAlgae is the future!
- fmueller 10y agoA small detail: While destroying more life this process is _creating_ more life at the same time... Not that is has to matter.
- wu-ikkyu 10y agoI'm not sure the comment you're replying to is saying to choose between one or the other (eating animals or plants) but perhaps rather that sustainable eco-friendly production is what is important regardless of the product.
- frogpelt 10y agoIf you assume that we evolved (this is a position some do not agree with) then you would realize that we are nothing but the top of the food chain and whatever the flip we decide to do with animals doesn't matter--regardless of how much pain it causes them. Make sense?