6 ms·

> Dave Arnold, another favorite writer of mine, has a solution to this problem: clove oil anesthetizes lobsters (and fish). Clove oil, knife through the head, t

by miles 9y ago

> Dave Arnold, another favorite writer of mine, has a solution to this problem: clove oil anesthetizes lobsters (and fish). Clove oil, knife through the head, then boil. Or, you know, don’t kill them. Not sure why this idea is still considered extreme. Why harm fellow creatures when it is simply unnecessary? As Tolstoy wrote[1], "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral." [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=iucmAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA43 https://books.google.com/books?id=iucmAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA43

david38 9y ago
Lots of things aren't necessary. Eating lots of meat, sex without intent to procreate, travel. They sure are fun!
- Eyas 9y ago
  The gp is still pointing out that causing suffering to other creatures is a downside of eating meat. While all items you listed are not necessary, only one of them has that downside. Unless one argues with the premise that the killing/pain of other creatures is harmful, we'll only be talking past one another.
  - theoh 9y ago
    Not sure about the meaning of your second paragraph, but in theory, animals bred for human consumption could live happy lives up to the point of a painless, instant death. The issue becomes whether they would be missed by other animals. Some would consider this a dangerous way of thinking, but someone like Temple Grandin would agree, I think, that the correct thing to worry about is suffering, not 'harm' in some abstract sense.
    - firethief 9y ago
      Considering suffering alone seems like it could justify some counterintuitive conclusions. Would it be wrong to have a child, raise it happily to adolescence, and then give it a painless, instant death? If so, why?
      - edanm 9y ago
        That's a valid argument, but I think a more relevant question is: between the options of having a child, raising it happily to adolescence, and then killing it, vs. not having the child at all, which option is "better"? Which is more net positive in the world? This is a closer scenario, since billions of e.g. cows would not be born and raised if not for our use for them as food. (Of course, in reality, they're mostly not raised happily). When deciding the answer to the scenario, keep in mind that most parents who have children with e.g. terminally ill diseases, who die in adolescence, or even kids that die as teenagers from accidents, would probably not say it is better that they had not lived. Also worth considering - we have children knowing that their lives will tragically end in death after 100 years at most. Why is that not wrong? Just cause we're used to 100 years being a lot, doesn't really change the fundamental argument does it?
      - theoh 9y ago
        I didn't mean that happiness wouldn't be considered, just that that appropriate thing to worry about is suffering (can we call it negative happiness?). There is obviously not going to be a simple happiness score at each moment of life—it should at least be a vector of scores. Would make sense to integrate over time, but then there's the spectre of a "happiness maximizer" (like a paperclip maximizer) that might produce undesirable outcomes, whether it's average or aggregate happiness you consider. Ethics is difficult to formalize.
        firethief 9y ago
        Adding happiness to the model solves some of its problems (suffering+happiness model doesn't advocate nuclear annihilation), but I don't see how suffering-vs-happiness utilitarianism reaches the conclusion that infanticide is wrong. It seems like we need to consider more than happiness vectors for infanticide not to be okay.
  - 013a 9y ago
    Having sex without the intent to procreate can lead to having children whom you aren't prepared to take care of. Tourism fuels and is fueled by organizations that destroy ecosystems. Everything humanity does destroys the planet and its inhabitants, including ourselves. A vegan thinks they're doing their small part, while texting up a storm on their iPhone, driving to work in their Camry, living in their downtown 1000 sqft apartment. Thinking your diet of all things makes the animals we share this place with feel any better is about as facetious as thinking a band-aid would help a man who just went headfirst into a woodchipper. You could go completely offgrid, live off the land, maximizing everything you can do to help this problem, and you wouldn't even begin to put a dent into it. But if it helps you sleep at night, then by all means. At least you've some semblance of peace, which is more than most people on this planet have.
    - Eyas 9y ago
      Not my point. My point is that the poster I was replying to is talking past the initial poster, rather than responding to them. I don't think vegans/vegetarians do so because of their singular impact on the world. Worth saying that (presumably) you and I choose not to kill other people, knowing that our taxes might be funding wars, our gadgets might be built in sweatshops, etc.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
derefr 9y ago
The only animals that don't generally die mostly from predation are those on top of whatever food chain they're a part of (bears, big cats, etc.) And we don't tend to eat those. For the rest, if we aren't eating them, something else is going to eat them. It's not a question of "taking an animal life"—the animal's life is going to get taken, in a messy, bloody, terrifying way. It is considered by some to be an increase in marginal global utility, when a human eats an animal that would otherwise have been eaten by something else. Because we cause less suffering in the process of (killing and) eating the animal, than anything else would have. (I don't personally know how I feel about this argument, but I feel like I should put it out here, because it's not very well-known and usually causes more interesting discussion than the usual responses.) --- Also, as a bonus argument: if you're a positive utilitarian, then we increase global utility by a lot simply by raising livestock to eat them that would otherwise have never existed at all. (If you're a negative utilitarian, then all the good humanity has ever done is probably wiped out by the suffering of the great number of chickens we keep.) Either way, though, it's indisputable that the life of e.g. a sheep kept by a shepherd, has higher total QALY than the life of a wild sheep. For some species, we're giving them a virtual garden-of-Eden to live in until they just, one day, die at our hands. There's actually a part of the Effective Altruism movement that wants to reduce wild animal suffering—i.e. interject ourselves into nature in order to make more animal lives like that of the tended sheep (with or without the eventual culling.) I think they hope to use synthetic meat to solve the "how do you keep both the fox and the hen happy" problem.
- always_good 9y ago
  I don't understand how your argument exists alongside the fact that we farm the animals that we eat. The chicken that you buy at the grocer isn't one we swiped away just as a wolf was about it eat it. The chicken was grown indoors in a factory, likely hadn't even seen the light of day. Even a wolf-eaten wild chicken gets that courtesy.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    You can be against factory farming and not be a vegan.
bernardino 9y ago
While I still eat meat, etc, at times I do think about what kind of suffering animals, etc, go through. I often come to the conclusion that we should just let them be - their lives, much like ours, are short-lived, and they deserve their little piece happiness. All this reminds me of Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered by Ernst F. Schumacher - a great read.
- shrimp_emoji 9y ago
  I disagree because they're not smart enough to enjoy their short and simple lives, so the enjoyment our lives get via eating them takes precedence. This is a very fascist position, though! I could say the same for a human on life support who's gone through brain death (really, a lobster's smarter, at that point). Although perhaps that's not really that bad, albeit macabre. Perhaps, one day, we'll lab-grow meat, maybe our own, to eat, just to see what we taste like. That's equivalent to consuming non-lab-grown but also unconscious human tissue, I think. BUT SCARIER, this same line of thinking might lead to much-vaster-than-human intelligences deciding we don't have rights and that it's okay to eat us! Am I okay with being eaten by a hyperintelligent being to whom I have the status of a lobster or a cow? Maybe. Because I really admire a being like that. Maybe it could effortlessly convince me to surrendering to being eaten with arguments more creative and compelling than a million Shakespeares could pen up, effortlessly, like some Saruman-godthing[0], because that just goes with the territory of being that smart! But, short of that, I'd try to run away, and many people don't share my ambivalence... Ethics is difficult. But chicken is tasty. [0]: https://youtu.be/VHrTTgmB_3w?t=385 https://youtu.be/VHrTTgmB_3w?t=385
  - tantivy 9y ago
    Circular reasoning. What kind of evidence can you have for some being "not smart enough" for any arbitrary experience? Nice essay though
    - shrimp_emoji 9y ago
      I have no evidence that a lobster has consciousness, and it's consciousness (particularly intelligent consciousness, like yours and mine) that, to my very crude ethics, grants "personhood". With personhood comes the right to live and my thinking that it's immoral or some great loss to the Universe to kill you. That is why I think I can eat (and cause untold suffering) to lobsters with impunity for my benefit. :o (Not, to massage your image of me, that I would enjoy harming lobsters; I'd sooner keep one as a pet or release it if it materialized in my kitchen. I don't even like killing spiders or cockroaches, and I don't even eat those! BUT. If other people kill lobsters, I don't consider it immoral, and I'd gladly eat them served to me. But not the cockroaches or spiders.) Pain is bad, but it's bad to conscious beings. A computer can be programmed to react to keystrokes much the same as a creature "with no lights on" can be programmed to react to damaging stimuli, but that reaction brooks no rational response from me. It brooks emotional responses, but acting on reasonless emotion is silly. Even if you accept my position, you could argue that maybe lobsters do have consciousness. Maybe they're even way more intelligent than we think they are. That'd be a problem. But, being scientific, you have to operate on what you have evidence for, not on what you don't. For the same reason, I don't think abortion is human murder (unless it's late term, after the brain's been thoroughly developed). Another problem, of course, is where you draw the line. Lobsters aren't intelligent enough for personhood. What about dogs? What about chimps? What about severely mentally handicapped humans? Do you draw the line at doing calculus? (Because then you exclude a lot of normal humans!) That's the problem with fascism. :B I need to rethink my ways. But it's too difficult, and meat is calorically-dense and tasty!
zaroth 9y ago
It’s fairly difficult not to kill them, you know, when you plan to eat them. If your Tolstoy quote is accurate, it seems fairly sloppy reasoning to me. Animal protein is an essential component of nourishing billions of people. Calling sustenance “appetite” is a rhetorical flourish which undermines the argument. I think what would be immoral is telling billions of people they can’t eat meat. There are many ways one could prescribe humans should act to minimize their impact on the flora and fauna of our world. But at the same time, humans are entitled to a certain degree of leeway in this regard. Sustainably eating the plants and animals beneath us on the food chain is one of those areas.
- darkerside 9y ago
  > beneath us on the food chain This sounds... tautological. We can morally eat whatever we can eat? Does that include gorilla meat? Weaker humans?
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    The OP provides no justification, so in his mind, yes. And when AI develops, or a new race of genetically engineered humans, they can eat us, too. But I'm sure the OP wasn't thinking about being boiled alive when he made his comment.
- miles 9y ago
  > Animal protein is an essential component of nourishing billions of people It doesn't have to be; in fact, humans, animals, and the planet would be much better off in many ways were we to transition to plant-based diets: Go vegan, save the planet https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-planet-wang/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-pl... Five things would happen if everyone stopped eating meat http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/five-things-would-happen-if-everyone-stopped-eating-meat-a6844811.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/five-things-would-happen... What would happen if everyone went vegan? https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/what-would-world-look-if-everyone-went-vegan https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/what-would-world-loo... What the Health http://www.whatthehealthfilm.com http://www.whatthehealthfilm.com The Game Changers http://gamechangersmovie.com http://gamechangersmovie.com Cowspiracy http://www.cowspiracy.com http://www.cowspiracy.com
jayess 9y ago
Well, if Tolstoy says so, then there is no arguing...
Waterluvian 9y ago
It's my nature. Robbing me of my nature is like penning a fox indoors all day. Or robbing zoo cats of the freedom to hunt. Might call it inhumane. Just playing the other side. I love meat but I don't take a stance on the matter.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  It's also in your nature to murder other humans, steal things, and participate in all sorts of mischief. If you're of a certain disposition it's in your nature to rape children, maybe hang cats, or try to destroy the lives of other people in other ways. I personally do not eat meat but I also don't shun those who do - my goal is only to do my best to reduce suffering as much as I can - but I think that to argue that it's in your nature to do something is a very poor argument. Being human means we can largely overcome our nature, or at least make rational choices about it.
Al-Khwarizmi 9y ago
Agriculture pretty much kills animals too. Pesticides kill animals, removing their habitats to replace them with farmed fields kills animals. I don't think there currently is a sustainable way to live without killing animals. Humanity is not going to live off pure gathering.
- bootlooped 9y ago
  Most farm animals in the US are fed by commercial agriculture. Eating meat multiplies the amount of plant agriculture required by a significant factor (dependent on the animal). Often I see the concept you pointed out presented in a way that implies meat has separate and distinct negative externalities from plants, and that it's roughly equivalent whether you choose set of negatives A or set of negatives B. In reality one is a superset of the other.
nezzle 9y ago
We clearly eat far more meat than we need and produce/harvest meat in ways that create unnecessary damage and suffering. However, not everyone is like you. Some people develop deficiencies when they exclude meat from their diet. I have witnessed an ex-vegan health/nutritional professional advise a vegetarian to start eating some meat due to chronic health issues and lab-tested nutritional deficiencies. It was an hard journey for both of them. I'm glad it works for you right now while providing a sense of moral superiority, but not everyone is the same.
- travisjungroth 9y ago
  Ok, that person couldn't live and be healthy without meat, so the quote doesn't apply to them. Most people can. > I'm glad it works for you right now while providing a sense of moral superiority, but not everyone is the same. Come on.
  - TomMarius 9y ago
    > Most people can. Any sources? Most of the professionals seem to think otherwise.
    - travisjungroth 9y ago
      A source that most people can live and be healthy without eating meat? I don't. I looked for one and I can't find one. I seriously think that it's too self-evident to have warranted much study. There are hundreds of millions of vegetarians and they seem to be doing okay. I'm not arguing that it's healthier or you can live longer, just that most people can be healthy and live. Do you have a source that most professionals believe that most people can't live and be healthy on a vegetarian diet?
    - firethief 9y ago
      [Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704/)** https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704/)** * It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. [Dietitians of Canada](https://www.dietitians.ca/Downloads/Factsheets/Guidlines-for-Vegans.aspx)** https://www.dietitians.ca/Downloads/Factsheets/Guidlines-for... * A healthy vegan diet can meet all your nutrient needs at any stage of life including when you are pregnant, breastfeeding or for older adults. [The British National Health Service](http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx)** http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets... * With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs. [The British Nutrition Foundation](http://www.nutrition.org.uk/publications/briefingpapers/vegetarian-nutrition)** http://www.nutrition.org.uk/publications/briefingpapers/vege... * A well-planned, balanced vegetarian or vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate ... Studies of UK vegetarian and vegan children have revealed that their growth and development are within the normal range. [The Dietitians Association of Australia](https://daa.asn.au/smart-eating-for-you/smart-eating-fast-facts/healthy-eating/vegan-diets-facts-tips-and-considerations/)** https://daa.asn.au/smart-eating-for-you/smart-eating-fast-fa... * Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. With good planning, those following a vegan diet can cover all their nutrient bases, but there are some extra things to consider. [The United States Department of Agriculture](http://www.choosemyplate.gov/tips-vegetarians)** http://www.choosemyplate.gov/tips-vegetarians)** * Vegetarian diets (see context) can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12. [The National Health and Medical Research Council](https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines1.pdf)** https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/n55_... * Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthy and nutritionally adequate. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle. Those following a strict vegetarian or vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements as long as energy needs are met and an appropriate variety of plant foods are eaten throughout the day [The Mayo Clinic](http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/vegetarian-diet/art-20046446)** http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healt... * A well-planned vegetarian diet (see context) can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them. [The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada](https://www.heartandstroke.ca/get-healthy/healthy-eating/specific-diets/for-vegetarians)** https://www.heartandstroke.ca/get-healthy/healthy-eating/spe... * Vegetarian diets (see context) can provide all the nutrients you need at any age, as well as some additional health benefits. [Harvard Medical School](http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/becoming-a-vegetarian)** http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/becoming-a-veg... * Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses. [British Dietetic Association](https://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/vegetarianfoodfacts.pdf)** https://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/vegetarianfoodfacts.pdf)** * Well planned vegetarian diets (see context) can be nutritious and healthy. They are associated with lower risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain cancers and lower cholesterol levels. This could be because such diets are lower in saturated fat, contain fewer calories and more fiber and phytonutrients/phytochemicals (these can have protective properties) than non-vegetarian diets. (...) Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life and have many benefits.
111_1_111 9y ago
I will be happier eating meat than I will eating meat-substitutes. Am I supposed to sacrifice my own happiness just so that lobsters can live longer? Since I'm already sacrificing my happiness for the comfort of lobsters, why not go all out and build them little lobster mansions where we serve them sautéed seaweed with a hand-made orange remoulade glaze every night for dinner? (Can't serve them their preferred meal of crab because that would be immoral).
hutzlibu 9y ago
"man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food" Most studies I read found that vegetarians were more healthy and lived longer than heavy meat eaters, but the once-in-a-while meat eaters were healthier. One of the reasons I stick with the last group. Selfish? Yes. But not only for appetite. Besides, without predators, you probably would not have much forests ... and much more dessert.
blattimwind 9y ago
I always find claims of morality interesting, especially if they are of the non-norm-derivative kind, and presented without any ethical argument whatsoever. Very convincing indeed.

by miles 9y ago

david38 9y ago

Lots of things aren't necessary. Eating lots of meat, sex without intent to procreate, travel. They sure are fun!

Eyas 9y ago
The gp is still pointing out that causing suffering to other creatures is a downside of eating meat. While all items you listed are not necessary, only one of them has that downside. Unless one argues with the premise that the killing/pain of other creatures is harmful, we'll only be talking past one another.
- theoh 9y ago
  Not sure about the meaning of your second paragraph, but in theory, animals bred for human consumption could live happy lives up to the point of a painless, instant death. The issue becomes whether they would be missed by other animals. Some would consider this a dangerous way of thinking, but someone like Temple Grandin would agree, I think, that the correct thing to worry about is suffering, not 'harm' in some abstract sense.
  - firethief 9y ago
    Considering suffering alone seems like it could justify some counterintuitive conclusions. Would it be wrong to have a child, raise it happily to adolescence, and then give it a painless, instant death? If so, why?
    - edanm 9y ago
      That's a valid argument, but I think a more relevant question is: between the options of having a child, raising it happily to adolescence, and then killing it, vs. not having the child at all, which option is "better"? Which is more net positive in the world? This is a closer scenario, since billions of e.g. cows would not be born and raised if not for our use for them as food. (Of course, in reality, they're mostly not raised happily). When deciding the answer to the scenario, keep in mind that most parents who have children with e.g. terminally ill diseases, who die in adolescence, or even kids that die as teenagers from accidents, would probably not say it is better that they had not lived. Also worth considering - we have children knowing that their lives will tragically end in death after 100 years at most. Why is that not wrong? Just cause we're used to 100 years being a lot, doesn't really change the fundamental argument does it?
    - theoh 9y ago
      I didn't mean that happiness wouldn't be considered, just that that appropriate thing to worry about is suffering (can we call it negative happiness?). There is obviously not going to be a simple happiness score at each moment of life—it should at least be a vector of scores. Would make sense to integrate over time, but then there's the spectre of a "happiness maximizer" (like a paperclip maximizer) that might produce undesirable outcomes, whether it's average or aggregate happiness you consider. Ethics is difficult to formalize.
      - firethief 9y ago
        Adding happiness to the model solves some of its problems (suffering+happiness model doesn't advocate nuclear annihilation), but I don't see how suffering-vs-happiness utilitarianism reaches the conclusion that infanticide is wrong. It seems like we need to consider more than happiness vectors for infanticide not to be okay.
- 013a 9y ago
  Having sex without the intent to procreate can lead to having children whom you aren't prepared to take care of. Tourism fuels and is fueled by organizations that destroy ecosystems. Everything humanity does destroys the planet and its inhabitants, including ourselves. A vegan thinks they're doing their small part, while texting up a storm on their iPhone, driving to work in their Camry, living in their downtown 1000 sqft apartment. Thinking your diet of all things makes the animals we share this place with feel any better is about as facetious as thinking a band-aid would help a man who just went headfirst into a woodchipper. You could go completely offgrid, live off the land, maximizing everything you can do to help this problem, and you wouldn't even begin to put a dent into it. But if it helps you sleep at night, then by all means. At least you've some semblance of peace, which is more than most people on this planet have.
  - Eyas 9y ago
    Not my point. My point is that the poster I was replying to is talking past the initial poster, rather than responding to them. I don't think vegans/vegetarians do so because of their singular impact on the world. Worth saying that (presumably) you and I choose not to kill other people, knowing that our taxes might be funding wars, our gadgets might be built in sweatshops, etc.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

derefr 9y ago

The only animals that don't generally die mostly from predation are those on top of whatever food chain they're a part of (bears, big cats, etc.) And we don't tend to eat those. For the rest, if we aren't eating them, something else is going to eat them. It's not a question of "taking an animal life"—the animal's life is going to get taken, in a messy, bloody, terrifying way. It is considered by some to be an increase in marginal global utility, when a human eats an animal that would otherwise have been eaten by something else. Because we cause less suffering in the process of (killing and) eating the animal, than anything else would have. (I don't personally know how I feel about this argument, but I feel like I should put it out here, because it's not very well-known and usually causes more interesting discussion than the usual responses.) --- Also, as a bonus argument: if you're a positive utilitarian, then we increase global utility by a lot simply by raising livestock to eat them that would otherwise have never existed at all. (If you're a negative utilitarian, then all the good humanity has ever done is probably wiped out by the suffering of the great number of chickens we keep.) Either way, though, it's indisputable that the life of e.g. a sheep kept by a shepherd, has higher total QALY than the life of a wild sheep. For some species, we're giving them a virtual garden-of-Eden to live in until they just, one day, die at our hands. There's actually a part of the Effective Altruism movement that wants to reduce wild animal suffering—i.e. interject ourselves into nature in order to make more animal lives like that of the tended sheep (with or without the eventual culling.) I think they hope to use synthetic meat to solve the "how do you keep both the fox and the hen happy" problem.

always_good 9y ago
I don't understand how your argument exists alongside the fact that we farm the animals that we eat. The chicken that you buy at the grocer isn't one we swiped away just as a wolf was about it eat it. The chicken was grown indoors in a factory, likely hadn't even seen the light of day. Even a wolf-eaten wild chicken gets that courtesy.
- freehunter 9y ago
  You can be against factory farming and not be a vegan.

bernardino 9y ago

While I still eat meat, etc, at times I do think about what kind of suffering animals, etc, go through. I often come to the conclusion that we should just let them be - their lives, much like ours, are short-lived, and they deserve their little piece happiness. All this reminds me of Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered by Ernst F. Schumacher - a great read.

shrimp_emoji 9y ago
I disagree because they're not smart enough to enjoy their short and simple lives, so the enjoyment our lives get via eating them takes precedence. This is a very fascist position, though! I could say the same for a human on life support who's gone through brain death (really, a lobster's smarter, at that point). Although perhaps that's not really that bad, albeit macabre. Perhaps, one day, we'll lab-grow meat, maybe our own, to eat, just to see what we taste like. That's equivalent to consuming non-lab-grown but also unconscious human tissue, I think. BUT SCARIER, this same line of thinking might lead to much-vaster-than-human intelligences deciding we don't have rights and that it's okay to eat us! Am I okay with being eaten by a hyperintelligent being to whom I have the status of a lobster or a cow? Maybe. Because I really admire a being like that. Maybe it could effortlessly convince me to surrendering to being eaten with arguments more creative and compelling than a million Shakespeares could pen up, effortlessly, like some Saruman-godthing[0], because that just goes with the territory of being that smart! But, short of that, I'd try to run away, and many people don't share my ambivalence... Ethics is difficult. But chicken is tasty. [0]: https://youtu.be/VHrTTgmB_3w?t=385 https://youtu.be/VHrTTgmB_3w?t=385
- tantivy 9y ago
  Circular reasoning. What kind of evidence can you have for some being "not smart enough" for any arbitrary experience? Nice essay though
  - shrimp_emoji 9y ago
    I have no evidence that a lobster has consciousness, and it's consciousness (particularly intelligent consciousness, like yours and mine) that, to my very crude ethics, grants "personhood". With personhood comes the right to live and my thinking that it's immoral or some great loss to the Universe to kill you. That is why I think I can eat (and cause untold suffering) to lobsters with impunity for my benefit. :o (Not, to massage your image of me, that I would enjoy harming lobsters; I'd sooner keep one as a pet or release it if it materialized in my kitchen. I don't even like killing spiders or cockroaches, and I don't even eat those! BUT. If other people kill lobsters, I don't consider it immoral, and I'd gladly eat them served to me. But not the cockroaches or spiders.) Pain is bad, but it's bad to conscious beings. A computer can be programmed to react to keystrokes much the same as a creature "with no lights on" can be programmed to react to damaging stimuli, but that reaction brooks no rational response from me. It brooks emotional responses, but acting on reasonless emotion is silly. Even if you accept my position, you could argue that maybe lobsters do have consciousness. Maybe they're even way more intelligent than we think they are. That'd be a problem. But, being scientific, you have to operate on what you have evidence for, not on what you don't. For the same reason, I don't think abortion is human murder (unless it's late term, after the brain's been thoroughly developed). Another problem, of course, is where you draw the line. Lobsters aren't intelligent enough for personhood. What about dogs? What about chimps? What about severely mentally handicapped humans? Do you draw the line at doing calculus? (Because then you exclude a lot of normal humans!) That's the problem with fascism. :B I need to rethink my ways. But it's too difficult, and meat is calorically-dense and tasty!

zaroth 9y ago

It’s fairly difficult not to kill them, you know, when you plan to eat them. If your Tolstoy quote is accurate, it seems fairly sloppy reasoning to me. Animal protein is an essential component of nourishing billions of people. Calling sustenance “appetite” is a rhetorical flourish which undermines the argument. I think what would be immoral is telling billions of people they can’t eat meat. There are many ways one could prescribe humans should act to minimize their impact on the flora and fauna of our world. But at the same time, humans are entitled to a certain degree of leeway in this regard. Sustainably eating the plants and animals beneath us on the food chain is one of those areas.

darkerside 9y ago
> beneath us on the food chain This sounds... tautological. We can morally eat whatever we can eat? Does that include gorilla meat? Weaker humans?
- wallace_f 9y ago
  The OP provides no justification, so in his mind, yes. And when AI develops, or a new race of genetically engineered humans, they can eat us, too. But I'm sure the OP wasn't thinking about being boiled alive when he made his comment.
miles 9y ago
> Animal protein is an essential component of nourishing billions of people It doesn't have to be; in fact, humans, animals, and the planet would be much better off in many ways were we to transition to plant-based diets: Go vegan, save the planet https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-planet-wang/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-pl... Five things would happen if everyone stopped eating meat http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/five-things-would-happen-if-everyone-stopped-eating-meat-a6844811.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/five-things-would-happen... What would happen if everyone went vegan? https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/what-would-world-look-if-everyone-went-vegan https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/what-would-world-loo... What the Health http://www.whatthehealthfilm.com http://www.whatthehealthfilm.com The Game Changers http://gamechangersmovie.com http://gamechangersmovie.com Cowspiracy http://www.cowspiracy.com http://www.cowspiracy.com

jayess 9y ago

Well, if Tolstoy says so, then there is no arguing...

Waterluvian 9y ago

It's my nature. Robbing me of my nature is like penning a fox indoors all day. Or robbing zoo cats of the freedom to hunt. Might call it inhumane. Just playing the other side. I love meat but I don't take a stance on the matter.

muninn_ 9y ago
It's also in your nature to murder other humans, steal things, and participate in all sorts of mischief. If you're of a certain disposition it's in your nature to rape children, maybe hang cats, or try to destroy the lives of other people in other ways. I personally do not eat meat but I also don't shun those who do - my goal is only to do my best to reduce suffering as much as I can - but I think that to argue that it's in your nature to do something is a very poor argument. Being human means we can largely overcome our nature, or at least make rational choices about it.

Al-Khwarizmi 9y ago

Agriculture pretty much kills animals too. Pesticides kill animals, removing their habitats to replace them with farmed fields kills animals. I don't think there currently is a sustainable way to live without killing animals. Humanity is not going to live off pure gathering.

bootlooped 9y ago
Most farm animals in the US are fed by commercial agriculture. Eating meat multiplies the amount of plant agriculture required by a significant factor (dependent on the animal). Often I see the concept you pointed out presented in a way that implies meat has separate and distinct negative externalities from plants, and that it's roughly equivalent whether you choose set of negatives A or set of negatives B. In reality one is a superset of the other.

nezzle 9y ago

We clearly eat far more meat than we need and produce/harvest meat in ways that create unnecessary damage and suffering. However, not everyone is like you. Some people develop deficiencies when they exclude meat from their diet. I have witnessed an ex-vegan health/nutritional professional advise a vegetarian to start eating some meat due to chronic health issues and lab-tested nutritional deficiencies. It was an hard journey for both of them. I'm glad it works for you right now while providing a sense of moral superiority, but not everyone is the same.

travisjungroth 9y ago
Ok, that person couldn't live and be healthy without meat, so the quote doesn't apply to them. Most people can. > I'm glad it works for you right now while providing a sense of moral superiority, but not everyone is the same. Come on.
- TomMarius 9y ago
  > Most people can. Any sources? Most of the professionals seem to think otherwise.
  - travisjungroth 9y ago
    A source that most people can live and be healthy without eating meat? I don't. I looked for one and I can't find one. I seriously think that it's too self-evident to have warranted much study. There are hundreds of millions of vegetarians and they seem to be doing okay. I'm not arguing that it's healthier or you can live longer, just that most people can be healthy and live. Do you have a source that most professionals believe that most people can't live and be healthy on a vegetarian diet?
  - firethief 9y ago
    [Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704/)** https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704/)** * It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. [Dietitians of Canada](https://www.dietitians.ca/Downloads/Factsheets/Guidlines-for-Vegans.aspx)** https://www.dietitians.ca/Downloads/Factsheets/Guidlines-for... * A healthy vegan diet can meet all your nutrient needs at any stage of life including when you are pregnant, breastfeeding or for older adults. [The British National Health Service](http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx)** http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets... * With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs. [The British Nutrition Foundation](http://www.nutrition.org.uk/publications/briefingpapers/vegetarian-nutrition)** http://www.nutrition.org.uk/publications/briefingpapers/vege... * A well-planned, balanced vegetarian or vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate ... Studies of UK vegetarian and vegan children have revealed that their growth and development are within the normal range. [The Dietitians Association of Australia](https://daa.asn.au/smart-eating-for-you/smart-eating-fast-facts/healthy-eating/vegan-diets-facts-tips-and-considerations/)** https://daa.asn.au/smart-eating-for-you/smart-eating-fast-fa... * Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. With good planning, those following a vegan diet can cover all their nutrient bases, but there are some extra things to consider. [The United States Department of Agriculture](http://www.choosemyplate.gov/tips-vegetarians)** http://www.choosemyplate.gov/tips-vegetarians)** * Vegetarian diets (see context) can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12. [The National Health and Medical Research Council](https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines1.pdf)** https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/n55_... * Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthy and nutritionally adequate. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle. Those following a strict vegetarian or vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements as long as energy needs are met and an appropriate variety of plant foods are eaten throughout the day [The Mayo Clinic](http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/vegetarian-diet/art-20046446)** http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healt... * A well-planned vegetarian diet (see context) can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them. [The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada](https://www.heartandstroke.ca/get-healthy/healthy-eating/specific-diets/for-vegetarians)** https://www.heartandstroke.ca/get-healthy/healthy-eating/spe... * Vegetarian diets (see context) can provide all the nutrients you need at any age, as well as some additional health benefits. [Harvard Medical School](http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/becoming-a-vegetarian)** http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/becoming-a-veg... * Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses. [British Dietetic Association](https://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/vegetarianfoodfacts.pdf)** https://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/vegetarianfoodfacts.pdf)** * Well planned vegetarian diets (see context) can be nutritious and healthy. They are associated with lower risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain cancers and lower cholesterol levels. This could be because such diets are lower in saturated fat, contain fewer calories and more fiber and phytonutrients/phytochemicals (these can have protective properties) than non-vegetarian diets. (...) Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life and have many benefits.

111_1_111 9y ago

I will be happier eating meat than I will eating meat-substitutes. Am I supposed to sacrifice my own happiness just so that lobsters can live longer? Since I'm already sacrificing my happiness for the comfort of lobsters, why not go all out and build them little lobster mansions where we serve them sautéed seaweed with a hand-made orange remoulade glaze every night for dinner? (Can't serve them their preferred meal of crab because that would be immoral).

hutzlibu 9y ago

"man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food" Most studies I read found that vegetarians were more healthy and lived longer than heavy meat eaters, but the once-in-a-while meat eaters were healthier. One of the reasons I stick with the last group. Selfish? Yes. But not only for appetite. Besides, without predators, you probably would not have much forests ... and much more dessert.

blattimwind 9y ago

I always find claims of morality interesting, especially if they are of the non-norm-derivative kind, and presented without any ethical argument whatsoever. Very convincing indeed.