4 ms·
Right, if we can kill it within 30 seconds, that eliminates a lot of unnecessary torture compared to a natural death. But then if 30 seconds is the new normal,
by white-flame 9y ago
Right, if we can kill it within 30 seconds, that eliminates a lot of unnecessary torture compared to a natural death. But then if 30 seconds is the new normal, then it becomes outrageous again, and killing it in 10 seconds is now eliminating unnecessary torture, right? But then that becomes the new norm and we shave another second off? Do we end up disputing the transmission of pulses down their nervous systems and interrupting them before they're perceived, just to prepare food that's already acceptable to eat?
- watwut 9y agoYou talk about it as if it would be bad process. It is not. It is process that takes into account our natural need to eat, pleasure we have from eating and practicality of killing. If civilization crushed and I would be suddenly living in the forest with family, I would kill the animal however I could - to eat. Probably painfully, because I know nothing else and probably am too exhausted to waste energy. I care more about me and kids not dying then about lobster pain. On the other extreme, we have cheap pulses to kill them quick available, why not. The same process happen with everything: legal systems, medicine and even child raising.