7 ms·

Pigs are smart and can live to be around 15 to 20 years old, and by all accounts are as smart or smarter than whales. I don't see how the expected lifespan of

by avar 8y ago

Pigs are smart and can live to be around 15 to 20 years old, and by all accounts are as smart or smarter than whales. I don't see how the expected lifespan of a single individual is a determining factor in the moral calculus of what humans should or shouldn't kill. Why isn't it morally equivalent to kill 10 pigs who could have collectively lived to be 200 years old for bacon and killing one whale who could have lived to be 200?

goatlover 8y ago
Well, I would much rather see a 15 to 20 year old tree get cut down than a 200 year old one, even though I don't think cutting down a tree is immoral.
close04 8y ago
The age of the animal is a factor by virtue of the sheer length of time it takes to have another individual of the same age. There are subtle differences between pigs' and whales' situations: most pigs that are slaughtered are bred as farm animals, not wild ones. So getting another pig of similar characteristics is trivial in effort (time, money, work). You are also not really endangering the species. All whales that are hunted are wild. Getting another individual with the same characteristics as the one you just killed takes a prohibitive amount of anything so nobody is doing it. Their numbers are also dwindling. Yes, we tend to assign greater value to older things. Which is why it's slightly more out of reach to chop down Sequoioideae compared to say your average bamboo trees. Both being plants to which we assign no intelligence or actual affection. It's purely down to replaceability in terms of the most costly resource, in this case time.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "There are subtle differences between pigs' and whales' situations: most pigs that are slaughtered are bred as farm animals, not wild ones." Does that mean that if we breed humans for slavery this would be OK?
  - ThirdFoundation 8y ago
    I'd say most modern societies have agreed, but culturally and through years of legislation, that there are unique laws and rules for humans that we don't apply to other animals. So no.
  - murukesh_s 8y ago
    I think we sort of did that in the past with humans (and continued until several decades ago). May be one day we will change our attitude towards animal slaughtering as well.
  - close04 8y ago
    Your extrapolation is meaningless. I very clearly compared pigs to whales. That's definitely not enough data to support you extrapolating to humans. Do you eat any plants or animals? Do you have sexual relations with other humans? You probably don't eat humans or sleep with animals so I assume it's clear that extrapolation doesn't always work. With the advent of modern human rights all humans ended up being officially considered above animals. They are treated according to a different set of rules. Some of these rules may extend to animals to a lesser degree (the humane treatment, not to be confused with human treatment).
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      The value of my question was to point out that the argument that pigs are bred for slaughter and therefore it's OK to slaughter them whereas for whales it it's not OK doesn't make sense. Pigs suffer greatly in our modern form of farming. If people consider themselves above animals they should say so honestly and not make up an argument that doesn't make sense.
      - close04 8y ago
        I flagged your comment again but I will still answer even though everything was plenty clear already: 1) If you raise a pig for slaughter then human society considers it's acceptable to kill it. If it wasn't you wouldn't raise it at all would you? If you raise it as a pet then it's likely unacceptable to slaughter it. 2) People do consider themselves above animals and they are very open and vocal about this. This is a shock to you? You could have ended up being someone's pet otherwise. 3) The argument doesn't make sense because you didn't bother processing it. Or possibly even reading it. Or because you think your personal preferences should be laws of society or nature. Do I need to go on? Your moral issues with slaughtering pigs apply to you. Refuting my argument based on your personal choices is a bit presumptuous. Society as a whole tends to lean the other way.
- aklemm 8y ago
  Thank you for laying that out well. It's a shame the concept of time-to-replace can be overlooked.
uxcolumbo 8y ago
Maybe we need to ask ourselves: Why kill other sentient beings at all when it's not necessary anymore for our survival?
- icc97 8y ago
  Which brings us to discussions about conciousness. Lex Fridman had an interesting discussion with Christof Koch [0] as part of the MIT AI courses, and further Koch's TEDx lecture is very interesting. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piHkfmeU7Wo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piHkfmeU7Wo [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHRbnNwIg1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHRbnNwIg1g
- akskos 8y ago
  in fact we are greatly harming ourselves by animal production
- bena 8y ago
  Ok, but what if plants are sentient? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering... What if survival depends on suffering to some degree?
  - trentmb 8y ago
    Less energy loss? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer...
    - bena 8y ago
      So you subscribe to a more utilitarian view of ethics? "I'm sorry we're raising you and your species for consumption, but it's more efficient, so you gotta go".
  - CuriouslyC 8y ago
    Suffering is something things do while they're alive. Just because you end something's life doesn't mean you necessarily caused suffering.
biztos 8y ago
> by all accounts are as smart or smarter than whales Any accounts in particular? Intuition aside, I find it hard to imagine anybody has a reliable measure of the intelligence of whales.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  Using a test of how hard something is for you to imagine isn't leaving intuition very aside, is it.
  - biztos 8y ago
    Point taken. However, I'm unaware of anything other than "brain size vs body size" measurements having ever been used even pseudo-scientifically to come up with a comparison here. So, while the intuition line was a poor choice of embellishment, I still don't buy the assertion, and would love to see it backed up.
mosselman 8y ago
> Why isn't it morally equivalent to kill 10 pigs who could have collectively lived to be 200 years old for bacon and killing one whale who could have lived to be 200? Sorry, but I don't see how the expected lifespan of a single individual is a determining factor in the moral calculus of what humans should or shouldn't kill. I never said we should kill pigs rather than whales.

by avar 8y ago

goatlover 8y ago

Well, I would much rather see a 15 to 20 year old tree get cut down than a 200 year old one, even though I don't think cutting down a tree is immoral.

close04 8y ago

The age of the animal is a factor by virtue of the sheer length of time it takes to have another individual of the same age. There are subtle differences between pigs' and whales' situations: most pigs that are slaughtered are bred as farm animals, not wild ones. So getting another pig of similar characteristics is trivial in effort (time, money, work). You are also not really endangering the species. All whales that are hunted are wild. Getting another individual with the same characteristics as the one you just killed takes a prohibitive amount of anything so nobody is doing it. Their numbers are also dwindling. Yes, we tend to assign greater value to older things. Which is why it's slightly more out of reach to chop down Sequoioideae compared to say your average bamboo trees. Both being plants to which we assign no intelligence or actual affection. It's purely down to replaceability in terms of the most costly resource, in this case time.

maxxxxx 8y ago
"There are subtle differences between pigs' and whales' situations: most pigs that are slaughtered are bred as farm animals, not wild ones." Does that mean that if we breed humans for slavery this would be OK?
- ThirdFoundation 8y ago
  I'd say most modern societies have agreed, but culturally and through years of legislation, that there are unique laws and rules for humans that we don't apply to other animals. So no.
- murukesh_s 8y ago
  I think we sort of did that in the past with humans (and continued until several decades ago). May be one day we will change our attitude towards animal slaughtering as well.
- close04 8y ago
  Your extrapolation is meaningless. I very clearly compared pigs to whales. That's definitely not enough data to support you extrapolating to humans. Do you eat any plants or animals? Do you have sexual relations with other humans? You probably don't eat humans or sleep with animals so I assume it's clear that extrapolation doesn't always work. With the advent of modern human rights all humans ended up being officially considered above animals. They are treated according to a different set of rules. Some of these rules may extend to animals to a lesser degree (the humane treatment, not to be confused with human treatment).
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    The value of my question was to point out that the argument that pigs are bred for slaughter and therefore it's OK to slaughter them whereas for whales it it's not OK doesn't make sense. Pigs suffer greatly in our modern form of farming. If people consider themselves above animals they should say so honestly and not make up an argument that doesn't make sense.
    - close04 8y ago
      I flagged your comment again but I will still answer even though everything was plenty clear already: 1) If you raise a pig for slaughter then human society considers it's acceptable to kill it. If it wasn't you wouldn't raise it at all would you? If you raise it as a pet then it's likely unacceptable to slaughter it. 2) People do consider themselves above animals and they are very open and vocal about this. This is a shock to you? You could have ended up being someone's pet otherwise. 3) The argument doesn't make sense because you didn't bother processing it. Or possibly even reading it. Or because you think your personal preferences should be laws of society or nature. Do I need to go on? Your moral issues with slaughtering pigs apply to you. Refuting my argument based on your personal choices is a bit presumptuous. Society as a whole tends to lean the other way.
aklemm 8y ago
Thank you for laying that out well. It's a shame the concept of time-to-replace can be overlooked.

uxcolumbo 8y ago

Maybe we need to ask ourselves: Why kill other sentient beings at all when it's not necessary anymore for our survival?

icc97 8y ago
Which brings us to discussions about conciousness. Lex Fridman had an interesting discussion with Christof Koch [0] as part of the MIT AI courses, and further Koch's TEDx lecture is very interesting. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piHkfmeU7Wo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piHkfmeU7Wo [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHRbnNwIg1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHRbnNwIg1g
akskos 8y ago
in fact we are greatly harming ourselves by animal production
bena 8y ago
Ok, but what if plants are sentient? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering... What if survival depends on suffering to some degree?
- trentmb 8y ago
  Less energy loss? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer...
  - bena 8y ago
    So you subscribe to a more utilitarian view of ethics? "I'm sorry we're raising you and your species for consumption, but it's more efficient, so you gotta go".
- CuriouslyC 8y ago
  Suffering is something things do while they're alive. Just because you end something's life doesn't mean you necessarily caused suffering.

biztos 8y ago

> by all accounts are as smart or smarter than whales Any accounts in particular? Intuition aside, I find it hard to imagine anybody has a reliable measure of the intelligence of whales.

yesenadam 8y ago
Using a test of how hard something is for you to imagine isn't leaving intuition very aside, is it.
- biztos 8y ago
  Point taken. However, I'm unaware of anything other than "brain size vs body size" measurements having ever been used even pseudo-scientifically to come up with a comparison here. So, while the intuition line was a poor choice of embellishment, I still don't buy the assertion, and would love to see it backed up.

mosselman 8y ago

> Why isn't it morally equivalent to kill 10 pigs who could have collectively lived to be 200 years old for bacon and killing one whale who could have lived to be 200? Sorry, but I don't see how the expected lifespan of a single individual is a determining factor in the moral calculus of what humans should or shouldn't kill. I never said we should kill pigs rather than whales.