4 ms·

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 betwe

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.
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        You don't want to understand what I am saying. That's ok. Feel free to keep flagging.
        close04 8y ago
        > You don't want to understand what I am saying. I do understand what you're saying. I just disagreed providing arguments that are valid for society as a whole while you only provided your personal preference. That's not an argument. I am willing to revisit it when this is no longer the case and society or law no longer consider this acceptable. I personally consider sacrificing animals that are bred for this purpose as acceptable. I also consider hunting wild animals as acceptable as long as it's sustainable and the individuals can be easily replaced by "equivalent" ones maintaining a natural-like balance. I might have objections to the way animals are raised or killed but this is a different topic. So where exactly is your argument? If I considered the name "max" insulting to me and immoral would you change yours? Or would you say "society accepts it and it's legal so I'll keep it"?
aklemm 8y ago
Thank you for laying that out well. It's a shame the concept of time-to-replace can be overlooked.

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.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      You don't want to understand what I am saying. That's ok. Feel free to keep flagging.
      - close04 8y ago
        > You don't want to understand what I am saying. I do understand what you're saying. I just disagreed providing arguments that are valid for society as a whole while you only provided your personal preference. That's not an argument. I am willing to revisit it when this is no longer the case and society or law no longer consider this acceptable. I personally consider sacrificing animals that are bred for this purpose as acceptable. I also consider hunting wild animals as acceptable as long as it's sustainable and the individuals can be easily replaced by "equivalent" ones maintaining a natural-like balance. I might have objections to the way animals are raised or killed but this is a different topic. So where exactly is your argument? If I considered the name "max" insulting to me and immoral would you change yours? Or would you say "society accepts it and it's legal so I'll keep it"?

aklemm 8y ago

Thank you for laying that out well. It's a shame the concept of time-to-replace can be overlooked.