7 ms·

How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? This question I ask sincerely. There are other equally ethical considerations: glo

by latch 8y ago

How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? This question I ask sincerely. There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause.

projektir 8y ago
Consuming meat and factory farming are not directly related things. Meat can just as well be produced by better farming methods or processes like hunting. Doesn't mean that's how people end up getting their meet, but mostly people don't generate the chain of logistics they end up using, and it's not directly related to the product itself. This chain of thought also doesn't go anywhere, unless you want to end up a hermit of some sort, because pretty much every logistic chain is contaminated. > There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause. Hmm. I'd say global warming et. al. is not even in the same universe ethics-wise compared to animal farming.
- latch 8y ago
  Is this a valid argument? You're right, consuming meat doesn't have to be related to factory farming. But consuming 220 pounds of meat, as far as I know, does.
  - wott 8y ago
    Why? People have been raising or fattening a pig in their yard for ages. One or two pigs a year, add a couple of chickens on top of that, and here we go.
    - rabidrat 8y ago
      For ages there have not been billions of people. Now every year there are ~100m more people on the planet.
- bspammer 8y ago
  While it's true that it's pretty much impossible to be completely ethical as a consumer, surely the meat industry (more specifically, factory farming) causes orders of magnitude more suffering than pretty much anything else. Arguing that consumers aren't responsible for the method of production seems bizarre to me. Would you knowingly take cartel money as payment without any moral qualms?
  - projektir 8y ago
    > Arguing that consumers aren't responsible for the method of production seems bizarre to me. It seems more bizarre to hold specifically consumers responsible to me. They're generally many levels removed from the source, and, in addition to that, a lot of consumers have very low power. Nor have I heard of many successful boycotts. I didn't get the impression that consumers are terribly influential on the logistics chains they use, they're just a convenient scapegoat so we don't have to actually blame the actual creators of those chains. There are plenty of ranges of products I've never used. They still exist. Not using certain products would have a negative influence on me, which is OK, if I felt like this also had a negative influence on the logistic chain. But it didn't, and won't. The scale is just all wrong. Politicians and businessmen are who actually have influence, or sometimes sociological effects, and one can't trivially choose to be a part of a sociological effect, and most of them are not ethics driven. The thing that will make a difference is things like regulations. > Would you knowingly take cartel money as payment without any moral qualms? I'm not familiar with situations where one would take cartel money in the first place, and I'm not comfortable saying that something I bought at some point didn't, somehow, involve cartel money. But I imagine there are groups of people who buy something of the sort, drugs, maybe, and the logistical chain is, again, not caused by them, and they should worry about other things. Like not being addicted to drugs.
newnewpdro 8y ago
> How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? Are you implying all meat consumption equates cruelty to animals? Or are you referring specifically to consumption of meat produced cruelly, e.g. by factory farms?
- latch 8y ago
  I think your question is pretty theoretical, and the article explains why: the vast majority of animals are factory farmed. And, as far as I'm aware, it's impossible to satisfy current (and raising) demand any other way. I don't really know how to answer you. If all animals were free ranging and we only ate the ones that died of old age, we'd probably need so many more animals / land / energy to satisfy current demand that we'd all be dead for an absolute lack of trees. If you have some chickens in your backyard that you treat well (you may say that's subjective, but I say the bar is so low, let's not quibble here) and you take their eggs? I'm ok with that.
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    What if I raise chickens, and occasionally I cut the head off one and cook it for dinner?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - latch 8y ago
      I'm not sure I get your point. What does this have to do with 90 billion factory-farmed animals? (and I assume that doesn't include wild fishing).
      - newnewpdro 8y ago
        You made a general statement about consuming meat being cruel, and I'm just trying to clarify if you're referring to the way the meat is produced or simply by virtue of eating another animal it's always cruel. There are various ways to obtain meat for consumption, people hunt wild game, people raise livestock on their land, is this cruel according to you?
Rainymood 8y ago
Because we have a biological need for meat. Meat tastes good because we need it to thrive (note, we can survive on a vegetarian diet but it is not optimal). >How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? How can you be against slave labor of children and still regularly wear clothing made in sweatshops? It's easy, it's a cost-benefit trade-off. It is simply too expensive. People understand that animals are treated horribly and every time I see such a video I immediately stop eating meat for a week or so and then it slowly creeps back. The biological alternatives are just too expensive right now. IF there is lab grown meat that tastes the same and costs the same I'll happily stop eating the other type of meat. The point is, people are fully aware that clothing by HM/Nike/Primark is made by slave labor but there is so much working against us. First of all, ads. Ads work, that's a fact. Second, the fact that there is a market (we buy and sell clothing in stores) further occupies our attention and leads to min/maxing of cost/benefit in the store (making us forget that the clothing is created by slave labor by children). Third, there is the whole substitution bias "if I won't buy it, someone else will!" which is a bullshit argument. The fact is that humans are really kind of stupid and every time we walk in a store so much shit is thrown at us that we completely forget about 99% of the important things in life and just shop for bargains ... everytime I'm in the Primark I have to remind myself that there are children suffering for this, yet I still bought two shorts for $8 each and have worn them quite often. Sorry for the long rant. Just my two cents.
- latch 8y ago
  I appreciate your reply. If I can paraphrase your first point, people eat meat because they enjoy it, and that's that. I'm curious what your source is for saying a vegetarian diet isn't optimal. Most studies I've seen (including large and long studies) claim the opposite. Here's a list: [1] I agree it's like sweatshops. I didn't want to draw the comparison to slavery because I think the ethical question stands on its own, but maybe you're right to point out that it's the same driving impulse. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition#Health_ef...
  - sokoloff 8y ago
sgift 8y ago
It tastes good. And it is good for health (especially compared to everything with sugars).
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
In the context of a mixed farm, or a smallholding or family keeping a few chickens for their eggs, it is perfectly possible, actually quite easy, to give an animal a happy, cruelty free life. Come the time it should be possible to give it a cruelty free death too, just as we do for pets. If you want to operate a permaculture, which seems to be one of the most environmentally friendly and ethical ways of producing food, animals are often a part of that system, and sustainably too. Factory farming and industrialised monoculture agriculture is another matter entirely that can't be legislated out of existence fast enough.
FooHentai 8y ago
>How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? Immediacy is an interesting beast. I can see some lamb chops in the freezer and not really connect them to the fluffy bundle of cuteness gamboling across the pasture that I might see out on a walk that same day. On the other hand, I'll tear up at the idea that anyone might ever, in even a minor capacity, be cruel to creatures that I hold close to my heart. I would straight up murder anyone that wished ill on my family, and all manner of beast falls under that umbrella. I know, rationally, that this simply isn't consistent. But from the human perspective... I guess the distinctly human perspective, it's entirely ... not consistent... comfortable. Work in progress, at least for me.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
voldacar 8y ago
It is disingenuous to assume that all meat is produced cruelly. I'm sure we share a dislike of factory farming, but just that the majority of meat is created via this method does not mean there aren't alternatives.
- Viliam1234 8y ago
  It is disingenuous to talk about how not all meat is produced cruelly, when in fact almost all of it is.
another-cuppa 8y ago
Wilful ignorance and indulging in the illusion presented by supermarkets and their suppliers. Such people dislike vegetarians and vegans because they are worried that they might remind them about the illusion. This is all covered in The Matrix.
gdhbcc 8y ago
I'm not against cruelty to animals.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  Agreed.
agumonkey 8y ago
It's a cloud. Life implies eating things around. Cultures had this problem long ago (I remember reading that jewish kosher food was partly due to a spiritual respect toward the lives you end to keep your own, not confirmed but interesting). The thing is, we became somehow gross/decadent in how we live, too many animals living in dark tiny space only to be butchered en masse to be wasted by unhappy consumers (30% waste was often quoted for the last years). This is where we cross a line between ~moral animal eating and "cruelty".
TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
To add to this: If you don't eat meat because of ethical & environmental reasons, but still consume fish I ask you to take a good long look into the impact we've had on global fisheries.
- fiblye 8y ago
  In terms of environmental sustainability, chicken is the best value of any meat. It's about as an efficient feed:meat ratio as you can get, their waste is reusable, and they're certainly not going extinct. The moral problem, though, is it takes more chicken deaths to get an equal amount of meat as almost any other farm animal. One cow gives you as much meat as a few hundred chickens, so you're killing hundreds more chickens each year to feed a family than if you fed them beef. So if you are eating meat (I do) and you want to try being ethical about it, total environmental harm and total death numbers are generally on polar opposite sides. Justifying regular animal consumption in any environmental or ethical sense is pretty much impossible, unless people start eating exclusively overpopulated invasive species--but cannibalism generally isn't socially acceptable. :)
  - TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
    > Justifying regular animal consumption in any environmental or ethical sense is pretty much impossible My issue is most people overlook the impact we've had on fisheries. It's much harder for fish populations to get back to where they need to be without massive regulation. Which is extremely hard on a global scale considering the economical impact it can have on some areas. The PBS documentary "Fish on my Plate" (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-fish-on-my-plate/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-fish-on-my-plate...) goes over this a bit in various ways, but one story they highlight is how Peru fixed their anchovy problem. Never mind the issue of byproduct waste when it comes to line & trolling boats. Raising chickens & cows have an impact, but byproduct kill has an entire ecosystem impact.
xoa 8y ago
My answer comes from the perspective of a vegetarian who is so just because I don't like meat, though of course most of my family and friends do a great deal, I've helped out farming, and I can appreciate the artistry and human ingenuity that has gone into production and preparation over the millennia. I have no moral objection to it, but neither would it bother me if it wasn't on the menu as long as other good options were. >How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? Sincere answer: I don't see how this is the slightest bit different from "how can you be against rampant pollution but still use a computer" or "how can you be against torture but still support a police force" or "how can you be against war crimes but still support going to war" or any of an endless number of scenarios where unpleasant choices must be made but harm reduction can still be practiced. I think you've either set up a false dichotomy and argument from perfection, or you're engaging in circular definitions by saying "cruelty" is literally "any consumption of meat" as opposed to most people seeing a line between wanton cruelty and merely raising something to kill it in a more humane way. >There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause. I don't consider a single one of those ethical considerations inherent to meat, they're market failures that we should working on correcting themselves (and preferably as part of a larger framework addressing the same issues everywhere). Global warming could have been entirely prevented with a proper carbon pricing scheme and could still be heavily reduced with one (though some sort of tax is now needed as well to deal with previous externalities). The "value" of land use and resource use is highly subjective, so long as we're pricing in the costs properly it should be up to individuals how they want to spend their extra income. Meat could well be a luxury, but we have lots of luxuries and I strongly dislike the game of "my luxury is more moral then yours!" which is inevitably an argument on a foundation of sand and makes everyone rightly angry to no purpose. Maybe you honestly don't mean it that way, and I don't wish to attack your character and would certainly be interested in reading your replies as well. But over the years I've found lines of questioning like yours to often be weak self-justification to come up with "rational arguments" about something where really the person just feels it's yucky and doesn't like it themselves. But "ban this because I think it's yucky" doesn't generally work except for dictators, so they post hoc find something else, but rather then simply trying to deal with the actual objective problems they find as reasons they loop that back to arguing against what they find yucky. I'm not saying that makes someone a bad person either! Humans do that sort of reasoning a lot, finding justifications for how they really wanted to act anyway, I know I fall into that trap with some regularity and possibly always will. But I still think it's worth trying to step back and consider what problem you're really trying to solve and being honest about that. Oppose "cruelty"? This will probably be the hardest because it gets into highly subjective arguments, but there is some level here that basically everyone can agree on even at cost so find that and require it. Oppose carbon (or equivalent) release? Support putting a price on that equivalent to the cost of removing it industrially plus margin. Worried about pollution? Require water leaving farms to have equivalent levels of contaminants as water entering (including rain). Etc. But if you take all that and then come up with "all of you should stop eating meat" people, formally or not, will have a sense you're talking BS and hear "I don't like what you like conform to me" because there are other solutions to the stated goals.
deialtrous 8y ago
>How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? Because those are two separate questions. I eat meat from animals I raised and killed. I know there was no cruelty involved. I do not eat meat from stores or restaurants since they will almost certainly have involved cruelty. >There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause. None of those considerations actually are arguments in favor of veganism. They are red herrings vegans use to try to get support from people who care about the environment. All of the environmental arguments put forth for veganism are deliberately misleading and dishonest.
liftbigweights 8y ago
> How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? What does one have to do with the other? Most livestock live rather comfortable lives compared to their wild counterparts. Less disease, less parasites and of course less predators. > This question I ask sincerely. I doubt it. Your question is as absurd as a plant lover asking how you can be against cruelty and eat vegetation? Vegetation is life. The fruit you eat is actually a plant's ovaries and uterus. How disgusting and cruel is that? Or ask a vegan why they have cats and dogs as pets. They are carnivores that eat meat. How can you be against cruelty and own pets? > There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause. Then why are you using a computer or smartphone? Do you wear clothes? It's made from cheap labor on the other side of the world? Do you drive a car or use public transportion? What about heat or the AC? Is your home cooled or heated? Why aren't so considerate? Other than to feel superior and virtue signal, there is no good reason not to eat meat. It's true that we eat too much meat, but we are omnivores. That's the diet we are meant to eat. Veganism is a poor and unnatural diet for humans. I was a vegan for a few months. I know the scam. Humans are part of nature. It is natural for humans to consume meat. That's why prey animals and livestock exist.
cimmanom 8y ago
By defining one's terms (for instance, I think factory farming is cruel, but that killing animals is not - provided the death is swift and as painless as we're able to make it) and accepting one's own hypocrisy. In my case, I simply recognize that I do not have sufficient self-discipline to remain fully healthy on a vegetarian (let alone vegan) diet. And that I'd rather be a hypocrite than sick or dead. And even acknowledging that, one can take measures to minimize one's impact. I consume a lot of eggs for protein and vitamins, and almost never prepare meat at home, though I'll eat it at other people's homes, restaurants, etc. I pay a little extra for pasture-raised eggs in the hope that those chickens have slightly less awful lives than the ones packed head to toe in barns. I eat dairy substitutes instead of actual dairy for many purposes (though not almond milk, which I dislike and is absolutely terrible for the environment). As soon as lab-grown meat becomes a viable substitute (within, say, double the price), I'll gladly switch to that. If you ask millions or billions of people to completely change their lives and eliminate something that they find pleasurable, all but a tiny percentage will either reject the idea outright or find they don't have the willpower to change. Willpower is hard; everyone has a finite amount of it in a given day; and we have to apply it constantly to a thousand other temptations of modern life. If you ask people to cut back a bit on things and make some compromises, you're more likely to get cooperation. And 50% of the population cutting their meat consumption even by 20% gets you a lot further than 5% eliminating it from their diet entirely.

by latch 8y ago

projektir 8y ago

Consuming meat and factory farming are not directly related things. Meat can just as well be produced by better farming methods or processes like hunting. Doesn't mean that's how people end up getting their meet, but mostly people don't generate the chain of logistics they end up using, and it's not directly related to the product itself. This chain of thought also doesn't go anywhere, unless you want to end up a hermit of some sort, because pretty much every logistic chain is contaminated. > There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause. Hmm. I'd say global warming et. al. is not even in the same universe ethics-wise compared to animal farming.

latch 8y ago
Is this a valid argument? You're right, consuming meat doesn't have to be related to factory farming. But consuming 220 pounds of meat, as far as I know, does.
- wott 8y ago
  Why? People have been raising or fattening a pig in their yard for ages. One or two pigs a year, add a couple of chickens on top of that, and here we go.
  - rabidrat 8y ago
    For ages there have not been billions of people. Now every year there are ~100m more people on the planet.
bspammer 8y ago
While it's true that it's pretty much impossible to be completely ethical as a consumer, surely the meat industry (more specifically, factory farming) causes orders of magnitude more suffering than pretty much anything else. Arguing that consumers aren't responsible for the method of production seems bizarre to me. Would you knowingly take cartel money as payment without any moral qualms?
- projektir 8y ago
  > Arguing that consumers aren't responsible for the method of production seems bizarre to me. It seems more bizarre to hold specifically consumers responsible to me. They're generally many levels removed from the source, and, in addition to that, a lot of consumers have very low power. Nor have I heard of many successful boycotts. I didn't get the impression that consumers are terribly influential on the logistics chains they use, they're just a convenient scapegoat so we don't have to actually blame the actual creators of those chains. There are plenty of ranges of products I've never used. They still exist. Not using certain products would have a negative influence on me, which is OK, if I felt like this also had a negative influence on the logistic chain. But it didn't, and won't. The scale is just all wrong. Politicians and businessmen are who actually have influence, or sometimes sociological effects, and one can't trivially choose to be a part of a sociological effect, and most of them are not ethics driven. The thing that will make a difference is things like regulations. > Would you knowingly take cartel money as payment without any moral qualms? I'm not familiar with situations where one would take cartel money in the first place, and I'm not comfortable saying that something I bought at some point didn't, somehow, involve cartel money. But I imagine there are groups of people who buy something of the sort, drugs, maybe, and the logistical chain is, again, not caused by them, and they should worry about other things. Like not being addicted to drugs.

newnewpdro 8y ago

> How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? Are you implying all meat consumption equates cruelty to animals? Or are you referring specifically to consumption of meat produced cruelly, e.g. by factory farms?

latch 8y ago
I think your question is pretty theoretical, and the article explains why: the vast majority of animals are factory farmed. And, as far as I'm aware, it's impossible to satisfy current (and raising) demand any other way. I don't really know how to answer you. If all animals were free ranging and we only ate the ones that died of old age, we'd probably need so many more animals / land / energy to satisfy current demand that we'd all be dead for an absolute lack of trees. If you have some chickens in your backyard that you treat well (you may say that's subjective, but I say the bar is so low, let's not quibble here) and you take their eggs? I'm ok with that.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  What if I raise chickens, and occasionally I cut the head off one and cook it for dinner?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - latch 8y ago
    I'm not sure I get your point. What does this have to do with 90 billion factory-farmed animals? (and I assume that doesn't include wild fishing).
    - newnewpdro 8y ago
      You made a general statement about consuming meat being cruel, and I'm just trying to clarify if you're referring to the way the meat is produced or simply by virtue of eating another animal it's always cruel. There are various ways to obtain meat for consumption, people hunt wild game, people raise livestock on their land, is this cruel according to you?

Rainymood 8y ago

Because we have a biological need for meat. Meat tastes good because we need it to thrive (note, we can survive on a vegetarian diet but it is not optimal). >How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? How can you be against slave labor of children and still regularly wear clothing made in sweatshops? It's easy, it's a cost-benefit trade-off. It is simply too expensive. People understand that animals are treated horribly and every time I see such a video I immediately stop eating meat for a week or so and then it slowly creeps back. The biological alternatives are just too expensive right now. IF there is lab grown meat that tastes the same and costs the same I'll happily stop eating the other type of meat. The point is, people are fully aware that clothing by HM/Nike/Primark is made by slave labor but there is so much working against us. First of all, ads. Ads work, that's a fact. Second, the fact that there is a market (we buy and sell clothing in stores) further occupies our attention and leads to min/maxing of cost/benefit in the store (making us forget that the clothing is created by slave labor by children). Third, there is the whole substitution bias "if I won't buy it, someone else will!" which is a bullshit argument. The fact is that humans are really kind of stupid and every time we walk in a store so much shit is thrown at us that we completely forget about 99% of the important things in life and just shop for bargains ... everytime I'm in the Primark I have to remind myself that there are children suffering for this, yet I still bought two shorts for $8 each and have worn them quite often. Sorry for the long rant. Just my two cents.

latch 8y ago
I appreciate your reply. If I can paraphrase your first point, people eat meat because they enjoy it, and that's that. I'm curious what your source is for saying a vegetarian diet isn't optimal. Most studies I've seen (including large and long studies) claim the opposite. Here's a list: [1] I agree it's like sweatshops. I didn't want to draw the comparison to slavery because I think the ethical question stands on its own, but maybe you're right to point out that it's the same driving impulse. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition#Health_ef...
- sokoloff 8y ago

sgift 8y ago

It tastes good. And it is good for health (especially compared to everything with sugars).

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

In the context of a mixed farm, or a smallholding or family keeping a few chickens for their eggs, it is perfectly possible, actually quite easy, to give an animal a happy, cruelty free life. Come the time it should be possible to give it a cruelty free death too, just as we do for pets. If you want to operate a permaculture, which seems to be one of the most environmentally friendly and ethical ways of producing food, animals are often a part of that system, and sustainably too. Factory farming and industrialised monoculture agriculture is another matter entirely that can't be legislated out of existence fast enough.

FooHentai 8y ago

>How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? Immediacy is an interesting beast. I can see some lamb chops in the freezer and not really connect them to the fluffy bundle of cuteness gamboling across the pasture that I might see out on a walk that same day. On the other hand, I'll tear up at the idea that anyone might ever, in even a minor capacity, be cruel to creatures that I hold close to my heart. I would straight up murder anyone that wished ill on my family, and all manner of beast falls under that umbrella. I know, rationally, that this simply isn't consistent. But from the human perspective... I guess the distinctly human perspective, it's entirely ... not consistent... comfortable. Work in progress, at least for me.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

voldacar 8y ago

It is disingenuous to assume that all meat is produced cruelly. I'm sure we share a dislike of factory farming, but just that the majority of meat is created via this method does not mean there aren't alternatives.

Viliam1234 8y ago
It is disingenuous to talk about how not all meat is produced cruelly, when in fact almost all of it is.

another-cuppa 8y ago

Wilful ignorance and indulging in the illusion presented by supermarkets and their suppliers. Such people dislike vegetarians and vegans because they are worried that they might remind them about the illusion. This is all covered in The Matrix.

gdhbcc 8y ago

I'm not against cruelty to animals.

throwaway8879 8y ago
Agreed.

agumonkey 8y ago

It's a cloud. Life implies eating things around. Cultures had this problem long ago (I remember reading that jewish kosher food was partly due to a spiritual respect toward the lives you end to keep your own, not confirmed but interesting). The thing is, we became somehow gross/decadent in how we live, too many animals living in dark tiny space only to be butchered en masse to be wasted by unhappy consumers (30% waste was often quoted for the last years). This is where we cross a line between ~moral animal eating and "cruelty".

TarpitCarnivore 8y ago

To add to this: If you don't eat meat because of ethical & environmental reasons, but still consume fish I ask you to take a good long look into the impact we've had on global fisheries.

fiblye 8y ago
In terms of environmental sustainability, chicken is the best value of any meat. It's about as an efficient feed:meat ratio as you can get, their waste is reusable, and they're certainly not going extinct. The moral problem, though, is it takes more chicken deaths to get an equal amount of meat as almost any other farm animal. One cow gives you as much meat as a few hundred chickens, so you're killing hundreds more chickens each year to feed a family than if you fed them beef. So if you are eating meat (I do) and you want to try being ethical about it, total environmental harm and total death numbers are generally on polar opposite sides. Justifying regular animal consumption in any environmental or ethical sense is pretty much impossible, unless people start eating exclusively overpopulated invasive species--but cannibalism generally isn't socially acceptable. :)
- TarpitCarnivore 8y ago
  > Justifying regular animal consumption in any environmental or ethical sense is pretty much impossible My issue is most people overlook the impact we've had on fisheries. It's much harder for fish populations to get back to where they need to be without massive regulation. Which is extremely hard on a global scale considering the economical impact it can have on some areas. The PBS documentary "Fish on my Plate" (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-fish-on-my-plate/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-fish-on-my-plate...) goes over this a bit in various ways, but one story they highlight is how Peru fixed their anchovy problem. Never mind the issue of byproduct waste when it comes to line & trolling boats. Raising chickens & cows have an impact, but byproduct kill has an entire ecosystem impact.

xoa 8y ago

My answer comes from the perspective of a vegetarian who is so just because I don't like meat, though of course most of my family and friends do a great deal, I've helped out farming, and I can appreciate the artistry and human ingenuity that has gone into production and preparation over the millennia. I have no moral objection to it, but neither would it bother me if it wasn't on the menu as long as other good options were. >How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? Sincere answer: I don't see how this is the slightest bit different from "how can you be against rampant pollution but still use a computer" or "how can you be against torture but still support a police force" or "how can you be against war crimes but still support going to war" or any of an endless number of scenarios where unpleasant choices must be made but harm reduction can still be practiced. I think you've either set up a false dichotomy and argument from perfection, or you're engaging in circular definitions by saying "cruelty" is literally "any consumption of meat" as opposed to most people seeing a line between wanton cruelty and merely raising something to kill it in a more humane way. >There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause. I don't consider a single one of those ethical considerations inherent to meat, they're market failures that we should working on correcting themselves (and preferably as part of a larger framework addressing the same issues everywhere). Global warming could have been entirely prevented with a proper carbon pricing scheme and could still be heavily reduced with one (though some sort of tax is now needed as well to deal with previous externalities). The "value" of land use and resource use is highly subjective, so long as we're pricing in the costs properly it should be up to individuals how they want to spend their extra income. Meat could well be a luxury, but we have lots of luxuries and I strongly dislike the game of "my luxury is more moral then yours!" which is inevitably an argument on a foundation of sand and makes everyone rightly angry to no purpose. Maybe you honestly don't mean it that way, and I don't wish to attack your character and would certainly be interested in reading your replies as well. But over the years I've found lines of questioning like yours to often be weak self-justification to come up with "rational arguments" about something where really the person just feels it's yucky and doesn't like it themselves. But "ban this because I think it's yucky" doesn't generally work except for dictators, so they post hoc find something else, but rather then simply trying to deal with the actual objective problems they find as reasons they loop that back to arguing against what they find yucky. I'm not saying that makes someone a bad person either! Humans do that sort of reasoning a lot, finding justifications for how they really wanted to act anyway, I know I fall into that trap with some regularity and possibly always will. But I still think it's worth trying to step back and consider what problem you're really trying to solve and being honest about that. Oppose "cruelty"? This will probably be the hardest because it gets into highly subjective arguments, but there is some level here that basically everyone can agree on even at cost so find that and require it. Oppose carbon (or equivalent) release? Support putting a price on that equivalent to the cost of removing it industrially plus margin. Worried about pollution? Require water leaving farms to have equivalent levels of contaminants as water entering (including rain). Etc. But if you take all that and then come up with "all of you should stop eating meat" people, formally or not, will have a sense you're talking BS and hear "I don't like what you like conform to me" because there are other solutions to the stated goals.

deialtrous 8y ago

>How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? Because those are two separate questions. I eat meat from animals I raised and killed. I know there was no cruelty involved. I do not eat meat from stores or restaurants since they will almost certainly have involved cruelty. >There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause. None of those considerations actually are arguments in favor of veganism. They are red herrings vegans use to try to get support from people who care about the environment. All of the environmental arguments put forth for veganism are deliberately misleading and dishonest.

liftbigweights 8y ago

> How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat? What does one have to do with the other? Most livestock live rather comfortable lives compared to their wild counterparts. Less disease, less parasites and of course less predators. > This question I ask sincerely. I doubt it. Your question is as absurd as a plant lover asking how you can be against cruelty and eat vegetation? Vegetation is life. The fruit you eat is actually a plant's ovaries and uterus. How disgusting and cruel is that? Or ask a vegan why they have cats and dogs as pets. They are carnivores that eat meat. How can you be against cruelty and own pets? > There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause. Then why are you using a computer or smartphone? Do you wear clothes? It's made from cheap labor on the other side of the world? Do you drive a car or use public transportion? What about heat or the AC? Is your home cooled or heated? Why aren't so considerate? Other than to feel superior and virtue signal, there is no good reason not to eat meat. It's true that we eat too much meat, but we are omnivores. That's the diet we are meant to eat. Veganism is a poor and unnatural diet for humans. I was a vegan for a few months. I know the scam. Humans are part of nature. It is natural for humans to consume meat. That's why prey animals and livestock exist.

cimmanom 8y ago

By defining one's terms (for instance, I think factory farming is cruel, but that killing animals is not - provided the death is swift and as painless as we're able to make it) and accepting one's own hypocrisy. In my case, I simply recognize that I do not have sufficient self-discipline to remain fully healthy on a vegetarian (let alone vegan) diet. And that I'd rather be a hypocrite than sick or dead. And even acknowledging that, one can take measures to minimize one's impact. I consume a lot of eggs for protein and vitamins, and almost never prepare meat at home, though I'll eat it at other people's homes, restaurants, etc. I pay a little extra for pasture-raised eggs in the hope that those chickens have slightly less awful lives than the ones packed head to toe in barns. I eat dairy substitutes instead of actual dairy for many purposes (though not almond milk, which I dislike and is absolutely terrible for the environment). As soon as lab-grown meat becomes a viable substitute (within, say, double the price), I'll gladly switch to that. If you ask millions or billions of people to completely change their lives and eliminate something that they find pleasurable, all but a tiny percentage will either reject the idea outright or find they don't have the willpower to change. Willpower is hard; everyone has a finite amount of it in a given day; and we have to apply it constantly to a thousand other temptations of modern life. If you ask people to cut back a bit on things and make some compromises, you're more likely to get cooperation. And 50% of the population cutting their meat consumption even by 20% gets you a lot further than 5% eliminating it from their diet entirely.