5 ms·

I doubt it, but only because from a utilitarian standpoint, using animals for research purposes is not even a drop in the bucket. Humanity slaughters billions o

by chroma 8y ago

I doubt it, but only because from a utilitarian standpoint, using animals for research purposes is not even a drop in the bucket. Humanity slaughters billions of animals each year just because they're tasty. At least the research animals have some benefit beyond a single person's satiation. I do wonder how long it will be before people start vandalizing statues of historical figures because they ate meat.

kranner 8y ago
But why do you think attitudes to slaughtering would not change over time?
- chroma 8y ago
  I think they will, but only once compelling meat substitutes become affordable. Even then, I think most of future society's condemnation will be for eating meat, not for animal experimentation. By comparison: When people talk about the holocaust, they are mostly referencing the mass slaughter, not the relatively small number of victims of human experimentation. (Wow, this got off topic quickly.)
  - JamesBarney 8y ago
    Though it is brought up any time there is a discussion about the rules and hoops IRBs make researchers jump through.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Well anyone reasonable will recognize knowledge just not being the better alternatives like meat growth culture not being available. They might eyeroll at the "obvious" of "smoke is bad for your lungs, don't mix waste disposal and drinking water" not being able to do something hard isn't reasonable - we might grimace at amputations for gangrene but without suitable antibiotics. If anything they would judge those who don't adopt when it becomes viable.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> Humanity slaughters billions of animals each year just because they're tasty. It's very likely that people find meat tasty because it's nutritious, just as we find sugar and plant fats tasty. Your comment makes it sound as if eating meat is some kind of indulgence, like eating sweets. Meat is a rich source of protein and energy. We don't need any more justification than that to want to eat other animals. There are practical matters of efficiency and of the ethics of kiling animals at scale, in industrial farming, that are far more important and interesting to discuss than the nebulous idea of the morality of eating any meat at all. At the end of the day- many animals eat other animals' meat. Why is it any different for humans to do the same? >> At least the research animals have some benefit beyond a single person's satiation. I don't understand this. Even a chicken is large enough to feed two people. Larger animals can feed a family for several days.
- chimprich 8y ago
  > Your comment makes it sound as if eating meat is some kind of indulgence, like eating sweets. Really, it is. It doesn't make a lot of sense to eat meat from an efficiency point of view, or from the sense of impact on the climate. >Meat is a rich source of protein and energy. We don't need any more justification than that to want to eat other animals. I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. > At the end of the day- many animals eat other animals' meat. Why is it any different for humans to do the same? Humans plus livestock make up 96% of the biomass of mammals on the planet. Domesticated poultry is 60% of the birds. That makes us a special case in terms of impact, to put it mildly. From an animal welfare point of view, it's also different to kill a wild animal for food compared to shutting it in a cage and pumping it full of hormones and antibiotics for a few months before killing it.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
    The major driver of climate change is energy production and transport. We can reduce our impact by limiting those first, before we get to the food we eat. Everybody doesn't need to have their personal automobile or fly everywhere in jets that consume tons of fossil fuels at a time. Everybody doesn't need to go around with a portable computer in their pants. But everybody does need food to eat. Why would we first limit a fundamental need, before unnecessary technologies? >> I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. It follows because we need protein and energy. >> That makes us a special case in terms of impact, to put it mildly. That makes us a special case in the way we find meat to eat. But why are we a special case when it comes to eating meat?

by chroma 8y ago

kranner 8y ago

But why do you think attitudes to slaughtering would not change over time?

chroma 8y ago
I think they will, but only once compelling meat substitutes become affordable. Even then, I think most of future society's condemnation will be for eating meat, not for animal experimentation. By comparison: When people talk about the holocaust, they are mostly referencing the mass slaughter, not the relatively small number of victims of human experimentation. (Wow, this got off topic quickly.)
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  Though it is brought up any time there is a discussion about the rules and hoops IRBs make researchers jump through.
Nasrudith 8y ago
Well anyone reasonable will recognize knowledge just not being the better alternatives like meat growth culture not being available. They might eyeroll at the "obvious" of "smoke is bad for your lungs, don't mix waste disposal and drinking water" not being able to do something hard isn't reasonable - we might grimace at amputations for gangrene but without suitable antibiotics. If anything they would judge those who don't adopt when it becomes viable.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

>> Humanity slaughters billions of animals each year just because they're tasty. It's very likely that people find meat tasty because it's nutritious, just as we find sugar and plant fats tasty. Your comment makes it sound as if eating meat is some kind of indulgence, like eating sweets. Meat is a rich source of protein and energy. We don't need any more justification than that to want to eat other animals. There are practical matters of efficiency and of the ethics of kiling animals at scale, in industrial farming, that are far more important and interesting to discuss than the nebulous idea of the morality of eating any meat at all. At the end of the day- many animals eat other animals' meat. Why is it any different for humans to do the same? >> At least the research animals have some benefit beyond a single person's satiation. I don't understand this. Even a chicken is large enough to feed two people. Larger animals can feed a family for several days.

chimprich 8y ago
> Your comment makes it sound as if eating meat is some kind of indulgence, like eating sweets. Really, it is. It doesn't make a lot of sense to eat meat from an efficiency point of view, or from the sense of impact on the climate. >Meat is a rich source of protein and energy. We don't need any more justification than that to want to eat other animals. I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. > At the end of the day- many animals eat other animals' meat. Why is it any different for humans to do the same? Humans plus livestock make up 96% of the biomass of mammals on the planet. Domesticated poultry is 60% of the birds. That makes us a special case in terms of impact, to put it mildly. From an animal welfare point of view, it's also different to kill a wild animal for food compared to shutting it in a cage and pumping it full of hormones and antibiotics for a few months before killing it.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  The major driver of climate change is energy production and transport. We can reduce our impact by limiting those first, before we get to the food we eat. Everybody doesn't need to have their personal automobile or fly everywhere in jets that consume tons of fossil fuels at a time. Everybody doesn't need to go around with a portable computer in their pants. But everybody does need food to eat. Why would we first limit a fundamental need, before unnecessary technologies? >> I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. It follows because we need protein and energy. >> That makes us a special case in terms of impact, to put it mildly. That makes us a special case in the way we find meat to eat. But why are we a special case when it comes to eating meat?