4 ms·

The irony I see is that people suddenly care about animals being killed for no purpose. Regarding your #2, no, it is not a necessity to raise and slaughter ani

by geddy 7y ago

The irony I see is that people suddenly care about animals being killed for no purpose. Regarding your #2, no, it is not a necessity to raise and slaughter animals. You can survive just fine on an entirely plant-based diet. It's detrimental to the world which is literally on fire right now. To add to this, there is no sustainable way we can raise them "more humanely" as the population increases and countries like China raise the demand exponentially. Factory farming exists for a reason. Regarding #3, there is no way to humanely raise an animal only to kill it unjustifiably. If we needed them to survive, that would be a different story. But we do not. #4, I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.

thrwaway69 7y ago
> no, it is not a necessity to raise and slaughter animals. You can survive just fine on an entirely plant-based diet. It's detrimental to the world which is literally on fire right now. Surviving purely on plant based diet and remaining in your top form will require more than stop eating meat and solving - Cost - Availability - Education and few more major issues. That is for consumers only, corporations have different problems. They won't suddenly disappear and if they did, it might become a problem for you indirectly through state. > the population increases and countries like China raise the demand exponentially. Population is declining everywhere except Africa and some odd balls. > there is no way to humanely raise an animal only to kill it unjustifiably. That depends entirely on you. Although I agree humanely way to kill is more of a need for humans than animals, it seems.
- geddy 7y ago
  Consumers need to be educated, you are right on that. But corporations will evolve like they always have - look at Nestle buying SweetEarth brands. Tyson entering the plant-based market. They will adapt and overcome. But it all starts with the consumer. >Population is declining everywhere except Africa and some odd balls Then why do projections put us around 10 billion people in the next 30 years? >That depends entirely on you It depends on individual morals yes, but on the grand scale of things, I don't think any sound-minded human would, without outside influence, find it completely alright to murder an animal. If you give a child an apple and a bunny, do you think they'd kill the bunny or eat the apple?
  - thrwaway69 7y ago
    > Then why do projections put us around 10 billion people in the next 30 years? I didn't mean population globally but China isn't contributing to it as much as you think it is anymore. > I don't think any sound-minded human would, without outside influence, find it completely alright to murder an animal. If you give a child an apple and a bunny, do you think they'd kill the bunny or eat the apple? Let's do an extreme take, giving apple is not comparable as it is [1][2] already 'murdered' compared to a bunny. A better comparison would be prepared bunny meat and sliced apple. Would you say the kid will choose one over other out of instincts? 1] https://m.dw.com/en/when-plants-say-ouch/a-510552-1 https://m.dw.com/en/when-plants-say-ouch/a-510552-1 2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligen... Just meant to illustrate that when we think of suffering, it needs to be visible for us to do something about it and see it as a problem. Buying meat from a grocery store doesn't help your perception, so I wouldn't blame people for not caring as much. I think it is hypocritical to neglect plants that can show stress and feel that they are being literally eaten alive and advocate for less suffering by asking people to eat them instead of meat but that's not pragmatic.
cyorir 7y ago
My take on point #4 is this: Humans have plentiful incentives to keep breeding domesticated animals (whether for food, pets, or whatever). So we will try to keep the population stable, and that helps prevent the extinction of these species (and accompanying loss of biodiversity). However, for undomesticated animals, the same incentives do not exist. We don't try to breed these animals, so the population is not as stable in the face of disasters like this (man-made or natural). The result is that undomesticated animals are more likely to face the threat of extinction (and accompanying loss of biodiversity). Just arguing against eating animals isn't sufficient. It would be beneficial to argue in favor of preserving biodiversity as well.
Can_Not 7y ago
>The irony I see is that people suddenly care about animals being killed for no purpose. There's nothing ironic about people being upset about a negligent waste of a massive amount of resources.
deanCommie 7y ago
#2 - I never said it was a necessity. I said it has PURPOSE. Which it does. It has value. Whether the value offsets the costs is a separate question. But that's why people are upset about an entirely purpose-less waste of resources #3 - That's an absolute statement. On a relative scale, there are farmers that raise and slaughter their animals more humanely than dying horrifically in a forest fire. I won't pretend a mass market slaughterhouse is more humane, but I just mean it is a sliding scale #4 - The death of 1 cow of which there is almost 1 billion worthwhile is not equivalent to the death of 1 koala, of which there are less than 50,000. All the cows we kill around the world do not endanger the cow species. That is not the case with koalas who may never recover from this fire.
- ehmish 7y ago
  Koalas probably won't ever go extinct, they may do so in the wild but they'll be plenty in zoos.

by geddy 7y ago

thrwaway69 7y ago

> no, it is not a necessity to raise and slaughter animals. You can survive just fine on an entirely plant-based diet. It's detrimental to the world which is literally on fire right now. Surviving purely on plant based diet and remaining in your top form will require more than stop eating meat and solving - Cost - Availability - Education and few more major issues. That is for consumers only, corporations have different problems. They won't suddenly disappear and if they did, it might become a problem for you indirectly through state. > the population increases and countries like China raise the demand exponentially. Population is declining everywhere except Africa and some odd balls. > there is no way to humanely raise an animal only to kill it unjustifiably. That depends entirely on you. Although I agree humanely way to kill is more of a need for humans than animals, it seems.

geddy 7y ago
Consumers need to be educated, you are right on that. But corporations will evolve like they always have - look at Nestle buying SweetEarth brands. Tyson entering the plant-based market. They will adapt and overcome. But it all starts with the consumer. >Population is declining everywhere except Africa and some odd balls Then why do projections put us around 10 billion people in the next 30 years? >That depends entirely on you It depends on individual morals yes, but on the grand scale of things, I don't think any sound-minded human would, without outside influence, find it completely alright to murder an animal. If you give a child an apple and a bunny, do you think they'd kill the bunny or eat the apple?
- thrwaway69 7y ago
  > Then why do projections put us around 10 billion people in the next 30 years? I didn't mean population globally but China isn't contributing to it as much as you think it is anymore. > I don't think any sound-minded human would, without outside influence, find it completely alright to murder an animal. If you give a child an apple and a bunny, do you think they'd kill the bunny or eat the apple? Let's do an extreme take, giving apple is not comparable as it is [1][2] already 'murdered' compared to a bunny. A better comparison would be prepared bunny meat and sliced apple. Would you say the kid will choose one over other out of instincts? 1] https://m.dw.com/en/when-plants-say-ouch/a-510552-1 https://m.dw.com/en/when-plants-say-ouch/a-510552-1 2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligen... Just meant to illustrate that when we think of suffering, it needs to be visible for us to do something about it and see it as a problem. Buying meat from a grocery store doesn't help your perception, so I wouldn't blame people for not caring as much. I think it is hypocritical to neglect plants that can show stress and feel that they are being literally eaten alive and advocate for less suffering by asking people to eat them instead of meat but that's not pragmatic.

cyorir 7y ago

My take on point #4 is this: Humans have plentiful incentives to keep breeding domesticated animals (whether for food, pets, or whatever). So we will try to keep the population stable, and that helps prevent the extinction of these species (and accompanying loss of biodiversity). However, for undomesticated animals, the same incentives do not exist. We don't try to breed these animals, so the population is not as stable in the face of disasters like this (man-made or natural). The result is that undomesticated animals are more likely to face the threat of extinction (and accompanying loss of biodiversity). Just arguing against eating animals isn't sufficient. It would be beneficial to argue in favor of preserving biodiversity as well.

Can_Not 7y ago

>The irony I see is that people suddenly care about animals being killed for no purpose. There's nothing ironic about people being upset about a negligent waste of a massive amount of resources.

deanCommie 7y ago

#2 - I never said it was a necessity. I said it has PURPOSE. Which it does. It has value. Whether the value offsets the costs is a separate question. But that's why people are upset about an entirely purpose-less waste of resources #3 - That's an absolute statement. On a relative scale, there are farmers that raise and slaughter their animals more humanely than dying horrifically in a forest fire. I won't pretend a mass market slaughterhouse is more humane, but I just mean it is a sliding scale #4 - The death of 1 cow of which there is almost 1 billion worthwhile is not equivalent to the death of 1 koala, of which there are less than 50,000. All the cows we kill around the world do not endanger the cow species. That is not the case with koalas who may never recover from this fire.

ehmish 7y ago
Koalas probably won't ever go extinct, they may do so in the wild but they'll be plenty in zoos.