5 ms·
The implication is that eating meat is not ethical, something most don't agree with.
by jojobas 6y ago
The implication is that eating meat is not ethical, something most don't agree with.
- jrvarela56 6y agoLike many other things in our economy, you're not paying for externalities. Others bear the cost. This is not ethical.
- jojobas 6y agoIf you mean carbon footprint, Beyond Meat appears to be on par with chicken and not much better than pork. Beef and lamb are worse, but I don't think this is the main ethics angle they're on.
- mikeg8 6y agoOthers bear the cost, only if the meat consumption supports the producers of externalities aka factory farms and CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations). If the meat you consume comes from small-scale, grass fed, local producers, there are no externalities (or fewer than cultured meat could produce) and thus eating meat can still be ethical.
- shlant 6y ago"thus eating meat can still be ethical" Most people who choose not to eat meat for the ethical reasons do so based on the foundational belief that killing another conscious animal for food is unethical. "small-scale, grass fed, local producers" do not negate that belief.
- foolfoolz 6y ago- driving a car 1 mile to school is not ethical: who mined that ore? drilled for that oil? - buying mass produced clothes is not ethical: who slaved for pennies to make that shirt? - having a smart phone is unethical: cheap laborers build the components in arrangements they can’t exit living in the 1st world is a world of hypocrisy. everything we do is possible because we have built on the backs of those less developed and outsource our costs so our living standard is high. i accept this, do all the things above, and eat meat
- shlant 6y agoMaybe I'm misunderstanding... It sounds like your position is "everything in the 1st world has a downside so why bother". It is certainly possible to live in a first world in a more conscious, less impactful way.
- austhrow743 6y agoAgreed on all fronts except for how this is somehow relevant to someone trying to be better. Like yes, we're pieces of shit, right. I'm at peace with it as well. Do we really need to drag others down when they try to rise above though?
- shlant 6y agoagreed. We have enough nihilistic, "all or nothing" thinking. There are almost ALWAYS ways to improve incrementally and the magnification of those improvements by many people cannot be ignored.
- sixstringtheory 6y agoI think it's important to keep in mind that people can improve the situations you allude to without extreme measures and/or complete cutoff. - if you're driving a car 1 mile each way, consider biking. consider biking one or more days a week, and use your car for the days you need to go on longer trips like for errands. - buy higher quality clothing from reputable dealers that try to balance out externalities. learn how to repair clothing that fails, or pay someone who specializes in it. bonus opportunity to support a local business and a worthwhile trade/specialty. - don't upgrade your smartphone every year. Apple iPhones can receive software/security updates for ~5 years. - try cooking or purchasing a vegetarian meal once a week. try a vegetable you've never tried before. try to find a way to prepare a vegetable you traditionally dislike until you find a way that is palatable to you. (edit to add: try growing some vegetables, even just a basil plant or sprouts on your windowsill)
- xvedejas 6y agoI agree with you that eating meat is fine and ethical, but I also think that finding new alternatives that compete with existing supply chains on sustainability and efficiency is also an ethical imperative.
- paulcole 6y agoHistory is full of stories of most people being wrong about something. Which side do you want to be on?
- jojobas 6y agoJust being a majority on a certain ethical issue doesn't make it wrong.
- paulcole 6y agoDoesn’t make it right either. Going to look back on modern factory farming (the source of the VAST majority of meat eaten in America) as something so abhorrent (Both for the process of it and the external costs) we’ll be embarrassed to tell our grandkids about it. Although as I’ve been downvoted for saying here before, if you’re having kids and grandkids, you’ve already done uncorrectable damage to the environment so go ahead and eat meat or whatever. Doesn’t matter at that point. I hope (but doubt) that killing animals for food (whether by hunting or smaller-scale farming) will also become completely unacceptable outside of very specific situations.
- __abc 6y agoSo I Believe I understand where you are going with the kids comment. At some point as a species we need to procreate, so what method / system would you recommend?
- paulcole 6y agoIf you’re alive today and care about doing something significant for the environment, don’t have a kid. That’s all there is to it. There’s absolutely no shortage of people who a) will think this is bad advice that doesn’t apply to them because they are very smart, b) just don’t care, c) don’t have access to birth control, d) just really want a kid, etc.
- jojobas 6y ago> if you’re having kids and grandkids, you’ve already done uncorrectable damage Evolutionarily speaking, not having kids just leaves the planet to those who does.
- ramraj07 6y agoMost don't agree with because for many it's part of their identity, it's what they grew up eating every day with their parents. To find their way of life being classified as unethical is jarring to say the least, so they put up a barrier to doing so. I do not find fault in that attitude either, to be human is to have emotion, and to feel a sense of belonging. For someone who grew up on barbecue that's hard to reconcile. However, a rigorous impartial analysis always categories eating meat as not ideal on both moral and ethical grounds. It probably has higher consensus among philosophers than climate change does with climate scientists. The irony is that I doubt all philosophers are vegetarian/vegan, so they themselves are probably the biggest hypocrites (or they have built up some system of ethics where being unethical on this is okay). I come from a country where even if you're not vegetarian, your dose of meat is a few pieces of chicken once a week. It was very straightforward for me to choose vegetarianism and even then I struggled with it. I have nothing but respect for someone from rural Texas who chooses to be vegetarian though; that is just infinitely harder.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mrfusion 6y agoJust from a diet standpoint. If I want to be somewhat low carb it’s a struggle to get full without meat.
- maxerickson 6y agoThat's convenience, which probably isn't the thing that decides the ethics.
- dvtrn 6y agoWhen you say struggle: is this a struggle finding alternatives in your local food markets or struggle committing to making the dietary changes?
- mrfusion 6y agoMaybe part ignorance, just not having ideas.
- theabsurdman 6y agoHurting animals unnecessarily is unethical. And since we don't need to eat meat to survive or even to be healthy, then we are just killing and hurting other beings for our own pleasure.
- mhh__ 6y agoRegardless of vegetarianism, meat farming isn't good for the planet as it stands.
- drngdds 6y agoMost people are wrong! By any defensible ethical system, it's wrong to kill sentient beings when you don't have to. This goes double when it's terrible for the environment.
- _sbrk 6y agoDefine sentient, and make sure you consider that plants react to pests, even if it is not in an animal way.
- shlant 6y agoit's very interesting to me how many people seem to have all of the sudden become very concerned about the perceived consciousness of plants. My question usually is: "Your interpretation of 'plant consciousness' and consciousness in general aside - do you personally see no difference between a flower and a cow?"
- jojobas 6y agoFlowers are typically not as tasty. Everything about ethics is man-made, whatever people agree is good for people is ethical.
- shlant 6y agoso you would treat a dog in the same way you would a blade of grass?
- buzzy_hacker 6y agoAre you saying that you actually believe it is by definition ethical to do things that society agrees is good for people (regardless of what actually is good for people or for animals)? Or are you saying that what society deems ethical (regardless of what actually is, in fact, ethical) tends to align with actions that are good for people?
- jimmydddd 6y agoCows are more like me. A flowers are less like me. So I'm biased against flowers because they are less like me. But I don't know if it's more ethical to act based on my bias.
- totetsu 6y agoMost of who?
- newacct583 6y agoIt is pretty clearly not. This is clearly a piece on marketing, and it seems abundantly clear that it's written from a detached perspective. "Ethics" is presented as an issue of opinion only, and the focus is on how Beyond Meat harnessed changes in that conventional wisdom to sell a product. In fact, I'd say someone who actually believes in ethical vegetarianism has more to complain about in this piece than you do. Basically: you're starting a fight. Don't.
- metrokoi 6y agoAnother implication is that ethical consumerism is profitable, which is debatable. Most "ethical" products are chosen because they are healthier, such as organic food or green cosmetics, not because they are more ethical. Remember Toms shoes? I doubt that "synthetic" meat will be proven to be more healthy than regular meat any time soon given that there is still a lot of debate over whether or not meat itself is healthy.
- temp-dude-87844 6y agoThe implication is that plant-based meat substitutes are seen by some consumers as a choice that fulfills their desires for ethical consumption; therefore, the lessons learned from the market fit and economics of plant-based meat substitutes are relevant to the larger context of ethical consumption.
- AgentOrange1234 6y agoShrug. Are ethics decided by popular opinion? Many folks regard vegetarianism as an issue of morality. The omnivore who looks deeply at our methods of meat production may well gain much to think on.
- justinpombrio 6y agoIt's useful to distinguish eating meat from the way most livestock is raised in the US. My understanding is that most livestock are raised in small pens, never get to go outside, and are physically debilitated in one way or another. In what would amount to animal cruelty if they were pets. I'd love to see statistics on the matter, though no one involved is incentivized to share information so I doubt there's much to find. Merely eating meat is one thing; participating in the factory farming system that produces the meat you find at the grocery store is quite another.