6 ms·
I’m curious to know if you think the animals the west consume which cause disease are satisfactory.
by factotvm 6y ago
I’m curious to know if you think the animals the west consume which cause disease are satisfactory.
- modeless 6y agoNot if they are from wild populations, or raised in a way that they could be exposed to viruses from wild populations, or if they are endangered species.
- factotvm 6y agoI’m not sure being wild is a good indicator. I would think the opposite might be true wherein industrial farming and close quarters would cause more disease, just like how we talk about population density and covid-19. If you aren’t exposed to others, disease can’t spread. For instance, H1N1 didn’t start in the wild. And it didn’t start with an exotic animal. But it was a global pandemic. The only position you can safely hold is to not eat meat. A weaker position could be around the sanitation and care of stock and its preparation. But what you eat doesn’t matter, be it pig or dog or squirrel or bat.
- Dylan16807 6y agoI'd say that capturing wild animals, then keeping them in cramped unsanitary conditions, along with other species, is the worst possible option for disease. Industrial farming only does one of those three.
- factotvm 6y agoThat's a bit like the fallacy of relative privation: Because what the west does isn't as bad, they aren't culpable. Again, there was a global pandemic caused by pig farming just 11 short years ago, and everybody is still eating bacon.
- josephcsible 6y ago> there was a global pandemic caused by pig farming just 11 short years ago This is disingenuous. That was nothing like this pandemic.
- factotvm 6y agoNo it’s not. Nobody is saying that the 2009 swine flu pandemic was anything but that. It was a global pandemic. Don’t say seat belts don’t matter for us because the other car was a hatchback instead of a pickup. They were both still car accidents.
- Dylan16807 6y agoSure, but you need some threshold, otherwise you conclude you can never buy anything or see another person. "Buy no meat" is not fully safe either, so that's not the objective place to draw the line. And I'm not trying to make an argument about "the west", it's just about specific animals and ways to get them.
- factotvm 6y agoSo long as that threshold is based on science and not, “they eat weird stuff,” I’m okay with that. If the threshold is: has caused pandemic, then swine is off the table, pun intended.
- modeless 6y ago"has caused a global pandemic" would be a terrible threshold. The set of global pandemics is far too small to draw meaningful conclusions about risk. We have other data about viruses in animals that should be used.
- factotvm 6y agoYou’re missing my point. If the argument is: "We're in the middle of a global pandemic quite possibly caused by Chinese people consuming animals that shouldn't be consumed,” then I would like to be clear that swine should also not be consumed, as they too have caused a global pandemic.
- modeless 6y agoYou're right, I'm sure farming practices could be improved to help prevent pandemics. But it is false to say that all animals carry the same level of risk, and forgoing meat entirely is far from the only option to reduce risk.
- factotvm 6y agoHow do you quantify the risk, and where is the line drawn?