4 ms·

Would you prefer to get rid of billions of humans so that the remainder can continue to eat meat?

shard972 6y ago
yes
Lutger 6y ago
I know you are saying this because it sounds absurd, but in a way it seems to be kind of what we're doing right now, but slowly. The rich are eating the poor. I don't think the rich necessarily intend to, but in consumerist societies the consequences of our actions are so far removed from the moment of decision they usually don't even register for a lot of people, and surely don't make an impact on our ethical radar. As a moderately well off Dutch guy, I am one of those rich people, and I'm constantly finding out how I am consuming rather than using the earth. I'm losing trust in our society, it's like discovering we are governed by a bunch of children instead of adults. I guess I'm still naive at 40 years old.
- andi999 6y ago
  Can you elaborate? Generally poverty is on the decline, except for unstable countries is this what you mean with the rich are eating the poor (by them beeing not poor anymore)?
jokethrowaway 6y ago
Yes, but it would be more efficient to eat those humans for the planet.
imtringued 6y ago
Well, getting rid of them is one step too much, but yes, if you have fewer humans each human will be wealthier [0] and this does mean continuing to eat meat. [0] Assuming automation takes care of labor shortages, the only meaningful restriction is the availability of resources and less humans mean more resources per human to be exploited.
- spicymaki 6y ago
  > if you have fewer humans each human will be wealthier You have no historical evidence that the wealthy will better distribute the wealth once the population shrinks.
jojobas 6y ago
Would you prefer to live on Earth of ~1 billion who can enjoy their lives or an Earth of ~1 trillion confined to bunks and soylent? Eating meat allowed people to evolve and we're hardwired to strive to eat it. "We" are already diminishing in numbers, the problem is to stop at a reasonable number and make sure "the others" follow suit.

yes

I know you are saying this because it sounds absurd, but in a way it seems to be kind of what we're doing right now, but slowly. The rich are eating the poor. I don't think the rich necessarily intend to, but in consumerist societies the consequences of our actions are so far removed from the moment of decision they usually don't even register for a lot of people, and surely don't make an impact on our ethical radar. As a moderately well off Dutch guy, I am one of those rich people, and I'm constantly finding out how I am consuming rather than using the earth. I'm losing trust in our society, it's like discovering we are governed by a bunch of children instead of adults. I guess I'm still naive at 40 years old.

andi999 6y ago
Can you elaborate? Generally poverty is on the decline, except for unstable countries is this what you mean with the rich are eating the poor (by them beeing not poor anymore)?

jokethrowaway 6y ago

Yes, but it would be more efficient to eat those humans for the planet.

imtringued 6y ago

Well, getting rid of them is one step too much, but yes, if you have fewer humans each human will be wealthier [0] and this does mean continuing to eat meat. [0] Assuming automation takes care of labor shortages, the only meaningful restriction is the availability of resources and less humans mean more resources per human to be exploited.

spicymaki 6y ago
> if you have fewer humans each human will be wealthier You have no historical evidence that the wealthy will better distribute the wealth once the population shrinks.

jojobas 6y ago

Would you prefer to live on Earth of ~1 billion who can enjoy their lives or an Earth of ~1 trillion confined to bunks and soylent? Eating meat allowed people to evolve and we're hardwired to strive to eat it. "We" are already diminishing in numbers, the problem is to stop at a reasonable number and make sure "the others" follow suit.