3 ms·

> It‘s about cruelty towards animals and about sustainability. I think that should play absolutely no role in determining whether or not eating meat is better

> It‘s about cruelty towards animals and about sustainability. I think that should play absolutely no role in determining whether or not eating meat is better for you than a plant-based diet. It either is or isn't but animal cruelty and sustainability has nothing to do with that. IF we determine that more meat is better, we can totally focus and increase our efforts towards growing sustainable meat. This can be from sustainable farming or (more likely to be sustainable in the long-term) lab-grown alternatives. However, you cannot make this argument backwards, i.e. that we shouldn't eat meat because it was bad for the environment or the animals even if it was good for us. I get that some people think like that but it is not a "sustainable" argument for the majority of people to give up their potential health and brain capacity to save the environment or some chickens (if you want to take this to a hypothetical extreme). Note that I say this a "de facto" vegetarian.

PurpleFoxy 6y ago
How is it not reasonable to give up some things for the environment? Your health isn’t going to be doing so well if you don’t have a livable environment
- imagine99 6y ago
  Can I encourage you to think this through to the end because I see this argument so often. Never in human history has self-imposed restraint with regard to scientific exploration, possibilities and development given us any real advantage. The loser will be the one who practices that restraint of scientific exploration (not develop nuclear power, not go to space, not develop certain vaccines from stem cells). He will die out. The winner will be the one who ignores it, kills the other with atom bombs, has nuclear power, vaccines, super-soldiers and space habitats. And if the winner then comes to the conclusion that he might dedicate some of his energy and over-engineered super-brains to saving Earth and the environment, again, he will have a much bigger chance of success at this, too. You may well find this reprehensible but it is certainly axiomatic for humanity as a whole. As a whole, people will never accept something in the long-term that requires measurable and hard sacrifices from them. For a current example just look at how hard it is to convince people to stay in lockdown (and those benefits are arguably much more obvious and immediate than "effects on the environment"). The answer to your second statement is more obvious still: If my health (and brain capacity, for arguments sake) is increased, I will have the ability to solve the other problems in the way that we humans traditionally solve problems outside of dogmatic and religious spaces: By scientific advancement. Why should potentially limit my brain capacity and health to have a shorter lifespan in a potentially slightly more liveable environment? That makes no sense, sorry. Only if we all (including scientists, investors and innovators) live longer and healthier lives, then there will be both incentive and opportunity to solve problems of the environment in a way that does not require personal sacrifice (think carbon capture, lab-grown meat, becoming an interplanetary species and growing meat on asteroids if you want to take it that far) ;-)
mkoubaa 6y ago
I agree, whether or not meat is good or bad for you is a question that shouldn't consider environment impact. Questions like: Whether one should eat meat, whether the government should enact policies which discourage meat production, and whether we should invest in lab grown meat are questions that should consider cruelty and sustainability.

PurpleFoxy 6y ago

How is it not reasonable to give up some things for the environment? Your health isn’t going to be doing so well if you don’t have a livable environment

imagine99 6y ago
Can I encourage you to think this through to the end because I see this argument so often. Never in human history has self-imposed restraint with regard to scientific exploration, possibilities and development given us any real advantage. The loser will be the one who practices that restraint of scientific exploration (not develop nuclear power, not go to space, not develop certain vaccines from stem cells). He will die out. The winner will be the one who ignores it, kills the other with atom bombs, has nuclear power, vaccines, super-soldiers and space habitats. And if the winner then comes to the conclusion that he might dedicate some of his energy and over-engineered super-brains to saving Earth and the environment, again, he will have a much bigger chance of success at this, too. You may well find this reprehensible but it is certainly axiomatic for humanity as a whole. As a whole, people will never accept something in the long-term that requires measurable and hard sacrifices from them. For a current example just look at how hard it is to convince people to stay in lockdown (and those benefits are arguably much more obvious and immediate than "effects on the environment"). The answer to your second statement is more obvious still: If my health (and brain capacity, for arguments sake) is increased, I will have the ability to solve the other problems in the way that we humans traditionally solve problems outside of dogmatic and religious spaces: By scientific advancement. Why should potentially limit my brain capacity and health to have a shorter lifespan in a potentially slightly more liveable environment? That makes no sense, sorry. Only if we all (including scientists, investors and innovators) live longer and healthier lives, then there will be both incentive and opportunity to solve problems of the environment in a way that does not require personal sacrifice (think carbon capture, lab-grown meat, becoming an interplanetary species and growing meat on asteroids if you want to take it that far) ;-)

mkoubaa 6y ago

I agree, whether or not meat is good or bad for you is a question that shouldn't consider environment impact. Questions like: Whether one should eat meat, whether the government should enact policies which discourage meat production, and whether we should invest in lab grown meat are questions that should consider cruelty and sustainability.