4 ms·
Even if for some reason you don't believe that beef has a much worse environmental impact, or don't believe that this matters, I think it's hard to argue agains
by adrianN 6y ago
Even if for some reason you don't believe that beef has a much worse environmental impact, or don't believe that this matters, I think it's hard to argue against that cows are much more intelligent and much more capable of suffering than insects.
- aww_dang 6y agoIf empathy were the primary concern, perhaps the working conditions in Foxconn iPhone production lines or violence underpinning the petrodollar might rate higher on the list of concerns. Perhaps these issues don't offer the same performative opportunities to signal one's virtue. There's also the central planning aspect to consider. Sent from my iPhone.
- adrianN 6y agoThat's just whataboutism.
- infamouscow 6y agoCalling something "whataboutism" isn't a magic spell that actually refutes the points being made.
- totalZero 6y agoI think the point is a lack of rhetorical linkage to the body of the conversation.
- lurquer 6y agoNo it’s not. He’s pointing out an unspoken assumption that is incorrect. Namely, that a creature’s intelligence has any bearing on how they ought be treated. It obviously doesn’t. The most intelligent animal of all is routinely enslaved, overworked, and discarded. Thus, the assumption is not as universally accepted as many posters suggest. Arguing about the relative intelligence of insects or cows or dogs or horses or whales with the end of concluding by that we ought or ought not eat them is silly. If it tastes good, people will eat it. Likewise, if someone is good at making iPhones or picking cotton, that’s what they’ll be forced to do regardless of their IQ.
- Ygg2 6y agoWhat guarantees do you have that insects don't possess intelligence we aren't able to measure? E.g. how do you know that locust don't have higher cognitive functions. For example bees can count, disbelieve each other and are great spatial navigator.