11 ms·

Still a better usage of an animal life than eating them. I prefer to advance humanity, even minimally. If you put these numbers in comparison to animal farming,

by faebi 5y ago

Still a better usage of an animal life than eating them. I prefer to advance humanity, even minimally. If you put these numbers in comparison to animal farming, their suffering and their murdering, then it's absolutely worth it. For me it boils down to a simple set of questions. Would you murder 10'000 chickens to save your grandma's life? How about 10'000 cows? How about 10'000 rats? How about 10'000 rabbits? How about 10'000 monkeys? How about saving yourself? Your wife? Your child? Your children? Tens of humans? Hundreds of humans? Thousands of humans? I am willing to sacrifice an insane amount of animal lives in order to save anyone human. We could talk about reducing it, but I would agree only once we replaced the meat industry.

kj98uo 5y ago
Well, how many other humans would you murder to save your grandma's life? Or your wife, your children, someone you love? What about terminally ill humans who have < 1 year to live (assuming the particular testing results won't get skewed by their particular ailments)? How about prisoners sentenced for heinous crimes? What about humans who are "not productive"? People who have been sentenced to more than 10 years? You might draw the line at other species. Someone else might draw it differently to not do experiments on intelligent species like whales, dolphins and primates (who are used in lab experiments too). Or someone might include the categories I mentioned above in the list of test subjects. The big second question is the effectiveness of transferring the results of tests from animals to humans. Coldly speaking, while there are experiments that yield useful results on animals, there are also extremely pointless experiments that are done for the sake of doing. I won't go on and on but to your statement about " I am willing to sacrifice an insane amount of animal lives in order to save anyone human", would you do it to save Hitler (who is a proxy for someone who, maybe, you should think twice about saving)? I agree with you about replacing the meat industry but we can do multiple things as a species at the same time. We can work on replacing the meat industry, working on alternate ways of testing drugs, on understanding animal communications and language (and we keep finding new indicators of intelligence) and on reducing our footprint as we get technologically and hopefully culturally more sophisticated.
endisneigh 5y ago
I don’t understand, you’re willing to kill tens of thousands of animals to save a single person, but are against meat consumption- an activity that inherently provides nutrients to sustain a human life?
- mjburgess 5y ago
  You're not considering opportunity cost. Meat-as-food can be substituted with non-meat products which net lowers suffering. Since "animal" basically means "non-human" in the case of "animal testing", by definition, there is no substitute which net lowers suffering. Humans suffer as least as much as non-human animals.
  - eigenket 5y ago
    Also the way trophic levels work humans eating plants is way more efficient as a system than humans eating animals that eat the plants. Humans eating animals eating plants is an ecological disaster.
    - _Microft 5y ago
      Add another level of indirection to make it even worse, that is by eating predators that eat other animals. Tuna fish are an example for this.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      Having too many humans on this earth is more of an ecological disaster than eating animals is. Plenty of animals eat only or mostly meat, and they aren’t causing any ecological disasters.
      - eigenket 5y ago
        As a human you have a choice about how much of an ecological disaster you, personally, are going to be. That is the privilege and responsibility of sapience. Its worth emphasising that many animals and their eating habits are also ecological disasters. Cats, cane toads and rabbits come to mind.
bambax 5y ago
> I am willing to sacrifice an insane amount of animal lives in order to save anyone human. That is insane, and psychopathic. But it is shared by many (most?) humans. The result will be that there will be no animals left, and soon afterwards, no humans left either. Another question is, how many humans are you willing to sacrifice to save your wife? Your child? Is your child worth a specific number of human lives, in your eyes? And what is that number?
- cogman10 5y ago
  > The result will be that there will be no animals left, and soon afterwards, no humans left either. This is illogical. Humans have been eating animals since the dawn of civilization. We've been using animals in experiments for centuries. There are still animals to eat and use in experiments. Why? because animals reproduce. There aren't a fixed number of animals. We only lose species when we kill faster then they reproduce. For experiments and food, that's an impossibility. We bread to accommodate demand.
  - Glavnokoman 5y ago
    OK. We'll be only left with food animals and even those will be replaced soon with some salad cause the popular opinion it that this is more effective. I believe this is going to be a sad place and we are getting there quite fast now, cause for centuries the population was much smaller. And yet humans managed to depopulate vast areas.
  - kj98uo 5y ago
    That's like saying humans have been enslaving (among other things. this is just one example) other humans since the dawn of civilization and on a large scale, that didn't stop the growth of art, culture, science etc. But our ethics progress and evolve. Similarly, treating other species as commodities for our consumption has been done for millennia but it doesn't mean we should keep doing it.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > That is insane, and psychopathic. But it is shared by many (most?) humans. Is that not a contradiction? When you find yourself thinking that the majority of humans are the abnormal ones...
adrianN 5y ago
I think the question is not whether people are willing to kill large numbers of animals to save a couple of humans, but whether we might have alternative methods that also save the humans, but with fewer dead animals. I mean, if we had no alternatives to eating animals, there would be far fewer vegans.
lettergram 5y ago
I agree with you on medical research. Particularly how many animals you’d be willing to sacrifice. That being said and with respect, I think you are misrepresenting and lack some understanding... some alternatives to consider. 1) humans are built to consume meat. Yes we can manage alternatives, but it’s not really all that healthy (I know some people claim with a lot of work and expense it’s possible to be healthy...) 2) farms producing beans and grain require a large amount of pesticides, arguably far worse for the environment and humans. Pesticides have been the #1 killer of living creatures 3) animals can eat a diverse set of food, so cattle farms, etc have more biodiversity than row crop 4) many cattle, elk, etc farms, are particularly humane. I recently purchased a grass fed cattle farm and everything I need is onsite. Cattle just roam, drink from the springs, get medicine, have calf’s, etc they seem very very happy. 5) if you have a lot of produce in a field, it’s essential to kill the wildlife trying to eat the field. I don’t think most people understand this, but if you have fields of corn you need to ensure bugs, birds and deer aren’t overly in abundance I would argue farms mass producing meat could be reduced or need to be changed. But generally speaking, I’d argue leaving chickens out and collecting eggs in the yard isn’t all that bad. Or letting cattle roam until right before butchering.
- Retric 5y ago
  1) It’s straightforward to be a healthy vegetarian, on net even in cultures that are largely vegetarian meat eaters are generally less healthy. Personally a really enjoy meat, but at one point I became vegetarian for a few months simply based on what I was eating. I accidentally ended up with a vegetarian diet with sufficient protein etc, which demonstrates how little effort it actually takes.
- miles 5y ago
  > humans are built to consume meat. Yes we can manage alternatives, but it’s not really all that healthy What Science Says About The Health Benefits Of Plant-Based Diets https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/what-science-says-about-the-health-benefits-of-plant-based-diets https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/what-science-says-ab... "A number of studies have shown that a diet low in meat is linked to longer lifespans. But the matter is far from settled, as some studies haven’t found a significant difference in life expectancy between meat eaters and vegetarians. "But there is growing evidence that plant-based diets are associated with benefits like lower blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar and reduced body weight. These improved health measures often translate to less risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and other diseases. Eating more whole, plant-based foods could help lower the risk of some health conditions, and might even help people live longer. But researchers also suspect that vegetarians are more health-conscious overall — so, they’re likely to be drinking and smoking less and moving their bodies more than the general population — which complicates some study results. "Still, emerging research points to a potentially helpful role of plant-based diets in managing some chronic health conditions. For instance, some studies suggest that plant-based diets — veganism in particular — may help control rheumatoid arthritis."
valgor 5y ago
"I prefer to advance humanity, even minimally." - Part of advancing humanity is expanding our moral circle. Pointlessly hurting animals is not an "advanced" society.

by faebi 5y ago

kj98uo 5y ago

Well, how many other humans would you murder to save your grandma's life? Or your wife, your children, someone you love? What about terminally ill humans who have < 1 year to live (assuming the particular testing results won't get skewed by their particular ailments)? How about prisoners sentenced for heinous crimes? What about humans who are "not productive"? People who have been sentenced to more than 10 years? You might draw the line at other species. Someone else might draw it differently to not do experiments on intelligent species like whales, dolphins and primates (who are used in lab experiments too). Or someone might include the categories I mentioned above in the list of test subjects. The big second question is the effectiveness of transferring the results of tests from animals to humans. Coldly speaking, while there are experiments that yield useful results on animals, there are also extremely pointless experiments that are done for the sake of doing. I won't go on and on but to your statement about " I am willing to sacrifice an insane amount of animal lives in order to save anyone human", would you do it to save Hitler (who is a proxy for someone who, maybe, you should think twice about saving)? I agree with you about replacing the meat industry but we can do multiple things as a species at the same time. We can work on replacing the meat industry, working on alternate ways of testing drugs, on understanding animal communications and language (and we keep finding new indicators of intelligence) and on reducing our footprint as we get technologically and hopefully culturally more sophisticated.

endisneigh 5y ago

I don’t understand, you’re willing to kill tens of thousands of animals to save a single person, but are against meat consumption- an activity that inherently provides nutrients to sustain a human life?

mjburgess 5y ago
You're not considering opportunity cost. Meat-as-food can be substituted with non-meat products which net lowers suffering. Since "animal" basically means "non-human" in the case of "animal testing", by definition, there is no substitute which net lowers suffering. Humans suffer as least as much as non-human animals.
- eigenket 5y ago
  Also the way trophic levels work humans eating plants is way more efficient as a system than humans eating animals that eat the plants. Humans eating animals eating plants is an ecological disaster.
  - _Microft 5y ago
    Add another level of indirection to make it even worse, that is by eating predators that eat other animals. Tuna fish are an example for this.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Having too many humans on this earth is more of an ecological disaster than eating animals is. Plenty of animals eat only or mostly meat, and they aren’t causing any ecological disasters.
    - eigenket 5y ago
      As a human you have a choice about how much of an ecological disaster you, personally, are going to be. That is the privilege and responsibility of sapience. Its worth emphasising that many animals and their eating habits are also ecological disasters. Cats, cane toads and rabbits come to mind.

bambax 5y ago

> I am willing to sacrifice an insane amount of animal lives in order to save anyone human. That is insane, and psychopathic. But it is shared by many (most?) humans. The result will be that there will be no animals left, and soon afterwards, no humans left either. Another question is, how many humans are you willing to sacrifice to save your wife? Your child? Is your child worth a specific number of human lives, in your eyes? And what is that number?

cogman10 5y ago
> The result will be that there will be no animals left, and soon afterwards, no humans left either. This is illogical. Humans have been eating animals since the dawn of civilization. We've been using animals in experiments for centuries. There are still animals to eat and use in experiments. Why? because animals reproduce. There aren't a fixed number of animals. We only lose species when we kill faster then they reproduce. For experiments and food, that's an impossibility. We bread to accommodate demand.
- Glavnokoman 5y ago
  OK. We'll be only left with food animals and even those will be replaced soon with some salad cause the popular opinion it that this is more effective. I believe this is going to be a sad place and we are getting there quite fast now, cause for centuries the population was much smaller. And yet humans managed to depopulate vast areas.
- kj98uo 5y ago
  That's like saying humans have been enslaving (among other things. this is just one example) other humans since the dawn of civilization and on a large scale, that didn't stop the growth of art, culture, science etc. But our ethics progress and evolve. Similarly, treating other species as commodities for our consumption has been done for millennia but it doesn't mean we should keep doing it.
rootusrootus 5y ago
> That is insane, and psychopathic. But it is shared by many (most?) humans. Is that not a contradiction? When you find yourself thinking that the majority of humans are the abnormal ones...

adrianN 5y ago

I think the question is not whether people are willing to kill large numbers of animals to save a couple of humans, but whether we might have alternative methods that also save the humans, but with fewer dead animals. I mean, if we had no alternatives to eating animals, there would be far fewer vegans.

lettergram 5y ago

I agree with you on medical research. Particularly how many animals you’d be willing to sacrifice. That being said and with respect, I think you are misrepresenting and lack some understanding... some alternatives to consider. 1) humans are built to consume meat. Yes we can manage alternatives, but it’s not really all that healthy (I know some people claim with a lot of work and expense it’s possible to be healthy...) 2) farms producing beans and grain require a large amount of pesticides, arguably far worse for the environment and humans. Pesticides have been the #1 killer of living creatures 3) animals can eat a diverse set of food, so cattle farms, etc have more biodiversity than row crop 4) many cattle, elk, etc farms, are particularly humane. I recently purchased a grass fed cattle farm and everything I need is onsite. Cattle just roam, drink from the springs, get medicine, have calf’s, etc they seem very very happy. 5) if you have a lot of produce in a field, it’s essential to kill the wildlife trying to eat the field. I don’t think most people understand this, but if you have fields of corn you need to ensure bugs, birds and deer aren’t overly in abundance I would argue farms mass producing meat could be reduced or need to be changed. But generally speaking, I’d argue leaving chickens out and collecting eggs in the yard isn’t all that bad. Or letting cattle roam until right before butchering.

Retric 5y ago
1) It’s straightforward to be a healthy vegetarian, on net even in cultures that are largely vegetarian meat eaters are generally less healthy. Personally a really enjoy meat, but at one point I became vegetarian for a few months simply based on what I was eating. I accidentally ended up with a vegetarian diet with sufficient protein etc, which demonstrates how little effort it actually takes.
miles 5y ago
> humans are built to consume meat. Yes we can manage alternatives, but it’s not really all that healthy What Science Says About The Health Benefits Of Plant-Based Diets https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/what-science-says-about-the-health-benefits-of-plant-based-diets https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/what-science-says-ab... "A number of studies have shown that a diet low in meat is linked to longer lifespans. But the matter is far from settled, as some studies haven’t found a significant difference in life expectancy between meat eaters and vegetarians. "But there is growing evidence that plant-based diets are associated with benefits like lower blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar and reduced body weight. These improved health measures often translate to less risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and other diseases. Eating more whole, plant-based foods could help lower the risk of some health conditions, and might even help people live longer. But researchers also suspect that vegetarians are more health-conscious overall — so, they’re likely to be drinking and smoking less and moving their bodies more than the general population — which complicates some study results. "Still, emerging research points to a potentially helpful role of plant-based diets in managing some chronic health conditions. For instance, some studies suggest that plant-based diets — veganism in particular — may help control rheumatoid arthritis."

valgor 5y ago

"I prefer to advance humanity, even minimally." - Part of advancing humanity is expanding our moral circle. Pointlessly hurting animals is not an "advanced" society.