15 ms·

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

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.
- cheese_goddess 5y ago
  But why should we absolutely "lower net suffering"? Giving birth causes intense agony to the mother, but where are the hordes of humans advocating for the end of suffering, demanding that we put an end to natural births?
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    Because they believe that the net suffering is reduced by the joy being brought into the world via the birth. And there are people who believe we should stop giving birth and let our species die. They are antinatalists. I think they are too extreme, imho, but you asked where they are: just google them.
    - cheese_goddess 5y ago
      To be clear, I asked where are the hordes of people demanding that we put an end to natural births, not all births, ever. > Because they believe that the net suffering is reduced by the joy being brought into the world via the birth. Sorry, who believes that?
      - sweetheart 5y ago
        Anyone who thinks there will be more joy in the world than suffering, when they have a kid.
technocratius 5y ago
It does so, but via an inefficient route (plant -> animal -> human instead of plant -> human), which causes huge sustainability and animal ethical issues.
- _Microft 5y ago
  Here is a useful link in case anyone wants to read up on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer...
- chr1 5y ago
  You can't eat the plants that are eaten by the animals. Not all pastures can be converted to fields, and converting the rest will actually reduce biodiversity and cause more sustainability issues.
  - _Microft 5y ago
    Only a fraction (and sometimes even tiny fraction) of the land is needed to supply the same amount of protein and calories when replacing animals sources with plant sources. That means that you actually will not need to convert all these pastures to fields because they are just not needed anymore. Here are charts that compare land use of different foods normalized per calorie / grams of protein: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-protein-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-protein-poore If you want to know more, type "land use" into the search box of https://ourworldindata.org https://ourworldindata.org and pick an article of your choice.
    - stickfigure 5y ago
      This is incredibly misleading. I live in a community with ranches and farms. The ranchland looks like nature. Other than cows here and there, it's wildland. Coyotes, mountain lions, hawks, and all sorts of wildlife abound. The farms are manicured flat with row crops, irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. Farming is vastly more destructive to the natural environment. "Land use" measured in abstract square feet is not a useful concept.
sweetheart 5y ago
Here is a simple video I recommend that anyone who is interested in the effects if animal agriculture on land should watch: https://youtu.be/QnrtRaM28cY https://youtu.be/QnrtRaM28cY It’s a really great intro to some of the common misconceptions

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.
cheese_goddess 5y ago
But why should we absolutely "lower net suffering"? Giving birth causes intense agony to the mother, but where are the hordes of humans advocating for the end of suffering, demanding that we put an end to natural births?
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Because they believe that the net suffering is reduced by the joy being brought into the world via the birth. And there are people who believe we should stop giving birth and let our species die. They are antinatalists. I think they are too extreme, imho, but you asked where they are: just google them.
  - cheese_goddess 5y ago
    To be clear, I asked where are the hordes of people demanding that we put an end to natural births, not all births, ever. > Because they believe that the net suffering is reduced by the joy being brought into the world via the birth. Sorry, who believes that?
    - sweetheart 5y ago
      Anyone who thinks there will be more joy in the world than suffering, when they have a kid.

technocratius 5y ago

It does so, but via an inefficient route (plant -> animal -> human instead of plant -> human), which causes huge sustainability and animal ethical issues.

_Microft 5y ago
Here is a useful link in case anyone wants to read up on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer...
chr1 5y ago
You can't eat the plants that are eaten by the animals. Not all pastures can be converted to fields, and converting the rest will actually reduce biodiversity and cause more sustainability issues.
- _Microft 5y ago
  Only a fraction (and sometimes even tiny fraction) of the land is needed to supply the same amount of protein and calories when replacing animals sources with plant sources. That means that you actually will not need to convert all these pastures to fields because they are just not needed anymore. Here are charts that compare land use of different foods normalized per calorie / grams of protein: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-protein-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-protein-poore If you want to know more, type "land use" into the search box of https://ourworldindata.org https://ourworldindata.org and pick an article of your choice.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    This is incredibly misleading. I live in a community with ranches and farms. The ranchland looks like nature. Other than cows here and there, it's wildland. Coyotes, mountain lions, hawks, and all sorts of wildlife abound. The farms are manicured flat with row crops, irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. Farming is vastly more destructive to the natural environment. "Land use" measured in abstract square feet is not a useful concept.

sweetheart 5y ago

Here is a simple video I recommend that anyone who is interested in the effects if animal agriculture on land should watch: https://youtu.be/QnrtRaM28cY https://youtu.be/QnrtRaM28cY It’s a really great intro to some of the common misconceptions