5 ms·

You're not considering opportunity cost. Meat-as-food can be substituted with non-meat products which net lowers suffering. Since "animal" basically means "no

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.

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.