4 ms·

> 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?)

by 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...
- kj98uo 5y ago
  Your argument is that the majority opinion is never psychopathic? Technically, if you were referring only to insanity, I might agree that an operational definition of insanity is anything that a majority of the population doesn't believe. But that doesn't mean the view is not psychopathic. This definition of insanity might also not be correct. After all, was Galileo insane because most people (assuming they followed the church) didn't agree with his views?
EvilEy3 5y ago
> 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? As much as it is necessary.

by bambax 5y ago

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...

kj98uo 5y ago
Your argument is that the majority opinion is never psychopathic? Technically, if you were referring only to insanity, I might agree that an operational definition of insanity is anything that a majority of the population doesn't believe. But that doesn't mean the view is not psychopathic. This definition of insanity might also not be correct. After all, was Galileo insane because most people (assuming they followed the church) didn't agree with his views?

EvilEy3 5y ago

> 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? As much as it is necessary.