4 ms·

If you spend enough time watching nature videos like I do, you will notice that the vast majority of animals are eaten alive by their predators. It's slow, and

If you spend enough time watching nature videos like I do, you will notice that the vast majority of animals are eaten alive by their predators. It's slow, and exceedingly painful and it is ubiquitous. So even if plants were conscious, I honestly don't care. A bear would eat me alive in the most painful way possible and they wouldn't even think a second about it. Neither will I.

EvilEy3 5y ago
No-no-no, you're smarter™ so that makes it different™.
- guythedudebro 5y ago
  This but unironically.
greenshackle2 5y ago
That's not a very clever argument. Animals also routinely rape each other, fight and sometimes kill rivals, engage in cannibalism, etc.; that doesn't excuse humans committing murder and sexual assault anymore than natural predation excuses factory farming. I mean sure it's perfectly natural, sure, whatever, it's also perfectly natural if the rest of us decide to ostracize and/or throw you in jail for it.
shagie 5y ago
It goes all the way down... even the simplest animals (and where it becomes questionable as to what is an animal). Journey to the Microcosmos - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBbnbBWJtwsf0jLGUwX5Q3g https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBbnbBWJtwsf0jLGUwX5Q3g For example - a Paramecium hunter - https://youtu.be/yXiJ__5-tI8 https://youtu.be/yXiJ__5-tI8
matz1 5y ago
I don't care either, I draw the line between human and non-human. Anything you do on non-human is fair game to me. The only reason I may care about animal suffering is because the other human can get angry can cause me trouble.
- Falling3 5y ago
  Why do you draw the line there? And that means you're okay with things like torture of animals and bestiality?
  - matz1 5y ago
    >Why do you draw the line there Simply personal preference. >And that means you're okay with things like torture of animals and bestiality? Yes
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > Anything you do on non-human is fair game to me. It might be wise to moderate that position by also objecting to people taking pleasure in seeing/causing the suffering of animals. You may not care about the experience of those animals, but you should still care what effect it has on the human who indulges that side of themselves. Similarly you should also care that humans are not excessively exposed to scenes of "necessary" animal suffering, whether that be abattoir workers or veterinarians. Having psychological counselling mandated and freely available for these professions would be an ethical improvement for the world even if it didn't reduce the amount of animal suffering at all.
  - matz1 5y ago
    >It might be wise to moderate that position by also objecting to people taking pleasure in seeing/causing the suffering of animals. You may not care about the experience of those animals, but you should still care what effect it has on the human who indulges that side of themselves. I wouldn't object to people taking pleasure in seeing/causing the suffering of animals, as long as its only limited to animals (does not harm other human).
beebeepka 5y ago
I knew exactly whete this eould go after reading that opening line. You just don't care.
inglor_cz 5y ago
"you will notice that the vast majority of animals are eaten alive by their predators" Technically the truth, because insects and fish are mostly eaten alive. But mammal predators generally kill their prey before they start eating it.
jfengel 5y ago
It's true that nature is pretty red in tooth and claw, and very, very cruel. But nature documentaries aren't really the best way to learn about it. They're designed to entertain rather than inform. They show an exceedingly skewed view of nature. They're also not a great source of morality. You're not a bear. In particular, you don't live among bears. You have a sense of conscience that's different from a bear's, as a consequence (both nature and nurture) of living a very different life from a bear.
dane-pgp 5y ago
There are potentially interesting questions here about The Limits of Obligation.[0] If killing animals is wrong, do humans have a moral duty to bring about the extinction (or at least genetic engineering) of all carnivorous animals? Probably not, but that begs the question: is killing animals wrong (given that it would continue to occur at roughly the same rate even if there were no humans in the world)? One way to approach questions of moral obligation is to consider the actions of the median person. As an example, we could simplistically say that someone who emits more than the median amount of CO2 is responsible for anthropogenic climate change, whereas someone who emits less is not responsible for it. In the case of animals and humans eating each other, though, the set of agents being considered might have to be the set of all animals on Earth. Under that analysis, since there are apparently 21 quadrillion spiders alive on the Earth today[1], the vast majority of which are exclusively carnivorous, any human who obtains some of their calorie intake from plants is less carnivorous than the median animal. [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2215174 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2215174 [1] https://www.allthingsnature.org/how-many-spiders-are-there-in-the-wild.htm https://www.allthingsnature.org/how-many-spiders-are-there-i...
- morelisp 5y ago
  > killing animals... would continue to occur at roughly the same rate even if there were no humans in the world Would it? Maybe in absolute terms when you include insects, but it's less clear if you talk about specific taxa. >50e9 chickens per year are slaughtered (and most don't have great lives before that), which is comparable to low-end estimates of the total number of wild birds on the planet (https://www.dw.com/en/50-billion-birds-live-on-earth-new-study-finds/a-57564439 https://www.dw.com/en/50-billion-birds-live-on-earth-new-stu...). It seems likely that humans kill more chickens pa than non-humans kill all other birds combined.
  - HKH2 5y ago
    If there were no humans, other animals would take over where humans are now. There would be more prolonged dying at the very least.

EvilEy3 5y ago

No-no-no, you're smarter™ so that makes it different™.

guythedudebro 5y ago
This but unironically.

greenshackle2 5y ago

That's not a very clever argument. Animals also routinely rape each other, fight and sometimes kill rivals, engage in cannibalism, etc.; that doesn't excuse humans committing murder and sexual assault anymore than natural predation excuses factory farming. I mean sure it's perfectly natural, sure, whatever, it's also perfectly natural if the rest of us decide to ostracize and/or throw you in jail for it.

shagie 5y ago

It goes all the way down... even the simplest animals (and where it becomes questionable as to what is an animal). Journey to the Microcosmos - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBbnbBWJtwsf0jLGUwX5Q3g https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBbnbBWJtwsf0jLGUwX5Q3g For example - a Paramecium hunter - https://youtu.be/yXiJ__5-tI8 https://youtu.be/yXiJ__5-tI8

matz1 5y ago

I don't care either, I draw the line between human and non-human. Anything you do on non-human is fair game to me. The only reason I may care about animal suffering is because the other human can get angry can cause me trouble.

Falling3 5y ago
Why do you draw the line there? And that means you're okay with things like torture of animals and bestiality?
- matz1 5y ago
  >Why do you draw the line there Simply personal preference. >And that means you're okay with things like torture of animals and bestiality? Yes
dane-pgp 5y ago
> Anything you do on non-human is fair game to me. It might be wise to moderate that position by also objecting to people taking pleasure in seeing/causing the suffering of animals. You may not care about the experience of those animals, but you should still care what effect it has on the human who indulges that side of themselves. Similarly you should also care that humans are not excessively exposed to scenes of "necessary" animal suffering, whether that be abattoir workers or veterinarians. Having psychological counselling mandated and freely available for these professions would be an ethical improvement for the world even if it didn't reduce the amount of animal suffering at all.
- matz1 5y ago
  >It might be wise to moderate that position by also objecting to people taking pleasure in seeing/causing the suffering of animals. You may not care about the experience of those animals, but you should still care what effect it has on the human who indulges that side of themselves. I wouldn't object to people taking pleasure in seeing/causing the suffering of animals, as long as its only limited to animals (does not harm other human).

beebeepka 5y ago

I knew exactly whete this eould go after reading that opening line. You just don't care.

inglor_cz 5y ago

"you will notice that the vast majority of animals are eaten alive by their predators" Technically the truth, because insects and fish are mostly eaten alive. But mammal predators generally kill their prey before they start eating it.

jfengel 5y ago

It's true that nature is pretty red in tooth and claw, and very, very cruel. But nature documentaries aren't really the best way to learn about it. They're designed to entertain rather than inform. They show an exceedingly skewed view of nature. They're also not a great source of morality. You're not a bear. In particular, you don't live among bears. You have a sense of conscience that's different from a bear's, as a consequence (both nature and nurture) of living a very different life from a bear.

dane-pgp 5y ago

There are potentially interesting questions here about The Limits of Obligation.[0] If killing animals is wrong, do humans have a moral duty to bring about the extinction (or at least genetic engineering) of all carnivorous animals? Probably not, but that begs the question: is killing animals wrong (given that it would continue to occur at roughly the same rate even if there were no humans in the world)? One way to approach questions of moral obligation is to consider the actions of the median person. As an example, we could simplistically say that someone who emits more than the median amount of CO2 is responsible for anthropogenic climate change, whereas someone who emits less is not responsible for it. In the case of animals and humans eating each other, though, the set of agents being considered might have to be the set of all animals on Earth. Under that analysis, since there are apparently 21 quadrillion spiders alive on the Earth today[1], the vast majority of which are exclusively carnivorous, any human who obtains some of their calorie intake from plants is less carnivorous than the median animal. [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2215174 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2215174 [1] https://www.allthingsnature.org/how-many-spiders-are-there-in-the-wild.htm https://www.allthingsnature.org/how-many-spiders-are-there-i...

morelisp 5y ago
> killing animals... would continue to occur at roughly the same rate even if there were no humans in the world Would it? Maybe in absolute terms when you include insects, but it's less clear if you talk about specific taxa. >50e9 chickens per year are slaughtered (and most don't have great lives before that), which is comparable to low-end estimates of the total number of wild birds on the planet (https://www.dw.com/en/50-billion-birds-live-on-earth-new-study-finds/a-57564439 https://www.dw.com/en/50-billion-birds-live-on-earth-new-stu...). It seems likely that humans kill more chickens pa than non-humans kill all other birds combined.
- HKH2 5y ago
  If there were no humans, other animals would take over where humans are now. There would be more prolonged dying at the very least.