5 ms·

That can be solved. We can simply make factory farming illegal. We could cut out the factory farm middleman and raise, slaughter, or livestock ourselves. We c

That can be solved. We can simply make factory farming illegal. We could cut out the factory farm middleman and raise, slaughter, or livestock ourselves. We could have the state operate sprawling lab installations spanning thousands of miles. It would be true moral progress- reducing the need for animal suffering- the people would be uplifted and less immoral. When there is a moral society, there is a strong society. When there is a strong society- there can be world domination and the destruction of all geopolitical adversaries.

Voloskaya 5y ago
There is also a less drastic technique: Carbon tax. Natural meat production generates a massive amount of CO2 equivalent, this is currently free. I would be curious to see how much the ton of CO2 equivalent would have to be taxed for lab-grown meat to become competitive.
- qualudeheart 5y ago
  Carbon taxes are a good first step. I would prefer a “qualia tax” where suffering inflicted to animals is quantified using Dennettian heterophenomenology and category theory. From there we can assign a mathematical value to suffering imposed and calculate an appropriate taxation level. I once had a friend propose this over dinner when I was still living in LA. He himself was in touch with many of Dennet’s students.
  - atweiden 5y ago
    Doesn’t this imply any level of suffering, no matter how extreme, can be tolerated so long as we attach a market price to it? All the same, I’m sure it would fit in well with the general theme of the financialization of everything.
    - qualudeheart 5y ago
      No you can apply an infinite negative value/infinite cost and use that to bootstrap deontological ethics. You would do this in a mathematical system where only a single infinity exists since otherwise you might get some weird utilitarian algebra with infinities which would ruin the simplicity of deontology.
      - atweiden 5y ago
        But anything less than an infinite tax on animal slaughter would be akin to outright tolerating extreme suffering of a living thing so long as someone is willing to pay for it. I can’t see any difference between an infinite tax and just banning animal slaughter.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Why would you have a carbon tax on meat? Meat is renewable, all meat you eat comes from grass being grown. Tax the oil used for transportation etc, but why tax the grass?
  - Voloskaya 5y ago
    Forest has to be cut down (e.g. in Brazil) to create pasture land for cows to graze. More forest has to then be cut down to grow crops that serve to feed those cows. During their lifetime cows will emit massive amount of GHG in the form of methane. Beef has roughly 3% efficiency [1] (amount of energy consumed by the cow vs what is transferred to you when you eat it), the worst of any type of food, by far. For every kg of beef produce, about 60kg of CO2 equivalent is released. This is compared to 3kg of CO2 eq. per kg of tofu for example [2]. > Meat is renewable If by renewable you mean that it's a regenerating resource, sure. But how does that change anything with regard to GHG emission? Renewable process can pollute more than some non-renewable processes. Those are completly different issues. > but why tax the grass? The grass isn't taxed. With a carbon tax, you could buy grass and you would only pay an extra fee for the shipping that emitted CO2. But if you buy beef you have to pay for all the emissions of GHG that were necessary to get you that piece of beef. [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/1... [2]: https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/ https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impa...
niij 5y ago
That's exactly the solution I was looking for! The destruction of my geopolitical adversaries can't come soon enough, lol
- qualudeheart 5y ago
  Yeah I’ve come to believe you need global hegemony to truly abolish the industrial animal slaughter industry. Same with bitcoin mining or slavery. If one country doesn’t enforce the ban then everyone in the industry will move there and the mass animal slaughter gets to continue.
  - niij 5y ago
    Sorry, I took your original comment as parody. Why do you think transferring the ability to farm animals from private individuals to a state monopoly will help reduce suffering? Is there a precedent for this happening anywhere that had a positive result: either regarding factory farming or any concentration of power solely to the state?
    - qualudeheart 5y ago
      I’m saying the state operates meat production labs instead of traditional factory farms. The state can afford the risk of running such an operation because it isn’t tied to the market conditions a private business is. A private company couldn’t run a manhattan project or large welfare system either. Even if the state run business operates at lower efficiency it still can afford to take risks which a private business can’t.
      - niij 5y ago
        We're only discussing meat labs right now due to work in the private sector over the past handful of years. Government has played no role in this. The government itself subsidizes factory farming, as noted in other comments, via subsidies. Why would we want to hand over full control when they've done no good in this area at all? Our discussion here might simply be a proxy for the never-ending free market vs planned economy debate.

Voloskaya 5y ago

There is also a less drastic technique: Carbon tax. Natural meat production generates a massive amount of CO2 equivalent, this is currently free. I would be curious to see how much the ton of CO2 equivalent would have to be taxed for lab-grown meat to become competitive.

qualudeheart 5y ago
Carbon taxes are a good first step. I would prefer a “qualia tax” where suffering inflicted to animals is quantified using Dennettian heterophenomenology and category theory. From there we can assign a mathematical value to suffering imposed and calculate an appropriate taxation level. I once had a friend propose this over dinner when I was still living in LA. He himself was in touch with many of Dennet’s students.
- atweiden 5y ago
  Doesn’t this imply any level of suffering, no matter how extreme, can be tolerated so long as we attach a market price to it? All the same, I’m sure it would fit in well with the general theme of the financialization of everything.
  - qualudeheart 5y ago
    No you can apply an infinite negative value/infinite cost and use that to bootstrap deontological ethics. You would do this in a mathematical system where only a single infinity exists since otherwise you might get some weird utilitarian algebra with infinities which would ruin the simplicity of deontology.
    - atweiden 5y ago
      But anything less than an infinite tax on animal slaughter would be akin to outright tolerating extreme suffering of a living thing so long as someone is willing to pay for it. I can’t see any difference between an infinite tax and just banning animal slaughter.
Jensson 5y ago
Why would you have a carbon tax on meat? Meat is renewable, all meat you eat comes from grass being grown. Tax the oil used for transportation etc, but why tax the grass?
- Voloskaya 5y ago
  Forest has to be cut down (e.g. in Brazil) to create pasture land for cows to graze. More forest has to then be cut down to grow crops that serve to feed those cows. During their lifetime cows will emit massive amount of GHG in the form of methane. Beef has roughly 3% efficiency [1] (amount of energy consumed by the cow vs what is transferred to you when you eat it), the worst of any type of food, by far. For every kg of beef produce, about 60kg of CO2 equivalent is released. This is compared to 3kg of CO2 eq. per kg of tofu for example [2]. > Meat is renewable If by renewable you mean that it's a regenerating resource, sure. But how does that change anything with regard to GHG emission? Renewable process can pollute more than some non-renewable processes. Those are completly different issues. > but why tax the grass? The grass isn't taxed. With a carbon tax, you could buy grass and you would only pay an extra fee for the shipping that emitted CO2. But if you buy beef you have to pay for all the emissions of GHG that were necessary to get you that piece of beef. [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/1... [2]: https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/ https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impa...

niij 5y ago

That's exactly the solution I was looking for! The destruction of my geopolitical adversaries can't come soon enough, lol

qualudeheart 5y ago
Yeah I’ve come to believe you need global hegemony to truly abolish the industrial animal slaughter industry. Same with bitcoin mining or slavery. If one country doesn’t enforce the ban then everyone in the industry will move there and the mass animal slaughter gets to continue.
- niij 5y ago
  Sorry, I took your original comment as parody. Why do you think transferring the ability to farm animals from private individuals to a state monopoly will help reduce suffering? Is there a precedent for this happening anywhere that had a positive result: either regarding factory farming or any concentration of power solely to the state?
  - qualudeheart 5y ago
    I’m saying the state operates meat production labs instead of traditional factory farms. The state can afford the risk of running such an operation because it isn’t tied to the market conditions a private business is. A private company couldn’t run a manhattan project or large welfare system either. Even if the state run business operates at lower efficiency it still can afford to take risks which a private business can’t.
    - niij 5y ago
      We're only discussing meat labs right now due to work in the private sector over the past handful of years. Government has played no role in this. The government itself subsidizes factory farming, as noted in other comments, via subsidies. Why would we want to hand over full control when they've done no good in this area at all? Our discussion here might simply be a proxy for the never-ending free market vs planned economy debate.