5 ms·

You make this about morality, but we feel pleasure when we eat nutritious food because this is how we can identify what we should and shouldn't eat. It is a mec

You make this about morality, but we feel pleasure when we eat nutritious food because this is how we can identify what we should and shouldn't eat. It is a mechanism that developed at a time when food was not plentiful and now that there is a lot more food to eat, it causes people to become overweight, because of course they can't turn off their sense of fulfillment and satisfaction from a plentiful meal! Nor their cravings for nutritious food. The food industry on the other hand takes very deliberately advantage of this human characteristic and stuffs its products full of ingredients that create a sense of pleasure withouth actually being nutritious: fat, sugar, salt and all sorts of taste, flavour and appearance enhancers (emulsifiers, colourings, flavourings, etc). Other animals are not any different than humans in that. If you've been around animals at all, pets or farm animals, you will know that when it's lunch time, they go absolutely crazy. Animals are wired to seek out the food that gives them pleasure just as much as humans are- and that's because humans are animals and our apetites are animal apetites. You make out the pleasure of feeding as all about morality, but it is a morality that is not grounded in material reality.

proc0 5y ago
Right, you are outlining the precise problem here. There is a direct line to a solution to avoid mass farming, mass suffering of animals, which is the moral issue at hand. Instead of taking the most straight path which is eating less, and avoid over-eating for pleasure to solve the moral issue, society has favored and indirect, aimless path which creates problems in its path... let's continue over-eating, rewarding that industry by buying more and more food, and as a result more farms are needed, more chemicals in our food are needed, and also more doctors and medicine is needed to treat the illnesses that arise in parallel. > Other animals are not any different than humans in that. If you're going to lower the bar that low, then let's just do mass farming, and who cares if cows and pigs suffer? Animals don't care about the suffering of other animals. Just look up what chimpanzees to do other chimp tribes (it's pretty gruesome). If humans are just animals, then all this talk about making animals suffer is moot.
- cheese_goddess 5y ago
  When you say "overeating", do you mean just overeating meat, or overeating in general? It sounds like you mean just overeating meat. But eating for pleasue doesn't mean eating meat for pleasure. For example, when I overeat it's usually pasta or fries and it's always vegan to boot (because I cook with olive oil rather than butter). So you can eat for pleasure, without eating any animal food and still overeat. My comment about humans being just like other animals is to explain that humans don't find pleasure in food because we are filthy immoral gluttons. It's because the pleasure we feel when we eat food is derived from our senses and has nothing to do with morality. Moral and immoral people are equally capable of deriving pleasure from food. And neither can "stop eating for pleasure" like you admonish in your first comment. In the same way that you can't turn off your sexual pleasure, you can't turn off the pleasure you get from food. Unless you damage yourself. > If you're going to lower the bar that low, then let's just do mass farming, and who cares if cows and pigs suffer? I don't understand what you mean. I said humans are animals. Why does that force us to do mass farming or ignore pigs' suffering? Also, why am I "lowering the bar"? The bar for what?
  - proc0 5y ago
    > When you say "overeating", do you mean just overeating meat, or overeating in general? I mean in general, which includes meat for the purposes of the current context (article). I understand we're not eating for pleasure on purpose, and we're 'wired' to do so, but I think it definitely has to do with morality. Monks and priests do a lot of fasting for related reasons, but won't go into that right now. > And neither can "stop eating for pleasure" like you admonish in your first comment. I think we can, but first to clarify, it's not that we HAVE to do it, but rather that if we are to be concerned about the suffering of animals to an extent that we advocate for society to change diets we should first worry about the quantity of food people eat before the type of the food (or at least prioritize it this way). People can gain lots of calories from carbs and that is a huge problem right now in society. I'm pretty sure people will eat according to their weight, so heavier people will also eat more meat. And yes, I think it's possible to enjoy food less (or enjoy healthier choices). This is just my observation here, but there is a correlation between weight and how much pleasure people get from eating food. I see ultra heavy people enjoy food in ways I seem to not be able to. It's absolutely an addiction which is somehow being enabled in society, even though it goes against the environment and public health. > Also, why am I "lowering the bar"? The bar for what? The bar for what we expect from people in terms of controlling their own pleasure as explained above. It sounded like that because animals can't control their impulses it is somehow justified for humans as well. If that were the case, I implied that it should also follow for cruelty. Animals can't control their cruelty, so why should we? It's the same line of logic. Not sure if that was your point, but some people do make that argument.

proc0 5y ago

Right, you are outlining the precise problem here. There is a direct line to a solution to avoid mass farming, mass suffering of animals, which is the moral issue at hand. Instead of taking the most straight path which is eating less, and avoid over-eating for pleasure to solve the moral issue, society has favored and indirect, aimless path which creates problems in its path... let's continue over-eating, rewarding that industry by buying more and more food, and as a result more farms are needed, more chemicals in our food are needed, and also more doctors and medicine is needed to treat the illnesses that arise in parallel. > Other animals are not any different than humans in that. If you're going to lower the bar that low, then let's just do mass farming, and who cares if cows and pigs suffer? Animals don't care about the suffering of other animals. Just look up what chimpanzees to do other chimp tribes (it's pretty gruesome). If humans are just animals, then all this talk about making animals suffer is moot.

cheese_goddess 5y ago
When you say "overeating", do you mean just overeating meat, or overeating in general? It sounds like you mean just overeating meat. But eating for pleasue doesn't mean eating meat for pleasure. For example, when I overeat it's usually pasta or fries and it's always vegan to boot (because I cook with olive oil rather than butter). So you can eat for pleasure, without eating any animal food and still overeat. My comment about humans being just like other animals is to explain that humans don't find pleasure in food because we are filthy immoral gluttons. It's because the pleasure we feel when we eat food is derived from our senses and has nothing to do with morality. Moral and immoral people are equally capable of deriving pleasure from food. And neither can "stop eating for pleasure" like you admonish in your first comment. In the same way that you can't turn off your sexual pleasure, you can't turn off the pleasure you get from food. Unless you damage yourself. > If you're going to lower the bar that low, then let's just do mass farming, and who cares if cows and pigs suffer? I don't understand what you mean. I said humans are animals. Why does that force us to do mass farming or ignore pigs' suffering? Also, why am I "lowering the bar"? The bar for what?
- proc0 5y ago
  > When you say "overeating", do you mean just overeating meat, or overeating in general? I mean in general, which includes meat for the purposes of the current context (article). I understand we're not eating for pleasure on purpose, and we're 'wired' to do so, but I think it definitely has to do with morality. Monks and priests do a lot of fasting for related reasons, but won't go into that right now. > And neither can "stop eating for pleasure" like you admonish in your first comment. I think we can, but first to clarify, it's not that we HAVE to do it, but rather that if we are to be concerned about the suffering of animals to an extent that we advocate for society to change diets we should first worry about the quantity of food people eat before the type of the food (or at least prioritize it this way). People can gain lots of calories from carbs and that is a huge problem right now in society. I'm pretty sure people will eat according to their weight, so heavier people will also eat more meat. And yes, I think it's possible to enjoy food less (or enjoy healthier choices). This is just my observation here, but there is a correlation between weight and how much pleasure people get from eating food. I see ultra heavy people enjoy food in ways I seem to not be able to. It's absolutely an addiction which is somehow being enabled in society, even though it goes against the environment and public health. > Also, why am I "lowering the bar"? The bar for what? The bar for what we expect from people in terms of controlling their own pleasure as explained above. It sounded like that because animals can't control their impulses it is somehow justified for humans as well. If that were the case, I implied that it should also follow for cruelty. Animals can't control their cruelty, so why should we? It's the same line of logic. Not sure if that was your point, but some people do make that argument.