4 ms·

> Are respect for other conscious beings and experiencing "deliciousness" really on the same level? It is almost like I am the result of a lot of selection pre

> Are respect for other conscious beings and experiencing "deliciousness" really on the same level? It is almost like I am the result of a lot of selection pressure to perceive valuable nutrition as pleasant then be motivated to eat it. 9/10 mammals agree "If it tastes good, i'm gonna try and eat it" I think life and consciousness are sacred. I also think eating other conscious beings is a critical step in concentrating nutrients to enable us and other highly conscious critters to exist. If only the smallest spark of "consciousness" is required to have such moral implications then I have bad news about literally all food other than fruiting bodies (they enthusiastically consent!). All other plants just scream via chemical messages you can't hear. By default octopuses try and eat each other on sight too, I think they have established the precedent it is ok. Note that argument doesn't apply to most meat sources. Eating an octopus might be more ethical than eating a cow. Cows don't normalize eating cows. This is not an argument for farming of octopuses. That is a different ethical dilemma than just eating them sometimes. I'm not a vegetarian, but I don't see factory farming as ethical for a LOT of reasons. Meat should be a treat not a staple.

colordrops 5y ago
> 9/10 mammals agree "If it tastes good, i'm gonna try and eat it" Mammal behavior as an entire class is not a valid guide for our own behavior. Rape, murder, lack of cleanliness, stealing, and a host of other behaviors that most humans find abhorrent are common to most mammals. > If only the smallest spark of "consciousness" is required to have such moral implications then I have bad news about literally all food other than fruiting bodies There is no evidence that plants posess higher cognition or feel pain. Even if they did feel some modicum of pain, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that it's ok to arbitrarily cause any being to suffer, especially those that obviously feel tremendous pain and actively avoid your advances. > By default octopuses try and eat each other on sight So we define our own ethics and interactions with each animal based on how they treat each other? This is too relative and fraught with peril. We would never suggest that it's ok to hump dogs without consent despite them doing it to each other all the time. I would hope that we as humans don't use the animal kingdom in general as our moral and ethical guidance, and rather use our higher cognitive abilities to make choices that reduce and eliminate unnecessary suffering.
- blamestross 5y ago
  > There is no evidence that plants posess higher cognition or feel pain. Even if they did feel some modicum of pain, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that it's ok to arbitrarily cause any being to suffer, especially those that obviously feel tremendous pain and actively avoid your advances. Oh agreed. All consumption of organic material other than fruiting bodies is morally dubious. I'm looking forward to better meat-cloning bc cannibalism is the only way to truly ensure consent. > I would hope that we as humans don't use the animal kingdom in general as our moral and ethical guidance, and rather use our higher cognitive abilities to make choices that reduce and eliminate unnecessary suffering. Why not? Octopuses have existed and most likely have been intelligence and consciousness since around the time trees showed up. We are the ignorant newcomers to intelligence and consciousness in comparison. It seems overwhelmingly likely they know things we don't. In the same vein, at some point you can't claim an animal is intelligent and conscious without holding it accountable. Sure plenty of animals do things we shouldn't emulate, but none are so close our peers. Octopuses are basically one inefficient blood chemistry away from full uplift. At some point we have to trust them to be behaving in accordance to their own moral code.

colordrops 5y ago

> 9/10 mammals agree "If it tastes good, i'm gonna try and eat it" Mammal behavior as an entire class is not a valid guide for our own behavior. Rape, murder, lack of cleanliness, stealing, and a host of other behaviors that most humans find abhorrent are common to most mammals. > If only the smallest spark of "consciousness" is required to have such moral implications then I have bad news about literally all food other than fruiting bodies There is no evidence that plants posess higher cognition or feel pain. Even if they did feel some modicum of pain, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that it's ok to arbitrarily cause any being to suffer, especially those that obviously feel tremendous pain and actively avoid your advances. > By default octopuses try and eat each other on sight So we define our own ethics and interactions with each animal based on how they treat each other? This is too relative and fraught with peril. We would never suggest that it's ok to hump dogs without consent despite them doing it to each other all the time. I would hope that we as humans don't use the animal kingdom in general as our moral and ethical guidance, and rather use our higher cognitive abilities to make choices that reduce and eliminate unnecessary suffering.

blamestross 5y ago
> There is no evidence that plants posess higher cognition or feel pain. Even if they did feel some modicum of pain, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that it's ok to arbitrarily cause any being to suffer, especially those that obviously feel tremendous pain and actively avoid your advances. Oh agreed. All consumption of organic material other than fruiting bodies is morally dubious. I'm looking forward to better meat-cloning bc cannibalism is the only way to truly ensure consent. > I would hope that we as humans don't use the animal kingdom in general as our moral and ethical guidance, and rather use our higher cognitive abilities to make choices that reduce and eliminate unnecessary suffering. Why not? Octopuses have existed and most likely have been intelligence and consciousness since around the time trees showed up. We are the ignorant newcomers to intelligence and consciousness in comparison. It seems overwhelmingly likely they know things we don't. In the same vein, at some point you can't claim an animal is intelligent and conscious without holding it accountable. Sure plenty of animals do things we shouldn't emulate, but none are so close our peers. Octopuses are basically one inefficient blood chemistry away from full uplift. At some point we have to trust them to be behaving in accordance to their own moral code.