4 ms·

> "For now aquaculture is the only available option." Wrong. I've stopped eating octopus. Of course, we can't stop eating every animal, even many that obvious

by bmitc 5y ago

> "For now aquaculture is the only available option." Wrong. I've stopped eating octopus. Of course, we can't stop eating every animal, even many that obviously feel distress and emotions, but we really need to draw a line on reducing and making sure that we raise or naturally hunt animals in a humane as possible way. Octopus is one I've taken a line on. Others still weigh on me. "Aquaculture" is being billed as the solution to ocean food and even as "green" and "sustainable", but it's going to be just like or worse than the Green Revolution, which continues to strip land of diversity and nutrients. Humans are hell bent on destroying this planet. Why do humans have a complete lack of an ability to say "stop, we're not going to do this anymore". Instead, we somehow view continuous growth and consumption as the only available option. It makes no sense.

nefitty 5y ago
I commend you for your decision. I want to add that framing my ideas about animal suffering in an elastic way makes it easier for me to make incremental changes. An animal is either alive or dead. Maybe eating vegetarian once a week will save a life down the line. I urge everyone to resist the all-or-nothing approach, especially on such an important aspect of our ethical choices. No one's perfect, not even the vegan straight edge kids on Instagram who sneak a chicken nugget when no one's looking.
- eindiran 5y ago
  The point of reducing your consumption is that the demand for animals is lower, so they aren't born in to lives of non-stop suffering.
- causasui 5y ago
  > I urge everyone to resist the all-or-nothing approach There is no other moral stance where someone could reasonably say this. Veganism is a moral stance the same way as "racism is bad" and "abusing my spouse is bad" is a moral stance. No one would ever say "I'm trying to limit kicking dogs to just Tuesday-Sunday". > vegan straight edge kids on Instagram who sneak a chicken nugget when no one's looking. You're projecting. Veganism is _not_ a diet.
  - zacmps 5y ago
    > There is no other moral stance where someone could reasonably say this. Veganism is a moral stance the same way as "racism is bad" and "abusing my spouse is bad" is a moral stance. No one would ever say "I'm trying to limit kicking dogs to just Tuesday-Sunday". I agree that this holds from an ethical standpoint, but from an environmental one reduction is perfectly reasonable and needs to be part of the conversation.
  - throwaway09223 5y ago
    The big difference is that racism and abuse invoke a social consensus. Veganism does not - the vast majority of society does not agree that veganism is a necessary, absolute moral stance. In fact, many would probably take offense at putting it on the same level of moral imperative as something like racism. We also routinely deal with non-absolutes on these types of subjects. It's extremely common for people to disagree with the appropriate level of anti-racism, or the appropriate level of respect with which to treat one's spouse. > You're projecting. Veganism is _not_ a diet. It's more than a diet, for sure. But I do know many, many people who aspire to veganism and who at times make concessions. I don't think less of them for doing so.
  - MathCodeLove 5y ago
    I disagree and your comparisons aren't accurate. A more accurate comparison would he to say its like "I'm going to ride my bike to work once a week" or "I'll pick up trash at the local park once a week". I don't have to view eating meat or driving my car an inherently immoral in order to recognize the objective negative ecological impact that those actions have, and to therefore want to engage in some form of harm reduction from time to time.
    - nefitty 5y ago
      Yes, excellently stated. That's precisely my original point. I intended to preemptively disarm the conversational decay that absolutes cause. I think there is a place for that, for example art or activism, but when speaking directly to another human, absolutes seem to place a lot of people on their back foot in defense of their current established decisions.
karpierz 5y ago
> Of course, we can't stop eating every animal Why? There are plenty of people who do.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Because most governments aren't going to use violence to stop you from eating meat. Until then people will eat meat.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  I can’t tell how true that is. I’ve certainly heard that a lot of people who claim to be vegan aren’t 100%. Are there any reliable studies on this topic?
  - anu7df 5y ago
    Not eating animals does not immediately get you to vegan. Human body is not designed for a vegan diet. However, eating animal products that don't kill the said animal, (milk, cheese, yogurt, eggs etc) is sustainable and feasible. Of course factory farms, which encourages over consumption, are not the way to go.. Not everything needs to be eaten daily. Also, things like 4 egg omlet with a mountain of cheese etc are an abomination. Consume in moderation and the production won't be a burden on the planet.
    - karpierz 5y ago
      The human body also isn't designed for vaccines, going to space, or doing math. Somehow, when we need the human body to do something, we find a way to make it happen.
      - anu7df 5y ago
        I appreciate the point you are making. Humans have ingenuity, for sure. But I have to disagree on a finer point. We do not know what the long term effect of vegan diet is. Supplements may work to an extent but may not be complete. To contrast with your examples, vaccines work with the body's natural defences and even there long term testing is needed to uncover unexpected side effects. Going to space is risky and even after controlling for all we can think of disasters happen. Not sure all of human race should embark on a risky mission of vegan diet without fully understanding the long term consequences. Morally I am ok with animals like cows and chicken bred for milk and egg. Your threshold is different and I get that too.
jazzyjackson 5y ago
> Why do humans have a complete lack of an ability to say "stop, we're not going to do this anymore". Because not doing things leaves you with a distinct lack of capital. Not dragging on capitalism, just being descriptive: those who act collect the resources to act more
- lancesells 5y ago
  I also think humans are curious. We want new things, new experiences to discover, etc. But also agree we should put the brakes on octopus farms. It's like a puppy mill for food.
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    Wait until you learn about hog farms then.
- bmitc 5y ago
  But what's the point? What's the actual need to continue to acquire more? Why can't we say enough is enough? You're just describing a mechanism. Oh, I know someone will respond with "who gets to decide what's enough?", but why is their answer to that, "well just let anybody do whatever they want"? The reason is the human condition for power and greed knows no bounds, and multi-millionaires and billionaires who like to play Sim City get to decide things for the rest of us. We're apes with technology and economics. I mean we still have orcas in nothing more than shallow swimming pools. Orcas are the size of school buses, can weigh up to 10 tons, are likely the greatest predator ever to be on Earth, one of the most intelligent and emotional animals, and we've kept one of them in a single tank, alone, for over three decades and has been in captivity for over five decades. Her name is Lolita and her last pool partner was in the 1980s, where he committed suicide by ramming his head over and over into the side of the concrete pool. Those two are just two examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(killer_whale) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(killer_whale) And even in that situation, we can't say to ourselves to stop. Humans are still keeping, capturing, and breeding orcas for nothing more than shallow entertainment. It's really sickening at times.
Tostino 5y ago
Yeah, i've not eaten much Octapus previously, but I had it occasionally in sushi or civeche that came with it. But I really can't continue to eat it even in that capacity in good conscience. Was something that I had thought about previously, but wasn't until I actually saw one while diving that I decided I couldn't continue eating.
- ArcticCelt 5y ago
  I've eaten Octopus in the past but didn't knew how intelligent those creature were until a couple of years ago. Since I saw multiple documentaries about them and read about them, I would now feel like a cannibal for eating them.
causasui 5y ago
> Of course, we can't stop eating every animal... ... > Why do humans have a complete lack of an ability to say "stop, we're not going to do this anymore". I'm trying to understand how these two statements were separated by only a couple sentences.
- bmitc 5y ago
  Unless you can invent life that doesn't require the consumption of other life, we're stuck with what we have. As far as I understand, humans have always eaten meat, including before fire was discovered. There's a certain biological component for being omnivores. Second, I am human too, you know. I'm made up of the same bullshit everyone else is. However, at least I try to question what I do and try and stop things, and I'm not hell bent on actively trying to make other humans' or animals' lives miserable. I'm still ashamed at the amount of waste and suffering I've brought by eating certain things or using certain products. Part of my point is that there are people in key moments that can say "enough is enough" but they don't. Usually because they know someone else won't say that and will just do it themselves. And so it goes. So my question, the second one you quoted, is somewhat rhetorical. We humans don't really possess the ability to be okay with enough. If we did, things would have been a lot different a long time ago. I'm a little curious about the reason why we don't though. There's something off about us. I think this is what you get when you give apes enough intelligence to build technology and societies but not enough emotional capacity and development to handle the consequences.
  - nefitty 5y ago
    Sliding into this subthread, this explanation you just gave of where you are is why I commended you upthread. I recognize your embrace of your own self-awareness and moral openness. I like people like that.
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    The original comment was in reference to animals specifically, not just life, so saying we need to eat life to survive and therefor must eat animals is incoherent. Also, for how long humans have eaten meat is totally irrelevant: doing something for a long time does not justify it. Human beings don’t require animal products to thrive, period, so those that eat them anyway engage in unnecessary cruelty against other sentient animals. The unnecessary part is the most crucial.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
asdff 5y ago
Aquaculture is really a hedge against terrestrial crop failures, and you will be glad we developed this industry today come 50 years of climate change from now.

by bmitc 5y ago

nefitty 5y ago

I commend you for your decision. I want to add that framing my ideas about animal suffering in an elastic way makes it easier for me to make incremental changes. An animal is either alive or dead. Maybe eating vegetarian once a week will save a life down the line. I urge everyone to resist the all-or-nothing approach, especially on such an important aspect of our ethical choices. No one's perfect, not even the vegan straight edge kids on Instagram who sneak a chicken nugget when no one's looking.

eindiran 5y ago
The point of reducing your consumption is that the demand for animals is lower, so they aren't born in to lives of non-stop suffering.
causasui 5y ago
> I urge everyone to resist the all-or-nothing approach There is no other moral stance where someone could reasonably say this. Veganism is a moral stance the same way as "racism is bad" and "abusing my spouse is bad" is a moral stance. No one would ever say "I'm trying to limit kicking dogs to just Tuesday-Sunday". > vegan straight edge kids on Instagram who sneak a chicken nugget when no one's looking. You're projecting. Veganism is _not_ a diet.
- zacmps 5y ago
  > There is no other moral stance where someone could reasonably say this. Veganism is a moral stance the same way as "racism is bad" and "abusing my spouse is bad" is a moral stance. No one would ever say "I'm trying to limit kicking dogs to just Tuesday-Sunday". I agree that this holds from an ethical standpoint, but from an environmental one reduction is perfectly reasonable and needs to be part of the conversation.
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  The big difference is that racism and abuse invoke a social consensus. Veganism does not - the vast majority of society does not agree that veganism is a necessary, absolute moral stance. In fact, many would probably take offense at putting it on the same level of moral imperative as something like racism. We also routinely deal with non-absolutes on these types of subjects. It's extremely common for people to disagree with the appropriate level of anti-racism, or the appropriate level of respect with which to treat one's spouse. > You're projecting. Veganism is _not_ a diet. It's more than a diet, for sure. But I do know many, many people who aspire to veganism and who at times make concessions. I don't think less of them for doing so.
- MathCodeLove 5y ago
  I disagree and your comparisons aren't accurate. A more accurate comparison would he to say its like "I'm going to ride my bike to work once a week" or "I'll pick up trash at the local park once a week". I don't have to view eating meat or driving my car an inherently immoral in order to recognize the objective negative ecological impact that those actions have, and to therefore want to engage in some form of harm reduction from time to time.
  - nefitty 5y ago
    Yes, excellently stated. That's precisely my original point. I intended to preemptively disarm the conversational decay that absolutes cause. I think there is a place for that, for example art or activism, but when speaking directly to another human, absolutes seem to place a lot of people on their back foot in defense of their current established decisions.

karpierz 5y ago

> Of course, we can't stop eating every animal Why? There are plenty of people who do.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
Because most governments aren't going to use violence to stop you from eating meat. Until then people will eat meat.
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
I can’t tell how true that is. I’ve certainly heard that a lot of people who claim to be vegan aren’t 100%. Are there any reliable studies on this topic?
- anu7df 5y ago
  Not eating animals does not immediately get you to vegan. Human body is not designed for a vegan diet. However, eating animal products that don't kill the said animal, (milk, cheese, yogurt, eggs etc) is sustainable and feasible. Of course factory farms, which encourages over consumption, are not the way to go.. Not everything needs to be eaten daily. Also, things like 4 egg omlet with a mountain of cheese etc are an abomination. Consume in moderation and the production won't be a burden on the planet.
  - karpierz 5y ago
    The human body also isn't designed for vaccines, going to space, or doing math. Somehow, when we need the human body to do something, we find a way to make it happen.
    - anu7df 5y ago
      I appreciate the point you are making. Humans have ingenuity, for sure. But I have to disagree on a finer point. We do not know what the long term effect of vegan diet is. Supplements may work to an extent but may not be complete. To contrast with your examples, vaccines work with the body's natural defences and even there long term testing is needed to uncover unexpected side effects. Going to space is risky and even after controlling for all we can think of disasters happen. Not sure all of human race should embark on a risky mission of vegan diet without fully understanding the long term consequences. Morally I am ok with animals like cows and chicken bred for milk and egg. Your threshold is different and I get that too.

jazzyjackson 5y ago

> Why do humans have a complete lack of an ability to say "stop, we're not going to do this anymore". Because not doing things leaves you with a distinct lack of capital. Not dragging on capitalism, just being descriptive: those who act collect the resources to act more

lancesells 5y ago
I also think humans are curious. We want new things, new experiences to discover, etc. But also agree we should put the brakes on octopus farms. It's like a puppy mill for food.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Wait until you learn about hog farms then.
bmitc 5y ago
But what's the point? What's the actual need to continue to acquire more? Why can't we say enough is enough? You're just describing a mechanism. Oh, I know someone will respond with "who gets to decide what's enough?", but why is their answer to that, "well just let anybody do whatever they want"? The reason is the human condition for power and greed knows no bounds, and multi-millionaires and billionaires who like to play Sim City get to decide things for the rest of us. We're apes with technology and economics. I mean we still have orcas in nothing more than shallow swimming pools. Orcas are the size of school buses, can weigh up to 10 tons, are likely the greatest predator ever to be on Earth, one of the most intelligent and emotional animals, and we've kept one of them in a single tank, alone, for over three decades and has been in captivity for over five decades. Her name is Lolita and her last pool partner was in the 1980s, where he committed suicide by ramming his head over and over into the side of the concrete pool. Those two are just two examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(killer_whale) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(killer_whale) And even in that situation, we can't say to ourselves to stop. Humans are still keeping, capturing, and breeding orcas for nothing more than shallow entertainment. It's really sickening at times.

Tostino 5y ago

Yeah, i've not eaten much Octapus previously, but I had it occasionally in sushi or civeche that came with it. But I really can't continue to eat it even in that capacity in good conscience. Was something that I had thought about previously, but wasn't until I actually saw one while diving that I decided I couldn't continue eating.

ArcticCelt 5y ago
I've eaten Octopus in the past but didn't knew how intelligent those creature were until a couple of years ago. Since I saw multiple documentaries about them and read about them, I would now feel like a cannibal for eating them.

causasui 5y ago

> Of course, we can't stop eating every animal... ... > Why do humans have a complete lack of an ability to say "stop, we're not going to do this anymore". I'm trying to understand how these two statements were separated by only a couple sentences.

bmitc 5y ago
Unless you can invent life that doesn't require the consumption of other life, we're stuck with what we have. As far as I understand, humans have always eaten meat, including before fire was discovered. There's a certain biological component for being omnivores. Second, I am human too, you know. I'm made up of the same bullshit everyone else is. However, at least I try to question what I do and try and stop things, and I'm not hell bent on actively trying to make other humans' or animals' lives miserable. I'm still ashamed at the amount of waste and suffering I've brought by eating certain things or using certain products. Part of my point is that there are people in key moments that can say "enough is enough" but they don't. Usually because they know someone else won't say that and will just do it themselves. And so it goes. So my question, the second one you quoted, is somewhat rhetorical. We humans don't really possess the ability to be okay with enough. If we did, things would have been a lot different a long time ago. I'm a little curious about the reason why we don't though. There's something off about us. I think this is what you get when you give apes enough intelligence to build technology and societies but not enough emotional capacity and development to handle the consequences.
- nefitty 5y ago
  Sliding into this subthread, this explanation you just gave of where you are is why I commended you upthread. I recognize your embrace of your own self-awareness and moral openness. I like people like that.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  The original comment was in reference to animals specifically, not just life, so saying we need to eat life to survive and therefor must eat animals is incoherent. Also, for how long humans have eaten meat is totally irrelevant: doing something for a long time does not justify it. Human beings don’t require animal products to thrive, period, so those that eat them anyway engage in unnecessary cruelty against other sentient animals. The unnecessary part is the most crucial.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

asdff 5y ago

Aquaculture is really a hedge against terrestrial crop failures, and you will be glad we developed this industry today come 50 years of climate change from now.