5 ms·
the same would apply to pretty much all animals no? and dare I say plants too?
by alliao 5y ago
the same would apply to pretty much all animals no? and dare I say plants too?
- alliao 5y agoby the way love the lab food concept due to this, don't really trust big Ag/Pharma would leave us alone though; there're profits to be made damnit.
- nefitty 5y agoAnimals yes. Plants? I eat them without guilt. I wouldn't eat insects, not only because of my conditioned disgust, but now even moreso because crustaceans were found to be capable of suffering based on an 8-point scale. Bugs and crabs don't seem so far off to one another in my mind.
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoWe as a society seem to have no problem killing millions of insects to make it easier to grow plants though. No matter what you eat, things are dying to supply your food. If you want to minimize the number of animals being killed, it’s probably best to eat the largest ones you have.
- nefitty 5y agoSentience is a matter of degree. That's why people can compare the intelligence of a chimpanzee to the intelligence of a three year old human. Or why it's intuitive to prefer saving the life of a human to saving the life of a fish. That does not diminish the capability of suffering that the fish has, but merely comparing the objective complexity of a human's preferences vs a fish's.
- sweetheart 5y agoHow do you think we grow those bigger animals though? We grow plants to feed them and convert those plant calories to animal calories at a mind bogglingly inefficient rate. If you want to reduce death and suffering overall, sticking to plants only is the best route.
- asdff 5y agoWe also grow plants to burn in F150s. OTOH you also cannot convert all the pastoral land into agricultural land. In fact its probably pastoral land in the first place because the land is not that possible to farm on otherwise (e.g. hilly/narrow/rock laden pastures which are quite common across hilly areas like appalachia). The fact is there are good ways to grow animals and plants, and bad ways, and we should just focus on eliminating the bad ways and allowing the market to set prices on what the good practices are. It honestly wound't be too expensive; grassfed pastured beef isn't too much of a premium, neither is soybean that came from an ohio field instead of a Brazilian rainforest. If subsidizes were eliminated for the mass market operations that damage the environment, and introduced for these sustainable operations, you'd see a lot of self correction in the market to fit these more sustainable practices.
- sweetheart 5y agoKurzgesagt has a great video explaining how grass fed beef isn’t really very viable at all. I suggest you watch it. It came out a couple months ago and talks about this at length. Give it a google.
- asdff 5y agoIf its something like its too costly then that's fine too. Let mcDonalds become bean burgers if their pricepoint with the cost of proper grassfed beef doesn't make any sense anymore.
- PretzelPirate 5y ago> it’s probably best to eat the largest ones you have. This fails at scale. Feeding our population on large animals requires significantly more plant mass than if we eat plants. Large animals are terribly inefficient at converting plant matter into food. We will harm fewer sentient creatures if we simply eat plants directly.
- PaulHoule 5y agoIf you are eating grains directly or feed grains to (say) chickens you have to plow the land, clear other vegetation, cause erosion, probably use fertilizers and pesticides. At a certain scale though you can graze animals on grass sustainably, building soil structure instead of destroying it. The environmental movement has a beef with beef but the more I look at it chicken is the problem.
- sitkack 5y agoSo are you saying since all flora and fauna might also apply, that we do nothing? This is the all or nothing fallacy mentioned up thread.
- TheFreim 5y agoI can't read their mind but I don't know if that's what they're trying to say. The common anti-veg(an)itarian argument is that if you apply standards evenly it would result in an absurdity, thus leading you to question the premise.
- alliao 5y agoI think we can do something, I think these research are good, and we can try and reduce harm. Personally I just try and reduce food wastage, I've kept a journal and boy do I waste a lot...
- stjohnswarts 5y agoSo we all just starve now because we can't eat plants? I don't like your plan.
- TheFreim 5y agoI don't think their "plan" is anything, it looks like an (common) anti-veg(an)itarian argument that tries to say that if standards were applied evenly it would result in an absurdity.
- melvinmelih 5y ago> and dare I say plants too? I mean, if we also can't eat plants... there's not gonna be much left to eat.
- Tomis02 5y agoYour comment is a series of logical mistakes. 1. Plants don't have a central nervous system. They're not sentient and don't feel pain. 2. The fact that something "applies to all animals" doesn't somehow make an action morally justifiable. You're suggesting inaction because perfection can't be achieved.
- unpopularopp 5y agoIn our understanding you need nervous system and brain. That doesn't conclude that plants don't feel pain. Pain is how we know about our injury or whatever. That doesn't mean plants will feel that way too. We excrete through our butthole but plants excrete through different way or process. They may feel pain in the way we don't understand yet. Like we now know they are sensitive to light, food, host etc. They emit electrical signals when their body parts are cut. The answer will always be maybe yes or no. We don't even know properly about ourselves, forgot plants and animals.
- alliao 5y agosuggest exposing yourself to some Wittgenstein and lion? It's merely some conjecture, nowhere did I suggest inaction too