4 ms·

Perhaps that is true if you solely interact with food after it is dead and processed. Many people live much closer to their food production. I don't view the ph

Perhaps that is true if you solely interact with food after it is dead and processed. Many people live much closer to their food production. I don't view the phrase "humane slaughter" as an attempt to insulate "us"; I think it is an acknowledgement by practitioners that they are mindful of what they are doing and to whom. It is also a direct reference to applicable laws where that term is codified. Some people view killing animals for food as entirely humane, which is to say some combination of natural and ethical. You may not view any kind of animal slaughter as humane, but if pressed could you describe how humane your soy, wheat, etc. production is?

boston_clone 4y ago
What is humane about raising an animal in captivity and killing it for unnecessary consumption after only a few years or months of life? Surely you can figure out how eating beans is a little more kind.
- mhb 4y ago
  If the animal had a happy few years or months of life do you consider that a net increase in happiness even if the animal is killed?
  - boston_clone 4y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "net increase in happiness". Like, if the universe was a big bank of emotions from which we all made withdrawals and deposits? That's a weird premise to accept. In any case, the act of killing a sentient being is wrong. We've got that more or less universally codified for other humans (and most pets); seems we may just need a few more uncomfortable ethical discussions before we reach consistency.
    - mhb 4y ago
      Yes, but it doesn't have to be the universe. It could just be a farm. Suppose a cow has a happy 3 year life munching grass in the field but is killed after that. There's more happiness on the farm. So should there be more of those cows on the farm? Or would it be better if those cows had never lived.
- tablarasa 4y ago
  Huh, I had considered consumption to be necessary for my own persistence. Most increase in land-based agricultural productivity in this day and age comes from intensification on existing land or removal of forested habitats. Those come at a huge cost to biodiversity and ecosystem services. They also have social costs to other humans. > "Surely you can figure out how eating beans is a little more kind." I don't think this snarkiness is very productive, but I'm super used to hearing this sentiment; often the people who express this type of idea have really good intentions that I am totally aligned with, but they also fall into logical fallacies usually due to missing information around ecology, agriculture, and food systems. It makes perfect sense if you take a very narrow view of how food is produced and what alternatives there are for land and water use: just eat a bean because it doesn't scream! Totally. But growing that bean comes at a cost and ignoring that because you read Sinclair or can afford to shop for high-end foods isn't helpful. I think it is a fantasy to suggest that the problems will be solved if peoples and cultures around the world just subscribe to my view of what is ethical or desirable. Any fish would prefer you eat a bean. But the animals and plants that would use the land on which its grown would prefer you eat a fish. Those of us working to build sustainable food systems that minimize the overall impact on natural systems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services will fail if we take such a simplistic and naive view of the tradeoffs.
  - boston_clone 4y ago
    Interestingly, I too encounter similar arguments. But it is worth it to go beyond surface-level, especially with complex topics. I described it as unnecessary, because eating animals is simply not necessary to sustain a long, healthy life. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/ The vast majority (>75%) of soybeans grown are simply to feed cattle. The majority of rainforests being cleared in Brazil are for cattle. Animal agriculture is the leading contributor for GHG and anthropogenic climate change. Plenty of data breakdowns can be found here: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use , but this shouldn't be news to you. Snarkiness is hard to avoid when you're legitimately attempting to compare the humanity of an industry responsible for killing 100 billion animals each year versus growing and eating plants; it's like comparing Hitler to a person who kills a housefly. You wanna minimize your impact to natural systems and biodiversity? Stop eating animals. Peter Singer is a great place to approach the issue from a modern, truly ethical lens. Hopefully we both can rid ourselves of simplistic and naive views, but for now, discussions about how we should best function in this universe ought to be had.

boston_clone 4y ago

What is humane about raising an animal in captivity and killing it for unnecessary consumption after only a few years or months of life? Surely you can figure out how eating beans is a little more kind.

mhb 4y ago
If the animal had a happy few years or months of life do you consider that a net increase in happiness even if the animal is killed?
- boston_clone 4y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "net increase in happiness". Like, if the universe was a big bank of emotions from which we all made withdrawals and deposits? That's a weird premise to accept. In any case, the act of killing a sentient being is wrong. We've got that more or less universally codified for other humans (and most pets); seems we may just need a few more uncomfortable ethical discussions before we reach consistency.
  - mhb 4y ago
    Yes, but it doesn't have to be the universe. It could just be a farm. Suppose a cow has a happy 3 year life munching grass in the field but is killed after that. There's more happiness on the farm. So should there be more of those cows on the farm? Or would it be better if those cows had never lived.
tablarasa 4y ago
Huh, I had considered consumption to be necessary for my own persistence. Most increase in land-based agricultural productivity in this day and age comes from intensification on existing land or removal of forested habitats. Those come at a huge cost to biodiversity and ecosystem services. They also have social costs to other humans. > "Surely you can figure out how eating beans is a little more kind." I don't think this snarkiness is very productive, but I'm super used to hearing this sentiment; often the people who express this type of idea have really good intentions that I am totally aligned with, but they also fall into logical fallacies usually due to missing information around ecology, agriculture, and food systems. It makes perfect sense if you take a very narrow view of how food is produced and what alternatives there are for land and water use: just eat a bean because it doesn't scream! Totally. But growing that bean comes at a cost and ignoring that because you read Sinclair or can afford to shop for high-end foods isn't helpful. I think it is a fantasy to suggest that the problems will be solved if peoples and cultures around the world just subscribe to my view of what is ethical or desirable. Any fish would prefer you eat a bean. But the animals and plants that would use the land on which its grown would prefer you eat a fish. Those of us working to build sustainable food systems that minimize the overall impact on natural systems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services will fail if we take such a simplistic and naive view of the tradeoffs.
- boston_clone 4y ago
  Interestingly, I too encounter similar arguments. But it is worth it to go beyond surface-level, especially with complex topics. I described it as unnecessary, because eating animals is simply not necessary to sustain a long, healthy life. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/ The vast majority (>75%) of soybeans grown are simply to feed cattle. The majority of rainforests being cleared in Brazil are for cattle. Animal agriculture is the leading contributor for GHG and anthropogenic climate change. Plenty of data breakdowns can be found here: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use , but this shouldn't be news to you. Snarkiness is hard to avoid when you're legitimately attempting to compare the humanity of an industry responsible for killing 100 billion animals each year versus growing and eating plants; it's like comparing Hitler to a person who kills a housefly. You wanna minimize your impact to natural systems and biodiversity? Stop eating animals. Peter Singer is a great place to approach the issue from a modern, truly ethical lens. Hopefully we both can rid ourselves of simplistic and naive views, but for now, discussions about how we should best function in this universe ought to be had.