5 ms·

I do not equate animal lives to human lives. I am fine with the death of billions of animals to keep humans fed. This is their job. This is the way of nature.

I do not equate animal lives to human lives. I am fine with the death of billions of animals to keep humans fed. This is their job. This is the way of nature. We’ve just streamlined it a bit

nemo44x 4y ago
I agree. Humans have struggled to feed themselves since the beginning. We finally, only recently, figured out how to make people not starve to death and now we have people saying we are morally wrong for living how humans always wanted to. I think sone people need the guilt of being alive religion gave them. But they rejected traditional methods and invented a new religion of self hatred. Humans as sinners that need to seek redemption or some other silly idea.
- hn-is-retarded 4y ago
virgildotcodes 4y ago
Humans are but one species of animal. We may like them better, given that we are them. We may like our families more than strangers as well. That does not mean that a machine that used unfathomable cruelty to concentrate the rest of humanity into a slurry for the pleasure of our family members would not be a horror.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Humans are more important by far. This idea that a cow’s life is as precious as a human’s life is the worst type of misanthropic thought. There is a hierarchy and although we shouldn’t torture living things, giving them “1 bad day” is totally ethical when used to endure and pleasure. I admit we don’t live up to that standard necessarily, but we should strive for it. Ideally everyone that wants to is eating happy animals at their pleasure.
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    > Humans are more important by far. From the perspective of which species? Does might make right? For intra-human relationships as well? Could anything evil happen as a result of embracing this outlook?
    - 9991 4y ago
      The human perspective. There are extraordinarily few chickens participating in HN comment threads.
      - virgildotcodes 4y ago
        On a planet filled with millions of species, is it ethically defensible to consider these matters from the perspective of just one?
        9991 4y ago
        Yes.
        virgildotcodes 4y ago
        In a global civilization composed of countless groups of humans, is it ethically defensible to consider the perspective of just one?
        goatlover 4y ago
        The other millions of species don't have an ethical perspective. But okay, lets grant their perspective of wanting to survive and reproduce, behave in the way they evolved to. Fine, but how do you balance the perspectives of those millions? We still need to plow and harvest large fields even if we all go vegan. We still have to deal with pests in our homes. Should we kill a bunch of cows to make way for native species? Was it okay when the feral goats in the Galapagos were machine gunned down from the air so they would stop eating all the vegetation the native tortoises relied on? Should we kill off all the feral cats, or just let them continue killing birds and small mammals? Is it okay to spray for mosquitos and ticks, or do we let them carry disease and infect us and other animals? There's a million different tradeoffs, thousands of which we have to decide no matter what.
cowmoo728 4y ago
I also do not value animal lives as much as human lives. But there is an important assumption built into the argument that it is ok to eat this many animals: that it is possible to raise and slaughter this number of animals without deleterious effects on humans. I believe that assumption is incorrect, and that the environmental and health consequences of the current level of meat consumption will cause immense suffering to both animals and humans.
- dvzk 4y ago
  This line of argumentation is brought forward too seldomly. It’s not solid, but as a human centrist, the only future that’s made me pause is the potential loss to human research and enjoyment if our ecosystems collapse. Animal advocates would do well to argue from opposing moral frameworks.

I do not equate animal lives to human lives. I am fine with the death of billions of animals to keep humans fed. This is their job. This is the way of nature. We’ve just streamlined it a bit

nemo44x 4y ago

I agree. Humans have struggled to feed themselves since the beginning. We finally, only recently, figured out how to make people not starve to death and now we have people saying we are morally wrong for living how humans always wanted to. I think sone people need the guilt of being alive religion gave them. But they rejected traditional methods and invented a new religion of self hatred. Humans as sinners that need to seek redemption or some other silly idea.

hn-is-retarded 4y ago

virgildotcodes 4y ago

Humans are but one species of animal. We may like them better, given that we are them. We may like our families more than strangers as well. That does not mean that a machine that used unfathomable cruelty to concentrate the rest of humanity into a slurry for the pleasure of our family members would not be a horror.

nemo44x 4y ago
Humans are more important by far. This idea that a cow’s life is as precious as a human’s life is the worst type of misanthropic thought. There is a hierarchy and although we shouldn’t torture living things, giving them “1 bad day” is totally ethical when used to endure and pleasure. I admit we don’t live up to that standard necessarily, but we should strive for it. Ideally everyone that wants to is eating happy animals at their pleasure.
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  > Humans are more important by far. From the perspective of which species? Does might make right? For intra-human relationships as well? Could anything evil happen as a result of embracing this outlook?
  - 9991 4y ago
    The human perspective. There are extraordinarily few chickens participating in HN comment threads.
    - virgildotcodes 4y ago
      On a planet filled with millions of species, is it ethically defensible to consider these matters from the perspective of just one?
      - 9991 4y ago
        Yes.
        virgildotcodes 4y ago
        In a global civilization composed of countless groups of humans, is it ethically defensible to consider the perspective of just one?
      - goatlover 4y ago
        The other millions of species don't have an ethical perspective. But okay, lets grant their perspective of wanting to survive and reproduce, behave in the way they evolved to. Fine, but how do you balance the perspectives of those millions? We still need to plow and harvest large fields even if we all go vegan. We still have to deal with pests in our homes. Should we kill a bunch of cows to make way for native species? Was it okay when the feral goats in the Galapagos were machine gunned down from the air so they would stop eating all the vegetation the native tortoises relied on? Should we kill off all the feral cats, or just let them continue killing birds and small mammals? Is it okay to spray for mosquitos and ticks, or do we let them carry disease and infect us and other animals? There's a million different tradeoffs, thousands of which we have to decide no matter what.

cowmoo728 4y ago

I also do not value animal lives as much as human lives. But there is an important assumption built into the argument that it is ok to eat this many animals: that it is possible to raise and slaughter this number of animals without deleterious effects on humans. I believe that assumption is incorrect, and that the environmental and health consequences of the current level of meat consumption will cause immense suffering to both animals and humans.

dvzk 4y ago
This line of argumentation is brought forward too seldomly. It’s not solid, but as a human centrist, the only future that’s made me pause is the potential loss to human research and enjoyment if our ecosystems collapse. Animal advocates would do well to argue from opposing moral frameworks.