6 ms·

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

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.
        myshpa 4y ago
        > We still need to plow and harvest large fields even if we all go vegan We would need just 25% of those fields. The rest can be returned to the nature. [0] > Should we kill a bunch of cows to make way for native species But we're killing them already, at astonishing quantities. It's enough to not make new ones, the problem will solve itself. > okay when the feral goats in the Galapagos were machine gunned down Maybe don't introduce farm animals where they don't belong? > kill off all the feral cats, or just let them continue killing birds and small mammals Give the birds & mammals a chance to live and procreate, by giving them enough habitat to live in. In time nature will solve the feral cats problems - when bigger predators appear. > Is it okay to spray for mosquitos and ticks No, because you're spraying poisons and killing other species as well, and reducing the human health. That's not practical. But you know, biodiversity is the solution [1]. When you kill predators (owls, foxes, coyottes ...), mice proliferate. More mice, more ticks. Let the mice eating predators return and ticks numbers goes down. Mosquitos? Don't spray poisons and let number of amphibians/fish go up. The problem solved. [0] If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares - https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets [1] The biggest little farm - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/ - not a scientific resource, but pretty illustrative
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    Meat tastes delicious and is packed full of healthy things we need to live. Sone animals would eat us when given the chance. I think it’s important to not treat animals like humans precisely so we don’t treat humans like calorie sources.
    - virgildotcodes 4y ago
      I mean just because something feels good doesn't mean it's right. We can get all of our nutrients from plants, most of us in the developed world don't need animals, we by and large just eat them for pleasure because we like the taste, as you noted by leading with the fact that they are delicious. Further, if your concerns are humanitarian in nature, in terms of feeding the most humans, ensuring the greatest amount of happiness for them, then we are on the same side. It turns out you can feed more humans with plants than you can with animals, given that the latter are largely inefficient middle men for our calories that are fundamentally sourced from plants. We feed a cow roughly 10 calories of corn and soy to get 1 calorie of meat out of it. Were we to eat those crops directly we'd be able to feed ~10x the number of people on the same agricultural output, or reduce our agricultural output by ~90% and feed the same number of people. That latter point leads to the environmental impact of animal farming. Over 90% of the destruction of the Amazon to date has happened for two industries - beef, and soy. Over 80% of the world's soy is... turned into feed for those same animals. We are destroying the Amazon, evicting and slaughtering the indigenous people that live within it, exacerbating climate change which is already resulting in more and more extreme droughts and famines, killing millions around the world, and as this gets worse will kill untold millions more. Animal agriculture is one of the most environmentally destructive industries on the planet, in terms of climate emissions, resource use, and land destruction. By feeding animals to humans we are turning around and killing those same humans. Well, not the same ones actually. The poorest ones who can't even afford the meat we're gluttonously shoving into our faces. This is all tied to the fundamental fact that the animal is a middle man for our calories, and in a time where our environment's carrying capacity is greatly exceeded by our civilization, we need to reduce these gross inefficiencies in order to save our own lives, even if that's all we care about. So even if your primary goal is to feed people and save humanity, the rational conclusion is still to stop eating animals.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Do you think most of the other animals wouldn't begrudgingly agree, if they (temporarily) had the capability to?
    - virgildotcodes 4y ago
      I mean, I think they may agree that we are the most powerful species on Earth (debatable, if you account for the impacts of bacteria, viruses, trees, etc.), but that's distinct from agreeing that our lives are the most valuable. I think most humans would begrudgingly agree that white men, americans, europeans, etc. are the most powerful group on Earth. I don't think they'd agree that their lives are the most valuable.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        The question wasn't powerful, it was important. Humans are roughly interchangeable with each other, so in a wide view they can be roughly equally important. But we're capable of so many things nothing else is.
        virgildotcodes 4y ago
        > The question wasn't powerful, it was important. I know. I looked to see which way the rest of the world could see us as being some synonym of important, powerful is the likely one. The way that "important" was likely meant in this context was "valuable", which I then addressed in my comment. Again, even the power is debatable. Single celled organisms and plants have a far greater impact on the world than we do. Valuable is not really up for debate. A nonhuman animal would not say that the life of a human is more valuable than their own any more than a disempowered person would say that the life of a powerful person is more valuable than their own. >Humans are roughly interchangeable with each other, so in a wide view they can be roughly equally important. What? Some are surgeons are working for MSF saving lives with their bare hands on a daily basis, others are sex traffickers. Some are Einstein others are flat earthers. Their positive and negative impact on the world around them, their capabilities vary greatly. Depending on how loosely you define interchangeable, you can include nonhuman animals as being interchangeable with humans. > But we're capable of so many things nothing else is. Can we hibernate? Can we lay eggs? Can we grow to the size of a blue whale? Can we survive naked in the vacuum of space? Do we possess biological immortality? Have we persisted for hundreds of millions of years through multiple extinction events? Etc etc. The natural world is filled with species who hold countless capabilities beyond our own. Do you think there might be a bias at work when we decide that the traits unique to humans are those that are more "important"?
  - lo_zamoyski 4y ago
    > Could anything evil happen as a result of embracing this outlook? Yes. If we demote the value of human beings to meet the value of other species, we open the door to the legitimacy of killing human beings. If we promote the value of other species, we have swathes of carnivores to arrest and put on trial.

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.
      - myshpa 4y ago
        > We still need to plow and harvest large fields even if we all go vegan We would need just 25% of those fields. The rest can be returned to the nature. [0] > Should we kill a bunch of cows to make way for native species But we're killing them already, at astonishing quantities. It's enough to not make new ones, the problem will solve itself. > okay when the feral goats in the Galapagos were machine gunned down Maybe don't introduce farm animals where they don't belong? > kill off all the feral cats, or just let them continue killing birds and small mammals Give the birds & mammals a chance to live and procreate, by giving them enough habitat to live in. In time nature will solve the feral cats problems - when bigger predators appear. > Is it okay to spray for mosquitos and ticks No, because you're spraying poisons and killing other species as well, and reducing the human health. That's not practical. But you know, biodiversity is the solution [1]. When you kill predators (owls, foxes, coyottes ...), mice proliferate. More mice, more ticks. Let the mice eating predators return and ticks numbers goes down. Mosquitos? Don't spray poisons and let number of amphibians/fish go up. The problem solved. [0] If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares - https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets [1] The biggest little farm - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/ - not a scientific resource, but pretty illustrative
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Meat tastes delicious and is packed full of healthy things we need to live. Sone animals would eat us when given the chance. I think it’s important to not treat animals like humans precisely so we don’t treat humans like calorie sources.
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    I mean just because something feels good doesn't mean it's right. We can get all of our nutrients from plants, most of us in the developed world don't need animals, we by and large just eat them for pleasure because we like the taste, as you noted by leading with the fact that they are delicious. Further, if your concerns are humanitarian in nature, in terms of feeding the most humans, ensuring the greatest amount of happiness for them, then we are on the same side. It turns out you can feed more humans with plants than you can with animals, given that the latter are largely inefficient middle men for our calories that are fundamentally sourced from plants. We feed a cow roughly 10 calories of corn and soy to get 1 calorie of meat out of it. Were we to eat those crops directly we'd be able to feed ~10x the number of people on the same agricultural output, or reduce our agricultural output by ~90% and feed the same number of people. That latter point leads to the environmental impact of animal farming. Over 90% of the destruction of the Amazon to date has happened for two industries - beef, and soy. Over 80% of the world's soy is... turned into feed for those same animals. We are destroying the Amazon, evicting and slaughtering the indigenous people that live within it, exacerbating climate change which is already resulting in more and more extreme droughts and famines, killing millions around the world, and as this gets worse will kill untold millions more. Animal agriculture is one of the most environmentally destructive industries on the planet, in terms of climate emissions, resource use, and land destruction. By feeding animals to humans we are turning around and killing those same humans. Well, not the same ones actually. The poorest ones who can't even afford the meat we're gluttonously shoving into our faces. This is all tied to the fundamental fact that the animal is a middle man for our calories, and in a time where our environment's carrying capacity is greatly exceeded by our civilization, we need to reduce these gross inefficiencies in order to save our own lives, even if that's all we care about. So even if your primary goal is to feed people and save humanity, the rational conclusion is still to stop eating animals.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Do you think most of the other animals wouldn't begrudgingly agree, if they (temporarily) had the capability to?
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    I mean, I think they may agree that we are the most powerful species on Earth (debatable, if you account for the impacts of bacteria, viruses, trees, etc.), but that's distinct from agreeing that our lives are the most valuable. I think most humans would begrudgingly agree that white men, americans, europeans, etc. are the most powerful group on Earth. I don't think they'd agree that their lives are the most valuable.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      The question wasn't powerful, it was important. Humans are roughly interchangeable with each other, so in a wide view they can be roughly equally important. But we're capable of so many things nothing else is.
      - virgildotcodes 4y ago
        > The question wasn't powerful, it was important. I know. I looked to see which way the rest of the world could see us as being some synonym of important, powerful is the likely one. The way that "important" was likely meant in this context was "valuable", which I then addressed in my comment. Again, even the power is debatable. Single celled organisms and plants have a far greater impact on the world than we do. Valuable is not really up for debate. A nonhuman animal would not say that the life of a human is more valuable than their own any more than a disempowered person would say that the life of a powerful person is more valuable than their own. >Humans are roughly interchangeable with each other, so in a wide view they can be roughly equally important. What? Some are surgeons are working for MSF saving lives with their bare hands on a daily basis, others are sex traffickers. Some are Einstein others are flat earthers. Their positive and negative impact on the world around them, their capabilities vary greatly. Depending on how loosely you define interchangeable, you can include nonhuman animals as being interchangeable with humans. > But we're capable of so many things nothing else is. Can we hibernate? Can we lay eggs? Can we grow to the size of a blue whale? Can we survive naked in the vacuum of space? Do we possess biological immortality? Have we persisted for hundreds of millions of years through multiple extinction events? Etc etc. The natural world is filled with species who hold countless capabilities beyond our own. Do you think there might be a bias at work when we decide that the traits unique to humans are those that are more "important"?
- lo_zamoyski 4y ago
  > Could anything evil happen as a result of embracing this outlook? Yes. If we demote the value of human beings to meet the value of other species, we open the door to the legitimacy of killing human beings. If we promote the value of other species, we have swathes of carnivores to arrest and put on trial.