9 ms·

The older I get, the harder it gets to stomach animal testing or even animal consumption. I don't mean that this is overly cruel to animals, because nature itse

by madrox 4y ago

The older I get, the harder it gets to stomach animal testing or even animal consumption. I don't mean that this is overly cruel to animals, because nature itself is cruel. However, I could not be someone who did this work because I cannot knowingly cause suffering, and I'm wary of anyone who can.

russdill 4y ago
After learning about milk production, I'm leaning on being more ok with meat production then dairy. I still consume both though and I'm holding out hope that artificial production of dairy proteins will some day destroy factory style dairy
- AlexErrant 4y ago
  Perfect Day can synthesize whey protein. They can't complete with animal dairy on pricing though... yet. https://perfectday.com/animal-free-milk-protein/ https://perfectday.com/animal-free-milk-protein/
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    > Our animal-free milk from flora is the first of its kind, using whey protein made by microflora, not cows, to make dairy that’s identical to traditional milk. Yes, we said identical. > Lactose-free They don't know what identical means.
    - AlexErrant 4y ago
      Lactose-free dairy milk exists - though I agree with you that "identical" here is marketing nonsense.
- barbariangrunge 4y ago
  What is wrong with milk production? I’m not informed on this. Is it some kind of factory farm horror?
  - FeistySkink 4y ago
    Why do you think mammals produce milk?
    - nimbleal 4y ago
      “Whys” are hard but arguably —- and not a direct answer to your question of course — the why of cows producing (most of their) milk is analogous to the why of dogs acting cute: it’s for humans.
      - soulofmischief 4y ago
        They produce milk because they have been impregnated. Think about the implications of this at scale for the lifetime of a dairy cow.
        nimbleal 4y ago
        The “unto what end” vs “due to what cause” definition of “why“ but, yes — I’m aware.
  - tashoecraft 4y ago
    Basically. Every part of the animal livestock system at scale is a horror. If you can get from small, local producers then that’s great. But the factory farm system for anything meat, dairy poultry is hard to stomach.
    - nimbleal 4y ago
      Although I understand it differs hugely by country, so worth investigating your own location. Not everywhere is as horrible as the US in this regard.
  - ElijahLynn 4y ago
    Basically, milk production is the act of raping a cow, then taking her baby away so you can steal her milk.
- rqtwteye 4y ago
  "After learning about milk production, I'm leaning on being more ok with meat production then dairy." It's not either or. Both are terrible for the animals. Just in different ways.
  - timeon 4y ago
    It usually is just excuse.
- xupybd 4y ago
  I've experienced dairy farms here in New Zealand. It's a pretty good life for the average cow. What part are you referring to?
  - wyre 4y ago
    New Zealand is obviously an exception. This is like saying “I’ve experienced prison in Finland. It’s a pretty good life for the average person.” But when compared to a dairy farm/prison in America it is anything but a good life.
    - xupybd 4y ago
      Ah I'm clueless when it comes to American farming.
eunos 4y ago
I'm honestly puzzled why? How many billions animal slaughtered daily just to satisfy human consumption?
- ElijahLynn 4y ago
  This.
- madrox 4y ago
  Consuming a steak is quite easy because there is a mental disconnect between this abstract red shape called a new york strip and the thinking, feeling animal it came from. When I was younger, the disassociation was so great it didn't occur to me except in an abstract sense. Also, while these environments can be cruel to animals, it's hard to be more cruel than nature. Now that I'm older, though, disassociating is harder. It's hard for me to look at meat without thinking about the animal it came from. If I were forced to kill and butcher animals myself in order to eat meat, I know I could not do it in good conscience. Ergo, if I cannot do it in good conscience, I find it difficult to see how anyone else can.
  - spoils19 4y ago
  - zztop44 4y ago
    > it’s hard to be more cruel than nature Obviously “nature” is a difficult concept to pin down, but I disagree with this sentiment. I think probably most factory farming (especially of chickens and pigs) is waaaay more cruel than nature (whatever that means)
    - thejackgoode 4y ago
      One of two competing definitions of “Nature” in this context is a phantasy of how it would be without humans around. Other one is that we’re part of it. Likely it’s somewhere in between.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
trident5000 4y ago
But the net suffering is probably less with scientific advancement. A few monkeys get an operation under anesthesia and seem pretty fine after and as a result you have potentially hundreds of thousands of people that have serious conditions restored.
- madrox 4y ago
  I agree. In a utilitarian sense, we are in a better world with less suffering and higher mortality (at least for humans). The problem with utilitarian justifications is that they are usually raised by people for whom it costs nothing and gains everything from the outcome. It's "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Put another way, a more twisted person could use your same justification for, say, an undesirable subset of the human population. It wasn't long ago parts of humanity were regularly thought of and treated no better than monkeys. All I'm saying is that in spite of knowing it'd advance humanity, I wouldn't volunteer to be the monkey, and I don't think you would, either.
kajaktum 4y ago
> I don't mean that this is overly cruel to animals, because nature itself is cruel I don't quite get why if nature is cruel then some level of cruelty is okay. If I have a button that when pressed, will cause all cruelty in animals to be gone, I would be wrong not to press it. Suffering is suffering regardless if its "natural" or not.
- sigstoat 4y ago
  > If I have a button that when pressed, will cause all cruelty in animals to be gone, I would be wrong not to press it. how would carnivores and parasites eat? is there not some possibility there might be some small question of whether or not pressing the button is moral?
  - kajaktum 4y ago
    Easy, nanobots that will create a projection preys and once their predator captures them, the projections will turn into their respective food source. The predator still have the illusion that its capturing something, but no consciousness actually suffers. Or even better, the button will move every conscious being into their own universe where they are the only conscious being. The process is perfect and the being cannot observe any difference. Each of these world progress in parallel (does not diverge) and therefore all beings existed in a world where they would have existed. Except no being is suffering. Edit: Also, just because they need to eat the way they do does not mean that it is still not suffering and is therefore a moral bad. Why can't animals be "wrong"?
    - inawarminister 4y ago
      Ah, why would we need that kind of stuff when God has granted every animals their own places in the hereafter?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  What if pressing the button means humans will suffer?
- 4y ago
xupybd 4y ago
I like to avoid cruel experiences for animals where possible but I think there are times that we can justify it. Medical science is one of the few times. I'm not a fan of cosmetic testing on animals but medical testing is worth it IMO. If this device can help someone that is otherwise paralyzed interact with the world that is life changing. It does expose that I value human experience way above animal experience but I've yet to find a reason not to. We use them for food, as many of them do to other animals. It's an odd part of life that suffering is part of the circle of life.
- HPMOR 4y ago
  I’d prefer us finding a way to turn the circle of life into the line of life.
- madrox 4y ago
  I think it’s easy to justify. I’m likely alive today based on medicines and procedures perfected on animals. I do not besmirch that. I’m saying I could not be that person who performed these surgeries and look at myself in the mirror when the day is over.
maegul 4y ago
I have some familiarity with people who work with animals. From what I've seen, for most, the nature of what they're doing never really ceases to haunt them to some extent, however justified or comfortable they feel about it at an abstract level. They just carry on. Something praiseworthy about human nature there I'd say, apart from all the rest of the stuff of course.
- wyre 4y ago
  Rates of psychological stress are higher for slaughterhouse workers. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28506017/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28506017/
  - ElijahLynn 4y ago
    Thank you for sourcing that.
ElijahLynn 4y ago
Odd thing: Many humans have pets of a certain species and then kill another species to feed that preferred species. This is called speciesism (it's a thing, one can search it). One matters more than the other. Because the one is used for a different form of human pleasure.
- madrox 4y ago
  "Othering" is probably one of the basest of cognitive biases. Even animals have it. At some point we need to be able to selectively empathize in order to remain sane.

by madrox 4y ago

russdill 4y ago

After learning about milk production, I'm leaning on being more ok with meat production then dairy. I still consume both though and I'm holding out hope that artificial production of dairy proteins will some day destroy factory style dairy

AlexErrant 4y ago
Perfect Day can synthesize whey protein. They can't complete with animal dairy on pricing though... yet. https://perfectday.com/animal-free-milk-protein/ https://perfectday.com/animal-free-milk-protein/
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  > Our animal-free milk from flora is the first of its kind, using whey protein made by microflora, not cows, to make dairy that’s identical to traditional milk. Yes, we said identical. > Lactose-free They don't know what identical means.
  - AlexErrant 4y ago
    Lactose-free dairy milk exists - though I agree with you that "identical" here is marketing nonsense.
barbariangrunge 4y ago
What is wrong with milk production? I’m not informed on this. Is it some kind of factory farm horror?
- FeistySkink 4y ago
  Why do you think mammals produce milk?
  - nimbleal 4y ago
    “Whys” are hard but arguably —- and not a direct answer to your question of course — the why of cows producing (most of their) milk is analogous to the why of dogs acting cute: it’s for humans.
    - soulofmischief 4y ago
      They produce milk because they have been impregnated. Think about the implications of this at scale for the lifetime of a dairy cow.
      - nimbleal 4y ago
        The “unto what end” vs “due to what cause” definition of “why“ but, yes — I’m aware.
- tashoecraft 4y ago
  Basically. Every part of the animal livestock system at scale is a horror. If you can get from small, local producers then that’s great. But the factory farm system for anything meat, dairy poultry is hard to stomach.
  - nimbleal 4y ago
    Although I understand it differs hugely by country, so worth investigating your own location. Not everywhere is as horrible as the US in this regard.
- ElijahLynn 4y ago
  Basically, milk production is the act of raping a cow, then taking her baby away so you can steal her milk.
rqtwteye 4y ago
"After learning about milk production, I'm leaning on being more ok with meat production then dairy." It's not either or. Both are terrible for the animals. Just in different ways.
- timeon 4y ago
  It usually is just excuse.
xupybd 4y ago
I've experienced dairy farms here in New Zealand. It's a pretty good life for the average cow. What part are you referring to?
- wyre 4y ago
  New Zealand is obviously an exception. This is like saying “I’ve experienced prison in Finland. It’s a pretty good life for the average person.” But when compared to a dairy farm/prison in America it is anything but a good life.
  - xupybd 4y ago
    Ah I'm clueless when it comes to American farming.

eunos 4y ago

I'm honestly puzzled why? How many billions animal slaughtered daily just to satisfy human consumption?

ElijahLynn 4y ago
This.
madrox 4y ago
Consuming a steak is quite easy because there is a mental disconnect between this abstract red shape called a new york strip and the thinking, feeling animal it came from. When I was younger, the disassociation was so great it didn't occur to me except in an abstract sense. Also, while these environments can be cruel to animals, it's hard to be more cruel than nature. Now that I'm older, though, disassociating is harder. It's hard for me to look at meat without thinking about the animal it came from. If I were forced to kill and butcher animals myself in order to eat meat, I know I could not do it in good conscience. Ergo, if I cannot do it in good conscience, I find it difficult to see how anyone else can.
- spoils19 4y ago
- zztop44 4y ago
  > it’s hard to be more cruel than nature Obviously “nature” is a difficult concept to pin down, but I disagree with this sentiment. I think probably most factory farming (especially of chickens and pigs) is waaaay more cruel than nature (whatever that means)
  - thejackgoode 4y ago
    One of two competing definitions of “Nature” in this context is a phantasy of how it would be without humans around. Other one is that we’re part of it. Likely it’s somewhere in between.
iancmceachern 4y ago

trident5000 4y ago

But the net suffering is probably less with scientific advancement. A few monkeys get an operation under anesthesia and seem pretty fine after and as a result you have potentially hundreds of thousands of people that have serious conditions restored.

madrox 4y ago
I agree. In a utilitarian sense, we are in a better world with less suffering and higher mortality (at least for humans). The problem with utilitarian justifications is that they are usually raised by people for whom it costs nothing and gains everything from the outcome. It's "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Put another way, a more twisted person could use your same justification for, say, an undesirable subset of the human population. It wasn't long ago parts of humanity were regularly thought of and treated no better than monkeys. All I'm saying is that in spite of knowing it'd advance humanity, I wouldn't volunteer to be the monkey, and I don't think you would, either.

kajaktum 4y ago

> I don't mean that this is overly cruel to animals, because nature itself is cruel I don't quite get why if nature is cruel then some level of cruelty is okay. If I have a button that when pressed, will cause all cruelty in animals to be gone, I would be wrong not to press it. Suffering is suffering regardless if its "natural" or not.

sigstoat 4y ago
> If I have a button that when pressed, will cause all cruelty in animals to be gone, I would be wrong not to press it. how would carnivores and parasites eat? is there not some possibility there might be some small question of whether or not pressing the button is moral?
- kajaktum 4y ago
  Easy, nanobots that will create a projection preys and once their predator captures them, the projections will turn into their respective food source. The predator still have the illusion that its capturing something, but no consciousness actually suffers. Or even better, the button will move every conscious being into their own universe where they are the only conscious being. The process is perfect and the being cannot observe any difference. Each of these world progress in parallel (does not diverge) and therefore all beings existed in a world where they would have existed. Except no being is suffering. Edit: Also, just because they need to eat the way they do does not mean that it is still not suffering and is therefore a moral bad. Why can't animals be "wrong"?
  - inawarminister 4y ago
    Ah, why would we need that kind of stuff when God has granted every animals their own places in the hereafter?
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
What if pressing the button means humans will suffer?
4y ago

xupybd 4y ago

I like to avoid cruel experiences for animals where possible but I think there are times that we can justify it. Medical science is one of the few times. I'm not a fan of cosmetic testing on animals but medical testing is worth it IMO. If this device can help someone that is otherwise paralyzed interact with the world that is life changing. It does expose that I value human experience way above animal experience but I've yet to find a reason not to. We use them for food, as many of them do to other animals. It's an odd part of life that suffering is part of the circle of life.

HPMOR 4y ago
I’d prefer us finding a way to turn the circle of life into the line of life.
madrox 4y ago
I think it’s easy to justify. I’m likely alive today based on medicines and procedures perfected on animals. I do not besmirch that. I’m saying I could not be that person who performed these surgeries and look at myself in the mirror when the day is over.

maegul 4y ago

I have some familiarity with people who work with animals. From what I've seen, for most, the nature of what they're doing never really ceases to haunt them to some extent, however justified or comfortable they feel about it at an abstract level. They just carry on. Something praiseworthy about human nature there I'd say, apart from all the rest of the stuff of course.

wyre 4y ago
Rates of psychological stress are higher for slaughterhouse workers. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28506017/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28506017/
- ElijahLynn 4y ago
  Thank you for sourcing that.

ElijahLynn 4y ago

Odd thing: Many humans have pets of a certain species and then kill another species to feed that preferred species. This is called speciesism (it's a thing, one can search it). One matters more than the other. Because the one is used for a different form of human pleasure.

madrox 4y ago
"Othering" is probably one of the basest of cognitive biases. Even animals have it. At some point we need to be able to selectively empathize in order to remain sane.