5 ms·

Lot of "people eat meat, so why should we care?" in the comments. I disagree with this line of reasoning. It'd be pretty much impossible to make progress in any

Lot of "people eat meat, so why should we care?" in the comments. I disagree with this line of reasoning. It'd be pretty much impossible to make progress in anything with that sort of attitude, allowing backsliding in one place because you don't have another in order. It argues, in my opinion, for better oversight of the poor animal welfare in the food chain.

raducu 4y ago
Isn't it hypocritical to dismiss that argument, though? Arguably if you cared about animal wellbeing you'd start with the farming industry. I'm not saying shutdown animal-cruelty cops because the farming industry is far worse than individuals abusing animals, but those 1500 animals killed were killed in the name of science.
- striking 4y ago
  No, they were killed in the name of Elon Musk. Not for science, but for "speed".
- havelhovel 4y ago
  They aren't dismissing the argument. They're saying pretty plainly that both things can be bad, and therefore both can be addressed simultaneously. Taking the stance that animal welfare activists can't care about anything else until the insanely divisive issue of factory farming is solved, on the other hand, is being dismissive of the issue at hand. It's whataboutism. Moreover, someone might take issue with animals being sacrificed for Neuralink while being okay with animals suffering for human consumption. Such a take would be nuanced, not hypocritical.
phiresky 4y ago
Arguing against whataboutism makes sense, but considering over 50 billion animals are killed every year for food it seems a bit weird to consider 1500 animals being killed for some purpose news (0.000003% of that total).
- havelhovel 4y ago
  I don't understand the pushback this article is getting. If someone is murdered it's news, even though there might be war or genocide going on somewhere else in the world. I don't think anyone in the comment section has said that this is the most important issue of our time, but it's something that is happening. Maybe laws are being broken. Maybe this news encourages new laws to be made. Since when did we start resenting greater awareness?
AYBABTME 4y ago
But you could also say that "it'd be pretty much impossible to make progress in anything with that sort of attitude" where "that sort of attitude" is one where there's no sense of urgency and people work at a leisurely pace. It only depends on where on the spectrum from "greater good" to "individual animal rights" you stand. I think to those folks arguing that we eat meat, it makes sense that this isn't a big number given the potential greater good, in comparison to all the meat we uselessly eat out of mere personal dietary preference. As for me, I don't really have a formed opinion on this. I would err on the side that the greater good is served, but of course would rather if animals weren't needed, or minimize how much harm is done to them. These are are philosophical questions, and it's difficult to untangle which conclusion is pure versus pragmatic, versus convenient.

raducu 4y ago

Isn't it hypocritical to dismiss that argument, though? Arguably if you cared about animal wellbeing you'd start with the farming industry. I'm not saying shutdown animal-cruelty cops because the farming industry is far worse than individuals abusing animals, but those 1500 animals killed were killed in the name of science.

striking 4y ago
No, they were killed in the name of Elon Musk. Not for science, but for "speed".
havelhovel 4y ago
They aren't dismissing the argument. They're saying pretty plainly that both things can be bad, and therefore both can be addressed simultaneously. Taking the stance that animal welfare activists can't care about anything else until the insanely divisive issue of factory farming is solved, on the other hand, is being dismissive of the issue at hand. It's whataboutism. Moreover, someone might take issue with animals being sacrificed for Neuralink while being okay with animals suffering for human consumption. Such a take would be nuanced, not hypocritical.

phiresky 4y ago

Arguing against whataboutism makes sense, but considering over 50 billion animals are killed every year for food it seems a bit weird to consider 1500 animals being killed for some purpose news (0.000003% of that total).

havelhovel 4y ago
I don't understand the pushback this article is getting. If someone is murdered it's news, even though there might be war or genocide going on somewhere else in the world. I don't think anyone in the comment section has said that this is the most important issue of our time, but it's something that is happening. Maybe laws are being broken. Maybe this news encourages new laws to be made. Since when did we start resenting greater awareness?

AYBABTME 4y ago

But you could also say that "it'd be pretty much impossible to make progress in anything with that sort of attitude" where "that sort of attitude" is one where there's no sense of urgency and people work at a leisurely pace. It only depends on where on the spectrum from "greater good" to "individual animal rights" you stand. I think to those folks arguing that we eat meat, it makes sense that this isn't a big number given the potential greater good, in comparison to all the meat we uselessly eat out of mere personal dietary preference. As for me, I don't really have a formed opinion on this. I would err on the side that the greater good is served, but of course would rather if animals weren't needed, or minimize how much harm is done to them. These are are philosophical questions, and it's difficult to untangle which conclusion is pure versus pragmatic, versus convenient.