4 ms·

> We don't have to burn everything good and old to the ground to make way for tech bros of HN creating fake meat. No. But maybe we can become a species smart e

by 9dev 4y ago

> We don't have to burn everything good and old to the ground to make way for tech bros of HN creating fake meat. No. But maybe we can become a species smart enough to avoid the suffering of other beings just for the joy of eating something that tastes nice.

starkd 4y ago
>> just for the joy of eating something that tastes nice That is an example of assuming the worst about someone else with whom you disagree. Taste is not a minor factor. It is a major part of life. Life rituals, commmunity are built around it. It gives life much of its diversity.
- 9dev 4y ago
  The animals robbed of their life entirely for that major part of yours would like to have a word with you. It's not like meat is the only thing tasty or joyful in life.
  - xdennis 4y ago
    Food is tasty and no amount of your religious preaching is going to change that.
    - 9dev 4y ago
      No, I know that. A steak is one of the most delicious things I've ever eaten, for sure. But I still have self control, I don't have do do anything that feels good. I just don't want something sentient to die for my dinner, that's all it is.
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        Then you do you. I am not convinced that an animal killed for food is morally wrong, and I will continue to eat some meat, in moderation, and enjoy when people in my family hunt and fish and eat the things they get. I don't think we have to treat animals as equals to people. That is all completely tangential to this atrocious law from an actually fascist government however. Banning animal-less meat is stupid, backwards, does nothing to protect the meat industry, and they shouldn't be artificially protected anyway. If animal-free meat companies can sell me a tasty steak for slightly cheaper then I will 100% purchase it and enjoy it, but I will likely still not be in favor of banning animal farming.
        9dev 4y ago
        > and enjoy when people in my family hunt and fish and eat the things they get. There is a huge difference between going out and killing something yourself, and shredding millions of chiclets a day for chicken nuggets thrown away half eaten. But that's how the majority of people get their meat. I'm with you on the second paragraph, though.
    - 3np 4y ago
      Equally arguable: Rape feels good and no amount of preaching is changing that. Has similarly been part of human culture for time immemorial. I still consider it desirable to reduce the amount of rape to 0, regardless of how important it might feel to rapists.
      - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
        Rape feels good for the victim? I was always under the impression that rape is a horrible, terrible, painful, and humiliating atrocity. I've never been a democrat, so maybe that's why I don't have a favorable view of rape and think is feels good for the victim.
        3np 4y ago
        So that's where you end up following that line of thought huh
      - fennecfoxy 4y ago
        This is incredibly counterintuitive as really what you mean is "rape feels good to a rapist". That's the important part. I feel like the majority of people, if held at gunpoint and forced to rape somebody, would not be comfortable, they would not enjoy it and it would be a scarring, traumatic experience.
        9dev 4y ago
        What is counterintuitive in OPs statement if we're talking about eating meat? > Rape feels good and no amount of preaching is changing that. Has similarly been part of human culture for time immemorial. > [Meat] is tasty and no amount of your religious preaching is going to change that. There is no ambiguity here? A rapist doesn't regard the feelings of their victims. Someone who eats an animal doesn't regard the feelings of that animal. In both cases, it's clear who enjoys that situation and who suffers for it.
zpeti 4y ago
Can you please explain this to the lions of the sahara? They relish the suffering of other species for the joy of things that taste nice.
- 9dev 4y ago
  So you're on the intellectual level of a lion, or what? In contrary to lions, you have the brain to think about this, the alternatives to choose from, the digestive tract to handle plant-based food, and the moral capability to understand why killing living beings is bad.
  - zpeti 4y ago
    Bad? Apart from your own moral opinion, how is killing bad? Why is killing a plant better than an animal? Because their chemistry includes some sort of pain hormone? So do some plants. This is not an argument either of us can win, because it’s a morality question to which there can be many answers. I simply don’t see how eating only plants is more moral. For all we know free grazing animals that we eat are way more happy and stress free during their lives than in the wild. Just like humans spent most of their last 50k years on the verge of starvation and barely surviving. Our current state of abundance is about 60-70 years old (20 for third world)
    - 9dev 4y ago
      Dude. Because plants don't have a central nervous system. Animals do. Plants don't feel pain. Animals do. It's not hard.
      - hobo_in_library 4y ago
        So would you be okay with slaughtering animals painlessly and then eating them?
        9dev 4y ago
        No: An animal is capable of having a subjective existence, emotions and sensations. Slaughtering them needlessly (ie., for luxury purposes) is not okay to me.
PM_me_your_math 4y ago
I'll think about that over my steak & eggs breakfast tomorrow. I thought about it over bacon this morning, but it seems almost too dumb an idea to give more than a passing thought. In the spirit of considering the opposing viewpoint, I will add a healthy amount of sausage gravy to my breakfast on the following day during contemplation, however I make no promises that my conclusions will skew in favor of seasoned insect guts and purple mystery slime patties for breakfast. I will add that if it were not for consuming animal proteins (real meat), our species would not have survived as long as it has. Clearly, you know what is best for everyone, so while I sink my natural incisors into the steak, I will carefully consider your emotional, unscientific, and agenda-driven propaganda and petty attempt at control over the lives of others. Again, no promises.
- 9dev 4y ago
  Maybe actually try to think about it once, neutrally. If you spend any time around animals like dogs, cats, horses or even cattle, you’ll notice they exhibit signs of a character: they show affection, have bad mornings, nightmares, favourite foods and care for their offspring with what you’d call love in humans. This pretty clearly indicates some kind of sentience, meaning a feeling of subjectivity (all of this is solidly backed science-wise, by the way) and emotions. Now those animals might experience reality very differently from us, but that doesn’t even matter. What matters is that they experience some kind of subjective reality. Is it really too foreign of a thought to try and minimise the number of animals that have to live in agony until they are killed, just for that tasty steak on your table? I don’t want to control your life. I believe this is a logical conclusion thinking will eventually get anyone to, given the effort - and moral integrity.
  - planter 4y ago
    Years ago I worked on a farm raising cattle. We would take great care of the animals every day, often hand feeding cows, but especially the calfs with apples and such. A very enjoyable event was at spring time, when letting the cattle out to grass, they would go completely crazy and jump around. When an animal had the right age and weight, it would be shot and slaughtered. The process would then start over. Both then and now, I eat meat with the greatest pleasure and will continue to do so. Sorry, your anthropomorphism issues don't affect me and most others. > I don’t want to control your life. I believe this is a logical conclusion thinking will eventually get anyone to, given the effort - and moral integrity. How nice it must feel to be so superior :) I hope this will be enough copeism for you, to handle that 90% of the world population will continue to eat meat. As people are lifted out of poverty, they want to eat meat no matter how much you preach.

by 9dev 4y ago

starkd 4y ago

>> just for the joy of eating something that tastes nice That is an example of assuming the worst about someone else with whom you disagree. Taste is not a minor factor. It is a major part of life. Life rituals, commmunity are built around it. It gives life much of its diversity.

9dev 4y ago
The animals robbed of their life entirely for that major part of yours would like to have a word with you. It's not like meat is the only thing tasty or joyful in life.
- xdennis 4y ago
  Food is tasty and no amount of your religious preaching is going to change that.
  - 9dev 4y ago
    No, I know that. A steak is one of the most delicious things I've ever eaten, for sure. But I still have self control, I don't have do do anything that feels good. I just don't want something sentient to die for my dinner, that's all it is.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      Then you do you. I am not convinced that an animal killed for food is morally wrong, and I will continue to eat some meat, in moderation, and enjoy when people in my family hunt and fish and eat the things they get. I don't think we have to treat animals as equals to people. That is all completely tangential to this atrocious law from an actually fascist government however. Banning animal-less meat is stupid, backwards, does nothing to protect the meat industry, and they shouldn't be artificially protected anyway. If animal-free meat companies can sell me a tasty steak for slightly cheaper then I will 100% purchase it and enjoy it, but I will likely still not be in favor of banning animal farming.
      - 9dev 4y ago
        > and enjoy when people in my family hunt and fish and eat the things they get. There is a huge difference between going out and killing something yourself, and shredding millions of chiclets a day for chicken nuggets thrown away half eaten. But that's how the majority of people get their meat. I'm with you on the second paragraph, though.
  - 3np 4y ago
    Equally arguable: Rape feels good and no amount of preaching is changing that. Has similarly been part of human culture for time immemorial. I still consider it desirable to reduce the amount of rape to 0, regardless of how important it might feel to rapists.
    - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
      Rape feels good for the victim? I was always under the impression that rape is a horrible, terrible, painful, and humiliating atrocity. I've never been a democrat, so maybe that's why I don't have a favorable view of rape and think is feels good for the victim.
      - 3np 4y ago
        So that's where you end up following that line of thought huh
    - fennecfoxy 4y ago
      This is incredibly counterintuitive as really what you mean is "rape feels good to a rapist". That's the important part. I feel like the majority of people, if held at gunpoint and forced to rape somebody, would not be comfortable, they would not enjoy it and it would be a scarring, traumatic experience.
      - 9dev 4y ago
        What is counterintuitive in OPs statement if we're talking about eating meat? > Rape feels good and no amount of preaching is changing that. Has similarly been part of human culture for time immemorial. > [Meat] is tasty and no amount of your religious preaching is going to change that. There is no ambiguity here? A rapist doesn't regard the feelings of their victims. Someone who eats an animal doesn't regard the feelings of that animal. In both cases, it's clear who enjoys that situation and who suffers for it.

zpeti 4y ago

Can you please explain this to the lions of the sahara? They relish the suffering of other species for the joy of things that taste nice.

9dev 4y ago
So you're on the intellectual level of a lion, or what? In contrary to lions, you have the brain to think about this, the alternatives to choose from, the digestive tract to handle plant-based food, and the moral capability to understand why killing living beings is bad.
- zpeti 4y ago
  Bad? Apart from your own moral opinion, how is killing bad? Why is killing a plant better than an animal? Because their chemistry includes some sort of pain hormone? So do some plants. This is not an argument either of us can win, because it’s a morality question to which there can be many answers. I simply don’t see how eating only plants is more moral. For all we know free grazing animals that we eat are way more happy and stress free during their lives than in the wild. Just like humans spent most of their last 50k years on the verge of starvation and barely surviving. Our current state of abundance is about 60-70 years old (20 for third world)
  - 9dev 4y ago
    Dude. Because plants don't have a central nervous system. Animals do. Plants don't feel pain. Animals do. It's not hard.
    - hobo_in_library 4y ago
      So would you be okay with slaughtering animals painlessly and then eating them?
      - 9dev 4y ago
        No: An animal is capable of having a subjective existence, emotions and sensations. Slaughtering them needlessly (ie., for luxury purposes) is not okay to me.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago

I'll think about that over my steak & eggs breakfast tomorrow. I thought about it over bacon this morning, but it seems almost too dumb an idea to give more than a passing thought. In the spirit of considering the opposing viewpoint, I will add a healthy amount of sausage gravy to my breakfast on the following day during contemplation, however I make no promises that my conclusions will skew in favor of seasoned insect guts and purple mystery slime patties for breakfast. I will add that if it were not for consuming animal proteins (real meat), our species would not have survived as long as it has. Clearly, you know what is best for everyone, so while I sink my natural incisors into the steak, I will carefully consider your emotional, unscientific, and agenda-driven propaganda and petty attempt at control over the lives of others. Again, no promises.

9dev 4y ago
Maybe actually try to think about it once, neutrally. If you spend any time around animals like dogs, cats, horses or even cattle, you’ll notice they exhibit signs of a character: they show affection, have bad mornings, nightmares, favourite foods and care for their offspring with what you’d call love in humans. This pretty clearly indicates some kind of sentience, meaning a feeling of subjectivity (all of this is solidly backed science-wise, by the way) and emotions. Now those animals might experience reality very differently from us, but that doesn’t even matter. What matters is that they experience some kind of subjective reality. Is it really too foreign of a thought to try and minimise the number of animals that have to live in agony until they are killed, just for that tasty steak on your table? I don’t want to control your life. I believe this is a logical conclusion thinking will eventually get anyone to, given the effort - and moral integrity.
- planter 4y ago
  Years ago I worked on a farm raising cattle. We would take great care of the animals every day, often hand feeding cows, but especially the calfs with apples and such. A very enjoyable event was at spring time, when letting the cattle out to grass, they would go completely crazy and jump around. When an animal had the right age and weight, it would be shot and slaughtered. The process would then start over. Both then and now, I eat meat with the greatest pleasure and will continue to do so. Sorry, your anthropomorphism issues don't affect me and most others. > I don’t want to control your life. I believe this is a logical conclusion thinking will eventually get anyone to, given the effort - and moral integrity. How nice it must feel to be so superior :) I hope this will be enough copeism for you, to handle that 90% of the world population will continue to eat meat. As people are lifted out of poverty, they want to eat meat no matter how much you preach.