7 ms·

> Good grief. I wish we could skip the incrementalism for once and just put an end to all animal slaughter, extreme or not. At some point - we have to eat some

> Good grief. I wish we could skip the incrementalism for once and just put an end to all animal slaughter, extreme or not. At some point - we have to eat something that is alive. Even plants react to being damaged in intentional and measurable ways (including trying to repair themselves, signaling neighbors of the damage, and passing nutrients to each other in response). I think it's impossible to ditch incrementalism, because EVERYTHING we eat is already somewhere on that sliding scale of "something alive that is trying to stay that way". I am in favor of reducing the harm I am able to, while still acknowledging that simply existing requires that I consume resources (And those resources have to be a living thing, because humans are consumers... not producers). Those resources could have gone to keep another living thing alive, but I am using them. At some point, I expect to die, and it will be something else's turn. --- Also - It would be really, really cool if we could get the whole "KloraDerm" thing going from "Old Man's War" by John Scalzi. I would LOVE to be able to do photosynthesis.

Ekaros 3y ago
Could we make sugars or fats straight from CO2 and Water? Just wondering could you theoretically make either from some process that does not involve plants, bacteria, protist or fungi? Enzymes are probably fair game.
- horsawlarway 3y ago
  Sure - I think there's a possible long game here where we're able to technologically engineer our way back to producer status. Bio-engineering is one route (KloraDerm), but I could see alternative routes that are essentially just chemical/material sciences. I think it's probably an incredibly complicated supply chain we'd have to really work through to make sure you can synthesize all the required components without going through something living, but we know that producers exist - so there's hope.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Also now that I think about it. Basically anything at all can contaminate the process and include living things... Probably not realistic on industrial scale. And then how do you get to the clean starting point...
- chris_va 3y ago
  Sure... CO2 capture => Fischer-Tropsch => wax => fatty acid => food. The CO2 capture part is new, and presumably one would use solar now, but the rest was attempted during WW2. E-fuel plants do this for synthetic aviation fuel. You can also do it slightly more indirectly via acetate: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00530-x.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00530-x.pdf
PretzelPirate 3y ago
> At some point - we have to eat something that is alive Alive and sentient aren't the same thing. You can eat non-sentient beings that are alive (like plants) and they won't suffer.
- horsawlarway 3y ago
  > You can eat non-sentient beings that are alive (like plants) and they won't suffer. Define suffer?
- croisillon 3y ago
  what are you doing :( don't kill the whataboutism in less than 5 minutes
- snapcaster 3y ago
  How are you so confident plants aren't suffering? They have measureable responses to stress and harm
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    Stress and harm are loaded words for stimuli here. Parts of plants can be triggered by a stimulus to begin emitting chemical signals that govern growth, senescence, etc elsewhere in the plant. They do this in response to a wide range of stimuli, not just "harm". Which stimuli feel "bad" to the plant? How would you know? It's all very stimulus-response for a plant. If things responding to inputs means they can feel or think, then I suppose single cell organisms and computer programs and doorbells count.
    - horsawlarway 3y ago
      Your brain develops using an incredibly similar system of chemical signals (hormone distribution). Also - almost every plant out there is capable of repairing damage to itself, which I would take as fairly strong evidence that it prefers to not die. That repair is a complicated and involved process as well, and often includes adaptations that attempt to prevent further damage (ex: Lots of plants signal neighbors when eaten, and those neighbors chemically adjust to change how they taste to the animal eating them). I'm just saying... I can vividly picture the alien farting out a cloud of pheromones that essentially say "It's all very stimulus-response for a human - they just begin emitting auditory response to a wide range of stimuli" before he eats them.
ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> At some point - we have to eat something that is alive. Not necessarily as we could wait for living things to die naturally and then consume them (maybe becoming fungus-like in the process). For livestock, that could possibly create a loophole of farms having conditions that cause a premature death. With plants, there's the option of following fruitarianism and just eating plant material that falls off such as fruit. (Fruit is unusual when it comes to being consumed as it arguably "wants" to be eaten so that the parent plant can better distribute its seeds). There's problems with following such a fruit heavy diet though and I don't think it's a good idea by itself. Alternatively, we could go the Soylent Green route?
- fluoridation 3y ago
  The plant matter of a fruit is still alive, though. At some point you're drawing an arbitrary line that separates the living things that are okay to eat from those that are not.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    That depends on the definition of "alive". Fruits don't respire which a lot of definitions include. And yes, it's going to be an arbitrary line.
    - fluoridation 3y ago
      Perhaps not the fruit as a whole, but the individual cells certainly do.
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        Going to the cellular complicates matters. That'd probably mean that you'd have to wait for fruit and veg to go mouldy before eating it and then do we consider fungus to be alive?
        fluoridation 3y ago
groffee 3y ago
[dead]
35997279 3y ago
There’s a really good case for sentience, though. This isn’t a problem of infinite regression: no one is asking for you to become a Jain.
- pvaldes 3y ago
  one law at a time
- horsawlarway 3y ago
  Sure - I won't argue that I emotionally understand and relate much more strongly to the pain and suffering of animals that are biologically similar to me. I also agree that minimizing that pain is a reasonable goal, and worth taking steps to do at most every point we can afford to (and realistically - we are fairly rich as a species, we could be doing better). I don't particularly agree that forgoing meat consumption entirely is the right call - although reducing it likely is (especially if you live in the US). I also don't think that just because you happen to be eating a plant, you're off the hook - I think monoculture production and certain farming practices (see: palm oil) are causing suffering on similar scales. In my opinion - we should be trusting large conglomerates less with our foods (whether they're plant or animal) and doing more production locally. Acknowledging and respecting where the food you eat comes from is a huge step up from where many folks are right now.
  - 35997279 3y ago
    You’re right on all fronts. I’ll add that there’s a human element to both the plant and meat consumption story: in both cases, harvesting and slaughtering, the dirty work is often done by migrant workers with very little enforced legal protections. They work in terrible conditions, for low pay.
LinXitoW 3y ago
For one, it's incredibly hard to believe that anyone genuinely believes that "killing" a carrot and killing a dog are in anyway morally similar. Secondly, this is utterly IRRELEVANT IN PRACTICE! Your consumption of animals causes far, far, far more plant "deaths" than if you actually just ate plants. BY YOUR OWN LOGIC you should be vegan. Of course, you can also use your logic to go the other way. If it's all the same morally, might as well start eating humans. Us white people have got some experience with that. > I am in favor of reducing the harm I am able to Wonderful, that makes you vegan. As in, that is the actual (common) definition of veganism: Reduce suffering and death as far as practicable and possible.

Ekaros 3y ago

Could we make sugars or fats straight from CO2 and Water? Just wondering could you theoretically make either from some process that does not involve plants, bacteria, protist or fungi? Enzymes are probably fair game.

horsawlarway 3y ago
Sure - I think there's a possible long game here where we're able to technologically engineer our way back to producer status. Bio-engineering is one route (KloraDerm), but I could see alternative routes that are essentially just chemical/material sciences. I think it's probably an incredibly complicated supply chain we'd have to really work through to make sure you can synthesize all the required components without going through something living, but we know that producers exist - so there's hope.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Also now that I think about it. Basically anything at all can contaminate the process and include living things... Probably not realistic on industrial scale. And then how do you get to the clean starting point...
chris_va 3y ago
Sure... CO2 capture => Fischer-Tropsch => wax => fatty acid => food. The CO2 capture part is new, and presumably one would use solar now, but the rest was attempted during WW2. E-fuel plants do this for synthetic aviation fuel. You can also do it slightly more indirectly via acetate: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00530-x.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00530-x.pdf

PretzelPirate 3y ago

> At some point - we have to eat something that is alive Alive and sentient aren't the same thing. You can eat non-sentient beings that are alive (like plants) and they won't suffer.

horsawlarway 3y ago
> You can eat non-sentient beings that are alive (like plants) and they won't suffer. Define suffer?
croisillon 3y ago
what are you doing :( don't kill the whataboutism in less than 5 minutes
snapcaster 3y ago
How are you so confident plants aren't suffering? They have measureable responses to stress and harm
- Clamchop 3y ago
  Stress and harm are loaded words for stimuli here. Parts of plants can be triggered by a stimulus to begin emitting chemical signals that govern growth, senescence, etc elsewhere in the plant. They do this in response to a wide range of stimuli, not just "harm". Which stimuli feel "bad" to the plant? How would you know? It's all very stimulus-response for a plant. If things responding to inputs means they can feel or think, then I suppose single cell organisms and computer programs and doorbells count.
  - horsawlarway 3y ago
    Your brain develops using an incredibly similar system of chemical signals (hormone distribution). Also - almost every plant out there is capable of repairing damage to itself, which I would take as fairly strong evidence that it prefers to not die. That repair is a complicated and involved process as well, and often includes adaptations that attempt to prevent further damage (ex: Lots of plants signal neighbors when eaten, and those neighbors chemically adjust to change how they taste to the animal eating them). I'm just saying... I can vividly picture the alien farting out a cloud of pheromones that essentially say "It's all very stimulus-response for a human - they just begin emitting auditory response to a wide range of stimuli" before he eats them.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

> At some point - we have to eat something that is alive. Not necessarily as we could wait for living things to die naturally and then consume them (maybe becoming fungus-like in the process). For livestock, that could possibly create a loophole of farms having conditions that cause a premature death. With plants, there's the option of following fruitarianism and just eating plant material that falls off such as fruit. (Fruit is unusual when it comes to being consumed as it arguably "wants" to be eaten so that the parent plant can better distribute its seeds). There's problems with following such a fruit heavy diet though and I don't think it's a good idea by itself. Alternatively, we could go the Soylent Green route?

fluoridation 3y ago
The plant matter of a fruit is still alive, though. At some point you're drawing an arbitrary line that separates the living things that are okay to eat from those that are not.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  That depends on the definition of "alive". Fruits don't respire which a lot of definitions include. And yes, it's going to be an arbitrary line.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    Perhaps not the fruit as a whole, but the individual cells certainly do.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      Going to the cellular complicates matters. That'd probably mean that you'd have to wait for fruit and veg to go mouldy before eating it and then do we consider fungus to be alive?
      - fluoridation 3y ago

groffee 3y ago

[dead]

35997279 3y ago

There’s a really good case for sentience, though. This isn’t a problem of infinite regression: no one is asking for you to become a Jain.

pvaldes 3y ago
one law at a time
horsawlarway 3y ago
Sure - I won't argue that I emotionally understand and relate much more strongly to the pain and suffering of animals that are biologically similar to me. I also agree that minimizing that pain is a reasonable goal, and worth taking steps to do at most every point we can afford to (and realistically - we are fairly rich as a species, we could be doing better). I don't particularly agree that forgoing meat consumption entirely is the right call - although reducing it likely is (especially if you live in the US). I also don't think that just because you happen to be eating a plant, you're off the hook - I think monoculture production and certain farming practices (see: palm oil) are causing suffering on similar scales. In my opinion - we should be trusting large conglomerates less with our foods (whether they're plant or animal) and doing more production locally. Acknowledging and respecting where the food you eat comes from is a huge step up from where many folks are right now.
- 35997279 3y ago
  You’re right on all fronts. I’ll add that there’s a human element to both the plant and meat consumption story: in both cases, harvesting and slaughtering, the dirty work is often done by migrant workers with very little enforced legal protections. They work in terrible conditions, for low pay.

LinXitoW 3y ago

For one, it's incredibly hard to believe that anyone genuinely believes that "killing" a carrot and killing a dog are in anyway morally similar. Secondly, this is utterly IRRELEVANT IN PRACTICE! Your consumption of animals causes far, far, far more plant "deaths" than if you actually just ate plants. BY YOUR OWN LOGIC you should be vegan. Of course, you can also use your logic to go the other way. If it's all the same morally, might as well start eating humans. Us white people have got some experience with that. > I am in favor of reducing the harm I am able to Wonderful, that makes you vegan. As in, that is the actual (common) definition of veganism: Reduce suffering and death as far as practicable and possible.