6 ms·

Can you be more specific about the flaws? My reasoning as a vegan is based on similarity of nervous systems and the potential for suffering of species similar t

Can you be more specific about the flaws? My reasoning as a vegan is based on similarity of nervous systems and the potential for suffering of species similar to me (similar defined by genetic relatedness). I do think that plants have capacity for suffering but it is incomparable to the suffering of a cow, for example.

genewitch 3y ago
honest question: what's wrong with something like Waygu, then?
- manicennui 3y ago
  Waygu is a breed. I don't follow. Are you referring to how Kobe is treated before slaughter?
  - genewitch 3y ago
    Yes, i was. i was trying to remember, but couldn't.
- hombre_fatal 3y ago
  I don’t think it’s ethical to breed, farm, and kill sentient beings just because you don’t abuse them before you bolt them in the head. “But my slaves have a great life!” would be a similar example.
  - genewitch 3y ago
    fair enough. I've only done vegetarianism and veganism for (selfish) health reasons. I can't seem to get things to grow in the ground here, probably because of all the pine stands and i can't get the ratio of lye correct to promote stuff like corn or oats to grow. Luckily trees grow fine... the rabbits, squirrels, and birds thank me every year when they get to the fruit before i can. It's also rural here, so being vegan is incredibly difficult (read: boring). I could, technically, survive on oatmeal, french/italian bread, potatos, and ketchup. But i don't have the moral fortitude to make the leap. maybe in the future. Thanks for responding and I hope my question was worded inoffensively. I hate to sound like i am JAQ-ing off.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Where do you get your food? The market doesn't have vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts, etc.?
      - genewitch 3y ago
        "the market" that sells those things is over an hour round trip, so i only go every three weeks or so. There is a distinct (but unchecked) possibility that the solitary butcher shop is closer than a supermarket to my house. I just realized i have this style conversation every time i bring up anything about food when talking with people specifically in the US, for 15 of the last 20 years of my life. The comment i originally typed mentioned a 50 mile radius around my house is either forest or farmland, with 1 metro area. AFAIK there's no farmer's market; also the most common crops are field corn (not human edible as i understand it) and cotton, then soybeans. It is very difficult to enjoy eating if there's any dietary restrictions, self-imposed or otherwise, due to living it what i suppose most people would call a food desert. Atkins, vegetarianism, veganism, etc. I can buy hamburger patties, chicken, bacon, cheese about 15 minutes from my house, though - and an extremely limited selection of seasonal produce, grapes, avocado, banana, apples, iceberg lettuce, sometimes cucumbers and celery and carrots. Everything else would be canned, and i'm on an eternally medically necessary low-sodium diet, so i don't eat much canned vegetables. Food here is such a pain in the ass that sometimes i buy my friends fresh produce when i go to town so they have something to eat that isn't fried.
        justinclift 3y ago
        > field corn (not human edible as i understand it) Heh, fermentation may open up some options there. :D
        wolverine876 3y ago
        I realize my questions might have seemed argumentative. I was really curious. Thanks for explaining it (again!). We all live on the same planet, in different worlds.
    - odrekf 3y ago
  - tremon 3y ago
    On the other hand, cattle and poultry are the most successful organisms on this planet exactly because of farming. The selective pressure for tasty meat is no different than flowers developing rich smells and trees developing edible fruits. There is a lot to be said against the inhuman assembly-line-like production of meat that has developed over the last century. But in my view, I shouldn't have to defend myself for being born an omnivore.
    - zztop44 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - ta8645 3y ago
        Here's my ethical defense of eating meat. Everyone and every thing dies, and in the larger scheme of things it matters not one bit. I'll make peace agreements with others where I see a benefit, and if I can trust that the other sees enough benefit to hold up his end of the bargain. Other than that, I see no reason to not participate fully in the full range of barbaric behavior the universe allows. Don't blame the player, blame the game. There is no referee who watches over to pass judgement either way.
        zztop44 3y ago
        “I will do barbaric things so long as there are no adverse consequences to me personally” is not really an ethical defence of eating meat.
        ta8645 3y ago
        Well, ignoring your minor mischaracterization of my position, yes it is a defense of meat eating. It's just not ethics you agree with. But that's the great thing with ethics, everyone gets to pick their own. There's no right or wrong, just opinions.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- block_dagger 3y ago
  I don't follow farming/breeds of cows, but any kind of captivity I consider animal cruelty. How would you, as a human (a sexual social creature), like to be captive and controlled? Simple "golden rule" application here.
yieldcrv 3y ago
I am familiar with that view and I don't agree with that conclusion > I do think that plants have capacity for suffering but it is incomparable to the suffering of a cow, for example. why? why is it incomparable. the fact that you even consider "genetic relatedness" or "that plants have capacity for suffering" is an expansion that requires admitting a simpler view that many vegans have was simply wrong! there are plenty that are like "anything without a central nervous system can't suffer!" and the goal posts keep moving as they have to accept that more and more organisms avoid negative stimuli because they can predict it or don't want it. if plants could yell and howl in pain they would. which way would be incomparable? if plants could uproot and move out the way, they would. which way would be incomparable? and that entire view is based on the vegan feeling so uniquely enlightened, as if the rest of us could not perceive suffering of mammals or suffering of other species. but it was only you, the anti-suffering vegans, that ever needed the validation of additional institutions to accept this already widely held perception that killing organisms for consumption is something those organisms actively react to and avoid because of sensory inputs. and for solutions, it is arbitrary to manifest that as a dietary preference.
- hombre_fatal 3y ago
  I draw the line at sentience (a subjective experience) and plants don’t meet the consensus of criteria. I’m not even sure some animals like bivalves do. Also, if your next step has to land on a dog or a patch of grass it almost sounds like you are going to say it doesn’t matter because we can’t know if the grass has a subjective experience (but we know the dog has one).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- cute_boi 3y ago
  Vegans themselves acknowledge that veganism may not be flawless; however, this does not imply that their perspective is fundamentally incorrect. Lets say we are able to find plants would have to endure too much pain. Even in such case, veganism works because less plant shall suffer. Vegans aren't wrong.
WhatsTheBigIdea 3y ago
Where does the octopus fit in your "similar species/genetic relatedness" equation? I have read that cephalopods are on a genetic tree that diverged from our own before the emergence of photosynthesis. It seems that we are more closely related to most plants that we are to octopuses... yet they are able to befriend humans, clearly have emotions and undoubtedly experience pain. It is even the case that they generate hormones that are nearly chemically identical to our own for similar emotional states, fight-or-flight for example. So, octopuses are pretty similar to us and yet more distant genetic relatives than your salad!
- block_dagger 3y ago
  I am not a specialist but from the little evidence I've read the octopus could be one of the most conscious species on the planet. Would not capture or eat. You're right that this example throws a wrench in my genetic relatedness argument. Stepping back from that, the deeper question is: how obvious is it that a creature can suffer similar to my own suffering? If it's obvious, it's obviously a bad choice for domination and consumption in my book. Plants do not have this outward obvious ability to suffer imo. EDIT: after a conversation with ChatGPT, I think it's reasonable to base one's assessment of suffering potential on the following observations of an organism: nervous system complexity, social behavior, learning and problem solving, presence/intensity of pain receptors, response to stimuli, and outward evidence of emotional states.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    You may want to include some kind of time factor into your suffering assessment. Like, what if some "thing" has very complex behaviours as per your existing items, but their external signalling rate is so slow that it takes hours for them to start displaying their reactions? (note - that's just an exaggerated thing to convey the idea)
    - thomasskis 3y ago
      I think the subjective time here is especially relevant. The post previous mentioned having a conversation with ChatGPT about the topic. ChatGPT probably had multiple human lifetimes of conversations during that one conversation. Would it think of humans the same way we think of trees? Too slow to have meaningful behaviour? Maybe on H100s not just yet.

genewitch 3y ago

honest question: what's wrong with something like Waygu, then?

manicennui 3y ago
Waygu is a breed. I don't follow. Are you referring to how Kobe is treated before slaughter?
- genewitch 3y ago
  Yes, i was. i was trying to remember, but couldn't.
hombre_fatal 3y ago
I don’t think it’s ethical to breed, farm, and kill sentient beings just because you don’t abuse them before you bolt them in the head. “But my slaves have a great life!” would be a similar example.
- genewitch 3y ago
  fair enough. I've only done vegetarianism and veganism for (selfish) health reasons. I can't seem to get things to grow in the ground here, probably because of all the pine stands and i can't get the ratio of lye correct to promote stuff like corn or oats to grow. Luckily trees grow fine... the rabbits, squirrels, and birds thank me every year when they get to the fruit before i can. It's also rural here, so being vegan is incredibly difficult (read: boring). I could, technically, survive on oatmeal, french/italian bread, potatos, and ketchup. But i don't have the moral fortitude to make the leap. maybe in the future. Thanks for responding and I hope my question was worded inoffensively. I hate to sound like i am JAQ-ing off.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Where do you get your food? The market doesn't have vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts, etc.?
    - genewitch 3y ago
      "the market" that sells those things is over an hour round trip, so i only go every three weeks or so. There is a distinct (but unchecked) possibility that the solitary butcher shop is closer than a supermarket to my house. I just realized i have this style conversation every time i bring up anything about food when talking with people specifically in the US, for 15 of the last 20 years of my life. The comment i originally typed mentioned a 50 mile radius around my house is either forest or farmland, with 1 metro area. AFAIK there's no farmer's market; also the most common crops are field corn (not human edible as i understand it) and cotton, then soybeans. It is very difficult to enjoy eating if there's any dietary restrictions, self-imposed or otherwise, due to living it what i suppose most people would call a food desert. Atkins, vegetarianism, veganism, etc. I can buy hamburger patties, chicken, bacon, cheese about 15 minutes from my house, though - and an extremely limited selection of seasonal produce, grapes, avocado, banana, apples, iceberg lettuce, sometimes cucumbers and celery and carrots. Everything else would be canned, and i'm on an eternally medically necessary low-sodium diet, so i don't eat much canned vegetables. Food here is such a pain in the ass that sometimes i buy my friends fresh produce when i go to town so they have something to eat that isn't fried.
      - justinclift 3y ago
        > field corn (not human edible as i understand it) Heh, fermentation may open up some options there. :D
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        I realize my questions might have seemed argumentative. I was really curious. Thanks for explaining it (again!). We all live on the same planet, in different worlds.
  - odrekf 3y ago
- tremon 3y ago
  On the other hand, cattle and poultry are the most successful organisms on this planet exactly because of farming. The selective pressure for tasty meat is no different than flowers developing rich smells and trees developing edible fruits. There is a lot to be said against the inhuman assembly-line-like production of meat that has developed over the last century. But in my view, I shouldn't have to defend myself for being born an omnivore.
  - zztop44 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - ta8645 3y ago
      Here's my ethical defense of eating meat. Everyone and every thing dies, and in the larger scheme of things it matters not one bit. I'll make peace agreements with others where I see a benefit, and if I can trust that the other sees enough benefit to hold up his end of the bargain. Other than that, I see no reason to not participate fully in the full range of barbaric behavior the universe allows. Don't blame the player, blame the game. There is no referee who watches over to pass judgement either way.
      - zztop44 3y ago
        “I will do barbaric things so long as there are no adverse consequences to me personally” is not really an ethical defence of eating meat.
        ta8645 3y ago
        Well, ignoring your minor mischaracterization of my position, yes it is a defense of meat eating. It's just not ethics you agree with. But that's the great thing with ethics, everyone gets to pick their own. There's no right or wrong, just opinions.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
block_dagger 3y ago
I don't follow farming/breeds of cows, but any kind of captivity I consider animal cruelty. How would you, as a human (a sexual social creature), like to be captive and controlled? Simple "golden rule" application here.

yieldcrv 3y ago

I am familiar with that view and I don't agree with that conclusion > I do think that plants have capacity for suffering but it is incomparable to the suffering of a cow, for example. why? why is it incomparable. the fact that you even consider "genetic relatedness" or "that plants have capacity for suffering" is an expansion that requires admitting a simpler view that many vegans have was simply wrong! there are plenty that are like "anything without a central nervous system can't suffer!" and the goal posts keep moving as they have to accept that more and more organisms avoid negative stimuli because they can predict it or don't want it. if plants could yell and howl in pain they would. which way would be incomparable? if plants could uproot and move out the way, they would. which way would be incomparable? and that entire view is based on the vegan feeling so uniquely enlightened, as if the rest of us could not perceive suffering of mammals or suffering of other species. but it was only you, the anti-suffering vegans, that ever needed the validation of additional institutions to accept this already widely held perception that killing organisms for consumption is something those organisms actively react to and avoid because of sensory inputs. and for solutions, it is arbitrary to manifest that as a dietary preference.

hombre_fatal 3y ago
I draw the line at sentience (a subjective experience) and plants don’t meet the consensus of criteria. I’m not even sure some animals like bivalves do. Also, if your next step has to land on a dog or a patch of grass it almost sounds like you are going to say it doesn’t matter because we can’t know if the grass has a subjective experience (but we know the dog has one).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
cute_boi 3y ago
Vegans themselves acknowledge that veganism may not be flawless; however, this does not imply that their perspective is fundamentally incorrect. Lets say we are able to find plants would have to endure too much pain. Even in such case, veganism works because less plant shall suffer. Vegans aren't wrong.

WhatsTheBigIdea 3y ago

Where does the octopus fit in your "similar species/genetic relatedness" equation? I have read that cephalopods are on a genetic tree that diverged from our own before the emergence of photosynthesis. It seems that we are more closely related to most plants that we are to octopuses... yet they are able to befriend humans, clearly have emotions and undoubtedly experience pain. It is even the case that they generate hormones that are nearly chemically identical to our own for similar emotional states, fight-or-flight for example. So, octopuses are pretty similar to us and yet more distant genetic relatives than your salad!

block_dagger 3y ago
I am not a specialist but from the little evidence I've read the octopus could be one of the most conscious species on the planet. Would not capture or eat. You're right that this example throws a wrench in my genetic relatedness argument. Stepping back from that, the deeper question is: how obvious is it that a creature can suffer similar to my own suffering? If it's obvious, it's obviously a bad choice for domination and consumption in my book. Plants do not have this outward obvious ability to suffer imo. EDIT: after a conversation with ChatGPT, I think it's reasonable to base one's assessment of suffering potential on the following observations of an organism: nervous system complexity, social behavior, learning and problem solving, presence/intensity of pain receptors, response to stimuli, and outward evidence of emotional states.
- justinclift 3y ago
  You may want to include some kind of time factor into your suffering assessment. Like, what if some "thing" has very complex behaviours as per your existing items, but their external signalling rate is so slow that it takes hours for them to start displaying their reactions? (note - that's just an exaggerated thing to convey the idea)
  - thomasskis 3y ago
    I think the subjective time here is especially relevant. The post previous mentioned having a conversation with ChatGPT about the topic. ChatGPT probably had multiple human lifetimes of conversations during that one conversation. Would it think of humans the same way we think of trees? Too slow to have meaningful behaviour? Maybe on H100s not just yet.