3 ms·

The basic mechanisms of empathy are probably biological, but everything else is cultural. Consider that different civilisations in the past even engaged in syst

The basic mechanisms of empathy are probably biological, but everything else is cultural. Consider that different civilisations in the past even engaged in systematic cannibalism. I grew up in a farm. In my experience, the people less likely to feel empathy for animals were those who actually worked with them every day. This does not mean that they were cruel, at all, but rather that they understood rising and killing animals as fundamental for their livelihood. This reality is very remote for many urban dwellers, for whom animal products come into existence in the supermarket aisle, and who mostly only see live animals as pets.

WalterSear 2y ago
>This does not mean that they were cruel, at all, but rather that they understood rising and killing animals as fundamental for their livelihood. The banality of evil. Enron executives' behaviour was also fundamental to their livelihood.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  Nature itself is evil by this standard
  - WalterSear 2y ago
    1. Yes. 2. That's irrelevant on multiple levels 3. Cognitive abstractions aren't beings, can't have a morality to evaluate. "As moral as Darwinian Evolution" is not a good look, particularly in regards to livelihood rather than survival.
luqtas 2y ago
it's not probably, it's what it's! go read where neuroscience reason about that... and i typed _modern people_ from cities & despite city people sometimes contributing or doing great crimes for money, i don't know if that is justifiable to use as a counter argument... as we are chatting about how a modern people, who is probably empathetic/civilized enough to realize that killing an animal is unfair/horrible when there isn't a plausible reason to do it ¶ are rural people aware the complexity of a mammalian? because i can see the love for cats and dogs and some bird species... negating pigs and cows or rats feels a specie prejudice! specially, again, when we proved already that it's more economical, ecological and if done correctly more healthy (animal protein is synthesized differently and if we were black and white, plant and fungi based are easier to swallow [but just a curiosity, as that may only build up to diabetes or cancer if one eats like an average +medium-class North American or the likes]). not long ago, like less than 8 generations, we slaved and raped people in America while building churches talking about Christ love... so i don't think we can go back "the days we eat carcass and hunt mammoths" to justify stuff if we truly want to evolve "not eating animal products is the bare minimum you can do", actually edit: a bunch of errors, i'm sleep deprived but do you know that even FLIES suffer from indecision? fungi have the capacity of memory (tho i think we can eat those :), ants are a pretty complex organism for the amount of neurons they have... maybe the day we stop to anthropomorphizing intelligence we'll figure out the holocaust (rolling right now)

WalterSear 2y ago

>This does not mean that they were cruel, at all, but rather that they understood rising and killing animals as fundamental for their livelihood. The banality of evil. Enron executives' behaviour was also fundamental to their livelihood.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
Nature itself is evil by this standard
- WalterSear 2y ago
  1. Yes. 2. That's irrelevant on multiple levels 3. Cognitive abstractions aren't beings, can't have a morality to evaluate. "As moral as Darwinian Evolution" is not a good look, particularly in regards to livelihood rather than survival.

luqtas 2y ago

it's not probably, it's what it's! go read where neuroscience reason about that... and i typed _modern people_ from cities & despite city people sometimes contributing or doing great crimes for money, i don't know if that is justifiable to use as a counter argument... as we are chatting about how a modern people, who is probably empathetic/civilized enough to realize that killing an animal is unfair/horrible when there isn't a plausible reason to do it ¶ are rural people aware the complexity of a mammalian? because i can see the love for cats and dogs and some bird species... negating pigs and cows or rats feels a specie prejudice! specially, again, when we proved already that it's more economical, ecological and if done correctly more healthy (animal protein is synthesized differently and if we were black and white, plant and fungi based are easier to swallow [but just a curiosity, as that may only build up to diabetes or cancer if one eats like an average +medium-class North American or the likes]). not long ago, like less than 8 generations, we slaved and raped people in America while building churches talking about Christ love... so i don't think we can go back "the days we eat carcass and hunt mammoths" to justify stuff if we truly want to evolve "not eating animal products is the bare minimum you can do", actually edit: a bunch of errors, i'm sleep deprived but do you know that even FLIES suffer from indecision? fungi have the capacity of memory (tho i think we can eat those :), ants are a pretty complex organism for the amount of neurons they have... maybe the day we stop to anthropomorphizing intelligence we'll figure out the holocaust (rolling right now)