3 ms·

This is a classic is-ought situation. Seems easier to improve the process and ethics of killing animals for consumption rather than reducing meat consumption at

This is a classic is-ought situation. Seems easier to improve the process and ethics of killing animals for consumption rather than reducing meat consumption at a society level. People don’t change their ways very easily. I know I have to fight rolling my eyes whenever someone suggests the the solution is simple: eat less meat.

poincaredisk 2y ago
I agree with your statements, but why not do both? Improving the process of killing animals doesn't exclude working towards reducing the number of deaths. If the GP said we will never stop eating meat I would agree. But saying we can't even reduce it is a bit extreme - we successfully reduced many other things (without banning them, just by coercing people - for example cigarettes).
sahila 2y ago
When speaking of ethics, how do you measure the ethics of causing pain vs killing? I'd say even a 1% reduction in consumption (killing) is better than whatever pain reduction. I guess the point is you and others feel so strongly about ways to reduce suffering but couldn't care less about life.
- neom 2y ago
  Not sure that is fair. Many people accept that there are 2 sure things in life (maybe 3) - birth and death. In a way, birth and death are two of the most natural things we have, a family of birds is born, a fox makes it's way up the tree and eats them all. Many people be able to say "that's life, i just hope the didn't suffer!"
  - sahila 2y ago
    Fair enough, but I don't think that would be consistent when applied to people. Which is to say ethics likely isn't that important for most people - we often try our best to prevent death and may even increase someone's suffering to prolong their life.
    - neom 2y ago
      I'm from Canada where we have legal assisted death, something I would vote for over and over again, as I think most Canadians would. I don't eat much meat personally, but it's more a ecological environmental thing vs an animals thing. Things live, things die, that is life, oh well. :)
akudha 2y ago
Seems easier to improve the process and ethics of killing animals for consumption rather than reducing meat consumption at a society level. This is the point I am also trying to make. At least short term, I do not see meat consumption going down. Maybe younger folks growing up today might understand climate change and the meat industry's contribution to it more than their parents/grandparents and be willing to make changes to their diet, but changes like this take a lot of time, if they happen at all. In the meantime, anything we can do to lessen the cruelty to factory farmed animals (for ethical reasons) and anything we can do to reduce harm caused by meat industry on the environment, however small, is worth pursuing

poincaredisk 2y ago

I agree with your statements, but why not do both? Improving the process of killing animals doesn't exclude working towards reducing the number of deaths. If the GP said we will never stop eating meat I would agree. But saying we can't even reduce it is a bit extreme - we successfully reduced many other things (without banning them, just by coercing people - for example cigarettes).

sahila 2y ago

When speaking of ethics, how do you measure the ethics of causing pain vs killing? I'd say even a 1% reduction in consumption (killing) is better than whatever pain reduction. I guess the point is you and others feel so strongly about ways to reduce suffering but couldn't care less about life.

neom 2y ago
Not sure that is fair. Many people accept that there are 2 sure things in life (maybe 3) - birth and death. In a way, birth and death are two of the most natural things we have, a family of birds is born, a fox makes it's way up the tree and eats them all. Many people be able to say "that's life, i just hope the didn't suffer!"
- sahila 2y ago
  Fair enough, but I don't think that would be consistent when applied to people. Which is to say ethics likely isn't that important for most people - we often try our best to prevent death and may even increase someone's suffering to prolong their life.
  - neom 2y ago
    I'm from Canada where we have legal assisted death, something I would vote for over and over again, as I think most Canadians would. I don't eat much meat personally, but it's more a ecological environmental thing vs an animals thing. Things live, things die, that is life, oh well. :)

akudha 2y ago

Seems easier to improve the process and ethics of killing animals for consumption rather than reducing meat consumption at a society level. This is the point I am also trying to make. At least short term, I do not see meat consumption going down. Maybe younger folks growing up today might understand climate change and the meat industry's contribution to it more than their parents/grandparents and be willing to make changes to their diet, but changes like this take a lot of time, if they happen at all. In the meantime, anything we can do to lessen the cruelty to factory farmed animals (for ethical reasons) and anything we can do to reduce harm caused by meat industry on the environment, however small, is worth pursuing