19 ms·

At the end of the day vegans play the same game as meat eaters where some line is drawn. For meat eaters it is with livestock meats and for pescatarians that is

At the end of the day vegans play the same game as meat eaters where some line is drawn. For meat eaters it is with livestock meats and for pescatarians that is no go, but fish are alright. And for vegans that is all off limits. Except of course the life we deem base enough to not care it is being eaten alive. Slaughter all the lettuce you want. There are no lettuce advocates. All this to say the moral arguments are sort of silly and illogical. Unfortunately for us all, we exist where we do in the food chain, having to consume life to live, unable to secure our resources from the sun and inorganic resources which would be more morally righteous by all measures. Things could be better but they also could be worse. At least much of our prey receives veterinary care and is killed via airgun vs having to rough it and be eaten alive.

0dayz 6mo ago
AFAIK vegans base their argument on the degree of consciousness a living being had and compromise on the least evil. Most meat eaters base it on closeness to said living thing. It'll be interesting to see if the veganism movement survives lab grown meat that is ethically produced.
- adamsmark 6mo ago
  It wouldn't continue in any real form. Maybe cholesterol conscious and devout buddhists will still try to adhere, but beyond that I don't see what the point would be. It would be like how Ozempic lead to a mysterious quieting of Body Positivity/Health at Every Size advocates. They were a vocal minority, there was much "debate" and cri de couer from many sides and now its all evaporated without a farewell or explicit winding down.
  - asklfjnasfas 6mo ago
    [dead]
  - virgildotcodes 6mo ago
    There is already massive industry lobbying against lab grown meat, resulting in bans in states like Florida[0] accompanied with propaganda about "processed" vs "natural" food. Were lab grown meat to be available today at a cost lower than regular meat, it is apparent that there would still be huge amounts of animal ag dollars spent on lobbying against and demonizing these things, and millions of people who would fall for the propaganda. You can compare this to renewables now, even though they may be far cheaper per kwH, and the Trump admin's push to halt all renewable projects and do everything they can to prop up the viability of fossil fuels. This means the vegan movement would need to continue to exist as does the environmental movement. [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/federal-appeals-court-upholds-floridas-ban-on-lab-grown-meat-protecting-states-real-food-law/ https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/federal-appeals-court-uph...
virgildotcodes 6mo ago
This is not a good argument. Vegans base their line on a very easily defensible ability on behalf of the victim - sentience. If there’s no sentience, there’s nobody within to experience the pain and fear, and there is no victim. That said, even if you granted that every blade of grass and kernel of corn was fully as sentient as a human being, that would only strengthen the argument for veganism many times over as animals act as inefficient intermediaries for those plant calories, burning most of them and leaving only a small fraction in their meat. You’d kill far fewer plants by eating the plants directly. Finally, to your other point, many humans die horrible deaths - whether in global poverty, war or of various types of disease, cancer and dementia in the wealthier countries. That of course does not justify serial killer cannibals who put a bullet in the back of their victims’ heads on the basis that they’re giving them a “humane” end and likely saving them a large amount of future suffering.
- kjkjadksj 6mo ago
  Once again it is a moral value judgement to put sentient life on such a pedestal above other life not blessed with such a mutation.
  - virgildotcodes 6mo ago
    An insensate plant is morally equivalent to a rock. Neither is conscious, neither has anybody home. It’s not a value judgement, it’s establishing the basis for what constitutes an “other”. There is no “other” within unconscious entities. Regardless, once again, even if you felt the grass was objectively as conscious or “valuable” (what does value even mean in this context?) as much as your children or your dog (and of course you don't, if we’re being honest, this entire line of reasoning is not in good faith) - then again: > That said, even if you granted that every blade of grass and kernel of corn was fully as sentient as a human being, that would only strengthen the argument for veganism many times over as animals act as inefficient intermediaries for those plant calories, burning most of them and leaving only a small fraction in their meat. You’d kill far fewer plants by eating the plants directly.
    - 6mo ago
jakkos 6mo ago
> play the same game .. where some line is drawn > Things could be better but they also could be worse > the moral arguments are sort of silly and illogical You can use these to justify literally anything > Slaughter all the lettuce you want Yeah because we don't have compelling evidence that lettuce experiences anything comparable to conscious suffering, and the only alternative to not eating plants is dying
- kjkjadksj 6mo ago
  Yet, we don’t, is the key qualifier. The idea that babies feel pain is only somewhat recently accepted for example. What happens in a future if we determine plants also have pain signals? Would you feel some way, or would you chew that lettuce with the indifference a carnivore has towards its prey?
  - jakkos 6mo ago
    > The idea that babies feel pain is only somewhat recently accepted This is crazy to me, but I still believe it's very unlikely plants experience conscious suffering > Would you feel some way, or [...] chew [...] with the indifference I'd probably be upset, accept that I needed to eat plants or starve, try to minimize the pain I did cause, and then grow numb to the knowledge over time because I couldn't practically do anything about it I think you can pose many hypothetical scenarios where I'd be unsure what to do or do the selfish thing, but to me the important thing is that the world we do exist in has lots of "bang for your buck" choices like: trading getting to taste meat for animals not having to go through factory farms
iljsdfiljasdf 6mo ago
[dead]
constantius 6mo ago
Your mental hoops being on full display doesn't make them true. Nothing new or profound in these arguments and analogies, and stating them with this pretend wise tone just sounds childish.
- kjkjadksj 6mo ago
  Nothing of substance in this reply either then
butlike 6mo ago
To your last point, I still think slaughtering with a <sharp> knife is more humane. You slit the animals throat, it's traumatizing, it's painful, but you've started the "bleed-out timer." The bodily processes know that's NOT GOOD, and plan accordingly. If it's anything like humans, perhaps the animal's body will dump large amounts of feel good chemicals near the end. Juxtapose that against the airgun, a sudden impulse to the central processing unit of the animal. Chemicals and neuron activity get disrupted immediately, the animal may be comatose but not necessarily dead for some amount of time as the signal processing is just obliterated. Chaotic disruption of the system seems more unpleasant/inhumane than the more outwardly barbaric but ostensibly better slicing of the throat.
- cindyllm 6mo ago
  [dead]

0dayz 6mo ago

AFAIK vegans base their argument on the degree of consciousness a living being had and compromise on the least evil. Most meat eaters base it on closeness to said living thing. It'll be interesting to see if the veganism movement survives lab grown meat that is ethically produced.

adamsmark 6mo ago
It wouldn't continue in any real form. Maybe cholesterol conscious and devout buddhists will still try to adhere, but beyond that I don't see what the point would be. It would be like how Ozempic lead to a mysterious quieting of Body Positivity/Health at Every Size advocates. They were a vocal minority, there was much "debate" and cri de couer from many sides and now its all evaporated without a farewell or explicit winding down.
- asklfjnasfas 6mo ago
  [dead]
- virgildotcodes 6mo ago
  There is already massive industry lobbying against lab grown meat, resulting in bans in states like Florida[0] accompanied with propaganda about "processed" vs "natural" food. Were lab grown meat to be available today at a cost lower than regular meat, it is apparent that there would still be huge amounts of animal ag dollars spent on lobbying against and demonizing these things, and millions of people who would fall for the propaganda. You can compare this to renewables now, even though they may be far cheaper per kwH, and the Trump admin's push to halt all renewable projects and do everything they can to prop up the viability of fossil fuels. This means the vegan movement would need to continue to exist as does the environmental movement. [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/federal-appeals-court-upholds-floridas-ban-on-lab-grown-meat-protecting-states-real-food-law/ https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/federal-appeals-court-uph...

virgildotcodes 6mo ago

This is not a good argument. Vegans base their line on a very easily defensible ability on behalf of the victim - sentience. If there’s no sentience, there’s nobody within to experience the pain and fear, and there is no victim. That said, even if you granted that every blade of grass and kernel of corn was fully as sentient as a human being, that would only strengthen the argument for veganism many times over as animals act as inefficient intermediaries for those plant calories, burning most of them and leaving only a small fraction in their meat. You’d kill far fewer plants by eating the plants directly. Finally, to your other point, many humans die horrible deaths - whether in global poverty, war or of various types of disease, cancer and dementia in the wealthier countries. That of course does not justify serial killer cannibals who put a bullet in the back of their victims’ heads on the basis that they’re giving them a “humane” end and likely saving them a large amount of future suffering.

kjkjadksj 6mo ago
Once again it is a moral value judgement to put sentient life on such a pedestal above other life not blessed with such a mutation.
- virgildotcodes 6mo ago
  An insensate plant is morally equivalent to a rock. Neither is conscious, neither has anybody home. It’s not a value judgement, it’s establishing the basis for what constitutes an “other”. There is no “other” within unconscious entities. Regardless, once again, even if you felt the grass was objectively as conscious or “valuable” (what does value even mean in this context?) as much as your children or your dog (and of course you don't, if we’re being honest, this entire line of reasoning is not in good faith) - then again: > That said, even if you granted that every blade of grass and kernel of corn was fully as sentient as a human being, that would only strengthen the argument for veganism many times over as animals act as inefficient intermediaries for those plant calories, burning most of them and leaving only a small fraction in their meat. You’d kill far fewer plants by eating the plants directly.
  - 6mo ago

jakkos 6mo ago

> play the same game .. where some line is drawn > Things could be better but they also could be worse > the moral arguments are sort of silly and illogical You can use these to justify literally anything > Slaughter all the lettuce you want Yeah because we don't have compelling evidence that lettuce experiences anything comparable to conscious suffering, and the only alternative to not eating plants is dying

kjkjadksj 6mo ago
Yet, we don’t, is the key qualifier. The idea that babies feel pain is only somewhat recently accepted for example. What happens in a future if we determine plants also have pain signals? Would you feel some way, or would you chew that lettuce with the indifference a carnivore has towards its prey?
- jakkos 6mo ago
  > The idea that babies feel pain is only somewhat recently accepted This is crazy to me, but I still believe it's very unlikely plants experience conscious suffering > Would you feel some way, or [...] chew [...] with the indifference I'd probably be upset, accept that I needed to eat plants or starve, try to minimize the pain I did cause, and then grow numb to the knowledge over time because I couldn't practically do anything about it I think you can pose many hypothetical scenarios where I'd be unsure what to do or do the selfish thing, but to me the important thing is that the world we do exist in has lots of "bang for your buck" choices like: trading getting to taste meat for animals not having to go through factory farms

iljsdfiljasdf 6mo ago

[dead]

constantius 6mo ago

Your mental hoops being on full display doesn't make them true. Nothing new or profound in these arguments and analogies, and stating them with this pretend wise tone just sounds childish.

kjkjadksj 6mo ago
Nothing of substance in this reply either then

butlike 6mo ago

To your last point, I still think slaughtering with a <sharp> knife is more humane. You slit the animals throat, it's traumatizing, it's painful, but you've started the "bleed-out timer." The bodily processes know that's NOT GOOD, and plan accordingly. If it's anything like humans, perhaps the animal's body will dump large amounts of feel good chemicals near the end. Juxtapose that against the airgun, a sudden impulse to the central processing unit of the animal. Chemicals and neuron activity get disrupted immediately, the animal may be comatose but not necessarily dead for some amount of time as the signal processing is just obliterated. Chaotic disruption of the system seems more unpleasant/inhumane than the more outwardly barbaric but ostensibly better slicing of the throat.

cindyllm 6mo ago
[dead]