4 ms·

eating any meat is morally questionable. (I say this as a person who does eat a lot of meat). octopus passing a intelligence test does not keep it above the fo

by suriyaG 1mo ago

eating any meat is morally questionable. (I say this as a person who does eat a lot of meat). octopus passing a intelligence test does not keep it above the fold, neither does cattle go below the fold because they don't clear the bar (surprise, cattle are equally emotional, smart, curious etc.). sounds wrong when I type it out but that is just the truth. milk is actually more ethically wrong when you think about it (isolating a calf from its mom to steal its food.) doing one or the other does not absolve us. because one is more commonly accepted than the other

pitched 1mo ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28926931/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28926931/ > Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher educational level, whereas vegans had a lower education level I think it’s good to question these things but the people who go full black/white on everything is where that whole movement died. Saying something strong like “eating any meat” will generally not win over hackers. But “we won’t bring cows to Mars” might work better.
- colordrops 1mo ago
  I wonder how many of these "self-reported" vegans were true ethical vegans vs instgram influencer, "I eat chicken once a week" vegans. Also, what's your point? Is there a proven direct correlation between ethics/morals and educational level? And even if there were, does that imply that this less educated group is as a whole completely wrong? And are you implying that ethics and morals were even objective and measureable? I mean, completely no idea what you are getting at here.
  - pitched 1mo ago
    The linked study does show that correlation. But I personally believe it’s more of a second-order effect. Vegetarianism selects for openness and analytical/reflective thinking but the extra step to veganism selects for absolutism/purity and rigid category-based thinking. Reflective thinking and openness are definitely correlated to IQ so I believe the result in the article. The point here is to know your audience. The people on this site are perfectly primed to respond well to a vegetarian/environmental point of view.
    - suriyaG 1mo ago
      > Vegetarianism selects for openness and analytical/reflective thinking but the extra step to veganism selects for absolutism/purity I don't follow how you conclude this at all. there is nothing to indicate this is the case.
      - deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
      - dudefeliciano 1mo ago
        Vegetarianism, in Europe at least, requires one to be open to a different diet than what one is used to, usually going against social and cultural norms due to a personal conviction that is reached by analysis and reflection, while veganism brings that to the extreme
        colordrops 1mo ago
        Everyone has different ethical frameworks. The label of "extreme" is arbitrary, not objective. I'm sure you would never rape or murder someone. Does that make you an extremist? You don't think it's OK to occasionally rape and murder people right? Vegans' ethical framework is that the murder of animals is unacceptable, and so there is no middle ground. That's not extremism, it's a different framework. To frame it as a spectrum is a misunderstanding.
        constantius 1mo ago
        Ah you said it much better than I did, I'll link your comment.
        dudefeliciano 1mo ago
        Pretty sure vegetarians and vegans both are against the killing of animals, so don't know what you are trying to argue. And yes it is very much a spectrum that (very roughly, and not exclusively) goes from: cannibalism -> eating animals -> eating animal derived products -> eating only vegetables and fruit -> eating only vegetable and fruit that fell to the ground without being picked. And I find it ironic in that you are kind of proving the point, by painting it as a black and white issue. This is what the "extremism" means to me. Another form of that spectrum could be: Endangered species -> wild animals -> farmed animals. Do you think it would be as wrong to kill the last specimens of an animal that is about to go extinct as it would be to kill an animal that has been bred over thousands of years and could probably not survive in the wild on its own? While i am against all killing, when presented with this choice the answer is pretty clear to me. And you even made a similar distinction yourself in another comment here: >I hope people say the same about all animals, but especially mammals. So again, not sure what you are trying to argue.
- suriyaG 1mo ago
  > Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher educational level, whereas vegans had a lower education level this is such a... wrong conclusion to make from the study. the study has found a correlation and by no means is it a causation. there are so many cultural, societal reasons for this to be the case. (eg. in india, upper caste people are usually vegetarians who generally have more access to education.)
  - blacksmith_tb 1mo ago
    Except that the study is from France?
    - suriyaG 1mo ago
      it was an example of a correlation != causation the parent comment was basically creating a causational logic for why vegetarians are more likely to be "smart"-er. which is not true.
      - rendall 1mo ago
        > > Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher educational level, whereas vegans had a lower education level > this is such a... wrong conclusion to make from the study. the study has found a correlation and by no means is it a causation. I'm not seeing any assertion of causation from that quote.
  - kakacik 1mo ago
    Dude, most of India are vegetarians. If you have seen the sanitary conditions for storing meat (or at least in 2008/2010 when I backpacked around the country), you would also become one. I certainly did. Curries with meat were more expensive than vegetable ones in every dhaba. The bonus of not having to pick tiny pieces of meat from heap of chicken bones was a nice bonus (since touching food with hands was generally a very bad idea, sanitizer or not).
    - jdkdb76 1mo ago
47635274172635 1mo ago
>eating any meat is morally questionable. (I say this as a person who does eat a lot of meat). I think this is very wrong. Doesn't account for when you don't have a choice, to be healthy. You need to eat more, you need to consider all possible situations, construction work people need to sustain all that physical labor somehow. It's a more serious chore to even attempt to build a non meat based diet, let alone sourcing everything. If we could have a healthy alternative that accounts for everything (taste included) then maybe you can make that argument. Until then it's quite shortsighted and ignorant.
- dumberquestions 1mo ago
  Interesting that you think having any drawbacks whatsoever to not eating meat is sufficient to justify eating it, I would've thought the drawbacks had to at least outweigh the suffering involved.
  - 47635274172635 1mo ago
    As compared to what, those animals never having experienced life ... at all? All farmed animals get to live and experience this place because of us. What you are fundamentally proposing is wiping them from existence, from possible existence. You cannot really argue for that without it being more goulish that you're trying to make it seem when they get turned into food. All of them die eventually, even if we don't eat them. And none would even exist if we didn't need to eat them. So provided we offer decent conditions for their lived experience it can be a fair trade, since they wouldn't even exist in the first place. Who are you to judge if the cow thinks it's worth it or not? I mean the cow could very well go "moo yeah" if you present the deal "couple of years of grazing running around then get turned into a hamburger? Or no existence at all, what say you?"
    - dumberquestions 1mo ago
      If it was only a matter of painless killing I agree that it would've been a lot more gray, but that's not the type of world we currently live in.
srean 1mo ago
Yes I don't get it why milk is considered more ethically sound than eggs in my country. Milk is stolen baby food extracted industrially under not so nice conditions. Precision-Fermented (animal-Free) milk does exist but it is not easily available. Unfertilized eggs are products that come out anyway and cannot become a chick till it is successfully fertilized outside of the hen. Granted that these two are extracted industrially under not so nice conditions. Waiting for good lab grown meat to become cheap.
- colinb 1mo ago
  Your italicised text is /exactly/ wrong. Hen eggs are fertilised inside the hen’s oviduct. I mean, eggs are somewhat porous after laying, but they’re not that porous. (I don’t know about you. I’m just a programmer holding strong opinions about avian physiology. Maybe there’s an actual biologist on the plane who can correct me)
  - srean 1mo ago
    Oh! Thanks for correcting me. Now I learned that the egg is fertilized (if at all) before the shell is formed. The hen would lay the egg anyway fertilization or no fertilization.
    - simianparrot 1mo ago
      Simplified egg laying are the chicken analogue to human female menstruation. It is technically quite different (chickens don’t have a uterus, for one), but it is still analogous.
- shafyy 1mo ago
  > Waiting for good lab grown meat to become cheap. This is a cop out. There are plenty of excellent plant-based meat alternatives that I'm sure you couldn't tell the difference in a blind test.
  - srean 1mo ago
21asdffdsa12 1mo ago
I think, in a cthullian universe, its actually very acceptable- as long as you accept the burden of upholding the habitat of the hunted. The predator is responsible for the continued existence and the thriving of the prey. So, one should sink concrete pylons with sawblades to destroy the dragnet fishing fleet. Purity spirals are madness and a brittle luxury, edangering nature and the world, the moment the surplus financing that luxury snaps.
neuroticnews25 1mo ago
Is the isolation necessary or just an implementation detail? When my family had a goat we didn't do anything like that, the kids grew freely sucking the mother and then she was giving milk for years after that.
- Miraltar 1mo ago
  From my understanding this is doable in a context like yours but if you want to run a business out of it you have to optimize it which requires this separation.
  - soco 1mo ago
    The business of "optimizing" is breaking a lot of things in the world, when you think about it.
    - alistairSH 1mo ago
      Yes, there's even a new-ish word this... enshitification.
    - Gud 1mo ago
      It's also providing a lot of value.
- suriyaG 1mo ago
  modern cow, goat etc. are selectively bred to produce more milk than their youngling needs. so separation is not a strict requirement ( you might lose 5 - 10% more if you just let them be.) But when we used to own cows & goats, it was very common practice to keep the youngling tied away a few hours before milking. you can feel the pain of separation the parent goes through. ( goat and cow crying, while looking at their offspring is indeed quite sad https://www.flickr.com/photos/murfalizer/4429214117 https://www.flickr.com/photos/murfalizer/4429214117). to add insult to injury it is also common practice to tie the youngling in the line sight of the parent to milk more freely.
thaumasiotes 1mo ago
> surprise, cattle are equally emotional, smart, curious etc. Measured how? It would indeed be a surprise if cows were equally emotional, smart, and curious as any other species. Equality on three different dimensions should essentially never happen.
- suriyaG 1mo ago
  cows might be more in some dimensions like emotion because cattle raise their young unlike octopus which doesn't . does that make the equation any easier to accept? why is this a controversial idea? mammals indeed are smarter than mollusks (of which octopus is one).
  - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
    > why is this a controversial idea? mammals indeed are smarter than mollusks (of which octopus is one). Well, what you said before was that cows were equally smart. Do you think "equally smart" and "smarter" mean the same thing?
    - suriyaG 1mo ago
      i should've used, at least as smart as. i apologize
adjejmxbdjdn 1mo ago
Both are clearly ethically wrong. We have alternatives. And many are even more healthful. Theres no reason to personally engage with either.
brendyn 1mo ago
Stop doing it then. Often we see the logical conclusion to something, but then our brains just shrug it off and chooses ignorance. I think it is necessary at this point to find emotionally stimulating content such as videos of slaughterhouses not following regulation, this can help us come to terms with what we already know.
- suriyaG 1mo ago
  I agree with you. but I find meat and the associated horrors that come with it, to be no more or less repugnant than the broader society and industrial complex that I'm forced to be a part of. I suppose, I personally could contribute to be one less living being suffering. but in the broader scheme of things (new wars, poverty, deaths etc.). in a very nihilistic way, I don't see how it changes anything. I'm probably just copping out.

by suriyaG 1mo ago

pitched 1mo ago

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28926931/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28926931/ > Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher educational level, whereas vegans had a lower education level I think it’s good to question these things but the people who go full black/white on everything is where that whole movement died. Saying something strong like “eating any meat” will generally not win over hackers. But “we won’t bring cows to Mars” might work better.

colordrops 1mo ago
I wonder how many of these "self-reported" vegans were true ethical vegans vs instgram influencer, "I eat chicken once a week" vegans. Also, what's your point? Is there a proven direct correlation between ethics/morals and educational level? And even if there were, does that imply that this less educated group is as a whole completely wrong? And are you implying that ethics and morals were even objective and measureable? I mean, completely no idea what you are getting at here.
- pitched 1mo ago
  The linked study does show that correlation. But I personally believe it’s more of a second-order effect. Vegetarianism selects for openness and analytical/reflective thinking but the extra step to veganism selects for absolutism/purity and rigid category-based thinking. Reflective thinking and openness are definitely correlated to IQ so I believe the result in the article. The point here is to know your audience. The people on this site are perfectly primed to respond well to a vegetarian/environmental point of view.
  - suriyaG 1mo ago
    > Vegetarianism selects for openness and analytical/reflective thinking but the extra step to veganism selects for absolutism/purity I don't follow how you conclude this at all. there is nothing to indicate this is the case.
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
    - dudefeliciano 1mo ago
      Vegetarianism, in Europe at least, requires one to be open to a different diet than what one is used to, usually going against social and cultural norms due to a personal conviction that is reached by analysis and reflection, while veganism brings that to the extreme
      - colordrops 1mo ago
        Everyone has different ethical frameworks. The label of "extreme" is arbitrary, not objective. I'm sure you would never rape or murder someone. Does that make you an extremist? You don't think it's OK to occasionally rape and murder people right? Vegans' ethical framework is that the murder of animals is unacceptable, and so there is no middle ground. That's not extremism, it's a different framework. To frame it as a spectrum is a misunderstanding.
        constantius 1mo ago
        Ah you said it much better than I did, I'll link your comment.
        dudefeliciano 1mo ago
        Pretty sure vegetarians and vegans both are against the killing of animals, so don't know what you are trying to argue. And yes it is very much a spectrum that (very roughly, and not exclusively) goes from: cannibalism -> eating animals -> eating animal derived products -> eating only vegetables and fruit -> eating only vegetable and fruit that fell to the ground without being picked. And I find it ironic in that you are kind of proving the point, by painting it as a black and white issue. This is what the "extremism" means to me. Another form of that spectrum could be: Endangered species -> wild animals -> farmed animals. Do you think it would be as wrong to kill the last specimens of an animal that is about to go extinct as it would be to kill an animal that has been bred over thousands of years and could probably not survive in the wild on its own? While i am against all killing, when presented with this choice the answer is pretty clear to me. And you even made a similar distinction yourself in another comment here: >I hope people say the same about all animals, but especially mammals. So again, not sure what you are trying to argue.
suriyaG 1mo ago
> Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher educational level, whereas vegans had a lower education level this is such a... wrong conclusion to make from the study. the study has found a correlation and by no means is it a causation. there are so many cultural, societal reasons for this to be the case. (eg. in india, upper caste people are usually vegetarians who generally have more access to education.)
- blacksmith_tb 1mo ago
  Except that the study is from France?
  - suriyaG 1mo ago
    it was an example of a correlation != causation the parent comment was basically creating a causational logic for why vegetarians are more likely to be "smart"-er. which is not true.
    - rendall 1mo ago
      > > Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher educational level, whereas vegans had a lower education level > this is such a... wrong conclusion to make from the study. the study has found a correlation and by no means is it a causation. I'm not seeing any assertion of causation from that quote.
- kakacik 1mo ago
  Dude, most of India are vegetarians. If you have seen the sanitary conditions for storing meat (or at least in 2008/2010 when I backpacked around the country), you would also become one. I certainly did. Curries with meat were more expensive than vegetable ones in every dhaba. The bonus of not having to pick tiny pieces of meat from heap of chicken bones was a nice bonus (since touching food with hands was generally a very bad idea, sanitizer or not).
  - jdkdb76 1mo ago

47635274172635 1mo ago

>eating any meat is morally questionable. (I say this as a person who does eat a lot of meat). I think this is very wrong. Doesn't account for when you don't have a choice, to be healthy. You need to eat more, you need to consider all possible situations, construction work people need to sustain all that physical labor somehow. It's a more serious chore to even attempt to build a non meat based diet, let alone sourcing everything. If we could have a healthy alternative that accounts for everything (taste included) then maybe you can make that argument. Until then it's quite shortsighted and ignorant.

dumberquestions 1mo ago
Interesting that you think having any drawbacks whatsoever to not eating meat is sufficient to justify eating it, I would've thought the drawbacks had to at least outweigh the suffering involved.
- 47635274172635 1mo ago
  As compared to what, those animals never having experienced life ... at all? All farmed animals get to live and experience this place because of us. What you are fundamentally proposing is wiping them from existence, from possible existence. You cannot really argue for that without it being more goulish that you're trying to make it seem when they get turned into food. All of them die eventually, even if we don't eat them. And none would even exist if we didn't need to eat them. So provided we offer decent conditions for their lived experience it can be a fair trade, since they wouldn't even exist in the first place. Who are you to judge if the cow thinks it's worth it or not? I mean the cow could very well go "moo yeah" if you present the deal "couple of years of grazing running around then get turned into a hamburger? Or no existence at all, what say you?"
  - dumberquestions 1mo ago
    If it was only a matter of painless killing I agree that it would've been a lot more gray, but that's not the type of world we currently live in.

srean 1mo ago

Yes I don't get it why milk is considered more ethically sound than eggs in my country. Milk is stolen baby food extracted industrially under not so nice conditions. Precision-Fermented (animal-Free) milk does exist but it is not easily available. Unfertilized eggs are products that come out anyway and cannot become a chick till it is successfully fertilized outside of the hen. Granted that these two are extracted industrially under not so nice conditions. Waiting for good lab grown meat to become cheap.

colinb 1mo ago
Your italicised text is /exactly/ wrong. Hen eggs are fertilised inside the hen’s oviduct. I mean, eggs are somewhat porous after laying, but they’re not that porous. (I don’t know about you. I’m just a programmer holding strong opinions about avian physiology. Maybe there’s an actual biologist on the plane who can correct me)
- srean 1mo ago
  Oh! Thanks for correcting me. Now I learned that the egg is fertilized (if at all) before the shell is formed. The hen would lay the egg anyway fertilization or no fertilization.
  - simianparrot 1mo ago
    Simplified egg laying are the chicken analogue to human female menstruation. It is technically quite different (chickens don’t have a uterus, for one), but it is still analogous.
shafyy 1mo ago
> Waiting for good lab grown meat to become cheap. This is a cop out. There are plenty of excellent plant-based meat alternatives that I'm sure you couldn't tell the difference in a blind test.
- srean 1mo ago

21asdffdsa12 1mo ago

I think, in a cthullian universe, its actually very acceptable- as long as you accept the burden of upholding the habitat of the hunted. The predator is responsible for the continued existence and the thriving of the prey. So, one should sink concrete pylons with sawblades to destroy the dragnet fishing fleet. Purity spirals are madness and a brittle luxury, edangering nature and the world, the moment the surplus financing that luxury snaps.

neuroticnews25 1mo ago

Is the isolation necessary or just an implementation detail? When my family had a goat we didn't do anything like that, the kids grew freely sucking the mother and then she was giving milk for years after that.

Miraltar 1mo ago
From my understanding this is doable in a context like yours but if you want to run a business out of it you have to optimize it which requires this separation.
- soco 1mo ago
  The business of "optimizing" is breaking a lot of things in the world, when you think about it.
  - alistairSH 1mo ago
    Yes, there's even a new-ish word this... enshitification.
  - Gud 1mo ago
    It's also providing a lot of value.
suriyaG 1mo ago
modern cow, goat etc. are selectively bred to produce more milk than their youngling needs. so separation is not a strict requirement ( you might lose 5 - 10% more if you just let them be.) But when we used to own cows & goats, it was very common practice to keep the youngling tied away a few hours before milking. you can feel the pain of separation the parent goes through. ( goat and cow crying, while looking at their offspring is indeed quite sad https://www.flickr.com/photos/murfalizer/4429214117 https://www.flickr.com/photos/murfalizer/4429214117). to add insult to injury it is also common practice to tie the youngling in the line sight of the parent to milk more freely.

thaumasiotes 1mo ago

> surprise, cattle are equally emotional, smart, curious etc. Measured how? It would indeed be a surprise if cows were equally emotional, smart, and curious as any other species. Equality on three different dimensions should essentially never happen.

suriyaG 1mo ago
cows might be more in some dimensions like emotion because cattle raise their young unlike octopus which doesn't . does that make the equation any easier to accept? why is this a controversial idea? mammals indeed are smarter than mollusks (of which octopus is one).
- thaumasiotes 1mo ago
  > why is this a controversial idea? mammals indeed are smarter than mollusks (of which octopus is one). Well, what you said before was that cows were equally smart. Do you think "equally smart" and "smarter" mean the same thing?
  - suriyaG 1mo ago
    i should've used, at least as smart as. i apologize

adjejmxbdjdn 1mo ago

Both are clearly ethically wrong. We have alternatives. And many are even more healthful. Theres no reason to personally engage with either.

brendyn 1mo ago

Stop doing it then. Often we see the logical conclusion to something, but then our brains just shrug it off and chooses ignorance. I think it is necessary at this point to find emotionally stimulating content such as videos of slaughterhouses not following regulation, this can help us come to terms with what we already know.

suriyaG 1mo ago
I agree with you. but I find meat and the associated horrors that come with it, to be no more or less repugnant than the broader society and industrial complex that I'm forced to be a part of. I suppose, I personally could contribute to be one less living being suffering. but in the broader scheme of things (new wars, poverty, deaths etc.). in a very nihilistic way, I don't see how it changes anything. I'm probably just copping out.