3 ms·

Other animals bred to have fast-growing qualities typically suffer incredibly painful problems supporting their unnatural weight. When are people going to real

Other animals bred to have fast-growing qualities typically suffer incredibly painful problems supporting their unnatural weight. When are people going to realize that: A) just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. B) animals are not playthings put on Earth for us to do whatever we want with.

unimpressive 14y ago
We can eventually fix the pain thing if that's an issue. And Christianity takes an opposing view, meaning that this attitude is deeply ingrained in western culture. (Which I happen to agree with.[0]) "01:001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." - King James Bible Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/30/pg30.txt http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/30/pg30.txt [0]: The attitude, on this particular issue.
- earbitscom 14y ago
  Christianity takes an opposing view to logic as well.
  - unimpressive 14y ago
    I actually mention this not because I'm a Christian, but to let you know that the cultural precedent for this attitude in the west is deeply seated, so the answer to your question may be "A long time" or "Never".
- DanBC 14y ago
  Let's avoid the vegetarian arguments for the moment, because they are usually more heat than light. Are you saying that we can do whatever we like to animals? Or that we can do whatever we like to animals so long as it benefits humans? Or that we can do whatever we like so long as the benefit is significant? Or what?
  - unimpressive 14y ago
    Okay. >Are you saying that we can do whatever we like to animals? Technically they can't stop us. But that's probably not the answer you're looking for. Inflicting unnecessary harm on semi-sentient life forms that feel pain is probably immoral. So while we can do whatever we want, certain things are not moral to do. > Or that we can do whatever we like to animals so long as it benefits humans? Right now current conservation efforts have the irreplaceable property of extinct animals as an axiom. This is, for the moment, true. So we have to measure decisions in something akin to utils. Killing off the zebra to cure somebodies headache probably isn't a smart trade. At the same time we need to be cautious, when we start playing large games with the ecosystem, we incur the risk of large losses. (See: Just about every invasive species introduced as a direct result of human intervention.) Right now one of the large reasons for saving species from extinction is biodiversity. The less biodiversity in the ecosystem, the higher the chance of a key species being wiped out by disease or aggressive predation and collapsing the whole system. (See: Pollinating insects.) Right now the benefit to humans of saving as many species as possible from invisible deaths by our machinations is a net positive. In the future, it may make sense to "upgrade" organisms to give fitness for a particular purpose. This process may involve organisms being out-competed to extinction by GMOs. > Or that we can do whatever we like so long as the benefit is significant? Well right now current meat processing procedures induce great pain to the animals involved. This is an externalized cost that does not show up in consumer prices. Meaning that even though the morally optimal solution would be something like naturally grown animals on a large pasture, the evolutionarily optimal solution ends up being animal death camps. There are efforts to grow meats independent of their traditional hosts through bioengineering, but these efforts have not taken off yet. If successful, they could save millions of animal lives, at the potential cost of the majority of the species. (Or even all of it.) Is that worth it? Is it selfish for humans to "obsolete" an animal it no longer finds useful? We did this to horses. We need to be careful about "benefit". The Soviets drained the Aral Sea in a large irrigation project. [0] This of course resulted in the destruction of the surrounding ecosystem, and is now apparently leading to health problems for the people who live there locally. Was that worth it? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plan_for_the_Transformation_of_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plan_for_the_Transformat... tl;dr: Currently the only way to satisfy our demand for meat is to slaughter millions of animals. Because of market pressures, these animals end up dying painfully, or even living painfully. This is not an morally optimal situation and I feel that certain aspects could be improved, with potentially disastrous consequences for the species involved.
- earbitscom 14y ago
  And since when have men ever invested money into finding ways to relieve animal suffering in our food raising processes? They can't even be bothered to use dirt cheap pain killers during some of the most horrendous practices.
sliverstorm 14y ago
animals bred to have fast-growing qualities typically suffer incredibly painful problems supporting their unnatural weight Fish in water won't have this problem, I think... just because you can do something doesn't mean you should But just because this is true doesn't mean you shouldn't
- earbitscom 14y ago
  Animals of unnatural size also deal with heart problems and other complications. Just because you make them bigger doesn't mean you make their bodies capable of handling their larger size perfectly.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    ... those poor ROUS's
    - earbitscom 14y ago
      ...I don't think they exist.
adventured 14y ago
I'm fascinated by your B statement, because it requires a source of authority, namely it begs the question: who says? Why aren't animals here for our use, to do with as we like? What authority (entity or argument) are you referring to that declares otherwise? And why is that authority worth listening to?
- earbitscom 14y ago
  It was an opinion. The authority is my moral compass.

unimpressive 14y ago

We can eventually fix the pain thing if that's an issue. And Christianity takes an opposing view, meaning that this attitude is deeply ingrained in western culture. (Which I happen to agree with.[0]) "01:001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." - King James Bible Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/30/pg30.txt http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/30/pg30.txt [0]: The attitude, on this particular issue.

earbitscom 14y ago
Christianity takes an opposing view to logic as well.
- unimpressive 14y ago
  I actually mention this not because I'm a Christian, but to let you know that the cultural precedent for this attitude in the west is deeply seated, so the answer to your question may be "A long time" or "Never".
DanBC 14y ago
Let's avoid the vegetarian arguments for the moment, because they are usually more heat than light. Are you saying that we can do whatever we like to animals? Or that we can do whatever we like to animals so long as it benefits humans? Or that we can do whatever we like so long as the benefit is significant? Or what?
- unimpressive 14y ago
  Okay. >Are you saying that we can do whatever we like to animals? Technically they can't stop us. But that's probably not the answer you're looking for. Inflicting unnecessary harm on semi-sentient life forms that feel pain is probably immoral. So while we can do whatever we want, certain things are not moral to do. > Or that we can do whatever we like to animals so long as it benefits humans? Right now current conservation efforts have the irreplaceable property of extinct animals as an axiom. This is, for the moment, true. So we have to measure decisions in something akin to utils. Killing off the zebra to cure somebodies headache probably isn't a smart trade. At the same time we need to be cautious, when we start playing large games with the ecosystem, we incur the risk of large losses. (See: Just about every invasive species introduced as a direct result of human intervention.) Right now one of the large reasons for saving species from extinction is biodiversity. The less biodiversity in the ecosystem, the higher the chance of a key species being wiped out by disease or aggressive predation and collapsing the whole system. (See: Pollinating insects.) Right now the benefit to humans of saving as many species as possible from invisible deaths by our machinations is a net positive. In the future, it may make sense to "upgrade" organisms to give fitness for a particular purpose. This process may involve organisms being out-competed to extinction by GMOs. > Or that we can do whatever we like so long as the benefit is significant? Well right now current meat processing procedures induce great pain to the animals involved. This is an externalized cost that does not show up in consumer prices. Meaning that even though the morally optimal solution would be something like naturally grown animals on a large pasture, the evolutionarily optimal solution ends up being animal death camps. There are efforts to grow meats independent of their traditional hosts through bioengineering, but these efforts have not taken off yet. If successful, they could save millions of animal lives, at the potential cost of the majority of the species. (Or even all of it.) Is that worth it? Is it selfish for humans to "obsolete" an animal it no longer finds useful? We did this to horses. We need to be careful about "benefit". The Soviets drained the Aral Sea in a large irrigation project. [0] This of course resulted in the destruction of the surrounding ecosystem, and is now apparently leading to health problems for the people who live there locally. Was that worth it? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plan_for_the_Transformation_of_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plan_for_the_Transformat... tl;dr: Currently the only way to satisfy our demand for meat is to slaughter millions of animals. Because of market pressures, these animals end up dying painfully, or even living painfully. This is not an morally optimal situation and I feel that certain aspects could be improved, with potentially disastrous consequences for the species involved.
earbitscom 14y ago
And since when have men ever invested money into finding ways to relieve animal suffering in our food raising processes? They can't even be bothered to use dirt cheap pain killers during some of the most horrendous practices.

sliverstorm 14y ago

animals bred to have fast-growing qualities typically suffer incredibly painful problems supporting their unnatural weight Fish in water won't have this problem, I think... just because you can do something doesn't mean you should But just because this is true doesn't mean you shouldn't

earbitscom 14y ago
Animals of unnatural size also deal with heart problems and other complications. Just because you make them bigger doesn't mean you make their bodies capable of handling their larger size perfectly.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  ... those poor ROUS's
  - earbitscom 14y ago
    ...I don't think they exist.

adventured 14y ago

I'm fascinated by your B statement, because it requires a source of authority, namely it begs the question: who says? Why aren't animals here for our use, to do with as we like? What authority (entity or argument) are you referring to that declares otherwise? And why is that authority worth listening to?

earbitscom 14y ago
It was an opinion. The authority is my moral compass.