3 ms·

Also eating plants is unethical. For them to be developed we needed to destroy habitats, displace species and cause suffering too. We are invasive species. Wha

Also eating plants is unethical. For them to be developed we needed to destroy habitats, displace species and cause suffering too. We are invasive species. What we should aim is low impact farming. To extract the most food with the least possible amount of suffering caused and resources expended.

nawitus 13y ago
Technically speaking my point was "it's more unethical to consume animal products than it is to consume plant-based products".
- venomsnake 13y ago
  That is interesting question. Is it more unethical to torture a species and ensure its survival because it is tasty, or to push a species to extinction to farm on its former habitat? And why? This is one of those questions that drink a lot of beer and lead to violence among friends late in the evenings. With no good answer.
  - tedks 13y ago
    Do you think a species as a unit has preferences? It seems like your friends are conflating genetics and utilitarian ethics. There's a way of explaining genetics in terms of preferences, but genes don't really have preferences. Species, by extension, don't have preferences. Cows as a species want nothing. Individual cows do. So personally, as a vegan, I wouldn't see the death of the last cow on earth as a huge loss, as long as the cow was safe, happy, and comfortable.
refurb 13y ago
I never understood the "humans are an invasive species". If a beaver builds a dam and floods a habitat forcing out the native species thats "natural". Humans do the same thing and it's "invasive". I take the view that humans are as natural as any other animal on the planet. We obviously have a goal to sustain the ecosystems we value, but we're just as much a part of the ecosystem as any other animal.
- bmelton 13y ago
  It isn't that we're 'invasive' in relation to nature, it's that we're 'invasive' by our own definitions of the word. For what it's worth, the beaver that forces out native species by flooding a habitat is both natural and invasive. Beavers are considered, by humans, to be a fairly invasive species, especially when introduced to areas they are not native to. It isn't a double-standard that we're applying, it's just a little uncomfortable when the same standard is applied to us.
  - refurb 13y ago
    There isn't an animal out there that doesn't have some impact on it's environment. Humans are no different.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      I don't disagree, but there are species that invariably have more impact on their environment than others, and those species with inordinate amounts of impact on their environments, or nominal impacts in their native environment with non-nominal impacts in non-native environments are defined as 'invasive'. We fit our definition for the term. Like I said before though, I don't see anything unnatural about it myself.
      - dasil003 13y ago
        I don't have a problem being invasive per se, but if we eventually change the environment such that we have a very difficult time surviving (which seems a realistic possibility the long term) then I'd say we're a pretty poor species.
iooi 13y ago
No, eating plants is not unethical. This might interest you: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1mdqbr/if_the_worlds_population_became_completely/ http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1mdqbr/if_the_wo... The short story is that it takes up more land to feed and house livestock than it does to farm plants. "More than two-thirds of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for livestock, while only 8 percent is used to grow food for direct human consumption." Not to mention the amount of water livestock and its feed consumes.
- makomk 13y ago
  From what I recall there's some debate over whether meat production does necessarly have to consume more land than farming an equivalent amount of plants, eg: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-pr...
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
Or we should just stop hating our species ... Just a thought. Sorry, I just have uncontrollable disdain for this attitude. :)

nawitus 13y ago

Technically speaking my point was "it's more unethical to consume animal products than it is to consume plant-based products".

venomsnake 13y ago
That is interesting question. Is it more unethical to torture a species and ensure its survival because it is tasty, or to push a species to extinction to farm on its former habitat? And why? This is one of those questions that drink a lot of beer and lead to violence among friends late in the evenings. With no good answer.
- tedks 13y ago
  Do you think a species as a unit has preferences? It seems like your friends are conflating genetics and utilitarian ethics. There's a way of explaining genetics in terms of preferences, but genes don't really have preferences. Species, by extension, don't have preferences. Cows as a species want nothing. Individual cows do. So personally, as a vegan, I wouldn't see the death of the last cow on earth as a huge loss, as long as the cow was safe, happy, and comfortable.

refurb 13y ago

I never understood the "humans are an invasive species". If a beaver builds a dam and floods a habitat forcing out the native species thats "natural". Humans do the same thing and it's "invasive". I take the view that humans are as natural as any other animal on the planet. We obviously have a goal to sustain the ecosystems we value, but we're just as much a part of the ecosystem as any other animal.

bmelton 13y ago
It isn't that we're 'invasive' in relation to nature, it's that we're 'invasive' by our own definitions of the word. For what it's worth, the beaver that forces out native species by flooding a habitat is both natural and invasive. Beavers are considered, by humans, to be a fairly invasive species, especially when introduced to areas they are not native to. It isn't a double-standard that we're applying, it's just a little uncomfortable when the same standard is applied to us.
- refurb 13y ago
  There isn't an animal out there that doesn't have some impact on it's environment. Humans are no different.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    I don't disagree, but there are species that invariably have more impact on their environment than others, and those species with inordinate amounts of impact on their environments, or nominal impacts in their native environment with non-nominal impacts in non-native environments are defined as 'invasive'. We fit our definition for the term. Like I said before though, I don't see anything unnatural about it myself.
    - dasil003 13y ago
      I don't have a problem being invasive per se, but if we eventually change the environment such that we have a very difficult time surviving (which seems a realistic possibility the long term) then I'd say we're a pretty poor species.

iooi 13y ago

No, eating plants is not unethical. This might interest you: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1mdqbr/if_the_worlds_population_became_completely/ http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1mdqbr/if_the_wo... The short story is that it takes up more land to feed and house livestock than it does to farm plants. "More than two-thirds of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for livestock, while only 8 percent is used to grow food for direct human consumption." Not to mention the amount of water livestock and its feed consumes.

makomk 13y ago
From what I recall there's some debate over whether meat production does necessarly have to consume more land than farming an equivalent amount of plants, eg: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-pr...

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

Or we should just stop hating our species ... Just a thought. Sorry, I just have uncontrollable disdain for this attitude. :)