>So here's a valid, no nonsense, alternative morality: I support what ensures the continued propagation of my species. Supporting meat eating when there's no o

>So here's a valid, no nonsense, alternative morality: I support what ensures the continued propagation of my species. Supporting meat eating when there's no other way to survive is a different situation. Many people in first world countries have no problem living off of vegetarian or vegan diets. Any global movement to an eventual plant or artificial based food production and a distribution system would have to be a long, multi-phased rollout. And let's be frank, in 100 years (or however long) it is likely we will start to see this as palatable artificial meat products start to become produced, so eventually ethical vegans/vegetarians are probably going to win some form of this debate as it will be cheaper and more efficient for people to grow artificial meat than to grow and raise livestock for years. There will be a friction period where artificial meat probably doesn't taste as good, but once those kinks are worked out and production finally meets demand, people will see raising of animals for food as unnecessary. >More concretely, Vegans' strange stated obsession with neuron based nervous systems locks them into a philosophy where life isn't important, only things that they believe can feel are. It's the dietary equivalent of "if I don't get caught, it's not wrong". Pain and emotion are the characteristics ethical vegans/vegetarians try to use to judge whether it's ethical to kill something, and development of a central nervous system often provides a good insight into these characteristics. Some studies have shown plant responses to stimuli, but so far no studies have shown that plants experience a "subjective experience" or are capable of thoughts in the way we think of them. Bacteria and paramecia also respond to stimuli, sometimes in complex ways, but most people would not consider them sentient. If it's later proven that plants can really experience things like pain and emotion, then most ethical vegans/vegetarians would likely shift their stance and promote 100% artificial food for consumption, derived purely through chemical reactions and petri dishes. > life isn't important, only things that they believe can feel are This is how all moral actors behave, though. Universally speaking, life is not considered important, except in certain religions like Jainism. Accidental or intentional killing of bacteria, amoeba, and dust mites doesn't bother anyone because of a perceived sense of so-called sentience. People all use "sentience" as a guidebook for how they should treat things (most agree torture of a pig or sheep is immoral, but most would not think something like a plant or single-celled organism is capable of being tortured). We all drew these lines, and science can help us determinine just how close our psychological lines match up with nature's real lines. Sentience, emotion, consciousness, and pain fall on a spectrum and aren't necessarily "all or nothing", but at the very least science can help us truly identify the organisms closest to "nothings". >The argument Vegans make is curiously specific, if we met an alien species unlike anything we had ever encountered before, I'd rather send an omnivore to investigate, because if it didn't have nervous system built up of neurons, no matter how intelligent, a Vegan might put it on the dinner menu...that's a bad first contact protocol. Assuming the alien species consumes organisms, unfortunately it is far more likely they would consider us a meal than the reverse.