5 ms·
Weird, the second article of this kind I encounter within a day (the other was in German, though). Meat industry submarine? Because I think it's just meat eate
by facepalm 12y ago
Weird, the second article of this kind I encounter within a day (the other was in German, though). Meat industry submarine?
Because I think it's just meat eater apologism. The issues with eating meat don't change if you do the killing yourself or in an artsy way.
- placebo 12y agoOn one hand, I don't think this is some meat industry propaganda and there probably is a link between the disconnect of meat consumers and the act of butchering to the increase of meat consumption, but I don't agree with the core idea here: "The way I see it, it's not that there's a desire for the blood and gore, but rather we’re hardwired to deal with the blood and gore, and when that innate machinery goes unused – as it does in a postdomestic society – humans are left with a gap, with something missing." The fact that we're hardwired to crave something does not automatically imply we should do it. This is part of what being human is about. If men crave sex, it doesn't follow that they should rape women lest they are left with a gap or something missing. I used to love eating meat more than most people I know, but stopped eating it years ago since it didn't make any sense to me that for my pleasure a sentient animal should suffer and die. I have no trouble dealing with the gap... Note that I'm not judgemental about my friends or any other people that eat meat. Life is not black and white - everyone can make their choices and I know vegetarians and vegans who can take morality lessons from meat eaters - but at least we should call a spade a spade. Unless it's crucial for your own survival, I believe eating meat brings more suffering than joy to the world.
- facepalm 12y agoWe are certainly not hardwired to crave meat (at least not more than other food). People live in all sorts of situations on the planet. Some eat meat, some don't. The success of humans is probably partly due to being able to dwell on all sorts of diets.
- Falling3 12y agoAgreed. At best, the article is an unsupported appeal to Nature.
- stegosaurus 12y agoThe idea of a humane killing is nonsensical to me, really. Imagine a thought experiment in which you could either die painlessly, or live but be required to endure days or weeks of incredibly painful torture (for the purposes of the experiment let's say that it doesn't leave lasting physical/emotional damage). I'd pick the torture. I assume most other people would too. I think that should illustrate fairly well that the distinction between life and death is so much greater than that between joy and suffering.
- moogleii 12y agoI'd probably pick the torture, too, but I think proponents of humane killing are comparing it with inhumane killing, so it's more like, would you rather choose to die painlessly, or endure weeks of incredibly painful torture before being killed. I'd probably choose the former in that case.
- Falling3 12y agoI really doubt you or most other people can imagine what weeks of torture with death inevitably looming actually feels like. I think almost anyone would choose dying painlessly.
- vacri 12y agoWhat a strange dichotomy. Who is advocating for the torture of animals?
- crpatino 12y agoYou are not making a fair comparison. The (somewhat simplified) options available are: 1. Raise and slaughter animals in the most convenient and/or economically efficient way without regards for their suffering. (standard meat way) 2. Raise and slaughter animals in the most humane and painless way without regard for economic cost. (omnivore's dilemma way) 3. Do not raise any animals. Eat a 100% plan based diet. (vegan way). There is no scenario where animals can trade enduring pain for anything. We are talking about domestic animals. They are born because we facilitated it, with the expectation of a gain from such activity. I can see why people would want to be vegan, and while I do not share those opinions I respect them. But, if everybody thought like that, most domestic animal species would go extinct in a few decades. Most people would stop raising them, and if a few misguided folks would release flocks in the wild, those are in general not prepared to occupy an ecologic niche. They will either die off or wreck the environment of the region they were released at. So, between options 1 and 2. The animals are going to die anyways, because if we did not expected to eat them, nobody would have bothered raising them. The only question left is how much suffering are they to endure in the process of dying. Proponents of #1 say this does not matter as long as the plate is full. Proponents of #2 say it is morally right to eat less meat in order to ensure the animals get killed in a more humane way. How does your previous comment fits in that debate?
- MisterBastahrd 12y agoYeah, except for that whole animal overpopulation thing that happened because we wiped out natural predators... because of the threat they pose to us. I kill things. I eat them. I don't care if you don't like it. The environment is better off for it.
- Falling3 12y agoThis article and the comment both referred to domesticated slaughtered animals, so your reply isn't directly applicable. But can we assume you exclusively eat wild animals? Otherwise it's completely irrelevant.