Philosophy Discussion Forums

This is an interesting argument because we protect animals we believe to be pets and slaughter the ones we believe to be food.

I am not a vegetarian, but I believe that as a society we have become lazy about our actions. It is true that the smallest habits can make very large dent in our environment and our society. Because we don't witness the impact, we believe those who are passionate about the problems to be exaggerating. Even our methods of slaughter have become sloppy in some areas, and that is a good question too...if we are murdering animals why murder them nicely?

I suppose this is a very unorganized answer, but to me a lot goes hand in hand. I really don't know the answer to this question...because it is hard to answer. Is it right to kill 20,000 cows a day and throw out hundreds of unused meat? Is it right to cut down more forests to allow more cattle slaughter to accommodate the burst in small business restaurants? Is it right to add chemicals and toxins to our food in order to accommodate the grocery stores that are opening up? Is it right to throw out what will not bring income, is it that wrong to donate for no reason?

Unnecessary wrote:This is an interesting argument because we protect animals we believe to be pets and slaughter the ones we believe to be food.

I am not a vegetarian, but I believe that as a society we have become lazy about our actions. It is true that the smallest habits can make very large dent in our environment and our society. Because we don't witness the impact, we believe those who are passionate about the problems to be exaggerating. Even our methods of slaughter have become sloppy in some areas, and that is a good question too...if we are murdering animals why murder them nicely?

I suppose this is a very unorganized answer, but to me a lot goes hand in hand. I really don't know the answer to this question...because it is hard to answer. Is it right to kill 20,000 cows a day and throw out hundreds of unused meat? Is it right to cut down more forests to allow more cattle slaughter to accommodate the burst in small business restaurants? Is it right to add chemicals and toxins to our food in order to accommodate the grocery stores that are opening up? Is it right to throw out what will not bring income, is it that wrong to donate for no reason?

You are correct that your post covers many topics superficially. One place to start is to parse the difference between: "right" and "legal". There are plenty of things that are wrong but not illegal. In fact of all of the things that are wrong, most are legal (or at least not illegal).

It has been said that in certain primitive, stone age cultures, among the hunter-gathers, when an animal was killed they recognized the spiritual connection between the animal that would feed the bodies of their hungry children, and themselves. They were grateful for the sacrifice of one life for another. In a sense, when we eat plants it is also a death and sacrifice, and in the end our own bodies "return to the earth" to be consumed, when the elements that made our bodies become part of the cycle of life of earth as a whole. I think the prayer before meals, that is an ancient rite, still practiced by many cultures world-wide, is an acknowledgement of this. After all isn't it the quality of your heart and not the food you eat that matters in the long run? So many plants, animals and fellow humans have been sacrificed in order for us to partake of the world as it is. This means that you can abstain from meat, or you can be prayerfully thankful for existence and your food.

How many meat eaters here parse their own consumption?

Scott wrote: ↑August 15th, 2007, 4:13 pm "Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized." -Henry David Thoreau

It appears that he was right.

According to an article on Forbes, millenials (Gen Y) are driving a global shift away from meat eating, mostly for ethical motives.

(2018) Millennials Are Driving The Worldwide Shift Away From Meat
A global reduction in meat consumption between 2016 and 2050 could save up to eight million lives per year and $31 trillion in reduced costs from health care and climate change. (National Academy of Sciences).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpel ... from-meat/

As it appears, Gen Z accelerates a shift to veganism.

(2019) Gen Z is going all-in for vegan
https://www.genzinsights.com/gen-z-is-g ... -for-vegan

(2018) Generation Z is driving a global shift towards a vegan world
https://www.veganfoodandliving.com/news ... gan-world/

(2019) The Food World's Next Big Question: What Does Generation Z Want To Eat?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinem ... nt-to-eat/

Does new information about plant communication, albeit still controversial, constitute a reason to avoid eating plants? Or is it more sensible to wait until such plant to plant communication is provable?

Humans surely one day stop eating animals, but the change won't stem from the ethics of younger westerners. There's no sign of improved food ethics in Asia or Africa, where most people live. More likely that humans will only stop eating animals en masse when they have rendered most extinct, and when raising food animals ceases to be economic. There will come a time when human flesh will be the only affordable meat available (via black market).

The powers-that-be have a vision for humanity - masses of obedient underlings, encased in cramped boxes of concrete, steel, glass and plastic, the boxes piled high atop one another in skyscrapers. Each a cell of a mighty and amoral beast that cares only for consumption and reproduction.

Maybe Asia/Africa seeming lack of improved food ethics is better correlated with the lack of food quality around the world, accelerated poor quality/lack of access… The seeming path toward veganism may also be altered by unforeseen pandemic related food supply issues.

Aristocles wrote: ↑October 1st, 2021, 7:47 pmMaybe Asia/Africa seeming lack of improved food ethics is better correlated with the lack of food quality around the world, accelerated poor quality/lack of access…

I don't much care about explanations or blame, just the practical situation. If we want to talk blame, then I'd point at Australia - formerly a good global citizen. It has many young veggoes and vegans, but it also has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. The issue is corrupt Tories installed by the Murdoch media placing fossil fuel interests over natural heritage.

True that disease may force humanity's hand with animal flesh, although we are on track to wipe out all large non-human life on Earth this century so that idea may yet be moot.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 1st, 2021, 8:44 pm

Aristocles wrote: ↑October 1st, 2021, 7:47 pmMaybe Asia/Africa seeming lack of improved food ethics is better correlated with the lack of food quality around the world, accelerated poor quality/lack of access…

I don't much care about explanations or blame, just the practical situation. If we want to talk blame, then I'd point at Australia - formerly a good global citizen. It has many young veggoes and vegans, but it also has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. The issue is corrupt Tories installed by the Murdoch media placing fossil fuel interests over natural heritage.

True that disease may force humanity's hand with animal flesh, although we are on track to wipe out all large non-human life on Earth this century so that idea may yet be moot.

true, but what do they hope to gain for these efforts? yes, it is happening, but why do THEY do that? are they different than us or only in a different situation?

Tsp1545 wrote: ↑October 1st, 2021, 11:21 am Does new information about plant communication, albeit still controversial, constitute a reason to avoid eating plants? Or is it more sensible to wait until such plant to plant communication is provable?

Should help us to understand how to better make them flourish, with fungi, solution to much of the devastation

mystery wrote: ↑October 1st, 2021, 8:51 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 1st, 2021, 8:44 pm

Aristocles wrote: ↑October 1st, 2021, 7:47 pmMaybe Asia/Africa seeming lack of improved food ethics is better correlated with the lack of food quality around the world, accelerated poor quality/lack of access…

I don't much care about explanations or blame, just the practical situation. If we want to talk blame, then I'd point at Australia - formerly a good global citizen. It has many young veggoes and vegans, but it also has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. The issue is corrupt Tories installed by the Murdoch media placing fossil fuel interests over natural heritage.

True that disease may force humanity's hand with animal flesh, although we are on track to wipe out all large non-human life on Earth this century so that idea may yet be moot.

true, but what do they hope to gain for these efforts? yes, it is happening, but why do THEY do that? are they different than us or only in a different situation?

A sizeable number of human beings see other species as dirty, dumb, violent and incompetent. They have no sense of empathy or stewardship regarding more vulnerable animals, still treating other animals as competition, even after we have just about annihilated them.

Extreme anthropocentrism is a long-standing feature on humanity, evident in public policies that have resulted in most wild areas being removed.

So what will they gain from wiping out other animals? A crowded and ever more inequitable world without innocence, without respite from human complexity and with ever reducing privacy, where one's environment will be sterile and "pure", with just people and their creations.

As with any movement that objectifies and kills, purity is the primary aim. A "pure" world of "clean" and "civilised" humans and their machines, free of the filth and chaotic nature of simpler animals.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2021, 12:43 am

mystery wrote: ↑October 1st, 2021, 8:51 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 1st, 2021, 8:44 pm

Aristocles wrote: ↑October 1st, 2021, 7:47 pmMaybe Asia/Africa seeming lack of improved food ethics is better correlated with the lack of food quality around the world, accelerated poor quality/lack of access…

I don't much care about explanations or blame, just the practical situation. If we want to talk blame, then I'd point at Australia - formerly a good global citizen. It has many young veggoes and vegans, but it also has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. The issue is corrupt Tories installed by the Murdoch media placing fossil fuel interests over natural heritage.

True that disease may force humanity's hand with animal flesh, although we are on track to wipe out all large non-human life on Earth this century so that idea may yet be moot.

true, but what do they hope to gain for these efforts? yes, it is happening, but why do THEY do that? are they different than us or only in a different situation?

A sizeable number of human beings see other species as dirty, dumb, violent and incompetent. They have no sense of empathy or stewardship regarding more vulnerable animals, still treating other animals as competition, even after we have just about annihilated them.

Extreme anthropocentrism is a long-standing feature on humanity, evident in public policies that have resulted in most wild areas being removed.

So what will they gain from wiping out other animals? A crowded and ever more inequitable world without innocence, without respite from human complexity and with ever reducing privacy, where one's environment will be sterile and "pure", with just people and their creations.

As with any movement that objectifies and kills, purity is the primary aim. A "pure" world of "clean" and "civilised" humans and their machines, free of the filth and chaotic nature of simpler animals.

How to solve the issues. Perhaps population control, such as only one child per family or accelerated space travel looking for new territory and perhaps new animals. Or war or pandemic to have a quick reduction.

one of the things that bother me that is related is the continual excess that humans consume. we admire each other for their ability to consume more. somehow we need to adjust the human reward system so that it is activated by doing things that improve our reality instead of destroying and consume it. Enacting laws or policies is not the long-term way to create a paradise, only to create a prison forever. Somehow the internal human reward system needs to be activated by improving things instead of greed.

Somehow we would have to hack evolution and natural selection to include something like the Nash Solution as part of the core logic. To actually change the reward systems so that humans create a surplus. Until something like that happens we are doomed to evolve while assimilating all in our path. As long as the core program is greed, the end will come.

mystery wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2021, 1:30 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2021, 12:43 am

mystery wrote: ↑October 1st, 2021, 8:51 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 1st, 2021, 8:44 pm
I don't much care about explanations or blame, just the practical situation. If we want to talk blame, then I'd point at Australia - formerly a good global citizen. It has many young veggoes and vegans, but it also has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. The issue is corrupt Tories installed by the Murdoch media placing fossil fuel interests over natural heritage.

True that disease may force humanity's hand with animal flesh, although we are on track to wipe out all large non-human life on Earth this century so that idea may yet be moot.

true, but what do they hope to gain for these efforts? yes, it is happening, but why do THEY do that? are they different than us or only in a different situation?

A sizeable number of human beings see other species as dirty, dumb, violent and incompetent. They have no sense of empathy or stewardship regarding more vulnerable animals, still treating other animals as competition, even after we have just about annihilated them.

Extreme anthropocentrism is a long-standing feature on humanity, evident in public policies that have resulted in most wild areas being removed.

So what will they gain from wiping out other animals? A crowded and ever more inequitable world without innocence, without respite from human complexity and with ever reducing privacy, where one's environment will be sterile and "pure", with just people and their creations.

As with any movement that objectifies and kills, purity is the primary aim. A "pure" world of "clean" and "civilised" humans and their machines, free of the filth and chaotic nature of simpler animals.

How to solve the issues. Perhaps population control, such as only one child per family or accelerated space travel looking for new territory and perhaps new animals. Or war or pandemic to have a quick reduction.

one of the things that bother me that is related is the continual excess that humans consume. we admire each other for their ability to consume more. somehow we need to adjust the human reward system so that it is activated by doing things that improve our reality instead of destroying and consume it. Enacting laws or policies is not the long-term way to create a paradise, only to create a prison forever. Somehow the internal human reward system needs to be activated by improving things instead of greed.

Somehow we would have to hack evolution and natural selection to include something like the Nash Solution as part of the core logic. To actually change the reward systems so that humans create a surplus. Until something like that happens we are doomed to evolve while assimilating all in our path. As long as the core program is greed, the end will come.

Population control is the answer, but not by mandate, rather through the use of the most effective family size control measure: education of women and girls.

In an ideal world, people would w̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶t̶o̶ wrap their heads around their existential situation - not as divine overlords of the beasts but part of the Earth's systems, but that's looking unlikely.

Rather, I expect human numbers to continue growing rapidly. It's often claimed that population will be fine because the rate of increase has slowed as a percentage. However, that's still a net increase of around 100 million humans per year. How many species would love to achieve a total population even a hundredth of humans' annual increases! And yes, ever increasing consumption and wasteful status items are another massive problem.

However, when population growth slows those in high places worry about the effects of an ageing population. So we cannot win this battle. Humans will not control themselves, rather they simply continue as usual until catastrophes bring balance forcefully. Thus, other large species will continue to be decimated.

An answer to this? Automation. If the population is ageing, then get machines to do the work instead of using migration and tax incentives to encourage baby-making to make up labour shortfalls. However, that will result in UBIs and consequent increased government control (as holder of the purse strings). It would be better for the animal kingdom, though, as would artificially grown meats.

A possible cause for hope: As climate change bites and technology for creating lab-grown meat becomes more affordable, artificial meats may become cheaper than the real thing. You would expect the top end of the meat industry - free range, organic, grain fed, hormone-free - to remain fairly stable in that situation, but the grotesqueries of factory farming would hopefully be largely supplanted by lab-grown meats.