161–170 of 329 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Algae can also survive in conditions human couldn't. That isn't a very meaningful bar for intelligence.
Single celled organisms are in control, they're the original intelligence. Our minds are just slaves to supercolonies of trillions of cells.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To play devil's advocate, would you accept the same trade? We've provided you with medicine, police protection, and subsidized food and shelter. Does that give me the right to presume that I should be able to eat you?
Well, since we were discussing different forms of suffering... They [the state, the company] effectively eat most of my soul and half of my conscious life. In return I get wages and spend them on police protection, medicine etc.
That's before you get into the fact that we don't give animals a choice in the matter. They can't opt out of our protection and their eventual slaughter. We presume that it's acceptable to agree to that bargain on their behalf.
Like I said, it's a thought experiment, but it's one that leaves me uneasy with the consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trouble comes with eating plants. Do they want to be eaten? So far we pushed our desire to live onto animals. Why not push that view onto plants? At least to the core plant (seed bearing plants appear to need, and I guess therefore desire, for their fruit to be eaten to decimate their germs)? The trouble with the lauded projection is we are left with not eating anything. Perhaps after the singularity then?
Sentience is the line I and many others use to make that distinction. Although there is a gray area the closer to the line you get (insects for example), that does not diminish the fact that we can say with high degree of certainly are sentient (cows) and are not sentient (wheat).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If such a measure were carried out without hypocrisy, one would not eat any animals. A very reasonable, consistent position.
The trouble comes with eating plants. Do they want to be eaten? So far we pushed our desire to live onto animals. Why not push that view onto plants? At least to the core plant (seed bearing plants appear to need, and I guess therefore desire, for their fruit to be eaten to decimate their germs)? The trouble with the lauded projection is we are left with not eating anything. Perhaps after the singularity then?
Fine line you got there. Why do you have it? I'd take an actual response, but the question is rhetorical. I just want people to know why they make decisions they do. I also don't want people to harm others that don't agree. For example, you should have no power to prevent me from eating a chicken legally.
Way to make me feel worse about eating them.
Why worry? They'd eat you. Realize that all animal ethics are entirely manmade and foreign to the background of the Universe's amorality. Edit: Really down voting because you don't agree? The comment was on topic, provided a view, and contributed to the conversation in some way. If you want to down vote, please be responsible enough to say why.
Way to make me feel worse about eating them.
Apart from cognitive skills, an important factor is the capacity of suffering. So even dumb animals might be able to feel intense pain. In humans, while forms of suffering like loneliness, depression can be bad, pure physical pain can itself a terrible thing. For instance severe torture for 10 minutes can be worse than months of depression. Now even if cognitive aspects are diminished in animals, the physical senses…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All ethics are entirely manmade, so this is not particularly helpful. Are you ok with torturing criminals, as long as they seem like they'd be willing to torture you?
No, because we've found empirically that torture doesn't work. If it did, why not? I know many will not like that conclusion, but again, presuming an amoral universe, and I have little evidence outside of a religious world view that I'm wrong to presume such, there is no right or wrong. You admitted in your first sentence. Comment is helpful in that many people, from all backgrounds, assume that ethics are absolute.…
If torturing animals could make them talk, maybe we should do it for research, even if they end up telling us lies...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except we no longer need to kill animals for food. Animal products are, on the whole, deleterious to our health. So, why is it still acceptable to most Catholics?
> Animal products are, on the whole, deleterious to our health. Because this is not proven. Soy is pretty bad for us. The best diet to date is the mediterranean diet. While not having much beef, it does include ample amounts of fish with some chicken. If we focus on science, vegetarianism is not the best course. Moderation that includes taking life is so far (and this can change) the best solution. Edit: formatting t…
There's enough evidence to suggest that it is, and conclusively.
When I went vegan, I also thought I was choosing a sub-optimum diet, but it was a compromise I was willing to make. As I got more educated on nutrition, I came to realize that the benefits outweighed the drawbacks substantially.
People have been vegan for thousands of years. There's a plethora of information on the problems that animal products cause. Do a search for endotoxemia, if you want one (of the many) general issues cause by animal products.
> Soy is pretty bad for us.
No it's not, Vincent Price foundation-sponsored research notwithstanding. There's more actual estrogen in cow's milk. To suffer deleterious effects from soy, you need to eat nothing but soy. Not no other protein - nothing but soy.
And that just soy, that's not 'no animal products'. I know people who avoid both due to allergies, and are healthy. I eat plenty of soy, and my doctor tells me I'm doing great. My bloodwork never comes back 'ok' - it's comes back 'optimum'.
> If we focus on science, vegetarianism is not the best course.
It is. Please don't trust me: go look it up.
And regardless: what is 'best' for our health, isn't 'what is necessary', which was my original question, and is the edict I am questioning. Thousands of people live and thrive without animal products, include centenarians and high performance athletes, so clearly, it is not so deleterious as to prevent one from thriving.
Is it not important to strive to be a good person, if you can? Is this not a part of catholicism too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sentience is the line I and many others use to make that distinction. Although there is a gray area the closer to the line you get (insects for example), that does not diminish the fact that we can say with high degree of certainly are sentient (cows) and are not sentient (wheat).
There's considerable evidence that plants are sentient by the usual external functional definitions (the traditional internal "subjective experience" definition is not directly testable), which is why some vegans have adopted structural standards regarding distinct "sense organs" so as to keep sentience restricted to animals.
Way to make me feel worse about eating them.
Why worry? They'd eat you. Realize that all animal ethics are entirely manmade and foreign to the background of the Universe's amorality. Edit: Really down voting because you don't agree? The comment was on topic, provided a view, and contributed to the conversation in some way. If you want to down vote, please be responsible enough to say why.