71–80 of 146 posts
My girlfriend seems to handle "direct" pain, like hitting stuff, getting cut or back pain, compared to me. Most times she just keeps going without uttering much at all. But she's significantly worse at dealing with cold, heat and high brightness. One thing is that her body may be worse at regulating temperature, but she can't stand going out in the cold even for a few minutes unless she's dressed like she's visiting…
It's probably a mix of gender-related biological differences, personal differences, and cultural differences. Is it cultural that women are expected to keep going (taking care of children and household) in the face of discomfort, pain, injury and/or illness? Or are they biologically better equipped to do so?
A common (not pain-related) claim used to be that women are better at multi-tasking than men, but as I understand it, that turned out to be caused by cultural expectations, with women culturally expected to manage multiple things at once while men were allowed to focus on a single task. Similarly, other aspects we think of as biological have turned out to be nurture rather than nature.
But there's also likely to be many biological differences that haven't been sufficiently explored yet. As the article points out, research is often done primarily on male mice (and male people), ignoring the possibility that things might work differently for women.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt it, but only because from a utilitarian standpoint, using animals for research purposes is not even a drop in the bucket. Humanity slaughters billions of animals each year just because they're tasty. At least the research animals have some benefit beyond a single person's satiation. I do wonder how long it will be before people start vandalizing statues of historical figures because they ate meat.
>> Humanity slaughters billions of animals each year just because they're tasty. It's very likely that people find meat tasty because it's nutritious, just as we find sugar and plant fats tasty. Your comment makes it sound as if eating meat is some kind of indulgence, like eating sweets. Meat is a rich source of protein and energy. We don't need any more justification than that to want to eat other animals. There are…
Really, it is. It doesn't make a lot of sense to eat meat from an efficiency point of view, or from the sense of impact on the climate.
>Meat is a rich source of protein and energy. We don't need any more justification than that to want to eat other animals.
I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first.
> At the end of the day- many animals eat other animals' meat. Why is it any different for humans to do the same?
Humans plus livestock make up 96% of the biomass of mammals on the planet. Domesticated poultry is 60% of the birds. That makes us a special case in terms of impact, to put it mildly.
From an animal welfare point of view, it's also different to kill a wild animal for food compared to shutting it in a cage and pumping it full of hormones and antibiotics for a few months before killing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Since that is unique to our species, Much of the animal kingdom has the same issue of painful childbirth. What you mean by "handle", I can only guess. Perhaps something about recovery and a desire repeat.
> Much of the animal kingdom has the same issue of painful childbirth Do they? As far as I was aware, humans have a uniquely awkward childbirth due to our cranial size.
Human pregnancy is messed up beyond the obvious issue of squeezing our large brain through out narrow running hips.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Humanity slaughters billions of animals each year just because they're tasty. It's very likely that people find meat tasty because it's nutritious, just as we find sugar and plant fats tasty. Your comment makes it sound as if eating meat is some kind of indulgence, like eating sweets. Meat is a rich source of protein and energy. We don't need any more justification than that to want to eat other animals. There are…
> Your comment makes it sound as if eating meat is some kind of indulgence, like eating sweets. Really, it is. It doesn't make a lot of sense to eat meat from an efficiency point of view, or from the sense of impact on the climate. >Meat is a rich source of protein and energy. We don't need any more justification than that to want to eat other animals. I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. > At…
>> I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first.
It follows because we need protein and energy.
>> That makes us a special case in terms of impact, to put it mildly.
That makes us a special case in the way we find meat to eat.
But why are we a special case when it comes to eating meat?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt it, but only because from a utilitarian standpoint, using animals for research purposes is not even a drop in the bucket. Humanity slaughters billions of animals each year just because they're tasty. At least the research animals have some benefit beyond a single person's satiation. I do wonder how long it will be before people start vandalizing statues of historical figures because they ate meat.
>> Humanity slaughters billions of animals each year just because they're tasty. It's very likely that people find meat tasty because it's nutritious, just as we find sugar and plant fats tasty. Your comment makes it sound as if eating meat is some kind of indulgence, like eating sweets. Meat is a rich source of protein and energy. We don't need any more justification than that to want to eat other animals. There are…
It's a question of moral agency. Generally animals are not held to any kind of moral standard at all - no one thinks a dog that bites a child is "evil", just dangerous. You'd be more likely to blame the owner for not training/controlling it properly.
My girlfriend seems to handle "direct" pain, like hitting stuff, getting cut or back pain, compared to me. Most times she just keeps going without uttering much at all. But she's significantly worse at dealing with cold, heat and high brightness. One thing is that her body may be worse at regulating temperature, but she can't stand going out in the cold even for a few minutes unless she's dressed like she's visiting…
I think that the way we handle localised pain vs general pain (and in particular heat and cold) has a lot more to do with how we grew up. If you spent a lot of time in the outdoors/elements as a kid, you're going to be a lot better at handling adverse environmental conditions. I spent my childhood wearing shorts and sandals to school, even when it was literally freezing outside (never really got much below freezing t…
I definitely spent a lot of time in the cold as a kid. During walks in the forest during winter I would play with streams, building dams etc, even though the stream was starting to freeze over. I also didn't wear much clothing compared to others during winter. My gf did no such thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your comment makes it sound as if eating meat is some kind of indulgence, like eating sweets. Really, it is. It doesn't make a lot of sense to eat meat from an efficiency point of view, or from the sense of impact on the climate. >Meat is a rich source of protein and energy. We don't need any more justification than that to want to eat other animals. I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. > At…
The major driver of climate change is energy production and transport. We can reduce our impact by limiting those first, before we get to the food we eat. Everybody doesn't need to have their personal automobile or fly everywhere in jets that consume tons of fossil fuels at a time. Everybody doesn't need to go around with a portable computer in their pants. But everybody does need food to eat. Why would we first limi…
It's not logical to say we need to tackle the biggest problems first before tackling the smaller problems. Tackling the easier problems first, or tackling as many problems as we can simultaneously makes more sense.
It's also wrong to imply that food is not a major contributor to climate change. It's hard to compare (because of methane emissions v CO2 emissions, food is transported on vehicles etc.) but it looks like food production is similar in impact to transport.
> Why would we first limit a fundamental need
Eating food is a fundamental need, but not eating meat.
My girlfriend seems to handle "direct" pain, like hitting stuff, getting cut or back pain, compared to me. Most times she just keeps going without uttering much at all. But she's significantly worse at dealing with cold, heat and high brightness. One thing is that her body may be worse at regulating temperature, but she can't stand going out in the cold even for a few minutes unless she's dressed like she's visiting…
A lot of being cold has to do with body mass though. The larger your muscles -> the more they generate heat and the more they insulate. When I was at my bulkiest I'd be sweaty in a 60F/15C room. When I was at my skinniest I'd be freezing my bones off at that temp.
But my point was that my gf can't stand being cold. I don't enjoy it, but I don't mind being cold. It's not pleasant when you start to lose sensation in your limbs, but I can deal with it fine. My gf can't stand 3 seconds outside in -5C without at least five layers of insulation from top to toe.
My girlfriend seems to handle "direct" pain, like hitting stuff, getting cut or back pain, compared to me. Most times she just keeps going without uttering much at all. But she's significantly worse at dealing with cold, heat and high brightness. One thing is that her body may be worse at regulating temperature, but she can't stand going out in the cold even for a few minutes unless she's dressed like she's visiting…
Regarding the cold, that has to do with the nature that females tend to have less muscle mass than males. Bodymass produces heat.