201–210 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to be.
Many people don't want to avoid things that have massive negative externalities but at some point we have to take responsibility for the harm we cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a facile understanding of efficiency. For example, many animals that we eat are dramatically more efficient at absorbing or consuming certain nutrients from plants than we are: Iron, Calcium, Zinc, B12, EPA, DHA. If adding a step in a supply chain always introduced more net inefficiency, we would never own things like cars or televisions. The complexity you introduce by shortening the supply chain makes a whol…
You can live a completely healthy and nutritionally complete plant based life style though, and without consuming your body weight in anything. So if we don’t _need_ the animals to die for us, killing them is immoral. It’s immoral because it’s unnecessary.
Still a better usage of an animal life than eating them. I prefer to advance humanity, even minimally. If you put these numbers in comparison to animal farming, their suffering and their murdering, then it's absolutely worth it. For me it boils down to a simple set of questions. Would you murder 10'000 chickens to save your grandma's life? How about 10'000 cows? How about 10'000 rats? How about 10'000 rabbits? How ab…
> I am willing to sacrifice an insane amount of animal lives in order to save anyone human. That is insane, and psychopathic. But it is shared by many (most?) humans. The result will be that there will be no animals left, and soon afterwards, no humans left either. Another question is, how many humans are you willing to sacrifice to save your wife? Your child? Is your child worth a specific number of human lives, in…
As much as it is necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine the two following hypothetical societies (we clearly live in neither society): A) humane open pastures where animals grow to middle age before being killed for food, resulting in expensive meat B) pure agriculture where land is cleared and irrigated for agricultural produce, completely devoid of animal life I would argue that society A would be better for animals than society B.
The two situations aren't really comparable without more information. Clearly the people in A are still eating a craptonne of plants, and also have access to much more land per person than B, since they can afford to have a lot dedicated to very unproductive pasture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adult humans who have given informed consent would probably be preferable to potatoes. In most cases, at least.
What if those people are people who can be exploited and coerced into "giving consent" because they are poor, and need the money?
1 https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/08/america-...
2 https://journals.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/classicessay...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you're a religious extremist because you're telling other cultures that they need to change in order to fit your belief system.
Calling someone a religious extremist because they think an act is immoral seems to me to be watering down the phrase "extremist" to a useless degree. Good luck with life, friend, as you're bound to encounter many other "religious extremists" if your POV is so easily challenged.
And yes, there are far too many religious extremists in modern society. Maybe stop joining them.
One might argue that since we know so much, we have learned enough and further research in animals is unnecessary (or can be modeled). But while we now know most of the components of the body (at least those encoded by the genome), we are spectacularly ignorant of what those parts do, how they interact, and how those interactions respond to environmental changes (such as disease and drugs). And we can only explore those questions in animals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's hard to compare and the greater yields of crops certainly bodes well for A. Though the productivity differences aren't as large as one would think - protein conversion ratios for smaller animals tend to be 2-3. It's worse for beef (~10) but you have to consider that half the cows are creating milk which has a high protein conversion ratio. And it's potentially even better for animals when you consider the…
> It's worse for beef (~10) but you have to consider that half the cows are creating milk which has a high protein conversion ratio. Half?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can live a completely healthy and nutritionally complete plant based life style though, and without consuming your body weight in anything. So if we don’t _need_ the animals to die for us, killing them is immoral. It’s immoral because it’s unnecessary.
How is that immoral if I want tasty meat?
I link to a couple videos in this comment section that show what I mean. You should watch them and decide if you think a sentient creature should experience those things because you like how it tastes.