261–270 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're going to have trouble finding adult humans that are willing to infect themselves with, e.g., vibrio cholera to test new vaccines (or, for that matter, to have their guts biopsied for immunological assays).
then those things won’t be developed. if human beings determine a need, then we should pay the price for their development. not force that onto “lesser” species.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, I agree. I hope my comment didn't imply otherwise. Actually I would argue for the wholesale reduction of the category "food animal". Its largely unnecessary, there are very few people (e.g. with unusual medical needs or living in unusual situations) for whom eating other animals is necessary.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems unlikely. Look into techniques like ICSS which have no non-invasive substitutions. Banning animal experiments in neuroscience would just eliminate large swaths of research pursuits, leaving only observational techniques like FMRI, which would slow down the science greatly.
It's not just FMRI - what about blood tests looking at gene expression, computational methods, tissue engineering, and stuff that hasn't been invented yet? Regarding ICSS though, I've had a look and I really fail to see how this technique is benefiting humanity..? For example they've discovered more detail about where cocaine affects pleasure/reward neural circuitry - so what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Only female cows produce milk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue this is incredibly misleading. What percentage of meat or dairy comes from pasture animals? You can't fulfill a country like the US's meat and dairy demand with pasture raised animals. So realistically we are talking about factory farmed animals. If we are talking about factory farmed animals then it goes back to the needing these nature destructing farms you are talking about just to feed animals that…
> What percentage of meat or dairy comes from pasture animals? Meat and dairy are separate considerations. Even in industrial farming, meat animals and dairy animals are raised separately and often belong to different breeds. They are certainly treated differently. So for example, where I'm staying, about 80% of the dairy products are made with the milk of sheep and goats in small farms where the animals range freely…
Not everywhere. In the US there is an incredible amount of overlap. For example, Male cows born in the dairy industry end up in the meat industry. But more specifically I don't see how they are separate in the context of this conversation? Aren't we just talking about the inefficiency of raising animals as a food source?
>Anyway when you ask questions like the one above, please consider that the conditions you know from the Americas are not the same in all of the rest of the world, and that most of the rest of the world simply does not eat as much meat, of all kids, as Americans (and by "Americans" I mean people in the US, Argentina and Brazil).
I thought I was, I honestly wanted to know what the percentage of meat and dairy comes from pasture animals in the world. I guess I should of been more clear about that.
>"Demand", maybe not. But "need"? It seems to me that this can be done perfectly well simply because the amount currently consumed is extravagant. People in the US eat way too much meat, per capita, compared to almost everyone else in the world, including most industrialised nations. My selection below:
I 100% agree.
>Nobody needs to eat that much meat.
Again I very much agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they believe that the net suffering is reduced by the joy being brought into the world via the birth. And there are people who believe we should stop giving birth and let our species die. They are antinatalists. I think they are too extreme, imho, but you asked where they are: just google them.
To be clear, I asked where are the hordes of people demanding that we put an end to natural births, not all births, ever. > Because they believe that the net suffering is reduced by the joy being brought into the world via the birth. Sorry, who believes that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want the climate to change. Why do you assume things you believe are ‘problems’ are problems to others?
Here's one of many examples https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 >Around 30% of the world’s population is currently exposed to climatic conditions exceeding this deadly threshold for at least 20 days a year. By 2100, this percentage is projected to increase to ∼48% under a scenario with drastic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and ∼74% under a scenario of growing emissions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is that immoral if I want tasty meat? > Because I believe it’s immoral to cause needless suffering. It's immoral for the OP to eat meat because you believe it's immmoral? Also, if you think that the need for tasty food, or any food, is trivial, you haven't been around animals much. The ones I know, and I don't mean only the humans, go absolutely batshit insane at the thought of food. A few days ago one of the c…
This is a ride, but let’s take it point by point. Firstly, I think it’s immoral for anyone to do it. I don’t think it’s immoral simply because I decided so. I think it’s fundamentally immoral, period. You continue by saying something to the effect of “good food is really important and plays a huge role in our life and animals go to great lengths to acquire good food”. To this, I completely agree. I never said otherwi…
Nope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speak for yourself bud. We only have one life, and it is not for you to decide what other person should eat based on your moralist principles.
It appears that he was speaking for himself.