41–50 of 83 posts
What a load of rubbish. 1. Plant-based diets are good for the environment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6316289/ 2. Animals are sentient. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494450/ 3. The "thought experiment" is flawed. See https://erikhoel.substack.com/p/eating-meat-is-good-says-the... - good rebuttal here Keeping animals alive in the worst possible conditions on the promise that "we'll do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2. I guess what you have meant is "self-aware" because to claim animals are sentient is to make this word meaningless.
How does the claim that animals are sentient make the word meaningless?
What a load of rubbish. 1. Plant-based diets are good for the environment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6316289/ 2. Animals are sentient. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494450/ 3. The "thought experiment" is flawed. See https://erikhoel.substack.com/p/eating-meat-is-good-says-the... - good rebuttal here Keeping animals alive in the worst possible conditions on the promise that "we'll do…
Agreed, it's hard to imagine voluntarily embarrassing yourself in public as badly as the author has done here. "When I went to college and met for the first time a good number of vegetarians and vegans, I used to blow their minds with this argument" Indeed. That must have really been something. Well, he won't say anything to make us thinks he's positioning this in less than good faith, then? "Honestly, fuck crabs" Ok…
Nothing about this article is embarrassing, unless you intentionally misconstrue the tone and intentions of the author.
Well, here's another thought experiment: you are being tortured, very slowly, but kept alive, well fed and sentient. There is nowhere to go. In the end you will be killed, and you know it. You have watched all your siblings be killed, your parents, your children.
You have a button next to you. If you press it, you will die instantly and with no pain. You will be sent into "oblivion", but you will end your suffering.
How long will you resist pressing the button?
What a load of rubbish. 1. Plant-based diets are good for the environment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6316289/ 2. Animals are sentient. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494450/ 3. The "thought experiment" is flawed. See https://erikhoel.substack.com/p/eating-meat-is-good-says-the... - good rebuttal here Keeping animals alive in the worst possible conditions on the promise that "we'll do…
If you're eating farmed plants, then there is a lot of environmental destruction and animal death/suffering behind that, too.
It really boils down to: "Is humans acting as their squishy biology dictates" good or does our "goodness" derive from striving to be more than that biology? I'm on the "accept that we are made to eat meat and probably should on occasion" end of the spectrum, but that doesn't make the current state of how we make and consume meat an ok thing. Factory farming isn't a necessary evil, and the level at which we eat meat (…
We're made to have sex too, that doesn't justify rape. We make choices and are responsible for our actions. We can clearly survive without eating meat without any adverse effects. That makes it just another choice we make. We're responsible for our choices and can't get away with vague claims about biological dictates.
Should we have meat as part of the daily diet, probably not. Should we never eat meat for moral reasons? I don't think that is true. In the most extreme case, I'd argue things like auto-cannibalism are always ethical (You can know that you consent, especially when meat is produced via hypothetical vegan cloning methods)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're eating farmed plants, then there is a lot of environmental destruction and animal death/suffering behind that, too.
So why add the destruction and suffering caused by animal agriculture on top of that?
Maybe in 100 years you can bring up this argument when plant- and lab-based substitutes are widely available and the cows are at the brink of extinction. But at this point of human history, the vegetarian can credibly argue that they want to reduce animal suffering while meat eater can not similarly counter that they eat meat to preserve the species.
I know the argument is supposed to be on a philosophical level, but I just can't suspend my disbelief to an extent required to seriously engage with the argumentation.
Will be interesting to revisit this in 50-100 years perhaps. But one would hope that humanity then has created nature reserves for wild cattle and so on.
The question comes down to this: is a life full of suffering, torture, violence, and misery better than no life at all? For me, the answer is no.
Actually the article is asking whether a good but curtailed life is better than no life at all. Which is a more interesting question.
"Even if, on net, the humans in the alien world suffer, is oblivion really the preferable alternative to net suffering? Especially if you could alleviate that suffering through action?"