Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission • Hacker News Board

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#181

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

spraak wrote: post #165

platz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought there were a few required proteins that were very hard to supply in the body without an animal source

All amino acids originate from non-animals (plants, microbes). Where do you think other animals get their essential amino acids? They eat plants or eat an animal that ate plants. All plant proteins have all of the essential amino acids. The only truly “incomplete” protein is gelatin, which is missing the amino acid tryptophan, so the only protein source you couldn’t live on is Jello.

Basically all of your comment is false. Humans can synthesize many amino acids. That is the defining difference between non-essential vs. essential amino acids.

And there are lots of plant sources that are missing or insufficient in essential amino acids. Beans, for example, are lacking in methionine, which is why corn and beans are eaten together in some traditional diets.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#182

Post by 19cdf4a25547c4 » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #142

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's impossible to take such an argument seriously. Why? It seems you are exactly proving my point: you've compartmentalized one as "ok cause we like it and do it now" and the other as "evil because it's bad and we don't do it anymore", but provide no argument as to why they are logically so incomparable. And your "final word on the subject" is apparently "meat tastes good and people like it." Forgive me if I'm not…

> Why? Because it's a non-sequitur. Slavery and diet have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You could pick any good or bad example of something and strap it to your argument, but it doesn't make it convincing. > And your "final word on the subject" is apparently "meat tastes good and people like it." Forgive me if I'm not pursuaded by your "logic". Yep, that's why people will continue to eat meat; it tastes g…

> slavery and diet have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

No one is talking about diet. The part where you eat the animal isn't relevant morally. The part where the animal's freedom is restricted and is treated as an object purely for the pleasure of humans is.

What you're experiencing is cognitive dissonance. You're not a bad person for being raised in a culture that encourages you to not think about these things. You should try to look into where your food comes from even though our cultural biases that will make us try to avoid doing so or justify the atrocities when we do see them.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#183

Post by ngngngng » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #167

toasterlovin wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a pretty reasonable argument that 1) conditions for livestock are actually much better than those endured by animals in nature, and 2) living to eventually be slaughtered is better than never having lived at all.

While I think both of those points are very debatable (just search YouTube for factory farming videos if you really think livestock conditions are better), they still miss the point. After all, both of your points could just as easily apply to dogs, cats, horses, whales, chimpanzees and heck, even humans. My main argument is that there is really no morally consistent way to think that eating dogs, cats, horses or wha…

I think you are correct, but agreeing with you on the lack of moral consistency does not drive me to cut meat out of my diet. I've never tried dog, but I certainly would. I keep dogs as pets and I would never eat my own dogs. They have emotional value to me, by my own design, as that's the purpose I've given them in my life.

There are many reasons to why we wouldn't eat certain animals. Cats hunt rodents, dogs are protective, horses provide transportation. Cows don't do any of those things well, and they also taste wonderful.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#184

Post by kjkgjygjy » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

makotech222 wrote: post #41

ajmurmann wrote: post #13

Can we please have a global moratorium on all fishing for a few years? We are fishing the seas empty. I'm more than happy to pay for my share of the unsold/uncaught fish. This is such a disheartening example of the tragedy of the commons.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#185

Post by gfodor » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #142

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's impossible to take such an argument seriously. Why? It seems you are exactly proving my point: you've compartmentalized one as "ok cause we like it and do it now" and the other as "evil because it's bad and we don't do it anymore", but provide no argument as to why they are logically so incomparable. And your "final word on the subject" is apparently "meat tastes good and people like it." Forgive me if I'm not…

> Why? Because it's a non-sequitur. Slavery and diet have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You could pick any good or bad example of something and strap it to your argument, but it doesn't make it convincing. > And your "final word on the subject" is apparently "meat tastes good and people like it." Forgive me if I'm not pursuaded by your "logic". Yep, that's why people will continue to eat meat; it tastes g…

It's seems obvious that if you are raised to not eat meat then you will be very unlikely to introduce it into your diet later on, especially if it is socially frowned upon. People who have been vegetarians for a long time often are unable to stomach meat. Also, it's clear that some kinds of meat are already not eaten: do you think the reason people don't eat dog in the US is because it doesn't taste good?

So, while it's certainly likely that people alive today will always eat meat, generational turn-over could result in a world without meat eaters.

(I eat meat but do not eat mammals.)

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#186

Post by cataphract » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

hjek wrote: post #78

merb wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

some plants would kill the planet as well. let's take almonds for example, they need a huge amount of water. and still more and more products will include them. if everybody eats plants we would also need a huge amount of water/field sizes to feed everybody. guess the best thing is a healthy mix of everything.

> if everybody eats plants we would also need a huge amount of water/field sizes to feed everybody. Keeping non-human animals for the purpose of eating their flesh requires even huger amounts of water/field sizes; so much in fact that half of the world's crops are fed to non-human animals[0]. [0]: https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/half-of-world-crop-is-...

Those numbers are way off, even if industrial animal husbandry is highly inefficient. You may want to read Meat: a benign extravagance by Simon Fairlie: https://www.amazon.com/Meat-Benign-Extravagance-Simon-Fairli...

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#187

Post by JeremyBanks » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 6:03 PM UTC

wolco wrote: post #18

ajmurmann wrote: post #13

Can we please have a global moratorium on all fishing for a few years? We are fishing the seas empty. I'm more than happy to pay for my share of the unsold/uncaught fish. This is such a disheartening example of the tragedy of the commons.

No, that would be an over reaction that will harm more than it helps. Controls are important but stop all legal fishing is not the answer.

How would it harm, and how will ceasing voluntarily while there are still fish in the ocean be worse than stopping once the oceans are completely dead?

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#188

Post by jonathanyc » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 6:04 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #83

temeritatis wrote: post #6

People often defend these kind of acts with the rationale that it is a culture heritage. If so, shouldn't they be sailing the ocean with traditional wooden sailboats and relying only on wind and currents to take them where they should go?

And my culture has a history of bear baiting and torturing scotsmen. We also made a great game of burning various people who disagreeded with our religion. Cultures have to grow up and recognize a greater good.

You’re equating torturing human beings with killing a limited and arguably sustainable number of almost certainly non-sentient animals. What does that say about your opinion on Scotsmen?

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#189

Post by toasterlovin » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 6:06 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #167

toasterlovin wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a pretty reasonable argument that 1) conditions for livestock are actually much better than those endured by animals in nature, and 2) living to eventually be slaughtered is better than never having lived at all.

While I think both of those points are very debatable (just search YouTube for factory farming videos if you really think livestock conditions are better), they still miss the point. After all, both of your points could just as easily apply to dogs, cats, horses, whales, chimpanzees and heck, even humans. My main argument is that there is really no morally consistent way to think that eating dogs, cats, horses or wha…

We don't give equal moral weight to all humans, so why would we give equal moral weight to all animals?

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#190

Post by hjek » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 6:08 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #151

hjek wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So would slavery similarly be more justifiable if it was also done not only because slave owners liked it but because it was part of American culture?

Yes. That's also part of how it was justified back in the day. Or do you think that those practicing it thought it wasn't justified as they were doing it? The fact that people have now changed their minds on that particular matter doesn't mean that anything people haven't changed their minds but consider tradition is equally wrong. Or that there's some law-of-nature-style "right and wrong" aside what a culture deems…

> The fact that people have now changed their minds on that particular matter doesn't mean that anything people haven't changed their minds but consider tradition is equally wrong.

No, but it does mean that tradition can be an obstacle for considering the rightness of an action.

> Or that there's some law-of-nature-style "right and wrong" aside what a culture deems as such.

Agreed. But if we assume some basic principles (e.g. like preventable pain and suffering should be avoided or human existence is good or whatever), then we can question whether something is right according to those principles.