An Animal’s Place (2002) • Hacker News Board

Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)

#41

Post by jbotz » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 8:28 PM UTC

sweetheart wrote: post #39

jbotz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since we plant things that we eat and sell (or give away) we are removing nutrients from the soil. Someone has to put them back. We could do that with industrial NPK fertilizer, but that's not very ecological. Chicken manure is a more complete and natural fertilizer, and for the most part the chickens even spread it around for us. They also engage in some pest control (the ducks are especially good at that, without t…

> I think treating nature with respect and letting sentient beings live their life in a way that respects their nature is more important than simply "not killing". But isn't the best way to respect these animals is to avoid killing them when we don't need to in order to survive? I've talked to so, so many people who keep animals and ultimately kill them that talk about this reverence for the natural world, and they t…

Because if I don't control the population things will get ugly... overpopulation will bring disease and conflict and much greater suffering than killing. I try to control the population first by taking eggs, but the hens get very unhappy if I take all eggs, so we always leave 3 or 4. That's enough for the population to climb pretty quickly.

Also I don't know that your "killing only when necessary for survival" is really a tenable argument. When exactly is it necessary for my survival? When there's a deadly pit-viper in the house, should I kill it for my survival? For our dogs survival (they are at greater risk because they think its their job to attack the snake)? I generally don't kill it, I capture the snake alive and take it away, at not inconsiderable risk to my life. I think that killing to maintain a well-functioning ecosystem is more ethical than a somewhat vague "killing to survive".

Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)

#42

Post by cheese_goddess » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 8:44 PM UTC

sweetheart wrote: post #10

Pollan has a tendency to talk himself into pretty weird conclusions, namely that because we can treat an animal well and give it a good life, killing it and consuming it before it naturally dies is somehow good. There is this made up notion that the animal is almost a sacrifice for us: in exchange for a peaceful safe life, it gives us its blood and flesh. But remember, never willingly. It never wants to die. It can n…

> But remember, never willingly. It never wants to die.

In what context does an animal die when it wants to die? When do animals want to die? And how would you know what an animal wants?

Btw, I remember your username. The last time I communicated with your account, a person behind it threatened me with violence:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27534682

I will give your account the benefit of the doubt that this will not be repeated.

Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)

#43

Post by cheese_goddess » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #30

Asooka wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you can string together such a consistent argument and still be so incredibly wrong. Killing animals for food is not wrong and never was. Killing for the love of killing is wrong, but killing e.g. a pig is as moral as plucking an apple from a tree. You bring up a curious point about dogs - eating dogs is not usually practiced, though there are existing cultures who do it and we have records of past cu…

As you state, plucking an apple for food is morally fine - few would disagree, and anyone who does is likely to get quite hungry quite quickly. Meanwhile, killing people for food is obviously wrong, yes? Morally abhorrent, in fact! But there's a spectrum between those two extremes. To set a boundary, you need to determine the reasons why one is acceptable and the other is not. Maybe you intuitively draw the line righ…

> What qualities does a human have that a pig or dog does not?

But... the quality that the human is human and the pig is a pig? What else? Why does this even need to be asked, I don't understand. Isn't it obvious?

Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)

#44

Post by jbotz » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

sweetheart wrote: post #33

simiones wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually, killing another being in order for you to survive (outside of self-defense) is not considered morally right. Either way, even by your logic, tigers may be morally neutral, but bears or wolves should still be considered evil.

Well the first part of what you said seems just completely untrue. I don’t think if someone was starving and they needed to eat an animal to survive that anyone would say they acted immorally. As to your second point: no. Those animals lack the moral reasoning ability to make a choice between eating meat and not eating meat. We don’t, though. If I ever meat a bear who is able to make nuanced moral considerations like…

What about if someone were starving and they needed to eat a human to survive? (Because there wasn't anything else, shipwreck, etc)

You're trying to apply the same standards to animals as to humans with respect to killing them being morally wrong, but then you make an exception that seems to place humans into a completely different category again. I don't like your exception because things are basically never that clear-cut... there's always another way. If you want to be so absolute about the morality of killing, then stick to it and don't make exceptions. If you don't want to consider animals as food, then don't consider them food, even if it means starving to death. Just as I don't think I would ever consider another human as food, even if I'm starving to death.

Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)

#45

Post by cheese_goddess » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

abstractbarista wrote: post #40

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you state, plucking an apple for food is morally fine - few would disagree, and anyone who does is likely to get quite hungry quite quickly. Meanwhile, killing people for food is obviously wrong, yes? Morally abhorrent, in fact! But there's a spectrum between those two extremes. To set a boundary, you need to determine the reasons why one is acceptable and the other is not. Maybe you intuitively draw the line righ…

This conversation triggered memories of hunting for my first time as a teenager: I shot a beautiful doe with a black powder rifle using iron sights. Observing the forest with my eyes and ears, waiting in still silence for hours in chemical and visual camouflage, lining up with its chest, making a slight sound to get it to pause... You feel a certain focused hunger as you gaze down the barrel, that you've never felt b…

> Probably the most powerful, self-realizing, humbling, spiritual experience I have ever had.

I'm sorry, you felt it was self-realizing to kill an animal? What the hell? There's nothing sadder and messier and more harrowing than having to kill an animal and you actually found it a "spiritual experience" to kill one when you didn't even have to? What kind of culture do you come from? I can't think of anyone from the western world ("your species 'advanced technology'? Not a native hunter, then) that seriously thinks it's cool to kill.

Actually, no, I can. Ugh.

Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)

#46

Post by cheese_goddess » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #18

Asooka wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you can string together such a consistent argument and still be so incredibly wrong. Killing animals for food is not wrong and never was. Killing for the love of killing is wrong, but killing e.g. a pig is as moral as plucking an apple from a tree. You bring up a curious point about dogs - eating dogs is not usually practiced, though there are existing cultures who do it and we have records of past cu…

> At the end of the day, every living thing on this planet - every tree, every plant, every mushroom, every fish, every insect and every mammal dies and is eaten. Except humans. Humans cremate their corpses. While we might get into a debate about whether some forms of life somewhere on Earth technically consume your scattered ashes, it's quite the distance from hitting you on the head until you die and then chewing o…

Some cultures (some nations) cremate their dead. Others bury them. Some bury them in the soil, where they are eaten by soil organisms, some bury them in the sea where they are eaten by fish and some bury them in the air, where they are consumed by scavenging birds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Silence

Relatedly, animals still kill many humans every year:

> Philadelphia, February 28, 2018 -- A new study released in the latest issue of Wilderness & Environmental Medicine shows that animal encounters remain a considerable cause of human harm and death. Researchers analyzed fatalities in the United States from venomous and nonvenomous animals from 2008-2015. They found that while many deaths from animal encounters are potentially avoidable, mortality rates did not decrease from 2008-2015. The animals most commonly responsible for human fatalities are farm animals, insects (hornets, wasps, and bees), and dogs.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180228112528.h...

Though most of the humans killed this way are not even eaten, which is arguably a waste. One reason is that many of the killer animals are herbivores, particularly cows:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cows-officia...

Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)

#47

Post by cheese_goddess » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 9:43 PM UTC

yboris wrote: post #14

m12k wrote: post #4

Nature doesn't deal in morality, right or wrong. Nature deals in balance. A fox that kills all the rabbits one year will die of hunger the next. The question isn't whether the fox has a moral right to kill rabbits or not, the question is whether the fox maintains the balance needed to maintain the ecosystem that it is part of. Act too unsustainably and break the balance by too much, and you disrupt the ecosystem, and…

Rubbish . By this logic, we can just say that we shouldn't upset the "balance" of the slave owners -- they were able to to "maintain the balance needed to maintain the ecosystem that it is a part of".

Slaves were (are!) humans. Slavery has nothing to do with killing or not killing non-human animals, because it doesn't affect non-human animals, it affects other humans.

There is just no sensible comparison that can be drawn between what we do to other animals and what we do to other humans and once more I'm struck by the surrealism of the positions taken in this kind of conversation. It's as if the obvious has to be stated at every turn: non-human animals are not human. Humans are human. We live in a civilisation built by humans, for humans, that only makes any sense (in asmuch as it does) to humans, not to other animals and it makes no sense to try and treat non-human animals as humans, any more than it makes sense to try and treat humans as non-human animals.

Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)

#48

Post by sweetheart » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

jbotz wrote: post #41

sweetheart wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think treating nature with respect and letting sentient beings live their life in a way that respects their nature is more important than simply "not killing". But isn't the best way to respect these animals is to avoid killing them when we don't need to in order to survive? I've talked to so, so many people who keep animals and ultimately kill them that talk about this reverence for the natural world, and they t…

Because if I don't control the population things will get ugly... overpopulation will bring disease and conflict and much greater suffering than killing. I try to control the population first by taking eggs, but the hens get very unhappy if I take all eggs, so we always leave 3 or 4. That's enough for the population to climb pretty quickly. Also I don't know that your "killing only when necessary for survival" is rea…

Well yeah, again, I think what I’m saying then is that the solution is to not use animals to achieve your goals. If you need to kill animals to ensure the optimal amount of them on your property then that doesn’t sound like you’re really living that close to nature. You’re trying to maintain the animals in a state of disequilibrium.

And yeah, we basically never need to kill animals to survive. Situations in which that is the case are extremely rare.

Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)

#49

Post by hypertele-Xii » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 10:18 PM UTC

m12k wrote: post #22

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you saying humans are super-natural?

What on earth makes you think that? No, I don't think humans are super-natural. But in addition to being creatures sprung from nature, we are also something else (indeed, the very definition of something being anything other than natural, i.e. cultural or artificial, is that humans have had a hand in its creation).

> in addition to being creatures sprung from nature, we are also something else

Super-natural: More than natural. You are literally saying humans are supernatural (using the Latin prefix 'super-' meaning "in addition to" [1]).

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/super#Latin

Re: An Animal’s Place (2002)

#50

Post by Slade1 » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 10:29 PM UTC

This is my opinion and it's definitely not steadfast set in stone: while I think people who don't consume meat are potentially more morally virtuous than omnivores, I don't think it is a moral obligation not to consume meat. I think there is much to be desired in terms of changes to mass farming practices, but the fundamentals of my beliefs are that we are not in the same moral and social contracts with animals as we are with other people. There are significantly different ramifications for squashing a bug, a dog, and a person (for example, but not as rationale). Is a pig, cow, chicken, or ANY given sentient creature able to comprehend and abide by the rules of morality we enforce on each other? Does a bear think about the moral ramifications of mailing a hiker? If a creature can demonstrate this an a willingness to abide by our morality, it should be brought into the fold of our social contracts and be given rights on par with humans. This doesn't mean it is morally justified to 'needlessly' kill or 'uncessesarily' reduce the well being of animals (what is needless or unnecessary are highly contextual and loose terms). Torturing of animals is a pretty clear example of something unnecessarily harmful and immoral without clear benefit. Ideally, animals unable to abide by moral codes are still granted certain minimal rights and protections, but are not privy to the set of rights and protections we grant each other.