We Are Supposed to Eat Animals !

[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The injun thing is actually an interesting point, because whether they believed the rock was alive or not, they'd still do it. They would just be thankful for its sacrifice, just as they were for that of the prey they hunted, very similar to Japanese in that regard, but no surprise really given that Shintoism holds similar beliefs that God is everywhere in everything.

I am kind of surprised though that consensus (lack of opposition suggesting there is none, or everyone has tired of the conversation ^^) appears to be that it would be perfectly acceptable to eat animals (even alive) if they didn't experience pain. It follows the vegan argument, it just surprises me that people would think its ok. Seems arbitrary. Gonna have to think on this more.

is it really arbitrary to want to cause a minimum of suffering? being concerned with the subjective experience of other feeling beings seems like a prerequisite for seeking happiness as a human and not just living as a tortured sadist.

If an animal couldn't experience pain then causing it pain would not be an issue. It would be an "animal" in the sense that a bacterium is. It's not arbitrary at all. Would be like eating a plant (vegans are eating microscopic animalia as they do so, but bacteria can't experience reality subjectively so it doesn't matter).

I don't think you could guarantee an animal is not experiencing pain without shutting down its cognition completely though. GMO lobotomized animals may be a really fucking disgusting thought but it would never be more efficient to feed animals by IV than to just do what we're already doing until meat cultures. If we ever start breeding animals that are conscious and feed themselves but retarded such that they don't respond to pain stimulus as a "less-cruel" alternative I will immolate myself on the White House lawn in sheer horror (unless the entire nervous system is synthetic and built with just life support functions and programs for eating, but we will be beyond this petty argument when we can do that).

[big_ole_jpn]

btw gradner, ur new at this if you actually believe meat cultures will have trumped traditional farming 1 measly decade from now. Even if the raw materials -> production ratio exceeded traditional farming efficiency today (and they may), the human capital required to manage such production is going to remain way more expensive than the difference in efficiency offsets. Needs fully automated production facilities.

I'd be willing to concede we may see the scale tip and meat culture farming becoming the higher profit-margin choice in our lifetimes, but you're a real Kurzweil if you're going to stand by that 10 year prediction boy. You can just pay a bunch of brown slaves virtually nothing to do the work and have your operation cost 50% more calories in grain instead of investing hundreds of millions in a giant robot meat culture facility for efficiency increase. 100 year minimum for meat culture farming to outproduce traditional farming globally.

[GradnerLives]

Meat cultures seek to replicate the structure of the meat maybe a bit closer than I'm saying would be necessary to create an alternative that would be acceptable to the mass market.

Within a decade, the difference will be negligible, within our lifetime the difference will be impossible to discern without lab tools, within 100 years there will be no difference.

[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by GradnerLives [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Meat cultures seek to replicate the structure of the meat maybe a bit closer than I'm saying would be necessary to create an alternative that would be acceptable to the mass market.

Within a decade, the difference will be negligible, within our lifetime the difference will be impossible to discern without lab tools, within 100 years there will be no difference.

o okay i was talkin past u, sorry buddy

im with ya

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

is it really arbitrary to want to cause a minimum of suffering? being concerned with the subjective experience of other feeling beings seems like a prerequisite for seeking happiness as a human and not just living as a tortured sadist.

If an animal couldn't experience pain then causing it pain would not be an issue. It would be an "animal" in the sense that a bacterium is. It's not arbitrary at all. Would be like eating a plant (vegans are eating microscopic animalia as they do so, but bacteria can't experience reality subjectively so it doesn't matter).

I don't think you could guarantee an animal is not experiencing pain without shutting down its cognition completely though. GMO lobotomized animals may be a really fucking disgusting thought but it would never be more efficient to feed animals by IV than to just do what we're already doing until meat cultures. If we ever start breeding animals that are conscious and feed themselves but retarded such that they don't respond to pain stimulus as a "less-cruel" alternative I will immolate myself on the White House lawn in sheer horror (unless the entire nervous system is synthetic and built with just life support functions and programs for eating, but we will be beyond this petty argument when we can do that).

No, not arbitrary at all to want to minimize suffering. I just meant it was an odd line to draw as you illustrated with your example of farming animals that function normally, but do not experience pain. Sure, they aren't suffering because they feel no more pain, but they are no less alive than a lettuce and still experience a subjective reality as you've pointed out.

Also, I acknowledge that doing away with farming would immediately yield an appreciable decrease in suffering following the final harvest/cull because at that point there would be fewer animals overall. But from there their population would be largely managed by natural predators such as wolves, cougars and disease. Only occasional intervention might be needed by man to prevent overcrowding and starvation. I question though whether death by wolf/cougar/disease/starvation would be preferable to a swift death by a normal man.

Honestly makes me wonder how many prey animals such as deer or rabbits die peacefully being taken swiftly by old age as they graze tranquilly in safe green pastures.

[maskedmelon]

To clarify, I am not suggesting that animals die by nature so it is ok for us to kill them. What I am saying is that current farm animals exist only in domestic environments. If we wish to end the current situation, we can either kill them all (eradicating the species) or cede their lives to the brutality of nature.

How is fating those creatures to be eaten alive or starve to death minimizing suffering? Is it because there would be fewer creatures?

[GradnerLives]

The animals we farm are so far from what existed in nature due to selective breeding and other practices meant to increase yield that ceding them to nature is no longer a humane option.

Culling or sterilizing them would be sad, but the guilt wouldn't come from ending the cycle, it would come from having created it in the first place.

The goal isn't to minimize the suffering of all animals in the world, lowering some kind of 'net suffering' score. Vegans don't walk around scolding wolves and lions for being so immoral (ok, some do, but I think they're as nuts as you do). It's about choosing not to be the cause of suffering to others since we have the mental capacity to identify and stop it.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by GradnerLives [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The animals we farm are so far from what existed in nature due to selective breeding and other practices meant to increase yield that ceding them to nature is no longer a humane option

This is so true that I have always felt that eventually we will like meat grown in a lab far more than that grown in the wild.

Not yet, but soon.

[Evia]

Originally Posted by GradnerLives [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's about choosing not to be the cause of suffering to others since we have the mental capacity to identify and stop it.

Bingo.
I've never heard a good reason to eat meat. People try to justify it through religion, god, vitamin or nutritional intake, top of the food chain mentality, ect.

The fact is we as human beings are fully able in this day and age to live healthy and productive lives while abstaining from it. If you're eating meat because the bible or your God tells you it's okay, maybe you should be looking at what kind of God you're worshipping.

I have far more respect for someone who is just straight about it and say they enjoy the taste if flesh and end the discussion right there. So many people want to justify eating it though, and no matter their reasonings, it always comes across as self-centered, barbaric, or ignorant.

I'm all for living and letting live though. The majority of my friends and family eat meat and that's cool if it makes them happy. My views are my views, they do what they do.

[Pokesan]

i don't think the bible or god has anything to do with it.
i do think you're an idiot for suggesting so.