How smart would cows have to become for you to stop eating beef?
How smart would cows have to become for you to stop eating beef?
Obviously this question is only for people who eat beef regularly.
But I just was wondering, what IQ/ability would make you swear off beef? If they could speak like an 8 y.o, would that be enough to cut off beef? If they got an IQ of 80, would that do it?
You're viewing a single thread.
What I eat is already dead. I've never decided to eat something in such a way that it contributed to the harm of any lifeform. So it's not a matter of intelligence, but if it was, it could be as intelligent as a snail and I still wouldn't eat it.
Us deciding to eat meat contributes directly to the harm of cows
Us deciding to heat meat contributes directly to the ham of pigs
If all of those typos were a joke, I salite you
Is "directly" the new "literally"? Because it literally contributes indirectly.
Unless it's already dead, at which point there is nothing to harm. Vegetarianism is a spectrum.
Have you ever heard of demand and supply? You are being willfully ignorant or playing dumb
It's not demand and supply if you don't "demand" the supply of anything. Sure, I buy meat, but it's not something I look forward to the existence of.
If someone strikes an animal while driving, or a natural disaster takes its life, and someone decides it might as well be eaten, is that supply and demand? If I stop over at someone's house, and they have hunted an animal they're about to eat, but I neither hunted the animal nor knew they would eat the animal for dinner that night as I visited, is that supply and demand, or did I just happen to be somewhere where someone else's guilt of having killed an animal is in my favor?
It's a spectrum, hence the link.
That’s a no on your link dawg. I like the magical land you live in tho, where meat just appears for you to consume
Meat doesn't magically appear. It comes from animals who have just died. But the deaths do not necessarily come via a single means, nor does the consumer necessarily have any bearing on the suffering of the animal or future animals.
I am surprised that anyone would mention "supply and demand" at all given Lemmy has a largely (including myself, just not from a Marxist viewpoint) anti-capitalist demographic, which would mean supply and demand shouldn't be seen as a necessary factor.
nor does the consumer necessarily have any bearing on the suffering of the animal or future animals.
That's absurd. So if I hire an assassin to kill you, I have absolutely no responsibility if you're killed by an assassin?
Companies won't kill animals to produce meat unless there's demand. If you buy meat, you're creating demand. There is a causal link between your consumption and what happens to the animals. Therefore, you have at least a share of the responsibility.
I am surprised that anyone would mention “supply and demand” at all given Lemmy has a largely (including myself, just not from a Marxist viewpoint) anti-capitalist demographic
Being anti-capitalist doesn't mean one is incapable of understanding how capitalism works. There are rules that govern it, and those exist whether you're in favor of it as a system or not.
I would blame the assassin. They pulled the trigger. Anyone could do anything between "enjoy" the outcome to "want" it to ask for it, and that's a spectrum, but then there's the person who does the deed. And even then, there's coordination between you and the assassin. There's nothing saying there's absolutely going to be any coordination between the meat being brought to the store and the meat being brought home.
I would blame the assassin. They pulled the trigger.
But that's crazy! The assassin didn't kill anyone, all they did was point the gun at the victim and pull the trigger. Maybe we should lay the blame on the gunpowder or the bullet. Actually, that doesn't work either. We can't blame the bullet, it wasn't what killed the victim. The real problem was the massive blood loss. Or maybe the victim survives a bit and dies in the hospital due to an infection from their injury. Now we can't blame the assassin, the bullet, the gunpowder, the gun or the injury caused by the bullet. Right? Those are not what actually caused the victim to die, it was the bacteria!
Thinking that way is obviously ridiculous. Of course, it's easy to understand why you'd want to: it's incredibly self-serving. The bar is set so high for you to be responsible for anything that you basically will never have to consider yourself responsible whatever you do.
The reality is if we can say "but for my actions this wouldn't have happened", then I'm responsible. But for consumers creating demand, there'd be no meat in the grocery store. Therefore the consumer has a share of the responsibility. You have a responsibility if you eat meat, hire an assassin, whatever. Refusing to recognize it doesn't make it go away.
The assassin didn’t kill anyone, all they did was point the gun at the victim and pull the trigger.
That's called a kill. That's like saying if I hunt on someone's behalf, even though I struck down the venison, I'm not the murderer, just the contractor is. Which brings us back here.
If someone is driving down a wildlife-heavy road thinking "ah well, if I hit anything, the vultures will clean it up", and a day later, a vulture finds a dead squirrel in the road that was hit, is the vulture to blame for the squirrel's death by virtue of being a beneficiary of the squirrel's death? Because that's analogous to the situation.
The purchase of an item is treated as the demand of an item. This is how an economy works. They don’t mean that you’re barging into places yelling about how you want meat. Your money flowing to them is enough to justify further slaughter to provide more meat.
Sometimes the supply exceeds the demand though. Suppose there are a thousand pieces of meat in a store. Only eight hundred are bought. The other two hundred isn't bought and spoils, yet with no bearing on the market. So then imagine someone standing in the store mulling this over, "I could buy the meat, as long as it's there, or I could refuse it, and it has died in vain, but also if I buy it, who is to say I have a bearing on its death or if the money goes to the industry, when the store already paid for it and might have backup uses for it?"
I don't think in black and white.
They always prepare more than the allotted amount based on demand to meet unanticipated fluctuations. Your spent dollars on meat per month are calculated into their spreadsheets. No amount of pretend justification liberates you from the consequences of your actions. If you did not buy meat, there would be (your consumption*1.25) less meat in the store on average. You are not buying overflow meat. They are producing your meat plus overflow.
Just for you.
you’re contributing to demand if you buy meat
It depends on the circumstances of its origins, as I explained below.
"what if"
.__.
What if what?
does the meat you buy come from a natural disaster
You could say that.
I eat meat, but this is a dumb fucking take. The meat industry exists because we eat meat. If people didn't eat meat, then cows wouldn't be slaughtered. Therefore, if we all didn't eat meat, that cow that you ate wouldn't be dead.
The meat industry exists because we eat meat.
But not all meat-eating leads to the perpetuation of the meat industry. Not all exchanges involving meat are fuel for said industry.
The goal of pro-animal ethics is "do no harm", not "do not eat them". There are several workarounds to the former. I'm not pulling these out of my ass, there are century-old industries around these too.
Sorry to inform you, but plants are lifeforms.
What's a plant going to object to if it's eaten? I doubt there are any as intelligent as a snail.
To be fair, cows don't object to it either.
So should I not eat plants either? What should I live off of, Lemmy crowd? Photosynthesis? Gravitosynthesis?
You can eat whatever you want.