You're viewing a single thread.
Are you totally fine with the moral consequences of enforced veganism on the entire human population? I'm asking this because you must also understand that there are going to be seriously detrimental and inescapable outcomes associated with that as well. Life only comes from death. You can fundamentally dislike the arrangement, but as far as we are aware that is a necessary input-output relationship. Choosing which deaths you are okay with is simply trading one Faustian bargain for another.
This is the argument that I used when I was an adolescent who thought himself very wise and smart but in reality just wanted an excuse to not have to change the lifestyle that I was comfortable with.
Saying "life only comes from death" is a cowardly reductionism. It creates a false equivalence between plant and animal life that lets you ignore the fact that sustaining human life does not require the wanton suffering of animals. And it certainly doesn't require animals to be suffering at such massive scales and in such cruel ways.
You're probably someone who will cite studies which indicate that plants emit distress signals when they take physical damage, and you'll argue that therefore plants suffer the same as animals. But that's an intellectually dishonest argument. Suffering as we understand it is more than just a chemical reaction to stimulus; it emerges from an awareness of being alive and an instinctual desire to remain alive and unharmed. Plants do not have that kind of awareness.
There are predators in nature that only know how to hunt to survive. Their digestive systems are specialized to consume the bodies of other smaller animals. And their ecosystems depend on those predators to balance out the reproductive cycles of their prey, otherwise the prey animals would become overpopulated and wipe out life forms lower on the food chain.
The fact of the matter is that humans have not been a collaborative member of any ecosystem for tens of thousands of years. We cause massive harm to every ecosystem that we're a part of, and the mass slaughter of farm animals is the worst thing we've done to this planet yet, even more harmful overall than CO2 emissions. We're eroding the soil and using up the fresh water in ways we can't sustain, and then to top it all off we're inflicting the largest scale unnecessary suffering in the history of this planet. And all of it is being done so that humans can enjoy a pleasure that is both unnecessary and easily replaced with a small amount of agricultural and supply chain reform.
Humans are omnivores and the simple reality is that as an omnivore with options at your disposal you have a choice about whether the process of sustaining your life involves wanton suffering at a massive scale or not. If you think the suffering of animals is worth the pleasure you derive from eating their flesh then just be honest and say so. Don't be a coward like I used to be by pretending that animals and plants are the same.
Not that I particularly disagree with you, but I think that calling the eradication of the entire meat industry, “a small amount of agricultural and supply chain reform” is a little disingenuous.
A little disingenuous, yes, but the reality is that if we redirected the meat industry's subsidies towards a supply chain that centers around plant based diets, we'd have a more sustainable industry as well as a more affordable food supply for everyone.
Sustaining the status quo of meat consumption is a constant battle against the laws of physics.
/agree
First, I just want to say that this isn't personal to me. I am concerned with the overarching ramifications of dismantling the current industrial meat, animal, and agricultural industries without first having sufficiently scalable solutions to replace them. This will kill a lot of people, and they will die in horrible ways. If you want to stop the suffering of animals you better know how to do so in a way that won't cause additional suffering to humanity, otherwise you are never going to reach the critical mass necessary to make the change. I'm also more than willing to admit that the greed and corruption in the governmental and economic systems of the world would need to be changed as well. Good luck with that, I fully support it.
Saying "life only comes from death" is a cowardly reductionism.
No, it is an objectively verifiable fact that is backed up by even the most basic level of scientific literacy. You are confusing the higher order ethical dilemmas of sentient consciousness with the fundamental realities of nature. You can dislike it, and I understand that. I don't like it either, but I am also not naive enough to simply ignore reality because it makes me feel bad. You are using the same kind of blind dogmatism in your response that you are accusing me of using even though I did no such thing.
sustaining human life does not require the wanton suffering of animals.
That is entirely dependant upon your interpretation of "wanton". There is currently no other way for us to sustain life on this planet with the same degree of convenience that is afforded to us by the industrialization of the food system. Can it be made better? Sure, and I am 1000% in favor of that. But suggesting that we are going to be able to eliminate the need for animals in the supply chain anytime soon is a complete fantasy. Even if we could, there will be other health considerations that come from that which need to be researched, and well understood before we bank our survival on them. That will take many decades at best.
Don't be a coward like I used to be by pretending that animals and plants are the same.
I literally never said that. You're projecting here, which is whatever honestly. I get people make this argument. I'm just not one of them.
The fact of the matter is that humans have not been a collaborative member of any ecosystem for tens of thousands of years.
I'm not sure it has been quite that long, but I agree with your general premise. Overall humanity is a destructive force if you consider the preservation of nature in its pre-industrial form to be optimal. I can appreciate that argument. I'm not entirely convinced that human life is more valuable than any other life. I'm also not entirely convinced that the proliferation of life more generally has any objectively quantifiable value. That is a philosophical argument that is beyond the scope of this conversation. Again, I'm only interested in logistically feasible goals that can be realistically implemented.
Humans are omnivores and the simple reality is that as an omnivore with options at your disposal you have a choice about whether the process of sustaining your life involves wanton suffering at a massive scale or not.
Not really. What I do personally is entirely inconsequential. Systems matter. People don't. I don't enjoy killing things. I don't "derive pleasure" from the suffering of others in the way you are accusing me of. However, I am willing to accept the ethical realities of eating animal protein, and I understand that I would not be alive today if my ancestors had not done the same for billions of years. So no, I don't enjoy it, but unlike you I do accept it. I am perfectly willing to facilitate moving the system in a more humane direction in whatever small ways I can make an impact, but I'm also not stressing about livestock having to die in order to feed people either. On some level it just is what it is.
Afaik, we could produce food way more efficiently if we did not produce meat. Meat takes a lot of land, food, water and energy, because the animals use a lot of the energy they are fed in the form of crops just to live. That doesn't all get converted to meat. In terms of pure energy, being vegan is way more efficient.
Animal agriculture is comically inefficient, produces pathetically small amounts of protein for the amount of pesticides, fresh water, and sheer unimaginable pollution it requires, and to top it all off, it’s nutritionally unhealthy.
The only human suffering that “forced” veganism would cause is having to endure dumb people living longer lives due to better health. Imagine all those steak-eating morons no longer dying of heart attacks and diabetes at age 60. The horror of their protracted existence.
If you have concerns about plant agriculture, they are only magnified by animal agriculture which uses a lot more of it for animal feed
1 kg of meat requires 2.8 kg of human-edible feed for ruminants and 3.2 for monogastrics
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
Or in environmental terms:
we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1713820115
To produce 1 kg of protein from kidney beans required approximately eighteen times less land, ten times less water, nine times less fuel, twelve times less fertilizer and ten times less pesticide in comparison to producing 1 kg of protein from beef
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25374332/
or for overall diets
The diet containing more animal products required an additional 10 252 litres of water, 9910 kJ of energy, 186 g of fertilizer and 6 g of pesticides per week in comparison to the diet containing less animal products
Data for the production of alfalfa( Reference Mathews, Canevari and Frate 51 , Reference Vargas, Mueller and Frate 52 ) and maize( Reference Vargas, Frate and Mathews 53 , Reference Brittan, Muiner and Klonsky 54 ) used for animal feed were obtained from CRS and were added to the direct water used by the animals using a net feed consumption rate of 5·62 kg maize/kg beef and 2·66 kg alfalfa/kg beef. A feed conversion efficiency of 7·0 was assumed( Reference Horrigan, Lawrence and Walker 10 ). Soya in the feed formulations for beef and poultry was excluded.
since most beef cattle graze for the first year, where they put on the majority of their weight, then why would you attribute all the meat production to feedlots? shouldn't it be halved at least?
I think you're reaching there a bit, because no one said anything about forced veganism. You can eat meat and be against the horrors of (the vast majority of) the meat industry.
(If I read your reply wrong, let me know and I will delete this)
I was using that as an extreme hypothetical. You can call that disingenuous if you like. I just don't see how you can remove "animal suffering" from the equation without enforcing that measure. Otherwise all you are doing is drawing a subjective line around what suffering is acceptable and what isn't. I'm personally fine with trying to make that determination in the least arbitrary way possible with the best technology possible so we can progress society forward, but let's not act like there still won't be people who see that cost as unacceptable.
the meat industry wasn't planned out and implemented, you could argue it literally took all of human existence working on it to get to this point.
People can complain about the system and try to make it better without having all of the answers
People can complain about the system and try to make it better without having all of the answers.
I totally agree, and I'm fine with that.
sure, but you also said the following in reaction to the OP link
Are you totally fine with the moral consequences of enforced veganism on the entire human population? I'm asking this because you must also understand that there are going to be seriously detrimental and inescapable outcomes associated with that as well.
No one said "enforced veganism." it's weird that your reaction to this article is to dismiss it because forcing the world to be vegan overnight isn't feasible.
Again, it was an extreme hypothetical. There were multiple people in this thread who outright suggested that as an option, which is why I asked the question.
Life only comes from death.
No? The recombination of genetic material results in complex life forms. That’s why we have multicellular organisms. Heck, in fact mitochondrial DNA proves that humans have a symbiotic relationship with microbes. So I guess I’d say the quoted text above is an unqualified statement.
Besides all that, humans are the only living organism that we know of capable of probing the nature of reality and existence. So simply put, it’s okay for us to hold ourselves to higher standard than the “reptile” or “monkey” brain.
Imagine if there was a life form stronger or smarter than humans, what would you want to say to it? “Life only comes from death so eat me or abuse me”. We can and should do better.
Imagine if there was a life form stronger or smarter than humans, what would you want to say to it? “Life only comes from death so eat me or abuse me”. We can and should do better.
As far as we know the propagation of life requires the consumption of other life as inputs, or in other words every single living thing on this planet must consume material from other organic life to subsist.
Therefore, in your hypothetical I would expect that any life form that required the domestication and industrial consumption of sentient life-forms or their byproducts as a matter of survival to absolutely do so regardless of the ethical implications. If it was a matter of survival, we would become an input. Absolutely zero question about it.
You can be the first input in such situation then, but I prefer that humans can show they’re capable of better discourse than “eat or be eaten”. That’s kinda limited and trite in light of our more developed cognitive abilities, honestly. Also, the universe is literally limitless, so we don’t need to think in terms of zero sum games or resource limitations 🤷♀️
Regarding inputs: Eating fruits and seeds doesn’t kill anything, in fact plants evolved tasty fruits so that they’d be eaten and propagate. Vegetables and fungi can be eaten without killing the organism. You can consume eggs and milk without abusing or killing the animal
Regarding your first paragraph: I was operating based on a very loose hypothetical question that you posed. So, I think you're unintentionally strawmanning me here a little bit...
As far as the second paragraph is concerned I see your point. However, I specifically said life had to consume other organic material to survive, but not necessarily kill in the process. At some level of the food chain it does ultimately become a necessity though, and I do not see that as an ethical dilemma per se.
For the first para, I was responding to this
If it was a matter of survival, we would become an input.
I was responding to this for the second para
As far as we know the propagation of life requires the consumption of other life as inputs
The point being there are many ways to survive without consuming life. Fruits and seeds are not living things. Anyway, I think the main point I’d like to highlight is that there’s no need to think we’re constrained to a singular way of being for anything we do
If it is a matter of survival, sure. But if it is a luxury, like it is for many of the people who consume the most?