Me too, Bill, me too

I imagine other platforms like kbin would become popular in place of Lemmy. We’d likely see a similar dip and normalization from Reddit’s user base.

The world would probably look about the same as it is now. I like using Lemmy, but the absence of forum isn’t the end of the world I suppose

Relevant: https://github.com/mormaer/Mlem/issues/292

Seems the team got wind of it recently

I think that is a reasonable approach. I also reason personally that just not buying the eggs is better than the pasture raised eggs. That being said, my OP was about the theoretical on what is right and wrong, not the practical advice I'd tell others in their purchasing decisions.

Good discussion on how we ought to engage with people. 10/10 would do again

I am quite aware of each of the labels and their often times meaningless qualities. Have spent about 5 years in the activism space, although there's always something new.

But I will say, each step is indeed better. You are right to point out that others will just buy the caged-chicken eggs as they're cheaper. This tells me we need better legislation so standards are not up to struggling individuals, but enforced laws. But people will not vote for law makers nor will law makers introduce and vote on bills that are unpopular with people. We need more people to feel that cage-free is the default. This is obviously just a stepping stone, but it is a vital one.

Each step, while incremental, is vital to changing the world. There are a significant portion of people currently alive that will never change there ways unless given an easier solution. They ought to change, but we need to work with what we can for the time being. With that, we can advocate for policy changes, research in good alternatives, and bring about campaigns without the corporate sphere, even if it seems like we're doing very little.

Even if the goal is the abolition of human and non-human interaction, we need logical steps to get there. Otherwise, we don't move the world forward.

The study did not specifically test said products, yet they note future studies ought to do so.

However, given that dairy products do indeed have DNA from the cow they are taken from and are pasteurized at 280-320C, a temperature range far greater than anything tested in this study, it stands that the conclusion could be the same. I am unfamiliar with the specific heating practices in common yogurt brands, so I cannot even begin to speculate there.

This would match up with some initial evidence that cancer, especially prostate cancer, may be linked with higher dairy consumption. However, the authors in these studies speculate that the cancer risk is from high consumption of IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1) which is especially high in dairy products. The linked study looked at direct comparison between soya milk and dairy milk which can be troublesome because soy products have been shown decrease risks of cancer. Other studies comment on the effects of milk on cancer risk from several linked papers.

To gain deeper understanding of whether dairy milk may influence cancer risk, more research is needed to clarify whether there are plausible biological mechanisms, including how different dairy products relate to the IGF system, to other hormones and to other bioactive constituents.

This is especially important with the original post here. There may be future studies that expand on the relative risks of both IGF-1 and damaged DNA in dairy.

Yeah, green/ethical washing seems to be annoyingly more prevalent these days. One thing that you might be interested in, given your pluralist approach to ethics, is this strategy guide to the welfarist approach. It acknowledges that we need to change people's mind, but also presents the idea that cultures change slowly so we should probably target easy to achieve goals (cage free -> pasture raised -> no slaughter ->). I will always tell people to just stop doing what they're doing, but if I have to focus on a wide scale issue, i'll focus on something achievable to get the ball rolling. After all, it's very easy to go from flexitarian to vegetarian/vegan than it is to go from a carnist to a vegan.

Long comments are good comments in my opinion lol.

If you're looking for a chicken substitute that holds up, look no further than Sweet Earth's "Chik'n" strips. I tried Morningstar's and I didn't find it to be the right texture. Sweet earth somehow figured out the perfect non-breaded chicken strip. I'd use that jazz in anything if I wasn't trying to conserve my budget.

Also, idk if you've tried it yet, but Gardein makes a great "chick'n" noodle soup for lazy days.

I wish the seafood substitutes were there. The breaded stuff like fish and chips are great and there are a few brands of tuna substitutes I like, but I haven't seen a shrimp or salmon substitute. For sushi or smoked salmon bits, sure, there are lots of things that have a similar taste, but I haven't found anything like something you'd get in a restaurant. If you like to cook, sauce stach always comes through with surprisingly good tasting recipes.

I also have no ability to detect sarcasm so apologies if this was in jest.

Eating raw foods doesn't guarantee not getting cancer. We're constantly exposed to carcinogens so the best thing we can do is reasonably avoid them when we can. Raw food diets are pretty tough to keep up with and have their own risks. Just eat a diet comprised of mostly or all plants, avoid a lot of added sugar, saturated fat, sodium, alcohol, and nicotine containing products. Just by doing that, you give yourself a pretty good chance of a healthy life.

Would recommend trying some of the new plant-based meat products while you're at it. Stuff from Impossible and Beyond Foods are pretty much taste-alikes for burgers. Morningstar has the same with appetizer items like chicken nuggets. Gardein is cheaper and usually marketed as healthy (lower saturated fat and sodium), but isn't as good for said healthy reasons. I still buy that because of the low cost though. Places like Aldi have their own products that are the cheapest of them all and pretty decent tasting ngl.

Given that heat-induced deamination producing dU in isolated DNA continues to proceed over extended times (Figure 2b), (18) hours of roasting or smoking could potentially result in higher levels of damage, although this was not tested here. For dU in briefly roasted beef, the amounts found here correspond to milligram quantities in a serving of cooked meat, as much as 1000 times greater than concentrations of HCA or PAH molecules in cooked meats

Summary here

That is some damn great food diversity if I've ever seen it

Sounds like a solid choice! Maybe not for the cancer risk alone, since that is tough to prove definitively, but for the ethical and environmental concerns for sure. I used to eat meat 2+ times a day, but one day like 5 years ago I just stopped. Seems too easy with all the options available to us

Sorry, long post ahead:

I agree with points 2, 5, and parts of the others. But I disagree on specifics of a few of said points.

It is not necessary to consume animal products to meet or exceed nutritional and energy requirements. They are not necessary to clothe or shelter us.

It is true that humans can go without an animals byproducts and survive with ease. However, I will note that in an ideal scenario of no-slaughter and high-welfare laws, wool is a superior alternative to plastic clothing given how wasteful plastic products are. However, this is only relevant for cold parts of the world where normal cotton clothing is inadequate. I myself opt for plastic and second hand wool, but would rather have an option of a sheep in my care which would never encounter any harm if we are to continue to experience cold environments. Additionally, eggs specifically serve as a great means to care for non-human animals that do indeed need animal-based foods. Maybe in the future, lab grown meat will replace the need for this, but currently it seems to be the best option to reduce suffering overall. Finally, just because something is not necessary, does not mean we shouldn't do it. If indeed my hypothetical care for a hen is only positive (nutritionally thriving, warm home, freedom to roam the yard to scavenge and perch, etc), then eating the non-fertilized eggs they produce is a neutral act. As with the example in the original post, if you were to use a dogs hair they let out from shedding as a coat, I would view that as a completely neutral option. Maybe slightly positive since it would be thrown out otherwise.

Using products they produce (vegetarianism) usually ends up with them still entering in the same suffering and premature death system because of economic incentives.

Usually, yes. but I do not advocate for this. I advocate for a future of companionship between humans and chickens that features either a commensalistic or mutualistic relationship. One where no one is harmed. Something along the lines of how people treat their dogs/cats now. I believe this is quite achievable with animal welfare laws.

We can’t take an “individualist” approach assuming that our specific way of doing things (such as a quaint family farm) would scale across billions of people.

Sure, a quaint farm wouldn't scale across a billion people. But you do not need it to. I am specifically pointing to this being a good relationship, not that all people should have it. Similarly, I advocate for people to grow their own food. However, I understand that mass farming is necessary for plant foods to be grown for a majority of people. If we are to assume that my hypothetical situation features no harm to the chickens while giving them a great life (like I might give for my dog), then I see it as a net good.

Animals are sentient and prefer a state of relative wellbeing and satisfaction of natural instincts just like we do. Making excuses to violate animals does not align with principals of nonviolence and compassion for beings.

This is my biggest drop off in views. Non-human animals definitely do prefer a state of well being and do seem to have senses of individualism and other traits we value. However, it is important not to assign anthropomorphic ideas to them. For example, I know my dog loves to go outside and run around. If I were to give him full freedom and access to express his natural instincts, I would just let him outside to roam free. However, I know that I can give him a superior that features living in a warm area with access to food at standard times, frequent treats, and lots of time exercising outside with me or others present. I would view chickens in the same way I view said dog. An animal I ought to take care of while letting them express their instincts to a reasonable extent as to not harm them. So i'd give them a heated barn to protect them from the elements and predatory animals as well as provide nutritional assistance as foraging is not always ideal. During the day, they'd be free to roam the yard and fulfill their wishes.

I think it's very important to acknowledge how awful living in the wild really is. Obviously, the current treatment of animals is worse, but I wouldn't say we shouldn't live with them as a part of our lives. Just a far better relationship featuring care and never harm.

---

I had a similar discussion here, if you're not in a long conversation sorta mood. Nevoic and I talked about the relative merits of rights vs welfare approaches. I think my conclusion after speaking with them is that I still find utilitarian systems of practice to be more reasonable, but I understand and can empathize with the deontologists

I think what they meant by "being a vegetarian is healthier" is from the point of conclusion from this study referencing lower cancer (and all cause-mortality in referenced analysis) rates for plant based vs animal containing diets. I agree it's a tough claim to make since a vegetarian diet could literally just be oreos for 3 meals a day, but if I had to guess what they meant, it's probably what I mentioned.

Also, the linked summary doesn't provide too much info. They talked about more than just the listed plant/animal foods and tried to speculate on why they got their results. I summarize those points here

More info from actual study here

Bullet point summary of the full paper

• "The consumption of foods prepared at high temperatures has been associated with numerous health risks."

• In previous studies, high heat has specifically been examined with its ability to transform harmless molecules into small-molecule metabolites that can interact with DNA such as "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heterocyclic amines (HCAs)... aldehydes, acrylamide, and N-nitroso compounds"

• When such species interact with DNA, "mutations when replication specificity is altered by modified nucleobases and in genotoxicity and chromosomal rearrangements when strand breaks occur during repair"

• The amount of DNA seems to be reflective of how many of these small metabolites are formed. For example, in animal products, often associated with health concerns, we see high amounts of DNA content (cows = 5.3-19.5g/kg, pigs = 6.9 - 21.2g/kg). But in plants, we see a far lower amounts with grains, starches, fruits, and legumes the lowest (wheat = 0.6g/kg, lentils = 0.7-0.8g/kg, potatoes = 1g/kg, avocado = 0.6g/kg), and vegetables being higher (spinach = 2.6g/kg, cauliflower = 2.8g/kg, broccoli = 5.1g/kg)

• This study notes that the link between small-molecule agents and health concerns are not yet proven. They primarily focused on examining connection between individual parts of said DNA hypothesis.

• They note that if their findings continue to be held up as true, frying/grilling/smoking are probably the worst, roasting being similarly bad, and boiling being the least harmful. With raw and non-heat processed foods being the best.

• The authors note they are not yet clear on why many plant foods seem to have protective effects in other studies for cancer, but they do write "starch may contribute to some protection against reactive oxygen species" which is common in many unprocessed plant foods like legumes and tubers.

TL;DR: Food products still contain DNA from their sources. When consumed, the DNA must be broken down and utilized by our digestive system. When exposed to high heat, DNA from foods may break down into harmful molecules. When we consume said DNA in our food, it can be harmful to our existing DNA causing deleterious mutations. Some foods have less DNA content and speculated protective compounds such as starch which may prevent some of damage to us including many plant foods, but specifically tubers, legumes, fruits, vegetables, and grains. The study reinforces previous studies showing diets high in said protective foods and low in animal products may result in positive health impacts including lower rates of cancer.

I agree with many of the points you make here. I think my drop off is that I would not harm the chickens in the hypothetical presented. For you, I might actually change the word "exploitation" to something along the lines of "commensalism" at worst, and "mutualism" at best. If we dip into the conflict of interest issue:

We want the chicken to produce as many eggs as possible, so we’ll breed chickens who do that, and ultimately destroy their wellbeing in the process

I would say that is against my view. As soon as you drip past the point that they are not being taken care of and/or harmed in any way that we could reasonably prevent by simply not interacting with them, I am firmly against it. In that, we do not have to contradict a utilitarian doctrine.

To more surely reduce negative utility, it’s a much simpler and sure approach to just reject the idea that exploiting animals is permissible.

This could be true. But only if you practice a flawed negative utilitarianism wherein you do not actually reduce harm. If you harm the chickens, then clearly you've gone against your own beliefs. If you keep the chickens, an ethically neutral option, then you're all set.

It's been a hot second, but I also mentioned the animal sanctuaries in my original post. In them, there is no conflict of interest as the animals are all rescued or arrived by their own choice. For nutritional worries, we just have to look at the biology of a chicken. If they lay 3 eggs a day, there is a significant chance they develop a calcium deficiency. However, if they lay 1 egg every day or two, and are given a proper diet conducive to their utmost well-being, then they have no deficiency, even without eating the eggs. This gives us the ability to give those eggs to humans or other carnivorous animals who may need those nutrients. I see this as the ideal scenario for the future.

In a perfect world, we would outlaw animal abuses to chickens in the same way we do to dogs and cats (with a higher degree than now). In that, no slaughter, exogenous hormone, etc would be used in their lives and we could instead focus on living with one another in a harmonious relationship. I acknowledge we have a long way to go to get to that point, but I see that as far better alternative than chickens going extinct (a net neutral, or possibly negative if we care about wild animal suffering - which I do).

Interestingly, I am not actually on the side of antinatalists. I think a short term negative utilitarian thought process usually justifies antinatialism, but I also view the entirety of their ideals as short sighted. To use the most popular example in being against human birth, they might argue that human life has so much suffering that the good can never could justify it; especially, the suffering to others. However, we ought to think about the future implications of our actions. If we were to go to the extreme, stop the cycle of human birth, then eventually we do end up wiping ourselves out - the antinatalist ideal. But if I am to also use extreme future circumstance, what is stopping a future species from continuing to cause suffering? What about the suffering currently happening in the wild? I'd argue the approach from antinatalists forgets about these realities and does not actually reduce harm. Especially because there is a decent likelyhood that we eventually have a far less negative impact than we have now (see: veganism and environmentalism on the rise). I also acknowledge it could get worse, but I try not to dwell on speculation if I cannot reasonably discern the consequences, unlike the antinatalist position which most certainly does conclude the elimination of humans as a whole is good.

Anyway, back to our original conversation lol. I am familiar with some utilitarians that bring up relative harm and gain. In fact, I acknowledge that is, from my view, a significant weakness in their argument because of the subjectivity involved in an seemingly objective world view. However, I wouldn't throw out utilitarian beliefs because of the shortcomings of a few lines of thinking. One of the arguments I've increasingly found more reasonable as of late is Singer's arguments of "What We Owe Each Other". In this attempt to answer your question of how we compare relative good/bad effects, he would argue we ought to do all we can to help one another, or in a different sense, all we can to make sure others are not harmed. For the hypothetical, "Yeah the chickens die, but I looooove wings" or other equally egregious examples, Singer would say that is well within our means to ensure we do not cause the suffering to those chickens. It is very easy, from and objective stance, to say that the trade there is not equal.

For Singer, the extent to which we should go in our consideration of others is as far as we can until we have put ourselves in relative equality to their well-being (a sort of indirect egalitarian view). For a less extreme example, he would posit I should help my struggling neighbor by cooking them a nutritious meal (a good for them), even if it costs me money and took my time away (a bad for me). However, I do not necessarily have to do that if I am struggling at an equal or less point to them. On a tangent, some of his views on effective altruism in practice seem flawed to me, but that's for a different conversation I suppose.

That brings me back to the original point of my posting: animal byproducts. When I think of what may be permitted, I think back to Singer's viewpoint. With that, the question isn't "what can I permit", but rather, "how much can I help." This fundamental switch in ethical priority allows us to do all we can to inhibit harm rather than do everything we want, but not in specific cases. So for chickens laying eggs, I ought to do the most that I can to help them. Whether that be going vegan, protesting, speaking with others in my community, etc. That does not mean I should not use their byproducts though. For that, we'd first need to establish that it harms them. In the hypothetical presented in the original post, this requirement does not hold true, therefore there is no reason for concern.

Also, before I give my fingers a break from typing, I feel its important to note I do acknowledge there are rough edge cases with the views presented. Hell, Singer is as famous as he is because if he is not shy about confronting them. However, I find some deontological views equally troublesome. For a not-so-extreme example, if I do not exploit the chickens in the example I laid out, what do the carnivores eat? Currently, there is no means to feed them except for animal products and wiping them out requires significant harm and ecological horror. With that in mind, if I am to commit wholly to the idea of never exploiting an animal, I am dooming some wild animal to a likely violent death that I could have otherwise stopped. I've met several threshold deontologist that would say there is clearly some threshold for exploitative harm, but it seems to me that we run into the same issue you just presented when we go down that path (where is the line). That, I find to be more uncomfortable than some of Singer's bullet-biting.

I don't agree that utilitarianism is pro-oppression by nature, especially when reasonable consideration is applied. As an example, you present the transition from exploitative practices (eggs/wool/etc) without harm to the same practices with harm. This being allowed with the justification that my pleasure is worth more than their pain (an argument you attribute to the utilitarian camp). However, that would be defined as egoism rather than the utilitarianism. Utilitarians would posit all beings capable of suffering or pleasure ought to be given adequate consideration for their relative abilities.

I think many rule based utilitarians, myself included, would find a reasonable course of action in our future, even with capitalism being the main force of economic action. For example, the pleasure one receives for consuming an egg is small, while the suffering in current industry practices is great. This would result in a severely bad hedonistic calculus from utilitarians, even if the egoists would love it. However, in the future, we may be presented with options like I showed in my original post. Ones without suffering. In those, the ends do indeed justify the ends as the means provides no harm, and the ends provide only good.

I would argue that the deontological argument of "animals have innate rights" is considered in the utilitarian approach as well, even if it is presented differently. The argument from my point of view is that most animals, besides ourselves, clearly have the basic ability to thrive and suffer. That ability needs to be considered in our calculations. This, I would say, is the core tenant of utilitarianism. All who can suffer, ought not to have to suffer. All who can thrive, ought to be able to thrive. All who can provide these qualities to others, ought to do so to the best of their abilities.

Similarly, and more of a tangent on my personal views: I sit firmly in the negative utilitarian camp. I acknowledge that more good is better than neutrality, but clearly the removal of suffering needs to be the primary impetus for action. So I am extremely rarely in agreement with the idea that “the pleasure I get from this is more good than the pain you get is bad.” As in that, pleasure, especially smaller pleasures, are weighted more than suffering.

Tofu (bean product tbf) -> fried or baked for most dishes, crumbled and refrigerated with mayo, dijon, and black salt for salads

Red kidney beans -> simmered along with the rest of the ingredients in chili

Garbanzo Beans/Chickpeas -> blended for hummus, same as kidney beans, but for curries and other South Asian dishes