(no title)
f3b5
|
3 years ago
Not waking up earlier to the fact that the meat section in the supermarket is a product of systemic, gruesome torture of intelligent beings.
Like probably many of you who read this, I usually felt a bit guilty when I was confronted with the ugly facts we are all vaguely familiar with. I justified my meat consumption with specieist arguments (humans are so much better than pigs, cows, etc).
My wife challenged me to watch at least a little bit of a documentary, and if I still wanted to eat salami, so be it. Afterwards I didn't want to eat salami anymore. I now think that the extreme abuse of animals by the food industry on behalf of ignorant consumers is probably the worst evil of the 21st century.
If you disagree, I challenge you - watch 15min and then post your reply:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko
orange_fritter|3 years ago
jmkr|3 years ago
> I now think that the extreme abuse of animals by the food industry on behalf of ignorant consumers is probably the worst evil of the 21st century.
I agree, there's no comparison, billions of land animals a year, trillions including sea life. I can't count that high.
The pain has gotten worse year after year. You watch otherwise smart people give bad arguments, or complete ignorance. To maintain any kind of social life you have to deal with being uncomfortable with those around you.
Hopefully we can have small impactful moments upon other's lives.
lumb63|3 years ago
mahogany|3 years ago
In that sense, it seems to me that a plant-based diet is still the preferable choice if one wants to reduce unnecessary suffering.
aussieshibe|3 years ago
Do you have any sources you could share which support this claim? A cursory search has turned up nothing approaching convincing evidence.
drumttocs8|3 years ago
sgentle|3 years ago
It's an admittedly fun argument, but it has flaws that I think make it unsuitable as a strategy for destroying vegetarians with facts and logic. It relies on abstract, black-box constructions of notions like sensation, awareness or intelligence based on analogy and observation, whereas in animals we can also rely on arguments based on equivalent biological structures. The breadth of that construction also has some intriguing but pretty challenging implications: you might also need to accept sentient traffic jams and Kubernetes clusters that feel pain.
Beyond all that, though, I think the major flaw in your reasoning is it treats concepts like awareness or moral worth as binaries, with language like "every bit as much" and "only because". Of course, one reason we don't treat wheat with empathy or offer it moral equivalence is because wheat doesn't look like us, but that's far from the only reason. Wheat is simply a less complex form of life than a fly, and certainly less complex than Google Chrome, neither of which I feel much compunction about killing when they are consuming my resources.
If you're going to accept an incredibly broad definition of awareness, then that definition also needs to be nuanced and gradated or else you end up saying nothing only with more words. You can absolutely define feeling such that grass can feel, but if that's also "every bit as much" as what humans feel then you've arrived at a notion of feeling that's almost tautological and struggles to support any meaningful consequences. We and the grass are also carbon, I suppose... or energy? I'm not sure why it matters. I care about the version of feeling that made me cry at the end of Homeward Bound, and plants don't have that, no matter what you call it.
All these contradictions disappear if you're willing to say that different forms of life have different levels of awareness, and different degrees of moral worth. Intuitively, I care less about the death of an animal than the death of a person, and I care less about the death of a plant than an animal. That exact mapping from being to moral worth is going to be pretty tricky to define, but I think it's pretty hard to argue that animals should have none at all.
If animals have non-zero moral worth, then there is some area between the curves of your enjoyment and their suffering within which it is okay to eat them, and outside of which it isn't. I don't have any desire to tell you what your curves should be, but as a matter of my own observation, I haven't found vegetarian food in general less enjoyable than food with meat in it. There are exceptions, of course, and I still eat meat sometimes, but as a practical matter I found the exchange rate from dining enjoyment to animal wellbeing very favourable. You might too.
ryankrage77|3 years ago
BowBun|3 years ago
I get your point and don't disagree that animal suffering is terrible, but I wish people were more moderate in their language and not so quick to jump to hyperbole. No one can care about everything, and everyone's thing is 'the worst thing'.
f3b5|3 years ago
But I don't need people to share my opinion, you are right in that this is an important topic for me. What I just would like to happen is that people realize that eating animal products is evil enough to change their diet.
gardenhedge|3 years ago
harpratap|3 years ago
[1] - https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BA%A9
jcul|3 years ago
ornornor|3 years ago
Beans, tofu, peas all are excellent sources of proteins.
KMnO4|3 years ago
f3b5|3 years ago
Long story short: even the best farm and the best butcher (which are getting exceedingly rare) are still using, abusing, and ultimately killing intelligent beings. This also does something to the people that do the killing: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-50986683
mixmastamyk|3 years ago
monospaced|3 years ago
Download and archive links are provided here: https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
high_byte|3 years ago