Could you live without eating meat?

[Deleted]

see, my problem with this is...i dont give a shit if some animals are killed for my food, thats part of nature...and who am i to argue with nature?

The killing itself is not the problem. The problems are how livestock is bred, fed, kept and slaughtered.

[Fexus]

but society is a hypocritical bitch...yeah suffering is bad but if we would have to make hugh changes to end it no one wants to anymore...

btw. go team meat!!

Would you agree a society that allows suffering for the sake of convenience is unethical?

Except that's not true at all. Humans are biologically programmed to only be capable of caring about a limited number of things and thus create priorities. Things we mentally rank as higher priorities generally get more care. So if we start from ourselves and work outward; for most people "animals on farms" is a pretty long way down the totem pole of priorities.

There is no upper limit on the amount of things we can care about. I'm not arguing we should be concerned about animals to the forsaking of all else. I'm saying we should be concerned with the suffering of any being that can feel pain.

[Dispraise]

There is no upper limit on the amount of things we can care about.

Yeah, there is. Look up Dunbar's number.

[Deleted]

I never claimed such a thing. The specific example of meat and animal products isn't really an example of two differing set of ethics. In most cases it is an example of one set of ethics versus a group of people who are ethically unconcerned. Are there any ethical arguments that justify the torture of animals? Not that I'm aware of. I'm not saying there is this nebulous ethical idea that is transcendent. I am saying there are basic ethical principles that we agree on that would prohibit the treatment of animals in the way we do.

you know what? all this ethics thing is so 21. century...we are so safe and mostly everything is ok for us that we need to create problems or we get bored...humanity...no nature has feast of one another since the beginning of time...and suddenly with a little bit of industry behind it is ethical intolerable to eat meat?

if its the treatment of the animals that concern you you could go to your local farm and buy your animal kill it yourself and cook it...that would be ethical then i guess.

because killing animals for food has nothing to do with ethics...thats just what we as a race and 90% of the fauna on this planet are.

fucking hippies...

[Fexus]

Yeah, there is. Look up Dunbar's number.

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like that is all about social relationships. I don't need a relationship with a suffering farm animal to care about their suffering.

[Sunseeker]

There is no upper limit on the amount of things we can care about.

Yes, there is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Sim beat me to it.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like that is all about social relationships. I don't need a relationship with a suffering farm animal to care about their suffering.

That is a form of relationship.

[Fexus]

you know what? all this ethics thing is so 21. century...we are so safe and mostly everything is ok for us that we need to create problems or we get bored...humanity...no nature has feast of one another since the beginning of time...and suddenly with a little bit of industry behind it is ethical intolerable to eat meat?

Because we have made strides doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

if its the treatment of the animals that concern you you could go to your local farm and buy your animal kill it yourself and cook it...that would be ethical then i guess.

because killing animals for food has nothing to do with ethics...thats just what we as a race and 90% of the fauna on this planet are.

fucking hippies...

I'm not so much concerned with people killing and eating animals as much as how they're treated when they're alive.

[Deleted]

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like that is all about social relationships. I don't need a relationship with a suffering farm animal to care about their suffering.

if you care about it, you got a relation to it.

- - - Updated - - -

Because we have made strides doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.



I'm not so much concerned with people killing and eating animals as much as how they're treated when they're alive.

thats why i asked you if you would eat meat if it had lifed one of these bio wildlife happy farms near you.

[lokinrond713]

Yeah, there is. Look up Dunbar's number.

Those are ppl u meet face to face, social relationships, very different.

[AeneasBK]

if you care about it, you got a relation to it.

- - - Updated - - -



thats why i asked you if you would eat meat if it had lifed one of these bio wildlife happy farms near you.

Dunbar's number specifically deals with social relations between humans though, right?

[Deleted]

Those are ppl u meet face to face, social relationships, very different.

yeah, because you care more about things you meet in person...so i would care even less about a anonymous animal just from the get go

[AeneasBK]

OT: Isn't the issue regarding meat consumption an ecological one. As in "If every human on the planet ate as much meat per week as people in the West; we'd a) Not have space to farm it and b) Fuck up the atmosphere; and other ecological issues related to farming on a large scale.

So its not the ethics of "should creatures die to feed us" its the ethics of "Should I continue to eat meat twice a day despite it not being sustainable for the human race as a whole; and even causing damage to the planets eco system?"

[Dispraise]

Those are ppl u meet face to face, social relationships, very different.

Not really. It's a more simple relationship, which translates to easier processing, but your brain is only physically capable of giving a limited number of shits at any given time. And the further away from yourself those relationships lie, the fewer shits people tend to give.

Dunbar's number specifically deals with social relations between humans though, right?

Actually deals with social group size in apes, and extrapolates that to social cognitive power in humans based on relative brain size.

[Fexus]

OT: Isn't the issue regarding meat consumption an ecological one. As in "If every human on the planet ate as much meat per week as people in the West; we'd a) Not have space to farm it and b) Fuck up the atmosphere; and other ecological issues related to farming on a large scale.

So its not the ethics of "should creatures die to feed us" its the ethics of "Should I continue to eat meat twice a day despite it not being sustainable for the human race as a whole; and even causing damage to the planets eco system?"

This is another significant ethical concern about the consumption of meat.

[AeneasBK]

Not really. It's a more simple relationship, which translates to easier processing, but your brain is only physically capable of giving a limited number of shits at any given time. And the further away from yourself those relationships lie, the fewer shits people tend to give.

Which has nothing to do with Dunbar's number.

[Deleted]

yeah, because you care more about things you meet in person...so i would care even less about a anonymous animal just from the get go

btw. why would i care at all...its my food, it grows up just for the sole purpose of being my food. and we dont need to discuss that some forms of "deathfarms" are bad and should be closed down but 90% of the time the animal get enough food to get fat and live together until they are killed mostly painless as possible...where is the cruelty in that? i dont see it.

[Fexus]

Not really. It's a more simple relationship, which translates to easier processing, but your brain is only physically capable of giving a limited number of shits at any given time. And the further away from yourself those relationships lie, the fewer shits people tend to give.

Even if that's true, are there 150 situations causing more suffering that you care about that would keep you from caring about the treatment of animals?

- - - Updated - - -

btw. why would i care at all...its my food, it grows up just for the sole purpose of being my food

My slave had a baby. I'm going to raise it for the sole purpose of being my slave.

[AeneasBK]

btw. why would i care at all...its my food, it grows up just for the sole purpose of being my food. and we dont need to discuss that some forms of "deathfarms" are bad and should be closed down but 90% of the time the animal get enough food to get fat and live together until they are killed mostly painless as possible...where is the cruelty in that? i dont see it.

OT: Isn't the issue regarding meat consumption an ecological one. As in "If every human on the planet ate as much meat per week as people in the West; we'd a) Not have space to farm it and b) Fuck up the atmosphere; and other ecological issues related to farming on a large scale.

So its not the ethics of "should creatures die to feed us" its the ethics of "Should I continue to eat meat twice a day despite it not being sustainable for the human race as a whole; and even causing damage to the planets eco system?"

Have you considered...

[Deleted]

OT: Isn't the issue regarding meat consumption an ecological one. As in "If every human on the planet ate as much meat per week as people in the West; we'd a) Not have space to farm it and b) Fuck up the atmosphere; and other ecological issues related to farming on a large scale.

So its not the ethics of "should creatures die to feed us" its the ethics of "Should I continue to eat meat twice a day despite it not being sustainable for the human race as a whole; and even causing damage to the planets eco system?"

its the right angle and why i argue against fexus ethics.

to be honest, probably we should...but we too should use less oil, coal, nuclear energy, drive less and dont cut down all the forrest...but we dont...because no one gives a shit and we the people dont decide that...as long as there is money made out of this nothing will change because the people that could change it dont want to.

[Dispraise]

Which has nothing to do with Dunbar's number.

It does, because it makes the suggestion that cognitive power is limited in areas beyond only the strict interpretation of Dunbar's findings.

Even if that's true, are there 150 situations causing more suffering that you care about that would keep you from caring about the treatment of animals?

Personally, I don't care about the treatment of those animals, because I know where my meat comes from. I've been to the farms, and spoken to the farmers. I'm satisfied that the animals are being treated as well as I expect.