New Testingstan

RogueIce wrote:My only response is to say to, well, try to do it in a more "humane" way (or as humane as you can call it when raising an animal destined to be killed for food). How you would go about that while being able to produce enough meat for the general public to consume is an answer I don't have, since I probably know less about farming than I do about formal ethics.

Current US meat consumption per capita per year is over 120kg. This could be cut by a factor of 10 and be in line with some countries like Turkey or Iran, or by a factor of 20 and be in line with South Asia now or East Asia a few decades ago. Cutting down that much would, I think, mean you could feed the animals entirely by range and the increase in price would allow for more humane raising and slaughter. So even if you don't remove the system entirely it can significantly improve both the environment and the quality of life of the animals.

@straha

Ok, two fundamental differences in our assumptions, I think, that are going to be the most difficult to reconcile.

1. Humans aren't animals.
2. Humans are more important than animals.

Now I'm sure Shroom or somesuch will be in here any second now to say that means I'm okay with some shithead torturing dogs for fun, but he's wrong no matter how many times he repeats himself. If that makes me logically inconsistent, I don't really care.

1. Humans aren't animals

what

Yeah that was my reaction. If humans aren't animals what are we, mineral or vegetable?

Darksi4190 wrote:Aren't they already experimenting with artificially grown meat? Aside from the whole animal rights issue, it's gotta have less impact on the environment than factory farming.

One amusing part they have found with artificially growning meat (in the lab), is you need to excerise it with electrical impulses to get it to be something similar to the real thing.

Losonti Tokash wrote:Straha, I don't always agree with you, but I love that you're passionate about what you believe in and can communicate it so I at least understand.

As an aside I know someone who is more or less vegan due to digestive problems, but has problems with vitamin B12 deficiencies. What's a good alternative to animal products that isn't made from a fungus?

Lentils, textured vegetable protein, and Seitan all spring to mind. (Though my list is hardly exhaustive. I fucking love mushrooms.)

RogueIce wrote: It's not and I think what I saw in that video is terrible.

My only response is to say to, well, try to do it in a more "humane" way (or as humane as you can call it when raising an animal destined to be killed for food). How you would go about that while being able to produce enough meat for the general public to consume is an answer I don't have, since I probably know less about farming than I do about formal ethics.

That's at least a start.

RyanThunder wrote:Ok, two fundamental differences in our assumptions, I think, that are going to be the most difficult to reconcile.

1. Humans aren't animals.
2. Humans are more important than animals.

Leaving aside the basic question that Los and Stofsk both pounced on (and was my gut reaction to what you posted as well), you're still ducking the question. Why is what happens in that video a moral good?

Losonti Tokash wrote:

1. Humans aren't animals

what

See what I mean? It's a religious thing. I guess if you want to be technical about it, we're animals, but we're still above all other animals.

Straha wrote:

RyanThunder wrote:Ok, two fundamental differences in our assumptions, I think, that are going to be the most difficult to reconcile.

1. Humans aren't animals.
2. Humans are more important than animals.

Leaving aside the basic question that Los and Stofsk both pounced on (and was my gut reaction to what you posted as well), you're still ducking the question. Why is what happens in that video a moral good?

It's regrettable and I'm going to suppose not even really necessary to get you and me our chicken products (perhaps even counterproductive since packing them in like that breeds diseases and stuff.) So on that basis I'm opposed to factory farming in its current format.

unfortunately she can't eat lentils or seitan either

Ryan what religious thing are you talking about I'm really confused

Losonti Tokash wrote:unfortunately she can't eat lentils or seitan either

Ryan what religious thing are you talking about I'm really confused

Read genesis, heathen.

Straha wrote:And then explain to me why it's morally good to support that system in anyway. Not how you can make it less bad, but why is it ethically good that anyone give time, effort, or money to support it and propagate it further.

Honestly? I don't have one. I think meat-eating of the sort that is practiced in the modern West is largely pretty indefensible selfishness. And yes, as a non-vegetarian I include my own behavior under that. The only thing I'll say in my own defense is I've got a lot of company in the "seriously flawed person" category. Sorry if that offends any of the meat-eaters on this board, but I'd rather be consistent and honest with myself than hide behind feel-good rationalizations about how chickens are somehow objectively less worthy of life because they're less smart and therefore it is just that they suffer and die so that a superior being like me can have McNuggets.

I don't think encouraging people to eat less meat on the basis that this may be more effective than trying to convert people to vegetarianism is really supporting that system though; the whole point is kind of that it's (assuming it works) a more effective way of depriving it of support: instead of losing 100% of the business of 1000 customers they lose 10% of the business of 100,000 customers, say.

I think maybe our disconnect is I see more value in damage control morality than you?

I find it really hard to not reflexively revert to an intersperses might makes right argument for meat, despite all the horrible flaws in that argument.


Might makes right until you invent gunpowder

In the UK and Europe people have been hugely grossed out by the Horsemeat Scandal, with horsemeat discovered in whole batches of beef hamburgers. That must've made many vegans overnight.

zhaktronz wrote:Switching to veganism in Australia would probably cause more suffering as almost all of our non chicken meat is raised on marginal lands useless for other food production

Even the land Australia grow crops on tends to low quality crap, it's made up for by using a hell of a lot of land.

weemadando wrote:The big changes that I can think of for Australia would be altering habits - less meat, less often and a greater variety when we do. Push to add kangaroo, possum, rabbit and venison etc to the mainstream beef, lamb, pork and chicken.

Rabbits are an ecological pest, and there is a damn good reason Australia used two bioweapons in an attempt to cull thier numbers in addition to poisoning. At least with the others animals aren't an ecological timebomb if some of them escape captivity.

Some larger spaces could have goats or sheep supported, but the logistics involved with dairy make this a less prime example.

Goats have rather heavy ecological impact, and will over-graze far worse than domestic sheep or cattle. And with the overgrazing, thier hooves are quite hard on the soil.

Stofsk wrote:If a cow had the chance he'd kill you and everyone you ever cared about

I guess this 'chance' is magically giving it non-trivial increases in cognitive abilities and the ability to actually manipulate it's enviroment and an SDN/SB-style "competency" bloodlust

Jung wrote:I think maybe our disconnect is I see more value in damage control morality than you?

Shoot for the moon, and if you fail, you'll at least end up amongst the stars.

Big Orangutan wrote:In the UK and Europe people have been hugely grossed out by the Horsemeat Scandal, with horsemeat discovered in whole batches of beef hamburgers. That must've made many vegans overnight.

Eeh, IDK: the reaction by actual people (rather than newspapers) seems to be 'oh no shit, the cheaper-than-water pies aren't actually beef?'
Everyone knows that pork pies are made of rat anuses, chicken beaks and horse testicles, but we don't care because it still tastes OK.

adr wrote:

Jung wrote:I think maybe our disconnect is I see more value in damage control morality than you?

Shoot for the moon, and if you fail, you'll at least end up amongst the stars.

...floating eternally, on your own, with nobody to talk to...

evilsoup wrote:

adr wrote:Shoot for the moon, and if you fail, you'll at least end up amongst the stars.

...floating eternally, on your own, with nobody to talk to...

People are jerks anyway.

xon wrote:

Some larger spaces could have goats or sheep supported, but the logistics involved with dairy make this a less prime example.

Goats have rather heavy ecological impact, and will over-graze far worse than domestic sheep or cattle. And with the overgrazing, thier hooves are quite hard on the soil.

I'm not talking about public lands, I'm talking about some suburban residences that could support it themselves or share it among a few properties.

Losonti Tokash wrote:Ryan what religious thing are you talking about I'm really confused

NIV Genesis 1:26-28 wrote:Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

God loves to murder. Ergo man loves to murder just like god.

Well why don't we play along with this for a bit? Mankind is commanded by God to 'rule' over all the animals (or whatever specific phenotypes you believe a literal interpretation of Genesis involves), what does he mean by 'rule'? Well, when a governor, king, warlord, etc. 'rules' over a people, does he round up the people, get them nice and plump, then eat them? No, actually he generally works towards making the people, and thus his support-base, more powerful than before. Sometimes he does so brutally, but push it too far and he risks revolution.

Therefore, even if you follow the bible, it seems that humanity is commanded to make sure animals thrive and become more powerful and secure, rather than slaughtering them and eating them, as that is pretty much the opposite of 'ruling'.

Shoot for the moon, and if you fail, you'll at least end up amongst the stars.

Due to its more upbeat message, this proverb narrowly edged out its competitor: "Shoot for the moon, and if you fail, you'll drift for centuries in the cold dark void of space, your freeze-dried corpse light years away from anything of interest or import until, if you're lucky, you get drawn into the gravity of a distant star and your physical form is destroyed in a brief flash of nuclear fire, everyone you loved, the civilization you knew, dead and forgotten for centuries on a distant speck of dirt orbiting a forgettable little point of light so far behind you."

There's a line about being stewards of the earth as well, IIRC.

And while we're at it: If a vaguely worded command can be interpreted as free license to kill and eat other animals, then what is your opinion on slavery? Because unlike the whole animal-slaughter thing, God has a number of instances where He quite unambiguously commands his chosen to enslave opposing tribes/kingdoms, and gives clear rules on the management and treatment of slaves.

If you are opposed to slavery, why does your personal convictions override God's direct commands as recorded in the bible in this instance, but not when it comes to vaguely worded directives concerning man's treatment of animals in others?

Convenience

well that was weird. I was nervous about my History final so I started jokingly praying to every god I could think of to lighten the mood a bit. I was also doodling on my arm a little with my pencil. At one point I started to beseech Tzeentch for the wisdom to pass the test, only to find that while doing it, I had unconsciously drawn a reasonable facsimile of the eight pointed star on my forearm.

I'm not sure what to make of that.