From your perspective, you just made a smart comment that adds wider context on this issue.
From mine, it's something of a cosmic horror that people can think like this and be proud of themselves.
We are wreaking havoc on the Earth and all life on it; strip mining it to the bone for the shallowest purposes. And some people have this strange glee about it...
It's Lovecraftian to me. Like cultists worshipping death and darkness - literally.
Dramatic? Sure. But you're literally cheer-leading the death of billions and billions of lives as a strong economic indicator.
The fact is, we can't afford industrial farming (and many other 'indicators'). The bill is coming due for our lifestyle. Faster and closer every day.
What to you is "determination to enjoy life", reads to me as blissful ignorance - but only blissful for the ignorant.
We may like them better, given that we are them. We may like our families more than strangers as well. That does not mean that a machine that used unfathomable cruelty to concentrate the rest of humanity into a slurry for the pleasure of our family members would not be a horror.
Humans are more important by far. This idea that a cow’s life is as precious as a human’s life is the worst type of misanthropic thought.
There is a hierarchy and although we shouldn’t torture living things, giving them “1 bad day” is totally ethical when used to endure and pleasure. I admit we don’t live up to that standard necessarily, but we should strive for it.
Ideally everyone that wants to is eating happy animals at their pleasure.
I mean, I think they may agree that we are the most powerful species on Earth (debatable, if you account for the impacts of bacteria, viruses, trees, etc.), but that's distinct from agreeing that our lives are the most valuable.
I think most humans would begrudgingly agree that white men, americans, europeans, etc. are the most powerful group on Earth. I don't think they'd agree that their lives are the most valuable.
I know. I looked to see which way the rest of the world could see us as being some synonym of important, powerful is the likely one.
The way that "important" was likely meant in this context was "valuable", which I then addressed in my comment.
Again, even the power is debatable. Single celled organisms and plants have a far greater impact on the world than we do.
Valuable is not really up for debate. A nonhuman animal would not say that the life of a human is more valuable than their own any more than a disempowered person would say that the life of a powerful person is more valuable than their own.
>Humans are roughly interchangeable with each other, so in a wide view they can be roughly equally important.
What? Some are surgeons are working for MSF saving lives with their bare hands on a daily basis, others are sex traffickers. Some are Einstein others are flat earthers. Their positive and negative impact on the world around them, their capabilities vary greatly.
Depending on how loosely you define interchangeable, you can include nonhuman animals as being interchangeable with humans.
> But we're capable of so many things nothing else is.
Can we hibernate? Can we lay eggs? Can we grow to the size of a blue whale? Can we survive naked in the vacuum of space? Do we possess biological immortality? Have we persisted for hundreds of millions of years through multiple extinction events? Etc etc. The natural world is filled with species who hold countless capabilities beyond our own.
Do you think there might be a bias at work when we decide that the traits unique to humans are those that are more "important"?
> Valuable is not really up for debate. A nonhuman animal would not say that the life of a human is more valuable than their own any more than a disempowered person would say that the life of a powerful person is more valuable than their own.
There are plenty of people I would say are more important/valuable than me. And I can imagine species that would be more important/valuable than humans; they just don't seem to exist here and now. But the boundaries within humanity are a lot narrower and I wouldn't be confident enough to label any humans as less important/valuable than me the way I would talk about a random non-endangered rodent.
> Do you think there might be a bias at work when we decide that the traits unique to humans are those that are more "important"?
Well I think "hibernate" and "eggs" are dumb metrics. But we can replicate most feats with some prep time, even if you use a big list of unique abilities that humans need technology for.
Even taking bias into account, I think the bias would have to be ridiculously large to overcome the strength of the answer.
> There are plenty of people I would say are more important/valuable than me.
So by this thinking humans are not interchangeable?
> And I can imagine species that would be more important/valuable than humans; they just don't seem to exist here and now.
Really? You think the single celled organisms and plants responsible for producing oxygen, those responsible for decay, even those present within the digestive tracks of all animals, are not more important/valuable than humans?
>But the boundaries within humanity are a lot narrower and I wouldn't be confident enough to label any humans as less important/valuable than me the way I would talk about a random non-endangered rodent.
Sorry I'm confused, your first quote says there are plenty of people you'd say are more impotant/valuable than you. How do you square that statement with this one? What is the range of variation within human capability that is allowed for equal consideration, but which excludes nonhuman animals? What are the boundaries of that variation defined by if not, honestly, by ex post facto rationalization?
> Well I think "hibernate" and "eggs" are dumb metrics.
Why are they any more objectively dumb than any other capability?
> But we can replicate most feats with some prep time, even if you use a big list of unique abilities that humans need technology for.
Huh? At this point in time humans are incapable of any of the things I listed. You'll need to show proof that we are capable of these things even with all of our technological ability. As of right now it's just kind of handwaving "with the power of technology, at some indeterminate point in the future, anything is possible!" when facts don't bear that out, as we have yet to have any immortal humans, and may never have them.
> Even taking bias into account, I think the bias would have to be ridiculously large to overcome the strength of the answer.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by the strength of the answer. I do think it's self evident that the bias is ridiculously large though.
> You think the single celled organisms and plants responsible for producing oxygen, those responsible for decay, even those present within the digestive tracks of all animals, are not more important/valuable than humans?
Weren't we talking about most important animal?
But when it comes to most important, things a million different species can do are much less important.
Let alone the fact that we can produce oxygen and decay organic matter.
As for everything else, I don't feel like you're even trying to understand my argument. But if you're that confused it's only going to be a waste of time for me to go on.
You’re right. I slipped into talking about species on the whole, my bad.
That said, I think it’s really important to clarify what we mean by important. Do we mean powerful, impactful? Or do we mean the lives of the individuals of that species are more valuable?
Back to powerful/impactful, if we’re talking about purely animals, then I’d look to pollinators. Would you argue that humans are more important to the functioning of the world than pollinators?
> But when it comes to most important, things a million different species can do are much less important.
Again, what do we mean by important? Power?
> Let alone the fact that we can produce oxygen and decay organic matter.
If we were to rely purely on humanity’s ability to produce oxygen and decay organic matter, the majority of life on Earth, humans included, would quickly die and then pile up, undecaying. There’s no comparison between our ability and the ability of the species that are specialized for this. It’s like comparing Einstein’s and a crow’s ability to flesh out physics. Sure, the crow might be able to solve some physics-based puzzles, but it’s on a very basic level.
> As for everything else, I don't feel like you're even trying to understand my argument. But if you're that confused it's only going to be a waste of time for me to go on.
I admittedly made some assumptions about your argument, and have been arguing against those assumptions. This is because I’m genuinely unclear on your argument. If you can clarify a couple things:
1) What exactly do we mean by important?
2) What are the boundaries of ability by which we can define humans as interchangeable, but humans and nonhuman animals as not, that are not rationalized after the fact?
If we establish these things I think we can make some progress instead of talking past each other.
> If we were to rely purely on humanity’s ability to produce oxygen and decay organic matter
But again this is about a single species. If you remove one random type of algae or plant it's not going to make a huge difference.
> 1) What exactly do we mean by important?
The impact they have, the breadth of skills, the monuments and constructs and art, the potential for what they can do in the future. Including spreading life through the solar system eventually, or things like that. I might be missing some parts, it's late.
> 2) What are the boundaries of ability by which we can define humans as interchangeable, but humans and nonhuman animals as not, that are not rationalized after the fact?
I don't want to double down on this too hard. I just think most humans are in a pretty narrow band and this band is pretty far away from any other species.
> But again this is about a single species. If you remove one random type of algae or plant it's not going to make a huge difference.
Prochlorococcus single-handedly produces 20% of all oxygen on Earth.[1]
> The impact they have, the breadth of skills, the monuments and constructs and art, the potential for what they can do in the future. Including spreading life through the solar system eventually, or things like that. I might be missing some parts, it's late.
No, I mean what do you mean by important, fundamentally. Is this a judgement of the objective value of the lives of the individuals of that species? Is it just an assessment of their power? Is it putting arbitrary characteristics that species happens to posses on a pedestal while simultaneously and just as arbitrarily devaluing the unique characteristics of all other species?
Are we starting from the bias that humans are more "important" (again, still unclear what that actually means) than all others, then working backwards and highlighting all the human characteristics as being evidence of that importance after the fact?
If a species with giant claws ruled the world, do you think they might wax poetic about the great importance of giant claws, and how this is the one true metric by which the value of a life can be measured?
Are giant claws, ability to produce art, or any other specific characteristic or capability in any way relevant to the question of whether or not a life has value?
> I don't want to double down on this too hard. I just think most humans are in a pretty narrow band and this band is pretty far away from any other species.
Well we're going to have to define the boundaries of this band, otherwise it doesn't seem to be based on anything concrete and seems more like circular reasoning that the boundaries of this band are those that exist within humans and therefore those humans are important because they exist within the boundaries of that band.
I mean just because something feels good doesn't mean it's right.
We can get all of our nutrients from plants, most of us in the developed world don't need animals, we by and large just eat them for pleasure because we like the taste, as you noted by leading with the fact that they are delicious.
Further, if your concerns are humanitarian in nature, in terms of feeding the most humans, ensuring the greatest amount of happiness for them, then we are on the same side.
It turns out you can feed more humans with plants than you can with animals, given that the latter are largely inefficient middle men for our calories that are fundamentally sourced from plants. We feed a cow roughly 10 calories of corn and soy to get 1 calorie of meat out of it. Were we to eat those crops directly we'd be able to feed ~10x the number of people on the same agricultural output, or reduce our agricultural output by ~90% and feed the same number of people.
That latter point leads to the environmental impact of animal farming. Over 90% of the destruction of the Amazon to date has happened for two industries - beef, and soy. Over 80% of the world's soy is... turned into feed for those same animals.
We are destroying the Amazon, evicting and slaughtering the indigenous people that live within it, exacerbating climate change which is already resulting in more and more extreme droughts and famines, killing millions around the world, and as this gets worse will kill untold millions more.
Animal agriculture is one of the most environmentally destructive industries on the planet, in terms of climate emissions, resource use, and land destruction.
By feeding animals to humans we are turning around and killing those same humans. Well, not the same ones actually. The poorest ones who can't even afford the meat we're gluttonously shoving into our faces.
This is all tied to the fundamental fact that the animal is a middle man for our calories, and in a time where our environment's carrying capacity is greatly exceeded by our civilization, we need to reduce these gross inefficiencies in order to save our own lives, even if that's all we care about.
So even if your primary goal is to feed people and save humanity, the rational conclusion is still to stop eating animals.
> I mean just because something feels good doesn't mean it's right.
I’m just not into your religion, sorry. I love it for you though. I’m happy that you’re happy not consuming animals, and that it makes you feel good. I will continue to smoke beef briskets over live fire for hours at a time.
Between doing something just because your people have traditionally done it, in the face of all the mounting scientific evidence that that thing is destructive, and choosing to embrace that science and shirk those traditions, which course of action seems more religious?
The other millions of species don't have an ethical perspective. But okay, lets grant their perspective of wanting to survive and reproduce, behave in the way they evolved to. Fine, but how do you balance the perspectives of those millions? We still need to plow and harvest large fields even if we all go vegan. We still have to deal with pests in our homes.
Should we kill a bunch of cows to make way for native species? Was it okay when the feral goats in the Galapagos were machine gunned down from the air so they would stop eating all the vegetation the native tortoises relied on? Should we kill off all the feral cats, or just let them continue killing birds and small mammals? Is it okay to spray for mosquitos and ticks, or do we let them carry disease and infect us and other animals?
There's a million different tradeoffs, thousands of which we have to decide no matter what.
> We still need to plow and harvest large fields even if we all go vegan
We would need just 25% of those fields. The rest can be returned to the nature. [0]
> Should we kill a bunch of cows to make way for native species
But we're killing them already, at astonishing quantities. It's enough to not make new ones, the problem will solve itself.
> okay when the feral goats in the Galapagos were machine gunned down
Maybe don't introduce farm animals where they don't belong?
> kill off all the feral cats, or just let them continue killing birds and small mammals
Give the birds & mammals a chance to live and procreate, by giving them enough habitat to live in. In time nature will solve the feral cats problems - when bigger predators appear.
> Is it okay to spray for mosquitos and ticks
No, because you're spraying poisons and killing other species as well, and reducing the human health. That's not practical. But you know, biodiversity is the solution [1].
When you kill predators (owls, foxes, coyottes ...), mice proliferate. More mice, more ticks. Let the mice eating predators return and ticks numbers goes down.
Mosquitos? Don't spray poisons and let number of amphibians/fish go up. The problem solved.
> Could anything evil happen as a result of embracing this outlook?
Yes. If we demote the value of human beings to meet the value of other species, we open the door to the legitimacy of killing human beings. If we promote the value of other species, we have swathes of carnivores to arrest and put on trial.
I also do not value animal lives as much as human lives. But there is an important assumption built into the argument that it is ok to eat this many animals: that it is possible to raise and slaughter this number of animals without deleterious effects on humans. I believe that assumption is incorrect, and that the environmental and health consequences of the current level of meat consumption will cause immense suffering to both animals and humans.
This line of argumentation is brought forward too seldomly. It’s not solid, but as a human centrist, the only future that’s made me pause is the potential loss to human research and enjoyment if our ecosystems collapse. Animal advocates would do well to argue from opposing moral frameworks.
I agree. Humans have struggled to feed themselves since the beginning. We finally, only recently, figured out how to make people not starve to death and now we have people saying we are morally wrong for living how humans always wanted to.
I think sone people need the guilt of being alive religion gave them. But they rejected traditional methods and invented a new religion of self hatred. Humans as sinners that need to seek redemption or some other silly idea.
Of course people are going to be proud, the horrors of capitalism aside, we’ve completely eliminated hunger in the US (not implying we’re the only place). Not one single person is starving because we are unable to feed them. And we’re able to feed everyone with the absolute top tier of food desired by humans. It used to be an event only for special occasions to slaughter your lifestock. The only people who got a steady diet of meat were the wealthy.
Cruelty aside that is something to take so much pride in. I think it’s easy to forget the bigger picture of progress here. Are we destroying the planet, oh yeah. Have we created a machine of unfathomable cruelty, also yes. But are we well fed with exactly the food we want to be eating given the choice, hell yeah and that’s an insane accomplishment. That’s something that was not possible 150 years ago.
"We're destroying the planet with unfathomable cruelty, but at least we get to eat what we want!"
This is not the accomplishment you think it is. This is absolute depravity on a societal scale and the fact that we're all so okay with it is horrifying.
Okay we have to take a step back here, things are allowed to good and bad. I am in no way whatsoever trying to downplay the bad parts of our meat industry. I feel like there's a tendency in online discussions that if you ever point out any positive aspect of something that someone doesn't like overall, then it's taken as a full endorsement of that thing. Clearly I did not admonish the industry enough to make that clear.
We're not going to get anywhere unless we can agree broadly that humans like eating meat. For all of human history it's been the most prized food and sits at the center of a lot of our rituals -- ham for Christmas, lamb for Easter, turkey for Thanksgiving, pork for New Years. I'm not assigning any value judgement to this. And so reaching a point where this thing that previously had to be savored because it was expensive and/or only available after the harvest now being a commodity is an accomplishment. You might not like the manifested will of humanity but we nonetheless did it and that's impressive in and of itself.
Where do you live? The greater cruelty is that we can feed everyone, but choose to throw it away instead if they can't pay. My mother worked at inner city schools in Ohio, let me tell you if the schools didn't have a free lunch and breakfast program (something a lot of politicians hate) a lot of kids wouldn't be eating at all. Saying hunger is solved in America is absurd. Maybe it is in a technical sense but it's far more profitable to keep it around, so we do.
Rate limit edit: The fact you have to give out food for free is the opposite point. They had food lines during the great depression too. Ideally the government wouldn't have to hand any children food for free lest they not eat at all.
We're agreeing. This is exactly my point. Hunger is not solved in the US because of capitalism, not because we're unable to produce enough food to feed everyone which is a horror unto itself.
Or we give out "free lunches" to people because as a society we don't value them starving? It's not an indicator of some huge oversupply and I certainly hope we wouldn't let them starve if food became slightly more scarce and expensive.
Poverty and food anxiety is an enormous issue in this country and it baffles me that you can't see it.
I guess we can agree to disagree. Livestock is something only the wealthy could eat daily and today we have discovered methods that allow anyone to enjoy this. This is great progress.
You’re free to choose your lifestyle of course and I’m grateful to live in a place and time where that’s possible. But I don’t subscribe to your beliefs. I have access to the same information you do. I possibly have a more critical appraisal of it and I don’t believe the hype.
People have acted like you since the dawn of time. They might be right one day but they’ve been wrong every time so far. Line the guys who claim the market is crashing every month.
A cow was worth about 10 months of skilled labor in ancient Rome [0].
If you keep the fat trim that's maybe ~600-700 pounds of usable meat.
That's about 0.01666 of a month's salary for a pound of meat. So if you were willing to spend 10% of your salary on meat, you could have a quarter pounder everyday. Not cheap, but if you really liked meat and you had a semi-skilled job you could afford to eat it everyday.
Thats an interesting way of looking at it, but seems kind of misleading to use a cow. Pigs can live anywhere and eat pretty much anything and are a much more common meat. Beef has always been a luxury meat in most places.
Wow not what I would have expected, though a lot of my intuition about Rome is probably wrong. I respect your effort in looking up ancient pork prices. I may have to change to Beefnubbins.
Cows can eat what people can't. This may have been the source of the semitic proscription on pork: that they compete with people for the same calories.
Of course now we feed cows mostly corn.
If everyone gave up eating meat from animals fed farm output, the looming climate catastrophe would just fade away.
You know, stopping climate change. The thing that's gonna keep your grandchildren from eating meat at all if people don't stop consuming so much of it.
From mine, it's something of a cosmic horror that people can think like this and be proud of themselves.
We are wreaking havoc on the Earth and all life on it; strip mining it to the bone for the shallowest purposes. And some people have this strange glee about it...
It's Lovecraftian to me. Like cultists worshipping death and darkness - literally.
Dramatic? Sure. But you're literally cheer-leading the death of billions and billions of lives as a strong economic indicator.
The fact is, we can't afford industrial farming (and many other 'indicators'). The bill is coming due for our lifestyle. Faster and closer every day.
What to you is "determination to enjoy life", reads to me as blissful ignorance - but only blissful for the ignorant.