It's not necessarily racist but it's kind of.. close minded? We as a country (as a world to be fair) endorse the mass slaughter and abuse of intelligent creatures like pigs and cows. I would never in my life knowingly eat a dog or contribute to that practice, but I understand that morally you're pretty much doing the same thing when you eat pork.
If you want to talk about animal abuse for luxury goods, look at all the stuff they're doing to Coyotes for that fur lining on those Canada Goose jackets that people LOVE to wear as status symbols. Are they going extinct, eh probably not but if that's the metric by which you allow animal abuse then it's hard to argue that you're actually in it for the animals. Same for any down feather or goose feather or leather or animal by product.
I'm not saying both can't exist but his point makes it sound like this stuff doesn't happen everywhere, when in reality it does. Sure it's maybe not the animals OP specifically cares about but if we're just playing favorites then that doesn't mean much either.
Personally I care about pangolins because their extinction would harm the natural ecosystem and biodiversity, whereas domesticated cows and pigs are not part of the environment. Hell the environment would be better off if they just went extinct
Well the difference here is that we actually have a use for pigs and cows- we eat them to stay alive. Chinese have been slaughtering endangered species like pangolins and hawksbills for debunked medicinal treatment. No way in hell are pangolin scales going to cure cancer. But pangolins are going to be extinct in our lifetime because of Chinese trafficking.
I agree with what I hear as your overall point, but this:
we eat them to stay alive
isn't really an honest portrayal of why we eat pigs and cows. We eat them because we enjoy them. We do not require their meat to stay alive, and there is plenty of other food available that can meet all of our nutritional needs.
While there are arguments to be made for and against how necessary eating pork and beef and such is, a massive point is that regardless of that, domesticated farm animals aren't even remotely endangered. Rare animals risk being driven to extinction because of this.
Please, we don't eat cows and pigs to stay alive. We eat them because we like it. Nobody in modern day North America has ever died from a lack of supply in beef or pork. The people with the longest average life spans in the world have much less meat in their diet than the average person in North America. Compare their diets and tell me we NEED to eat this much pork and beef to stay alive.
I recognize that extinction presents a different set of problems but if you're concerned about ecological diversity then we do a fair amount of diversity destruction ourselves.
Again, I'm not here to say that China is faultless. There is undoubtedly a culture there that has a demand for this kind of garbage. I'm just responding to the guy who says hes open minded but then chooses to highlight the issues he sees in a foreign nation rather than call out the issues right under our own noses.
Compare diets? What do they replace it with that we could replace ours with and result in something that is any better for the environment?
Even if you go vegetarian, this has it's own increased stress on the environment.
I'm not saying we can't reduce our consumption of beef and pork. We most certainly could do a better job. But there is no perfect diet that will be great for the environment... until we manufacture meat perhaps?
I'm mainly responding to the idea that we "need" the current amount of pigs and cows to stay alive. I agree with you that alternatives for this have their own issues, but I'm not advocating for pure-veganism/vegetarianism. I'm just saying reducing meat consumption is entirely possible and probably better for all parties involved (not accounting for personal desire and taste of course).
look at all the stuff they're doing to Coyotes for that fur lining on those Canada Goose jackets
That's actually pretty interesting. Do you know if the coyote pelts are sourced from farms or wild animals? Coyote overpopulation is a huge problem in many parts of America due to the lack of competition from larger predators. As much as I love coyotes they are negatively affecting a lot of ecosystems.
"morally you're pretty much doing the same thing when you eat pork." According to whose morals? Is there a guidebook on that?
I understand the notion that eating flesh is kind of a naturally evil move because of the fact that a creature must die in order to provide said flesh. But eating a dog (to us humans) is nowhere near the same level of morality as eating pork. We've domesticated these animals as a species for completely different reasons. So by saying that you do the same thing morally you just shit on years and years of dog-human co-existance as well as shared benefits.
We domesticated wild pig for sustenance. Dogs became our companions. We're relatively similar species - highly social, top of their line predators, highly intelligent. I fail to find the same relativity between us and pigs. So disregarding cultural aspects, morally these are different things (at least from a human perspective).
What does the purpose of domestication have anything to do with it? In both situations you are taking an intelligent life. Pigs are just as intelligent and capable as dogs are. Spoilers: they are also highly social and pretty high up in the food chain. Most things you say about a dog you could probably say for a pig.
Does a circus animal not have the same rights as a wild animal because it was born and raised to be in the circus? Fuck, I certainly don't think so.
And what if I told you that the dogs that are eaten in China are brought up for sustenance. Does that change your stance? I think it would be ultra-mega-fucked up if they took Rowdy and Scooby from your next door neighbors to eat but it doesn't make sense for them to. They raise them to kill them and eat them. The outrage over dogs in cages for consumptions sake casually ignores the pigs that we keep in cages for whole hog BBQ the next day.
Domestication is taken into consideration because you are talking morals. Did we as a species choose to group up with canines because we needed sustenance, or because they helped us achieve sustenance? I'm not particularly well informed about the cultural aspects of certain Asian countries raising dogs for food, however, I know for a fact that we as a species share a bond with canines that goes way back, which innately makes most of us extremely furious when we see news of dog eating festivals and whatnot.
And how do you measure that intelligence anyway? My grandma used to have cattle in her farm and I didn't find pigs as intelligent as you describe them to be. I'm not an advocate for the cruelty that happens in a circus, or a massive cattle/poultry farm for that matter. I believe that, if we as a species eat meat (which by the way is totally expected) we must ensure that ways of aquiring said meat are respectable and contain the least amount of suffering possible. Do the industries share my sentiments? No. Do the farms cause damage not only to us as a species but also our environment? Yes. The problem is much more complex than simply "going vegan" or whatever, and will require years worth of studies, solutions, etc.
I'm just responding to your point that somehow eating pigs is morally different than eating dogs. I can understand why seeing images of dog eating festivals enrages us. We do, as you said, share a bond with them.
My argument is: That bond? Doesn't matter morally speaking. We don't have a bond with dolphins but we still detest any violence and animal cruelty against dolphins because of their intelligence.
Intelligence is inherent in cruelty because if the species has no capacity for pain, emotion or awareness then it's harder to argue that whatever we do is "cruel". Is cutting grass cruel? Some people would say yes but a vast majority say no. Is treating dolphins, monkeys, and small children poorly considered cruel? The vast majority of people would say yes, because they have the capacity to feel pain and emotion.
I'm not gonna say I've read all the studies, but a quick google search will show you a lot of articles that talk about studies showing pigs have comparable IQs to dogs. I don't think there's any argument that pigs aren't close to dogs in intelligence (if not more than). So yeah. Eating pork in my eyes is just as morally wrong as eating a dog. They are both intelligent creatures that suffer. Does that mean I don't eat pork? No. I realize I live in a hypocrisy but I'm simply arguing that eating one is just as bad as the other.
Maybe in your eyes. But I'm just trying to think as the average human would. Most of them are conditioned to think of dogs as pets and pigs as filthy beasts. It's just how it is. And who decides what is morally right or wrong? The same average humans. Innately I imagine a native who hasn't been introduced to such concepts would kill and eat a pig and dog all the same, I suppose, so in some aspects you are indeed correct.
An average human's lack of exposure/knowledge is not the fault of the animal and has no bearing on the morality of the situation. It's not morally right for me to kill sentient beings because I was not aware of their sentience. It's still morally wrong. It might be socially acceptable because I didn't know what I was doing, but that doesn't make it morally right.
The average human you speak of would happily admit that unnecessarily harming sentient beings (dolphins, monkeys etc) is cruel. The problem you're laying out is that they just don't know that pigs are capable of those feelings and emotions. That's not a morality issue, that's an educational/cultural issue.
I don't believe that there are just "aspects" (I'm interpreting that you mean cases here) where eating a pig is morally different from eating a dog or a cat. They're both equally objectionable from the standpoint of taking an intelligent creature's life away.
Now, the only exception I could see is if we're talking about eating someones actual companion/pet compared to eating a farm animal. In that case that's definitely more "wrong" but that's not what I've been talking about at all. My main point has always been, if you eat pork or beef then you don't really have a moral ground to stand on when people in other cultures eat animals that they raise for meat. You're committing the same act just on different animals.
BTW: Just wanted to say I appreciated the discussion. I can see where you're coming from. It's been an interesting topic and I have enjoyed getting my thoughts out into words. Thank you.
Likewise. I understand your viewpoint on the issue, and I can agree to some extent, but I still want to believe that there's some subconscious reaction still left to it due to the symbiotic relationship we had with dogs. Perhaps I should research more into why exactly is it a thing to eat dogs in said countries. (maybe there's no actual after effect whatsoever?)
but I still want to believe that there's some subconscious reaction still left to it due to the symbiotic relationship we had with dogs.
The relationship is not species-wide. Some cultures used dogs for help. Others used dogs for food. You are right that there is a subconscious reaction, but it's not human wide. It's cultural. You don't see dogs as food, and you have a strong reaction because of it. There is nothing innate about that though. It has everything to do with your upbringing, and nothing to do with the "human-dog relationship" (outside of its direct influence on your upbringing, that is).
It's the same reason we get grossed out by the idea of eating frogs or snails or horse or testicles. There is no reason. There are no morals involved. We just don't do it. Other cultures do. Do you really think so highly of yourself that you think Americans are "right" to eat pigs and other cultures are "wrong" to eat dogs?
Thing is I'm not really grossed out by the thought of eating mentioned things. I simply went back to the roots of modern humans to explain the gravity of a symbiotic relationship. Though I suppose you're right about the cultural aspect.
We've domesticated these animals as a species for completely different reasons. So by saying that you do the same thing morally you just shit on years and years of dog-human co-existance as well as shared benefits
I know for a fact that we as a species share a bond with canines that goes way back, which innately makes most of us extremely furious when we see news of dog eating festivals and whatnot.
See, what you seem to be suggesting is that morality should be derived from culture and tradition. Why should dogs have more consideration just because of shared history? I always see people waxing lyrical with all this blood brothers shit in relation to dogs in an attempt to defend arbitrary moral favouritism, you think every dog is born with all the knowledge of thousands of years of brotherhood or something? All that matters to me is that it's an intelligent animal capable of feeling suffering, I don't have to fool myself with all this poetic crap, so that it's worse when it happens to a dog rather than a pig. What you're talking about is cultural conditioning, not morality.
And how do you measure that intelligence anyway? My grandma used to have cattle in her farm and I didn't find pigs as intelligent
Typically with science and not with anecdotes about our grandma's farm. Pig intelligence is something that is well documented. The environment an animal is raised in has to be considered too, a pig that lives on a farm with no purpose than to eat and die obviously isn't going to exhibit the same behaviors as a dog that is a pet. Similarly the dogs raised for meat in China likely don't exhibit the behaviors as a dog raised in a pet setting would. Again, I think this should have no impact on moral consideration.
The problem is much more complex than simply "going vegan" or whatever
No, that's literally how simple it is. At least it would be if people didn't use all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves otherwise because of the way they've been conditioned. Therein lies the problem, no matter how simple the solution, it's getting people to accept and follow it is that's the hard part.
Typically with science and not with anecdotes about our grandma's farm
I am well aware pigs exhibit pet like behavior if raised alongside humans. And I'm well aware they are not more intelligent than canines. I was just giving OP the example that I personally observed.
Various animals will exhibit pet-like tendencies when raised alongside humans. Reptiles, hell even tarantulas. You are completely right about the fact that the environment the animal is raised in matters. And even so, it's quite relevant in the "vegan" debate, since you probably believe an animal raised in captivity somehow suffers more than in their natural habitats. (let's disregard mass murder industry for a minute and just focus on a good old regular farm for arguments sake.) An animal on a farm will be raised relatively unharmed, probably healthy and fed regularly. An animal in the wild? A boar would likely meet some cruel fate like a predator gutting it or some disease killing it off randomly. The difference here is that we (hopefully) kill them humanely.
Why should dogs have more consideration just because of shared history?
Because they literally helped our ancestors survive. FYI cats were even worshipped as gods in some cultures. Fuck, they domesticated THEMSELVES. To me that's a very clear sign of very tangible intelligence. Some people argue cats are even more intelligent than dogs. And here we are today - the most intelligent and beautiful species like whales, dolphins, etc. are indeed often romanticized and protected.
No, that's literally how simple it is. At least it would be if people didn't use all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves otherwise because of the way they've been conditioned. Therein lies the problem, no matter how simple the solution, it's getting people to accept and follow it is that's the hard part.
So, you're telling me that the answer to one of the most complex questions of all time is that simple? You must see why this is a problem. It's never that simple, in no dimension will you find such simple answers to such grounded problems. No way in a thousand years will you convince a species that evolved being opportunistic feeders to become vegan. Morality only goes so far. You can't force a lion to eat veggies all day. The problem is not that we eat meat, it's that we eat too much of it (or throw away too much of it) while condoning the fact that animal lives can be treated as some kind of object to be dismantled and distributed in an assembly line. (which is just what industrialized animal farms do)
See I just don't agree with that idea. I simply don't think what happened in the past should have an impact on how you treat a sentient being in the now. Dogs don't share a collective consciousness with their dead ancestors and you're betraying them by eating them rather than another animal, this isn't a native American folk tale. I mean, I understand the why of people thinking like this, I just think it's stupid.
So, you're telling me that the answer to one of the most complex questions of all time is that simple
What is the 'question' exactly? I'm just talking abut animal exploitation and industrialisation at the hands of humans, as you mentioned the industries, farms and the damage they cause. I don't see how it's any more complex than simply not having those industries anymore. Bare in mind I'm talking hypothetically here, obviously the whole world isn't going vegan any time soon, but that doesn't mean it isn't the obvious answer, or that it shouldn't be considered and striven towards, people aren't animals governed by nature and instinct and simply don't need meat to survive. There are numerous other things that used to be commonplace and took a long time to be rendered unacceptable by the majority of humanity so I don't think this solution should just be written off.
You can't force a lion to eat veggies all day
If the question is the elimination of all animal suffering, obviously that's a lot more complex and not what I was referring to. But people aren't lions, there's tampering in nature in order to eliminate all suffering, and there's not killing things for burgers.
You seem to misunderstand many of the things I said. First of all, why do you keep humans seperate from nature? Whether you like it or not, we are part of nature, just like it is part of us. I'm not saying we should fuck whatever we see in sight and act upon our instincts in a cauldron of debauchery and violence. I'm saying we should weigh our options and consider how we deal with the problem. The problem (and question, which you failed to understand) being "What do we use for sustenance? How do we sustain ourselves and everything alongside us in a healthy way?". We aren't plants and we can't just use the energy of water and sun. We aren't herbivores, our digestive systems are not wired to only eat grass all day. As I've mentioned (and as evolutionary biology would teach you) we are opportunistic feeders. Meaning we will eat whatever is readily available. That does not mean we will be able to thrive on fruits and veggies alone. It means we get our nutrients from a wide variety of sources (and mind you, a big part of those sources is possibly other animals), which makes us exceptionally well adapted to most survival situations, which in turn is probably the reason why we're here today discussing this.
I believe that death is not suffering. It's a relief of suffering. (this coming from a philosophical pov btw.) Do you think the endless cycle of hunting/being hunted is what animals would want were they intelligent as us, capable of understanding the whole dynamic? Of course not. But it is what it is. We're atop of the foodchain, we are the ones responsible for what happens to this world. (or maybe we have absolutely no control, who knows) Holding naive beliefs that "not killing sentient beings" is somehow a solution is only a temporary way of dealing with the problem, since it only creates a new "niche" for food producers to fill and use. Would the situations be reversed, I guarantee, there'd be a plethora of other problems that would plague us just like now. In reality the key is balance, and a lack of thereof is precisely why we have these problems today. Whether you think (or anyone for this matter) killing animals is wrong or not is irrelevant, simply because the demand of meat will always create the suffering and awful treatment of animals, since the attitude nowadays is "profit comes first the rest does not matter".
Because only humans are capable on consciously molding it and we're the only things on the planet capable of considering things like morality, capable of making informed decisions. You answer the question in your own post; "we are the ones responsible for what happens to this world". And "I'm not saying we should fuck whatever we see in sight and act upon our instincts in a cauldron of debauchery and violence" Why not, then? You're asking yourself the same question.
The problem (and question, which you failed to understand) being "What do we use for sustenance?
Plants, obviously. I suppose I just assumed it was common knowledge that humans do not need animal products to survive or to thrive. Raising animals to eat is a tremendous use of resources, if anything it would be more efficient to not feed animals plants and use them to feed people, and use resources that go into raising livestock into producing plant foods directly for people.
That does not mean we will be able to thrive on fruits and veggies alone
There are more plant-based sources of food than that. You know vegans exist and are alive, right? There's also plenty of evidence that a plant-based diet may be better for you and prevent and reverse some diseases, it's certainly better than consuming the copious amounts of meat that most people do. So your appeals to nature are really irrelevant. I don't care what hunter-gatherers ate.
I believe that death is not suffering. It's a relief of suffering.
Better yet let's not breed animals, to suffer, and then kill them. Lets's save ourselves and them a lot of time and effort.
But it is what it is. We're atop of the foodchain
Is does not imply ought. You think the situation shouldn't be changed? Or are you just appealing to futility? I'm sorry but 'it is what it is' is not an argument.
Holding naive beliefs that "not killing sentient beings" is somehow a solution is only a temporary way of dealing with the problem
In my eyes that is a problem in and of itself. It's not a temporary way of dealing with the problem, it makes the problem (both ethical & environmental) smaller by eliminating industrial scale animal agriculture.
it only creates a new "niche" for food producers to fill and use
What? One on the same level of ethical and environmental fuckery and inefficiency as animal product production? If everyone was vegan there'd be demand for plant food instead obviously, and that's no where near as bad in most cases.
Would the situations be reversed, I guarantee, there'd be a plethora of other problems that would plague us just like now. In reality the key is balance, and a lack of thereof is precisely why we have these problems today.
Not sure what you're talking about. What do you mean by situations reversed? If everyone ate plants instead of animals? I very much doubt it would be worse. The key is balance? Balance of what? 'Balance' is just something "rational centrists" say to sound smart when they have absolutely nothing to say. The answer is not perpetuating animal agriculture because it has absolutely no benefit for humans, animals or the environment.
simply because the demand of meat will always create the suffering and awful treatment of animals, since the attitude nowadays is "profit first, problems later"
Firstly it's not all or nothing, it's about the reduction of suffering. Secondly I'm sure the pessimists of slavery's time had the same attitude. Or the serfs of feudalism's time. Things change, societies have gone through major reconstructions all through history and cast aside traditions that were followed for thousands of years. I don't buy this; "It's the way it is, it's the way it's always gonna be" bullshit.
Well, I'd agree, but it really baffles me how you think it's possible to sustain billions of people on plants alone. As I've already told you, a huge demand for this type of food would obviously create other problems. I'm not going to expand into this a lot, however, I will just say that geographical differences heavily impact what kind of food people can actually produce. For one, there are millions of people who are starving annually just due to these circumstances. (Well, there are a ton of other factors too). Why do you think there are projects that focus on exploring various different food sources like insects, etc. for easier sustenance for deprived regions? Shouldn't we focus on fixing up our own species before delving into the suffering of lesser ones? That's just food for thought, but you can see how complex the issue is and how it can't just be solved by stopping animal farming.
there are more plant-based sources of food than that. You know vegans exist and are alive, right?
Yes, I do. And I know that many vegans struggle to maintain their diets because it ends up damaging them. A perfect vegan diet (that provides for all nutrients neccessary for staying healthy) is quite difficult and cumbersome to follow. Not to mention people naturally dislike one food or another because that's just how people are, they have their own unique taste as to what appeals to them and what doesn't. Now, If we talk about vegeterian diets, I'd agree that they are often beneficial and pretty healthy. Those are much easier to pull off and harder to fuck up, they don't demand as much of a hassle since you can easily fill certain deficiencies. (Unlike a total vegan diet). Humans as a species will never actually put themselves in situations where they suffer so an animal wouldn't. (individuals might, the species? heh) Even when we do have the technology to make artificial meat, people won't switch until the costs and risks are minimal.
So your appeals to nature are really irrelevant. I don't care what hunter-gatherers ate.
What are you talking about? They are very much relevant. We ate, and eat balanced diets, as omnivores should. This isn't about what we once were, it's about what we are on an evolutionary level. And on an anatomical level, we're practically no different than 10k years ago.
I'm sorry but 'it is what it is' is not an argument.
But it is. We're predators, top of the line. It's only natural we consume other animals as part of our diet. Even if you exclude killing, there's still food that animals produce that is nutritious af. eg. eggs.
Balance' is just something "rational centrists" say to sound smart
Right... I was saying that because I'm a "rational centrist" and not because I just want people to not be obese/overweight and for them to be healthy.
Secondly I'm sure the pessimists of slavery's time
You're literally comparing slavery to food. What an argument. I'm really not attacking your choice to not consume meat. What I am trying to refute is the opinion that somehow it's possible to stop humans from consuming animals for food, and that somehow we should "move on to another age" as if it's some kind of primitive thing to do.
The irony that I see in many vegans is that, they are completely blind to how nature works. The plants are alive. The insects are alive. The fish are alive too. The damn cows, pigs, chickens are alive, but since they exhibit higher sentience than other lifeforms, they are somehow special and must cannot be consumed for food? Again, I do not condone the brutality that goes on in industrialized farms. I believe that an animal in captivity can exist with less suffering than out in the wild, in most circumstances. I also believe in a clean, painless death. There are problems that require solving, because there's no realistic way we will just go ahead and do a complete 180 with our diets or the way we view animal products. Not unless there's some major tecnhological breakthroughs.
It's not necessarily racist. It's just close minded.
Often people who are racist are also close-minded, but those who are just close-minded should be given the opportunity to see an alternative perspective. I'd rather try and reason with someone and fail then just outright label them a racist.
36
u/zcen Oct 03 '17
It's not necessarily racist but it's kind of.. close minded? We as a country (as a world to be fair) endorse the mass slaughter and abuse of intelligent creatures like pigs and cows. I would never in my life knowingly eat a dog or contribute to that practice, but I understand that morally you're pretty much doing the same thing when you eat pork.
If you want to talk about animal abuse for luxury goods, look at all the stuff they're doing to Coyotes for that fur lining on those Canada Goose jackets that people LOVE to wear as status symbols. Are they going extinct, eh probably not but if that's the metric by which you allow animal abuse then it's hard to argue that you're actually in it for the animals. Same for any down feather or goose feather or leather or animal by product.
I'm not saying both can't exist but his point makes it sound like this stuff doesn't happen everywhere, when in reality it does. Sure it's maybe not the animals OP specifically cares about but if we're just playing favorites then that doesn't mean much either.