> Tahlequah is using much of her energy to cling to the dead calf, which weighs about 300 pounds, and she is unable to forage for food, scientists said during a news briefing on Thursday. They said that her closely knit pod was supporting her. Other female orcas, especially her sister, have been observed to be consistently at her side.
Utterly tragic. It's also singularly evil the devastation humans have brought to some of the hyperintelligent species on the planet.
I always have mixed feelings about this. It's sad. But how is her pod supporting her exactly? Are they bringing her food? If so is that food the dead offspring of other animals? I feel these kinds of stories often have a kind of selective empathy for the focused animal. Ultimately nature is extraordinarily cruel absent humans; imo humans are the only hope for something better, if such a thing even makes sense.
I've recently taken up hunting, mostly because my rural family prioritizes it.
The natural world is full of unimaginable cruelty. Wolves will take down young deer and eat them alive while parents watch. Bears will pin down whatever they can catch and who cares if it is alive. On and on, the amount of bloodshed required to support an omnivore/carnivore is simply bananas. Killer whales are hyper-intelligent aquatic nightmares, imho, that thankfully have not decided to eat humans.
We, humans, made the following bargain with nature, at least until recently: We will drive away the predators that keep you in constant alert and savage your children, and in exchange we will determine how and when you die (quickly, but perhaps also fearfully).
I agree - we can carefully manage the wilderness for our own benefit, and that may take away the randomized killings. But there is _no_ version of a carnivore or meat-eating omnivore that does not involve killing and savagery and disregard for the life that has been reduced to just a link in the grass-to-meat or plankton-to-meat foodchain.
I've come to terms with that and continue to eat meat.
> We will drive away the predators that keep you in constant alert and savage your children, and in exchange we will determine how and when you die (quickly, but perhaps also fearfully).
Maybe once in the past, or in places that still graze their animals. I don't think the average factory farm situation can be framed as mutually beneficial for the animals.
I interpreted that as being about deer more so than livestock. If humans didn’t harvest deer to manage the population, there would be mass starvation deaths every winter.
And wasting disease - that's not a pretty way to go.
Cats and raccoons, at the very least, frequently kill just for fun. We chicken owners, for some mysterious reason, get very attached to those silly little dinosaurs and it is not unusual at all for a raccoon to come in and just bat the heads off the chickens without eating anything.
> But there is _no_ version of a carnivore or meat-eating omnivore that does not involve killing and savagery
Absolute statements are not useful in this context. Vultures are obligate scavengers who eat the flesh of already dead animals as a practice. The dead animal could be due to death from natural causes (diseases, old age, injury, poisoning, starvation) or hunting by other animals. So there are some versions.
Also, as a couple of examples, the animal world is not one that has consent to sexual intercourse or empathy in killing an offspring who’s not their own. So your (or our) morals cannot be absolute for one purpose (killing an animal to eat the flesh) while being considerate for other aspects. In other words, we don’t gain much by pointing to the non-human world as a justification or excuse for our actions.
> empathy in killing an offspring who’s not their own
As well as their own: "numerous studies support the correlation between postpartum depression (PPD) and lack of social support or indicators of possible infant health and development problems. PPD may be an adaptation that informs mothers that they are suffering or have suffered a fitness cost, which motivates them to reduce or eliminate investment in offspring under certain circumstances, and that may help them negotiate greater levels of investment from other [1].
More broadly, "the analytical rumination (AR) hypothesis proposes that depression is an adaptation that evolved as a response to complex problems and whose function is to minimize disruption of rumination and sustain analysis of complex problems" [2].
[1] https://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/documents/316/Hagen_1999_Th...
Focusing on edge cases doesn't change the overall tendency of nature being savage and cruel. Even herbivores like cows or horses will sometimes eat small animals given the chance. Even the humble mold, fungus, and bacteria will happily eat you alive given the chance.
Surviving in nature is outcompeting others, regardless of how fair it seems to our current culture.
Interpret my statement as a contrast to the disconnect the usual person has from bloodshed and killing, vs one who experiences it first hand or is aware of it.
Not to justify humans eating meat or killing, just to say "wow, there's a lot of it". That's the stage I'm at.
I thought that would be obvious when I went on to talk about how things are "better" because we kill them quickly vs wolves who disregard the feelings of their food, which I think is a good thing. Humans attempt (for the most part), to inflict minimal suffering when killing. We probably also drive off predators. We also try to abstain from killing young animals (at least before industrialized farming).
One can care about the anthropomorphized "feelings" of animals whether or not they are subject to any of our "morals".
Great counterpoint, re: vultures.
But, life on earth evolved with predators in the mix. I’d be curious to know what life would look like without the presence of predators during evolution. Or, which set of life would be more evolutionarily successful: creatures from evolution w/ predators vs. creatures evolution w/o predators. Sounds like a great topic for Primer [0].
Last, to push back, I don’t think the parent comment was using the brutality of nature as an excuse for their actions. They said it helped them understand/come to terms with their hunting behavior, of which is totally natural.
I'm not a vegetarian etc., but you could argue that humans are both the only hope for something different, but also the only species capable of a particular sort of cruelty that comes from the society we live in for animals and other people.
That is, animals may kill to eat, but humans slaughter animals to get tastier/more convenient/etc., food.
The shark is often killed already prior to the liver being eaten. If it isn't, then it would certainly die very soon after. The shark liver is one of the most calorie dense things in the animal kingdom and accounts for a quarter of the shark's weight. Orcas eat it because it's fairly easy for them to kill sharks and the calorie intake. Orcas are much bigger, faster, stronger, and smarter than sharks. They do it for survival.
Not to mention that the rest of the shark is perfectly recycled by the ecosystem.
I've never heard of anyone eating live cow. And if I go shoot a cow and walk away, all parts will be perfectly recycled by the ecosystem.
I don't really understand how what you said relates to taste, convenience, or cruelty.
What options does an orca have? How is it cruel that they eat a shark? Have you ever even seen the cow, chicken, pig, etc. farms that are in use today? It's not like these animals are living in fairy-tale meadows all their life before they're killed.
And no, if everyone ate cows that way, they would not be perfectly recycled by the ecosystem. These out of context arguments are never useful because they sideline the facts, the scale and population of humans being the relevant ones here.
Spot on. The whole world is in a constant state of SNAFU. That is the sole truth I’ve understood from many years of pondering and soul searching. To make sense of this world (and the universe) beyond our limited means of comprehension is a futile attempt. Everything is relative - compassion, love, hurt, morality. One being’s loss is anothers’ blessing (food).
I’m also not so hopeful about humans. A simple example: the way we mass produce and slaughter animals for food is beyond cruel. It’s impossible to not be on the wrong side of some argument if you look hard enough. No matter how ethical you are. I am honestly convinced the world just is. We give meaning to things to live as a civilization (and avoid conflict) but the universe/nature/world probably doesn’t give a shit.
In case I wasn’t clear, I asked ChatGPT to explain what I wrote above. I think it did a pretty good job:
This reflection expresses a deeply existential and relativistic view of the world. Here’s a breakdown:
1. SNAFU as the Status Quo: The term SNAFU (Situation Normal, All Fouled Up) suggests that chaos, dysfunction, and disorder are inherent to the world. It implies acceptance that imperfection and unpredictability are the norm, not the exception.
2. Limits of Comprehension: The belief that trying to make sense of the world or universe is futile arises from recognizing the limitations of human cognition and perspective. This acknowledges that meaning, morality, and truth are often constructs rather than absolutes.
3. Relativity of Values: Concepts like compassion, love, morality, and even suffering are seen as subjective. They are shaped by context and perspective—what benefits one being might harm another, exemplified by the food chain.
4. Critique of Human Ethics: The example of industrial animal farming underscores a broader disillusionment with humanity’s moral contradictions. Even well-intentioned actions can have unintended, unethical consequences, leading to the view that absolute moral “rightness” is unattainable.
5. Indifference of the Universe: The idea that the universe “doesn’t give a shit” challenges the anthropocentric tendency to project meaning onto existence. This highlights the randomness and indifference of nature, leaving humans to assign purpose to their actions as a way of coping.
6. Civilization as a Construct: Meaning and morality are framed as tools for societal cohesion and conflict avoidance, rather than intrinsic truths. This echoes a nihilistic perspective where life “just is,” devoid of inherent purpose or universal justice.
It reflects a worldview shaped by realism, skepticism, and existential questioning, wrestling with the contradictions of human morality and the indifferent nature of existence.
I actually love doing this, and then having ChatGPT alternatively criticize and support it preferentially leaning towards established fields. I.e. "This thing you've said is a deeply researched and discussed topic named X". Thanks for sharing.
> imo humans are the only hope for something better, if such a thing even makes sense.
Humans are the number one cause of environmental destruction and animal and plant suffering on Earth that is completely out of whack with what it takes for humans to live. All of the "hope for something better" you refer to are for humans to solve less than 1% that we have ourselves caused in the first place.
Oddly enough, I started thinking more like this.
I think it's because I've felt discriminated against myself and thinking about ways in which I myself discriminate against certain animals such as cows, pigs and chickens helps me to put it into perspective.
That said, my moral framework is consistent because it's based on intelligence. I will not eat dolphin or killer whale.
Among humans, I often find myself tolerating intelligent jerks, for the same reason.
I started penalizing for evil more strongly in recent years though. Before that, I subconsciously assumed that there was an inverse correlation between intelligence and evil, but it has come to my awareness that it's not the case. Reality is that, as intelligence goes up, evil, if present, gets better at hiding.
And yet nature has historically found balance. Humans, on a large scale, seem incapable of doing the same. At this point humans have become a perpetual extinction event with no end in sight.
Humans might accelerate changes, but everything in nature is always in flux. Even without humans, there is no reason a cosmic or terrestrial event can’t change the way things are, or an insect plague, or a virus or bacteria, etc.
every flower throws shade on another flower and that war we call peaceful nature.
can't agree more !!!
Yes, it made me think about animals panicking so much before slaughter that they often have heart attacks. And dairy cows who have their babies slaughtered who cry for weeks. Maybe these are apocryphal stories, but we are very much trained to believe we shouldn’t anthropomorphise animals. I hope that we are able to grow meat in a way without suffering as soon as possible.
As someone who has worked on farms i can verify that such things happen. I personally witnessed sheep behaving exactly as decided in The Silence of the Lambs. Our sheep were famously noisy and certainly were used to being moved around in lorries but when the abattoir lorry turned up you could almost smell their fear. I also witnessed a cow storm through four fences in order to be reunited with her calf.
The irony: The farm was run by vegetarians and as the only meat eater it became my responsibility to oversee any time an animal was taken to slaughter. This simultaneously put me off meat eating and vegetarians.
It’s ironic how accepted vegetarians, who have a dietary preference, are in society, and how hated vegans, who have an ethical argument against unnecessary killing of sentient animals, are in society.
I only turned vegan a couple of years ago as something clicked and I was able to make the connection between the food I was eating and the animals who were being killed, almost certainly unnecessarily, for that food. But before then I disliked vegans a lot, and was completely fine with vegetarians. I’m honestly unable to reconcile my thinking.
It’s kind of like how I don’t understand how I strongly believed in god before I lost faith. Now the idea that I ever could, or ever did, believe in a personal god seems unbelievable to me.
Human psychology is ridiculously interesting.
My assumption is that the weight of including vegans socially is too much to bear for some. On the extreme end, you can't use store pasta because it was made in a facility that processes eggs and dairy. But even on the lighter end, social eating modification is pretty extreme: don't use butter when cooking, or eggs, or honey, etc. It's a lot easier to accommodate vegetarians than vegans.
Though I do have a vegan friend that always brings her own food to gatherings, and it does make things far easier.
butter is one of the most easily substituted things around and most vegans i know don’t care about honey.
definitely more restrictive but i think the dairy/cheese thing is the big one
people also feel that vegans are judging them morally and people are very defensive about their eating habit, hence the dislike
depends what you’re trying to do. there are plenty of alternatives for spreading on toast or frying/sauteing. but it’s still a pretty central ingredient for western cuisine. I have no idea how I’d make a vegan roux, just for example. my guess is that would break the illusion of whipped margarine pretty quickly.
I've made plenty of vegan rouxs, but I also don't have much experience making non-vegan roux... so hard for me to give an honest comparison.
Margarine burns more easily but this hasn't been a problem for me, so I imagine you are talking mostly about flavor difference or?
The problem with veganism is that, unless you grow your own food, it does not change the fact that an immense amount of pain and suffering is inflicted on other beings in the production and transportation of the food you eat. It's pure virtue signaling. If they genuinely cared about minimizing suffering, they'd be Jains, not vegans.
I think you didn’t understand veganism: the goal is not to remove all suffering but to reduce it by finding ways that are still practicable, without major economic, pleasure or whatever downside. All vegans kill insects when they walk in the wood but stoping walking altogether would make their life miserable. On the other hand, eating plants and mushroom is quite enjoyable when you get used to it. And it certainly remove a bug part of suffering inflicted. Think Pareto.
I don’t think jainism can be applied without changing your life altogether and removing many thinks you used to.
uhhhh explain?
is there some extreme amount of suffering that goes into the production of root vegetables because afaik that’s the only distinction between jainism and veganism?
Maybe the temporary foreign worker living in economic servitude to the farm that guarantees their job. /s
For many, perfect is the enemy of the good. Either you remove all suffering or you're a hypocrite. Meanwhile us that genuinely care about our impact on the environment make incremental changes to reduce our negative impact.
This is just from my personal experience, but as someone who is very sympathetic to the moral/ethical arguments from vegans but is not vegan themselves (though did try it out for a bit, lost a dangerous amount of weight and developed an intolerance to potatoes which further reduces available food to absurd levels sine potatoes are in tons of vegan food), is that it's the minority of vocal/aggressive vegans that have largely (though certainly not entirely) caused the poor reception.
My reasoning: People don't like to be judged (at all, but especially when the data behind the judgment is not so clear cut correct), and even just being in the presence of vegans can make some people feel judged. Even if the vegan says nothing, people can feel like they're being judged (to be clear, this is not the vegan's fault!). Now, add a small but vocal and aggressive minority of vegans who will explicitly judge/criticize, and you have a recipe for contention. It shouldn't be this way IMHO, but it's human nature.
The problem I have always had with veganism, as someone who has had stints of vegetarianism, is the absurdity of certain restrictions. Milk, I can agree, is bad because of how it's derived. Honey and eggs (sourced ethically) are a restriction I cannot stand behind. I think the dislike of self-labeled vegans is aligned with someone publicizing an extreme decision.
eggs could easily have multiple arguments for it, honey i’ve personally never met someone who was vegan who didn’t have honey
As an anecdote, I'm nearly vegan and don't have honey.
I think it's interesting how easy it is to criticize veganism as extreme when, to me (and in many anecdotes here and in the rest of the world) it is actually the result of trying to reconcile all my actions behind the same non-controversial principles.
Maybe "rigid" vs loose/flexible would be a better description but that isn't how it feels to people; vegans just existing conjures feelings of disdain and dismissals of extremism (I felt that way before as well, just like some other commenters on here).
In a general sense, people absolutely hate being told to change or that they have been wrong about something. It puts our backs up immediately and it fires up an emotional storm to start invalidating what they imply about us.
We're fascinating as humans.
At the risk of this devolving into a typical online veganism argument: why are eggs bad? Say I keep 3 chickens in a coop in my backyard. They're going to produce unfertilized eggs that will just go to waste
To keep it from devolving, I invite you to search for existing arguments in a search engine of your choice.
However, in a show of good-faith, here are 2 answers to your question:
1. Male chicks of laying varieties are ground in a macerator shortly after hatching. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_culling In your fantasy, you could get around this by getting a rooster and breeding your own hens for eggs, but then what will you do with the non-laying males? What about hens who stop laying? Keep in mind, their natural lifespan is 5-10 years.
2. Hens have been bred to produce exponentially more eggs than in the wild. Wild hens lay around 10-20 eggs per year. Domestic hens lay around 250. This development can lead to osteoporosis.
1. I have personally never met someone who only eats backyard eggs. The conditions of commercial egg producers are well documented.
2. You are still essentially using another living being for resources. Why keep the chickens in the first place? They are only going to waste because you bought the chickens in the first place, probably also from an industrial breeder, essentially subsidizing the industry.
3. If your way of producing eggs is more ethical, you could sell your backyard eggs to displace the (pretty awful) commercial producers rather than eating them yourself.
I agree that the case against exclusively consuming your own backyard eggs is weaker, but I also don’t think we are describing a considerable proportion of actual egg consumers in the West.
1. how? healthy chickens lay an egg every 1-2 days. a small number of chickens produce more than enough for an entire household. everyone I know who keeps chickens gives most of the eggs away.
2. chickens are the ultimate garbage disposal. you can feed them any excess food from your household and they turn it into fresh eggs.
3. see 1. the volume of eggs gets out of control fast, but not quite on the scale that it’s viable for random people to build an FDA compliant business out of it. it’s hard to get rid of all of them, even for free.
1 -> Sure, but are they declining the omelette when they're out for brunch?
2 -> I think the subsidy point still stands.
3 -> Totally agreed but I think your point about giving away eggs applies just as much, any eggs you eat rather than give away are just going to be an additional egg from the chicken CAFOs or at best case a fractional additional egg from the CAFOs.
But I certainly agree that this is among the instances where the case is weaker.
There is a summary of veganism that follows the principle that we shouldn't take sentient things and change their lives for our own ends. There are several important bits and nuances but the overarching point is to not have a world view where you see anything and prioritize what you can get out of it, regardless of the suffering you cause. Sometimes you hear it summarized as "they arent here for us".
It is an interesting philosophical bit and it combines pretty standard modern morality with a pointed concept of not discriminating by species and instead trying to use the ability to suffer as when you decide if you should exploit something. In this paradigm the reasons not to rape or enslave people are the same as the reasons not to rape or enslave other animals.
This still has plenty of inconsistencies and weird bits, both theoretically and practically. Silly questions like eating braindead people stymie both sides until you get into the weeds about stuff like dignity. Would the theoretical cows in the hitchhikers guide that WANT to be eaten be ok to eat? Is it ok to have second hand animal products, especially if they are high quality and will prevent additional exploitation/consumption?
One of the most sticky conundrums I personally chew on is if this means we should actively try to prevent suffering, not just choose to personally try to avoid causing it. If the former, that means trying to make other people change their beliefs and behave in a way that is pretty objectively worse for them in society, which starts to edge toward causing suffering if you squint. It is easy to fall into trying to reason about which suffering is worse which is a terrible minefield where everybody loses. It's easy to SAY I value something no longer being tortured over my taste preference but is there a logical framework for that that can ever be objective and applied to harder problems? If it is only subjective then what makes it better than any other decision - people decide to eat pigs but not dogs every day but there is no more OR LESS reason behind that than the claim above. There might be answers but I haven't found them to be easy to pin down which is especially interesting because of how strongly I feel that not caring any hurting things is bad.
tl;dr being vegan sucks
I think we can agree humans tend to see reducing suffering as a good thing, and that people who we believe have caused suffering are viewed with disdain. With that in mind, here's a framework: "given two choices, is there a choice that 1) reduces suffering, and 2) is not prohibitively expensive (or in some other way too difficult to make)". "Too difficult" or "too expensive" is obviously subjective, but I don't think having objective definitions is necessary here.
An analogy that I like to illustrate this is: going shopping for clothes vs going shopping for food. Both tend to have ethics attached to them, e.g. with child labor for production of clothing, and slaughtering of animals for production of food. If you walk into a store to buy new clothes, and there are 2 sections of the store, 1 for clothes that were produced using child labor, and 1 for clothes that weren't, and both sections had clothes of the same price and quality, the decision of which section to shop in is very logical. This is how I see going shopping for food- you have sections for food that were produced using factory farming, and sections for food that weren't. Both sources of food are the same price and quality. So the decision to make about which source of food to buy is, again, a logical one. It's also a decision that most people in the developed world have to make every week, at least people who live in cities and do their shopping at grocery stores.
While we unfortunately don't have visibility into whether our clothing is produced with child labor, many of us do know if our food comes from factory farms. In the US, the estimate is that over 95% of meat sold in grocery stores is factory-farmed. Why make the decision to buy that if you could easily avoid it?
Because people lie to make money and keeping up with everything is exhausting. Free-range is a term regulated by the FDA but who knows the last time a regulator came by and checked the farm that the chicken came from? How do you tell the difference between a farmer that actually cares and is doing their best to be free range, and a farmer that's doing the bare minimum to meet that regulated standard when you're in the supermarket looking at a package? Is there a difference between meeting the minimum because you really care about chicken vs meeting the minimum because you care more about money? Why is the minimum in the regulation set at that level?
But more unfortunately though, they're not the same price and quality. Whole Foods is called Whole Paycheck for a reason. I can get cheaper food from a different store that's good enough.
Sorry, when I was comparing the foods, I was talking about meat versus plant-based foods. The point I was trying to make is that buying plant-based can be framed as a logical decision.
Actually there’s many people defining vegan that eat eggs (me) and honey (many vegans). Vegans aren’t as extremist as people see them or as common dictionaries define them. Most don’t define themselves by « I don’t consume any animal product whatsoever », of if they do it’s just a simplification.
For the think you feel absurds:
- honey is usually done by placing queen in a room she can’t escape. Also the honey is stolen of the bees. They didn’t choose to be here and they don’t work in the purpose of human eating it. Live it in the nest and they won’t make so much honey. Less bees will die of exhaust also. I got a neighbor that participate in « honey in the village » program. She’s not vegan or vegetarian in any way. Once she saw what’s happening she decided to not harvest. It’s still a delicious product with many nutritious benefits and the bees doesn’t suffer as much as other livestocks so many vegans choose to eat it (again veganism is not about perfection or absolutism)
- I don’t know what eggs production you consider ethical. In my country, the best quality eggs you can fin in the supermarkets comes from chickens that were born in the exact same factory farms as factory chickens In the case of personal backyard poultry it really depends what’s your ethical stance. I often see people that have them in a cage not so big, with no grass (chickens destroy the grass!), no trees, etc… that’s better that a factory but it’s still a miserable cage life. When I go in a farmers market and see someone selling "fallibly farms backyard eggs" I have no way to asses how they live.
> I don’t know what eggs production you consider ethical. In my country, the best quality eggs you can fin in the supermarkets comes from chickens that were born in the exact same factory farms as factory chickens In the case of personal backyard poultry it really depends what’s your ethical stance. I often see people that have them in a cage not so big, with no grass (chickens destroy the grass!), no trees, etc… that’s better that a factory but it’s still a miserable cage life. When I go in a farmers market and see someone selling "fallibly farms backyard eggs" I have no way to asses how they live.
Many jurisdictions have well defined categories. In BC for instance [1], free range and organic ensure the animals get to spend a significant amount of time outdoors.
Where I live there are small farms you can observe and buy eggs from directly. It's totally possible it just takes some looking into and some effort.
I agree those farms are somewhat better. I don’t know where you live but here in France they get the baby chickens from the exact same factories as the industrial farms. Breeding themself at scale would be such a pain that it’s not economically viable in any way. There might be exemptions thought.
Girl-chicken (excuse my English) require to produce male-chicken, which often get killed at birth because the meat chicken are not from the same breed. Also the egg-breed is such intense that they produce eggs in an insane frequency compared to a rustic breed, which result in them being exhaust way before their lifespan. It’s very similar to the cow breeds that produce 40l milk/day compared to the 6/7l for historical breeds.
You are incorrect.
Vegans absolutely define themselves by not consuming any animal products, myself included.
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."[1]
I don't know your individual circumstances, but based on your justifications in your post, you are not a vegan.
You can still be a vegetarian, an animal-lover, and a good person, but not vegan.
It is not extremist to have strongly-held ethical principles, and I hope this refutation is helpful to anyone reading both posts.
1: https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/further-information/ke...
(My current egg consumption is ~4/year)
Thanks for sharing that thought. I strongly adhere to the vegan society definition. I think "as far as is possible and practicable" should be followed by "and beneficial to the overall goal", which is obvious but would make the phrase too cumbersome.
Let me share my situation with eggs: in the family I’m the one that leaded the shift, from flexitarian to vegetarian to (99%) vegan. My GF likes the principle and is willing to shift but also needs more time to change her habits, one by one. One of the very last habits are eggs, and she’s not ready to stop it yet, but do avoid buying them in any form. So she bring three chickens in a ~30m2 parc with a tree and plants etc… It’s still a cage and I’m not proud. The chickens are a more rustic race than the eggs producers breed because she figured out they suffer less by not being breed-ingineer eggs factories, so they lay during 2/3 weeks every 6/12 month. When that happens and she won’t be home for a while, I eat the eggs. Last time was around May I think. Someone in this thread suggest to give the eggs to a neighbor so they buy less from the store, that is a great idea I will definitely consider. Removing the chickens would create a mess in my relationship with GF, wish is not "practical" and could even in the end make her consuming more animals product because of a defensive psychological mode in reaction.
To the extremism and if people consider me (or others) vegan or not, here’s a few thoughts:
- a colleague a once told me I’ll never be a vegan because I "have" animals, which is a form of exploitation for my pleasure. There’s also many "vegans" that do have cats and dogs (in captivity) and buy food for them. Is it beneficial to the veganism goal to exclude each other’s on the last percent of our animal consumption? I don’t like them buying meat for their cats but telling them so wouldn’t help veganism progress.
- what about a "Muslim" that have a beer once per year ? An "altruist" that buy a (child made) Bangladesh apparel ? A "monogamous" that do adultery once? I don’t think they should be excluded from the definition they believe in because of a tiny deviation or not-yet-perfection. They should be listen and companion instead.
- what about vegans that use soaps in public places? Buy stuff colored in red without knowing the provenance? Buy glossy lemons?
The limit of "practical" is fuzzy and IMHO debating it doesn’t really serve the overall goal. I’m very happy to be in the same boat as you, my friend, even if we don’t share the same room.
If the muslim, altruist, and monagamist from your example knowingly continue a behavior that is antithetical to the definitions of their stated identities then they are not a muslim, altruist, and monagamist. They may like to be or strive to be, and they can change, but they aren't right now. They should be excluded from the definitions.
You're right in identifying pet food and unknown ingredients as grey areas. "Practical and practicable" provides a tremendous amount of grey area. However, knowingly consuming animal products when there's an alternative is not a grey area. It is antithetical to veganism.
99% vegan is 99% better than the alternative, and that's undeniably great. I'm pursuing this so that people reading our conversation are not confused about what veganism is.
I don't really care about either of them - people can eat what they want, it doesn't effect me any.
But vegans of European descent are, from my anecdotal experience, the most likely to moralize towards me on the atrocities I am committing by eating meat.
(I have worked with a many many people who are vegans due to their religion. I have never had ANY of them try to lecture me on this subject.)
Why are the cows taken away from the calves, especially dairy cows? Just curious.
Why would the calves be kept near the cows?
They’re not gonna feed the milk that their mothers are producing for them, because that would mean less milk to sell and less milk for people to consume.
And so why keep the calves in the milking side of the facility when you can move them to the fattening side for meat/leather or to get them to age so you can forcibly impregnate them every year for their milk, depending on their gender.
Because you want to get the milk.
Almost this. The better answer is because we want to get ALL the milk.
So instead of letting the mother cow nurse her calf for the first few months and then start taking her milk for our use, the more "modern" practice is to separate the calf immediately.
Which means if you are drinking milk, you are drinking it from seriously depressed cows.
I wonder how this contributes to our culture's growing mood of depression?
see i.e. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/29/mums-ask...
or just google dairy cows separate from calves
Back in my ancestral village the practice was to let cow nurse her calf and get the remaining for the owner's family. This kinda ensured co-existence. The modern dairy industry has all evil practices baked into its operations. It is the thing that keeps me from going vegetarian. Even with going off meat, I would still harm the livestock by consuming dairy. A lot of vegetarians (at least those who virtue signal) do not understand this.
One way to reduce that practice is to simply reduce one consumption of meat/milk, no need to be fully gandhi to improve some cow’s life. You anyway can’t save the world alone.
There’s a ton of mushrooms and fabaceae, very cheap nutritious and as much delicious if you learn to cook them well (like meat). My favorite is Tempeh which combine both! And quite cheap if you make it yourself.
I like the stuff, but interestingly, I found it easiest to buy in Indonesia, Australia and the USA. Outside of that, it's hard to get or very expensive.
Plenty of tofu dishes in Korea and part of China. Almost never vegan, but often vegetarian.
In the US, almost every broth or dish at an East/southeast restaurant uses shrimp/fish sauce or other animal product like beef/chicken stock.
They usually prep it in advance, so it’s rare to find one that has an actually vegan dish they don’t custom make even if it says tofu.
You can make your own! It’s deleicious and very cheap if you make it yourself.
> It is the thing that keeps me from going vegetarian. Even with going off meat, I would still harm the livestock by consuming dairy.
You could go vegan.
What if no one was strictly vegan or vegetarian but everyone refused to buy food created by inhumane suffering and tortured conditions. Can't make it illegal but can make it very unfashionable. Just need more people to see things people see on a farm, then you gotta be a psycho to not care. Just no one properly lived on a farm next to animals these days when most people move to megapolises...
> Just need more people to see things people see on a farm
There's many "educational farms" to show kids live farms animals and sometimes pick the eggs and milk a cow. I'm very confused about them: it's good to let urban kids see-smell-touch real farms animals. However they have nothing in common with modern farming, even the not-inhumane ones.
BUT telling a 6yo toddler "look that cute cow, this is where your morning milk is from" will engrave it deep in the way they see farming. One day or another they will learn about factory farming but what you learn at 16yo doesn't "engrave" as easy and deep as at 6. I mean yes you quickly understand that education farms are not the reality but it require a big mental shift to overcome the feeling that the milk you drink in the morning is from an inhumane famr, especially when everyone around keeps doing it (I don't blame them, it's cheap, easy, convenient, traditional, delicious, practical...).
Some schools or parents brings their child in real farms which is a bit better, but it still doesn't depict the reality for 99% of consumption (think gelatin candies, croissants, cakes, ice creams...).
For the courageous -- DONT SHOW THAT TO YOUR TODDLER (yet) -- 8 hours of pigs in a typical/normal gas chamber that probably will end up in soap/jelly/bacon. : https://www.farmtransparency.org/videos?id=hg8cyu393v
When I was a small child in a rural environment, my uncle slaughtered a lamb for eating. It was a bloody messy hell. It was an eye opener but it didn't have the impact you think it had, if anything it desensitizes you. My uncle also showed respect and gratefulness to the animals and I also understood why we don't waste animal products.
I grew up doing a lot of diving, I'd put myself into the ocean, there were sharks and other dangers, but I caught my own fish and I never ever felt bad about it. I could selective take what I needed, I'd never take a mother / pregnant fish if I could help it. I could tell most of the time.
You also get to see how the wild world works, and most fish would prefer to be taken by a skilled spear fisherman than have their face mauled off by a squid, at least as far as I could tell.
Unfortunately we live in a world with 9 billion people on it, which means we don't have the room to grow and harvest all our own food. In my opinion, that's the issue. Sourcing all our food "ethically" is basically not possible.
I'd much prefer to be producing and hunting my own food.
Ok I admit all I write is only guess... in fact what you said makes me relate to some of my mother stories about her childhood. Thanks for remind me that.
I know someone who is hard core vegetarian because of impression from childhood, it all depends.
Maybe you see a normal farm and get to know the animals then see an actual factory where it is industrialized...
The real crime is that alternatives are expensive due to how our new economy is structured. I personally prefer oatmilk (oatside) to dairy milk. However, it’s too damn expensive that I find myself only drinking it from time to time. Now how is a vegetarian milk more expensive than a full cycle of cow milk (cows are too burdening to maintain) you might ask?!?
My guess is that we are seeing something along the lines of EVs. Instead of making these healthier alternatives mainstream, they are being sold as a status symbol for the rich and making them unaffordable to the common man.
Here waiting for my chinese oat milk.
I don't think non-dairy milks are artificially expensive so much as cow milk is artificially cheap. At least in the US. Federal dairy subsidies and all that.
Oat/almond milk suppliers are definitely pricing them artificially expensive.
Here in Singapore, where soy milk has been around for decades, soy milk in both fresh and UHT forms tend to be much cheaper than dairy.
If Singapore doesn't have dairy subsidies and/or imports a lot of dairy... that's probably why. You're paying the "real" price while US consumers are paying the "discount" price.
Also, soy milk's been around for decades in the US too! I drank a lot as a kid. My mom would keep these little single-serving cartons in her purse for us, like juicebox-sized.
How much does 1 liter of almond or oat milk substitute cost in Singapore? How much does one liter of milk cost?
It might be a demand issue. In Singapore a lot of people are lactose intolerant, hence the demand for dairy substitutes is greater.
Milk is a byproduct of producing meat, and its a fallacy to see it in isolation.
Plantmilks are firstorder product.
This means that clinate impact of most plantmilks are higher than milks, excepting oat and ryemilk.
On a cost note - : making oat milk is literally just blending some oats and let them soak a day or 2, filter the water and done, perhaps do that if cost is an issue?
On a sidenote, if you drink soy, almond or worse ricemilk you're actually doing something worse for the climate/environment
This completely ignores second order effects, which lead to the opposite conclusion.
If milk is a byproduct of producing meat that can be sold for money, this means milk subsidizes the price of meat. Even if the effect is small, this is almost certainly enough to make it worse for the environment than e.g. soy milk, as the difference between raising cattle and growing soy is orders of magnitudes.
This is what drives me crazy about oat milk. Oats grow everywhere. Almonds, on the other hand, take a gallon of water per almond to make[1]. Despite this, at my store anyway, almond milk is about $2.89/half gallon while oat milk is at least $4/half gallon. What in our economy makes this feasible?
>What in our economy makes this feasible?
What do you mean "feasible"? It's profitable to sell something for more than it costs to make. If the only companies that offer Oat milk for sale price it at $4 a gallon, that's the price you have to pay to get it.
Meanwhile there are laws around the pricing of Milk, and in my neck of the woods that includes a MINIMUM price.
People wave their hands like "the market" is magic. As long as some consumers are willing to pay $4 a gallon for oat milk, companies will not reduce the price, and plenty of people are willing to pay MORE for oat milk than for cow milk.
If you wonder why nobody starts a company that undercuts the $4 oat milk, the simple answer is that the second you are done spending $1 million on a factory to make cheap oat milk, the producers already in the market drop their price and your business fails. This is why Google Fiber for example struggled. There is no technical reason prices are high. There's just no competition because the current producers are so massive and have such giant war chests that they can just kill your brand new competitive business, and soon your business will be dead and they can slowly ratchet up prices again.
There's also the fact that homemade oat milk is trivial to produce, results in a great product, and is cheaper than even that mythical competitive industry would produce.
> if you drink soy, almond or worse ricemilk you're actually doing something worse for the climate/environment
In what way? Data seems to suggest otherwise but maybe I'm misunderstanding
So still a near perfect metaphor for EV Vs ICE. I actually thought this is what they meant at first.
Do It Yourself! You can beat milk price:
You already got the oat. Got a blender? Grind those little flakes with water and a spoon of your favorite oil. Et voilà !
Pro tips:
- filter for extra smoothness but no need if you intent to mix with whole oat flakes
- 1h in the fridge and mix again for double extra smoothness
- pinch of salt or cinnamon or cacao… yummi
- bored of oat? Check your supermarket shelf for other ideas. (Soy need to be cooked then blend then filter).
Doesn't milk contain protein ? Do oats contain the same amount of protein?
Quick search says milk contains twice protein as oat milk, and moreover more complete one. However for protein intake I would recommend soy products that are super healthy, cheap and contains fibers. The only plant milk I drink is a dip in my morning beverage and for cooking cakes.
But if you’re protein intake comes substantially from milk, indeed you should consider that.
> Now how is a vegetarian milk more expensive than a full cycle of cow milk (cows are too burdening to maintain) you might ask?!?
Not enough scale because little demand compared to regular milk.
What's baffling is that the supply chain for non-dairy milk is so much simpler, since all non-dairy milk can be packaged as UHT which doesn't need any form of refrigeration until open.
- [deleted]
Their margin is your opportunity. If you think oat milk is overpriced then simply start making and selling it at a lower price.
As mentioned, the subsidies are the biggest player.
What you mentioned does probably play a role as well, with much more $/revenue being spent on marketing for non-animal milk than cow milk. None of the big milk players are trying to present themselves as a hip startup like Oatly is. Wouldn't be surprised if the latter was even VC backed.
But again, good ole' communist subsidies are the number one cause.
That’s how we get all their milk, how we get meat (the calf isn’t kept around for more than a few weeks/months), and rennet to make cheese (it’s the digestion liquid that’s in their stomach while they eat milk, must kill the animal to extract it)
Same with eggs, they don’t exist in a vacuum. To get eggs you have to have chickens, and to have chickens you must grind male chicks alive as they hatch because they don’t produce eggs. And hens aren’t supposed make eggs year round but we make them anyway with artificial lights etc, which drastically shortens their lifespan.
> And hens aren’t supposed make eggs year round but we make them anyway with artificial lights etc, which drastically shortens their lifespan.
I kept a flock of 25-30 hens on my property for a few years. Other than moulting they produce eggs ease round. The production slows drastically in the dark winter months for the older hens (1 for 3 days, say) but some continue to produce nearly daily (I think the cycle is something like 26-28 hours). The only time we had artificial light for them was on days when it was so cold we kept their coop door shut and turned on the interior light.
the way eggs are industrially farmed is generally not like this
I think they are addressing the claim "hens aren’t supposed make eggs year round"
Worse I’m afraid, chickens will give most eggs in their first year and are killed after, because they become unprofitable. I know an ecological farmer that charges a bit more for eggs and is able to keep them alive for 2 years, but that’s the max. They can easily live for 10 years plus.
> to have chickens you must grind male chicks alive as they hatch because they don’t produce eggs
Bit of a leap there.
How so? What do you think breeders who sell hens do with male chicks?
Some places sex the eggs. Germany, France, Switzerland and many other places completely do without so it is hardly mandatory.
Other places use male chickens for meat, despite them being sub-optimal.
I think the grinding of male chicks is an interesting case because it's actually pretty low on the suffering and distress spectrum, but high on the visceral reaction scale
> grinding of male chicks is an interesting case because it's actually pretty low on the suffering and distress spectrum, but high on the visceral reaction scale
And nothing requires they be ground alive versus e.g. introduced into a nitrogen atmosphere and then minced. (Or simply neutered, raised and sold as capon.)
or feed them live to an alligator farm or zoo
Veal.
That reads like dark satire.
Thats pretty much how I now see it.
[flagged]
I’m gonna guess it was somewhat tongue in cheek.
Yes it was partly toung in cheek. These were good people who acted on principle.
However... I was young and it took me too long to see the hypocrisy of their thinking. They would happily feed the chickens but I would be the person who killed them... their angel of death. I wasn't even properly shown how to kill a chicken.
One day I was present when a pig was slaughtered a process which was overseen by a vet. That animal certainly knew it was going to die and did not like the idea. I was only 19, and was somewhat badly affected by the experience. For a while I even became a vegetarian but developed health issues as a result.
In the long run what I took from the idea was that meat has a cost. Life is not sacred but it is certainly precious. For that knowing it was worth it.
Humans aren't always rational and that's okay, we're all human after all :)
It’s considered not okay if we replace vegetarian with skin tone.
One is something you were born with and cannot change, and the other is a choice of lifestyle you make.
If you can't see the difference between those two scenarios, that's a huge problem.
The cause or mutability the attribute has nothing to do with the reasonableness of ascribing a certain prior probability to the attribute.
Also, many hundreds of millions of people in the world are born into families that raise them as vegetarians, is that so dissimilar from being born with a certain skin tone?
Have you forgotten your priors about human bias? ;)
Most vegetarians decide to choose that diet after contemplating the suffering of the animals involved. Or had you never thought to ask why someone would be vegetarian?
I think the confusion is because Daub might have meant vegetarianism (the idea) instead of vegetarians (the people).
The scientist M. Temple Grandin is known for her great contributions in the field of mitigating pre-slaughter animal panic.
She is autistic. Her methodology included walking the chutes used to direct cattle to slaughter and working out in great detaiL mods that would reduce their stress. I've heard her interviewed a few times. She's extraordinary.
[flagged]
Practicality. To put it bluntly, the majority of humans do not think it is immoral in principle to kill and eat an animal. After all, that's how biological life just is. At an individual level, you can choose to think it's wrong but you do have to simply accept the fact that not everyone agrees, and very likely there will always be someone who disagrees.
To most people, killing an animal for food is not a problem conceptually. Causing undue and unnecessary suffering is a problem for pretty much everyone with a functioning moral system.
But given that mass farming will not be stopping tomorrow, would you rather the animals suffer more? Or is less suffering better? Should we actively torture the animals on the way to slaughter or maybe not?
All that aside, if we stopped farming tomorrow, a billion or two people would have to stop eating. So we do the least worst thing and give the cow a pat on the head before we grind it up.
That said, most people would probably prefer if no animals were killed at all. Once cultured meat starts producing at the required scale, industry farming will probably end very quickly.
> That said, most people would probably prefer if no animals were killed at all. Once cultured meat starts producing at the required scale, industry farming will probably end very quickly.
Most people can only afford cheap food, which means after the novelty period, regular meat will be something reserved for only the very wealthy.
Cultured meat is a long, long ways away, unfortunately. I suspect economic, environmental, and ethical factors will push people away from meat long before cultured meat replaces it.
Well put argument though!
I think this less-more thing is synthetic and pointless. One person stops eating meat, it just reduces the demand and there’s one less cow that suffers, but not in a sense that it becomes happy now. It just stops existing (best case). Is that a win? Hard to tell, cause the question is highly philosophical. Is to not exist better than to exist and suffer? Is suffering of 10M worse than suffering of 100K? Is 100K actually less suffering? One can imagine being a farm cow and being told that there’s 90% less of them than a decade ago, so they must feel 90-ish% better. Complete nonsense. There’s no “total suffering” cause suffering instances are separate in this case and are unable to grasp the scale.
That said, most people would probably prefer if no animals were killed at all.
Yeah I guess that at least skips the murky philosophical waters and has some actual impact rather than patting everyone and everything involved on various parts of an upper body.
I've heard this phrased as "meat is murder, but vegetarianism is genocide".> One person stops eating meat, it just reduces the demand and there’s one less cow that suffers, but not in a sense that it becomes happy now. It just stops existing (best case). Is that a win?If humans were to stop eating meat, certain species of animal would go extinct.
That's not true. We would still need food for dogs and cats. And even if not, then we could still keep cows around just for the vibes. We don't eat Tule Elk (anymore). It is still around. In fact it is still around precisely because we decided to stop hunting it to extinction.
[dead]
> The majority of humans do not think it is immoral in principle to kill and eat an animal
This is wrong, the majority of humans may think that way because they don't have to kill any animal personally, they are disconnected from the "killing" part of the whole equation. Let's see how many people eat and kill animals (i.e. hunting) once we remove meat factories.
Another counterargument is: pets. Somehow all meat eaters gasp on the idea of eating their pet, so they are not morally okay to eat an animal (as you claimed).
> Or is less suffering better?
Ask yourself, how would you like to die? After listening to music you love? getting massages? OR being hurled up a thousand other humans in a small room? The fact is you are dying, your neck will be cut off, and it doesn't matter what you did before it, how is listening to peaceful music before dying less of a suffering?
It is like saying that concentration camps should have been more "humane", they should have cared more for prisoners before killing them to reduce their suffering. Death matters the most for any living creature, all of us (humans + animals) are primed to avoid it. So, we need to take a path where we are reducing overall deaths, not a path where we are reducing pre-death suffering.
What you can say is, "I don't care about suffering; I just need meat." That would be a more logically correct statement than claiming that you care about reducing their suffering.
My pet chickens and ducks had happy, idyllic, safe lives until I humanely slaughtered, butchered, and ate them. I have also slaughtered and eaten lamb and fish.
I care about suffering so I minimize it, maximize well being, and eat meat because it tastes delicious and is calorically and nutritionally dense. I also eat more vegetables than the average person, many of which come out of the garden I work.
I have been afforded a much less idyllic life than is sustainable but I still hope for a quick, inexpensive death for myself.
the majority of humans may think that way because they don't have to kill any animal personally, they are disconnected from the "killing" part of the whole equation.
until a century or two ago this was simply not true. everyone grew up with animals around them and for sure watched them being slaughtered.
people being bothered by that have always been the exception.
> Another counterargument is: pets. Somehow all meat eaters gasp on the idea of eating their pet, so they are not morally okay to eat an animal (as you claimed).
You seem to think humans are rational if-this-then-that machines but we're perfectly irrational enough to hold two dissenting views at the same time very closely. It doesn't prove much that people like their pets, serial killers also like their own families.
Should we move towards irrationality or rationality? If being rational is marginally better we should move towards that. We want less serial killers in the society.
So pointing out the fact about pets is to force meat eaters to consider their irrationality face to face.
We have done this throughout our evolution. Some people notice the irrational things in our behavior and try to reason with other humans why doing these irrational things is wrong and should be stopped (slavery, racism, etc).
That's what I am doing, and anyone should do. Just accepting the fact that humans are irrational is just accepting the status quo.
I hope to have the discernment to tell the difference between the irrational things I cannot change from the ones I can, and I don't think I'm changing this, so I accept it.
Few people believed slavery, a mechanism that stood for millennia, would end. Yet..
I also think eventually we won't eat animals, just not in my lifetime. Practicality doesn't need to be blind to morality and might also be wrong (it might be faster than I think).
If I had to kill animals to eat meat, I would have zero problem doing so. You’re free to make your own choices, but you’re not going to change anyone’s stance on eating meat with your arguments. Get off your high horse.
the key word is "had". I would eat any animal any day if I "had" to and had no other food source.
- [deleted]
No I mean I would have no problem killing an animal if I was unable to buy meat at a grocery store.
[flagged]
For a long time humans did not breed animals for the sake of eating them, they used to hunt (just like a lion). No one was guilt-tripping anyone in those days (I hope), as we had to survive (not thrive).
The situation has changed completely in the modern world. We have created meat factories, forcefully torturing millions of animals daily, and have somehow agreed upon what animals to kill and not to kill.
A lion will kill anything that moves (as long as it is not poisonous), are you willing to kill (and eat) any animal under the sky?
What about pets? Do you think they suffer any kind of pain and suffering ? If yes, that's the same way any other animal you eat (regardless of intelligence) feels when being slaughtered.
One more question to think about: A young child (in a modern urban world) will be more comfortable plucking and eating fruits from a tree ? OR killing a pig -> draining blood -> cutting it into pieces -> cooking it to eat it ?
Having seem children play I think many in would be quite comfortable killing a pig and draining it's blood if they could. You see children chasing pigeons - and I don't think it's just to hug them if they catch one.
I say this without commenting in favor of either side of this debate which I am undecided on and reading with interest.
But I think it's important not to shy away from the reality that cruelty and the desire to kill are very much a part of human nature from the beginning. And that applies no matter where or how we are brought up.
Sure, but what about eating?
What you mention is a typical destructive behavior noticed in kids and a tendency of violence/killing which even adults have. Key point here is: will they also eat the bird after killing it? Is the killing done here for the sake of eating ? or for the sake of enjoyment/destruction (whatever other reason).
i spent part of my childhood on a farm. i watched rabbits and pigs being slaughtered. and of course we ate them.
recently our neighbors slaughtered a goat that my kids had seen alive just before, and we all ate it. we also eat the chicken from the kids grandparents village home that they saw being slaughtered there.
kids killing animals for no reason are an exception, as are kids refusing to eat animals that they saw alive.
if they weren't we'd all have become vegetarians centuries or even millennia ago.
(slightly related: it bothers me that some people think kids should be protected from experiencing how meat is produced. if you eat it, you should know where it came from)
People don't care about people as long as they are out of sight and you're trying to get them to care for non humans that are even further from sight.
A lion will kill anything that moves
That’s a common self-indulgence. Many predators in fact couldn’t care less if prey is still twitching or whining, as long as it doesn’t run away.
There’s no such thing as “going against evolution.” Vegetarianism is as much a valid part of evolution as any other behavior any animal exhibits.
I think if lions regularly bred into existence billions of antelope, confined and tortured them for the entirety of their existence, and then ate them, yes, a lot of people would view that as pretty evil, even while acknowledging such a creature is probably incapable of the moral calculus that (some) humans are.
Societies have the ethics they can afford to have. Lions aren't really in a position to do anything else. I'm not vegan but...I get it.
Lions are quite dumb, Humans are very smart and can be vegan or vegetarian because of civilization and economic specialization.
Unrelatedly, elephants are quite a bit smarter than lions and herbivorous, as are many primates!
Orcas are considered to be very intelligent but they hunt and kill for sport.
The intelligence gap between lion and orca is much slimmer than orca and human.
Have you met the average person? I would highly contest this claim.
Let an average person alone in nature and they’ll starve within a month
That's longer than an Orca will live in a Wal Mart.
If we're swapping biomes I think that the naked human would starve in the open ocean in three days. If he didn't drown in three hours.
Open ocean sure but I can see orcas from my house. The average person is still going to know to swim to land and forage for food, even if they fail. But orcas won’t have the first idea how to navigate self checkout.
Why is the human naked? Does the Orca get pants?
What are we talking about?
The Orca gets pants, but as the setting is Walmart his crack must still be visible.
I've seen plenty of orcas in Walmart
- [deleted]
[flagged]
>Are lions evil?
lions aren't consciously deciding against a rationally plausible alternative, they are eating what is available.
similarly human cannibalization stories generally center around the concept that the people driven to such actions are given no sensible alternatives (airplane crash in a snow mountain comes to mind) -- so we don't presume they were evil, we presume they were desperate.
lions lack the intelligence and forethought to see the consequences of long term decisions. We as humans have gauged and measured the effects of ranching on our environment, the effects of meat consumption on our physiology, etc.
so, to answer your question : If the lion was able to empathize and relate to the suffering of the prey, if the lion was able to relate its' actions to the destruction of its' environment, if the lion had sensible alternatives that avoided long term consequences while still satiating hunger, if the lion could accurately forecast the future and STILL decide upon the destructive course of action...
...yes, an argument could be made that that lion might be evil.
> going against every bit of our human evolution, without guilt-tripping the rest of us for doing what nature designed us to do
If nature designed for this, then why do people feel any guilt at all?
Do they? It’s city dwellers who never seen prey and feel guilt. Regular hunters just skin the carcass and think where to store it. Guilt is a social emotion that leaks into areas which are not clearly separated in an experiencing mind.
> do they? Yes, it's plainly obvious that some people feel some guilt for eating meat.
Regular hunters != industrial-level slaughtering. There are plenty of "regular hunters" who only eat meat they kill themselves. This is like saying if I cut down a single tree on my property I should also support the clear-cutting of the rainforest.
Rainforest is not a good analogy, imo. It presumably is an important part of an ecosystem and also sort of a nature’s museum. Farm animals are absolutely synthetic and barely play any positive role in ecology. So if you cut a single farm animal, I don’t see why 8 billion others shouldn’t do that or should feel bad doing it.
All that said believing no animals should get slaughtered. If we do it to some, could as well do to many. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42642138 tld: I don’t believe in reducing numbers, because the reduced numbers mean nothing to the animal being slaughtered.
To prevent over-hunting to the point that prey becomes extinct? I'm not having a hard time imagining how shame could be an evolutionary advantage.
Guilt-tripping? We've got reasoning abilities and in the main can act on our decisions. Nobody guilt-trips any sentient being since they can't be guilty if under duress. If after all this we still do whatever it is we do that we conclude is reprehensible, we should not blame someone else for reminding us of the logic we ignored.
It's the scale at which we do it at that is very disturbing. If you haven't, I recommend watching Samsara. Humans are pretty disturbing.
As others have said, there is no such thing as going against evolution. Unless you want to put paracetamol, central heating, microwaves ovens, sneakers and smartphones in that bucket too. Or even all of our modern food, given that the crops have been selected by our civilisation for centuries.
Usually the same ones who argue that we're separate from nature when it's about building motorways and single family homes to park two SUVs, are also the ones explaining that we should be more like lions in a savannah. Seems inconsistent, at best.
Ah, so you want to be a lion? But I bet you don't want to be treated like an animal. So which is it? Are you an animal or are you human?
I have some possibly shocking news for you. Humans are animals. Pretending we're very special and that everything we do is automatically "bad" is silly. Some things that are very good for humans overall is bad for competing species. Everything in moderation, of course, but I'm not shedding a tear for cowkind that they get slaughtered a lot. Cows would undoubtedly set up a system much like this if they were smart carnivores and we were dumb herbivores. (And many of them would hand-wring (hoof-wring?) about it due to that smartness. It's just part of the package.)
Do you and a lion possess the same degree of executive function?
Plant based diets are:
- more affordable
- better for the environment
- healthier
- avoid/reduce cruelty (livestock and human)
If you want to eat meat, fine, but the comment you replied to is innocuous and not "guilt-tripping" anyone.
on a global scale more affordable may be true. unfortunately on an individual level in many places it is not. where i am meat is cheaper than the nuts and other vegetables needed to replace it, and those here that can't even afford meat from time to time end up with a rather poor diet.
[dead]
> going against every bit of our human evolution
you're saying this typing on a _computer_ - how does that fit into human evolution?
IMO humans evolve in an ethical standpoint as well and tend to want to cause the least amount of suffering possible as we evolve. That is why we have medicine, don't usually own slaves, don't hit children, and don't abuse animals.
you mean the guilt that nature designed us to have?
[flagged]
Life and predators are absolutely evil, because their mode of operation is not in any way related to ethics or doing what’s good. And what’s good is usually opposite to what’s convenient or naturally-obviously available to survive.
That said, you personally don’t add much to this global effing mess that the life is by eating some low mass meat per year. You also don’t subtract much by avoiding it. One predator out-eats you 20-50x easily on meat. And many humans can’t or barely can afford meat.
The ethical problem has systemic and economic roots and doesn’t relate to personal ideology. Being vegan but doing nothing systemic is pretty useless imo. The whole privilege of going vegan bases on living in a society that does all that to animals as a consequence and a requirement of its function.
- [deleted]
[flagged]
Extraordinary? She invented a machine to hug cows before they get bolted in the head.
We’d be better off not making animal slaughter the core of the American diet.
So here is a person who has reduced suffering for animals. And your idea is...what?
[flagged]
Temple Grandin designed more efficient killing machines to streamline and reduce the costs of industrial scale slaughter.
> we are very much trained to believe we shouldn’t anthropomorphise animals
We shouldn't anthropomorphize animals. Instead, the point here is that emotions are not anthropic; humans do not have a monopoly on emotions.
Which is to say, we should be sure not to think that "grief" means the same thing for an orca that it means to a human; yet naturally animals do grieve in their own ways. (Heck, "grief" doesn't even mean the same thing for all humans!)
And in the context of orcas specifically, their emotional processing centers in their brain dwarf that of humans, even when taking the relative brain sizes into account. So by scientific accounting, it's likely their emotional intelligence is far more advanced than ours.
yeah, the funny thing about the anthropomorphism debate is that supposedly the thing that makes humans different from (other) animals is our "advanced" brain, i.e. language, civilization, etc.
in other words, all the ways we have to manage emotions, and all of our "non-emotional" functioning.
So we have somehow evolved to be able to better manage emotions.
Ok, so if we grant all of that, then haven't we just said that emotions are common to animals? So then how is it anthropomorphising to say that animals have the traits which we've just said define animals, whereas what makes humans special is that we have 'risen above' mere emotion?
Not really common to 'animals' in general, for example reptiles only have the very basic instincts of eat, reproduce, fight.
Insects don't have emotions, they barely have hyper specialized sensors as brains.
However, emotions efficiently direct behaviours in mammals. They enact immediate and persistent responses.
We can say without much doubt that emotions in mammals are similar to our own emotions.
The big unknowns are animals further away from us, which are demonstrably intelligent, like birds and octopuses.
How do you know insects don’t have emotions? Bees have been shown playing. Spiders have REM sleep.
Because there is not a limbic system on insect's brains. It is just too small.
What does REM sleep have to do with emotions? REM sleep is retraining of the brain over the experiences of the previous day. It is a pure intellectual activity, it doesn't need emotions.
In fact, emotions are not an emergent feature of brains just by themselves. They require parts of the brain specifically dedicated to emotions. Like a limbic system.
As I said, Octopuses can have something like a limbic system, with their big complex brains.
https://www.google.com/search?q=rat+not+eating+after+death+o...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277240852....
I've kept rats for a long time, I don't know why, but I do know they change behaviour for a period of time once one dies.
Video of scientists getting a laugh response from tickled rats.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/eavesdrop-on-ultras...
Rats are the best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jo_EG7XqZQ :D
In my opinion, this is why hunting is ethically superior. Almost nothing dies peacefully in the wild, it's either massive long term suffering, or being mauled by dogs, bears or big cats, strangled by pythons etc.
A skilled hunter can choose an adult animal without kids and take it fairly humanely.
Sadly, we all have to die somehow.
Hunters and fisherman generally have great respect for nature and the environment, which is important.
As a vegan I agree with that. However not all huntings are great, especially when conducted for fun instead of meat. Perhaps your already know the famous footage of new-head of NRA struggling to kill an elephant : https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56923507.amp
(He says he gave later the meat to the villagers. I guess they ate it but I’m not sure they requested it in the first place)
I mean, that seems silly, I wouldn't hunt an elephant, I only hunt for food and elephants aren't on the menu.
That is just senseless violence in that video.
That's why I can't wait for lab grown meat becoming a thing. I love meat and my understanding is that its healthy and necessary product but i also have nothing but respect to vegetarians.
I've wondered why, instead of trying to lab grow meat (which I think is decades off, due to various problems), we just don't try to breed dumber, unfeeling, cows.
can't help to think about Brave New World where they basically do that for inferior-cast humans. A great read. I recommend the sequel Brave New World Revisited
Those looks like to be the full texts (didn't verify):
That's something that I was also thinking about. Maybe because we can't fine tune cows stupid enough to not to feel remorse for slaughtering but intelligent enough to breed, eat, take care of the calfs? Probably, at scale, it's not viable to take care of animals who can't function independently.
“Breeding psychopathic cows seemed like a good idea until they took control” seems like a very weird comic book plot line or something :-)
It’s the same as how soldiers were trained to de-anthropomorphize their enemies.
why should we wait for lab grown meat if we can go vegan right now?
Love animals but “grown meat” has proven to be very gross.
It's such a travesty what we've done to the Southern Resident Orca population. We decimated their numbers with captures and killings, cutoff their food supply, and poisoned them via their environment and food supply. These are effectively war crimes committed by humans against the orcas, but even for an animal that likely meets and possibly even exceeds our emotional intelligence, articles like this are about as good as they can hope for from us.
Anthropomorphism? In my science?! Yes please!
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
I don't find the comment to be without substance. It's a concise and concrete critique.
It's dismissive without substance. The point is discussing if the whale feels grief. A blanket dismissal of all animals feeling anything "just because" is not a critique. If there is some reason science should dismiss everything like this as valueless and not worth even considering then I don't know it yet and a comment talking about that would be constructive.
> A blanket dismissal of all animals feeling anything "just because" is not a critique.
The idea that animals feel human emotions (much less "grief") is based only on the fact that orcas look pretty to the human eye.
Would you be willing to entertain "grieving" ants? (Ants are the only animals beside humans to have successfully built a civilization. Can't say they are unintelligent.)
Let’s get some more cetapodomorphism in our human psych discussions.
- [deleted]
- [deleted]
This is one more reason that Orcas should not be kept in captivity.
Birth article in Sept - https://archive.ph/uZ5mx
- [deleted]
reading this made me want to cry. my heart goes out to the momma whale.
I believe this is nice, but how do regular people actually find the time to care about this stuff?
If you have kids, bills, a job, listen to crap from politicians all day, where do you find the time to be this empathetic.
My kids school gives them milk as part of lunch, my kid likes milk now. You have to live in a very special world to get around this.
I was a vegetarian for a while, I was mostly starving hungry and I had to spend hours a day cooking and eating to feel full. It's a shit situation but yeah, it's the way it is for many people.
The western idea of making things better for animals often involves abstinence. Which is unpalatable if you are a meat eater.
The messaging should be to reduce your meat consumption. By reported national averages, I eat 25% of the meat eaten by the average Australian. And I don’t feel that I’m missing out.
Yeah, we eat vegetarian / vegan every second night.
As the other commenter, some differential resistance that's within your capacity should be sufficient. Eating proportionately less sends a signal to the supply chain, which adapts to such signals. Comparatively, you can imagine being vegetarian to be extremely easy in, say, India; because the supply chain is built to support such a diet. (Of course, vegetarianism in India is likely to still mete lot of animal suffering as well.)
A first step is to no longer eat meat for pleasure or for recreation. If needed, just eat it for nutrition.
Could you imagine if the whole world took this incremental step?
> listen to crap from politicians all day, where do you find the time to be this empathetic.
Swap those two.
Stop listening to politicians. It's not empathy you require, it's compassion. Empathy is very tiring.
> I was mostly starving hungry
What? Vegetarian doesn't necessarily mean you lose all sources of animal protein, there's no real reason to be starving on the diet.
It's pretty common for would-be vegetarians to be "carbotarians" and fail to feed themselves properly because they simply don't know any better and eat primarily bread and pasta. I also had this experience of being a ravenous carbotarian, but my roommates were all vegetarians and taught me. If you don't know vegetarians, look to athletes and home chefs for advice.
Tl;Dr combine a grain with a legume at least once a day to obtain a full protein. Beans and rice is a good staple, for example (but to reduce exposure to arsenic you should parboil the rice[1] as well as rotate through some other staples). Put peanut butter or peanut protein powder in stir fries, put hummus in your sandwiches, eat eggs, etc. And, I know it sounds obvious, but it's a reminder I needed, do actually eat vegetables.
It's not difficult but if you've eaten meat your whole life you may need to change some habits, because you have more room to get away with a poor diet if you're eating meat.
[1] https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-say-this-rice-cookin...
I eat a vegan diet, I'm intricately aware of how this all works. There is no reason for a vegetarian to be going hungry - include a damn egg in your food if you need the protein.
I also have plenty of vegetarian friends and none of them complain about this either, but I'm willing to admit this is possibly not representative of the wider population. I just don't think there's any excuse.
I don't mean to make you feel patronized, I wanted to add context because it's a "lucky 10000" sort of phenomenon where the knowledge is so common that it isn't discussed, and people who don't know often aren't told. It's easy to eat on autopilot and then get in trouble when you decide to change your diet. I figured there were people reading who didn't know.
Your friends not complaining is probably an example of that, they remain vegetarians because they've already worked this out, they don't complain because it isn't a problem, they don't tell you because you already know.
Cooking a stake, is a lot easier than making a curry is kind of where it gets tricky for me.
For now I make a chicken sandwich for lunch, take like 5-10 minutes, fills me up, what do I do as a vegetarian.
I love the idea of it, I just think that being a vegetarian can be a luxury and takes more time for some people, especially who have larger frames and appetites.
Hu hu, recipe challenge YESSS !!
< 5-10 minutes curry >
1. Throw in a pan: a can of cheakpeas or lentil, whatever cream (coconut/soy/oat), curry spices. If you got others frozen/canned vegetable on hand go for them but not mandatory. Thinks that don’t need real cooking like olives, tofu bites, fresh spinaches or shrooms can also go here.
2. Cook (heat-up, actually) for 5-10 minutes
3. Add some drops of lime juice in bottle or a branch of parsley or other herb. That’s for vitC, but eating a raw fruit or vegetable (carrot or celery), is also an easy option
4. Eat with bread
You can also do the same in a microwave oven to trade taste for convenience.
Personal topping : as a Mediterranean I put olive oil on basically everything, and often a bit of nutritional yeast.
> For now I make a chicken sandwich for lunch, take like 5-10 minutes, fills me up, what do I do as a vegetarian.
Sandwich with hummus, tomato, cheese, lettuce. Very quick and filling. Maybe have it with a hardboiled egg. That's what I would do.
For a 20-30m thing I like to do asparagus, mushrooms, and tofu as a stir fry, lots of protein in that.
Since you mentioned a whey shake I'm guessing you get a lot of exercise. That's probably why it's more difficult for you. Plenty of people work out and are vegetarian, but yeah, both factors are going to make it more challenging and require you to be more mindful.
To be clear, I'm responding because I think it's an interesting topic of conversation, I think being a vegetarian every other day is a perfectly reasonable choice.
Scramble some eggs, grab a block of tofu and sear a cutlet for a sandwich, etc. There are plenty of options beyond chicken.
I guess it's not eating flesh, but it's still causing a lot of harm is what I'm hearing.
In our family, we eat vegetarian every second night. Basically vegan 3/4 nights a week. However I do find myself running to the fridge for cheese or a whey protein shake for desert quite often.
> listen to crap from politicians all day
This part I recently decided I will stop doing. It will not be easy and I may fail, but I think my mood requires it.
It's pretty bleak, I agree. I'm concerned regular people are going to be more and more trampled on in the near future.
It's easy, first step just stop watching the news. There is no FOMO or if you really need your dosage keep it to end of the week roundup.
Because in reality there is nothing you can do.
You can't have a shot of vodka with Putin and ask him to stop war.
You can't stop Twitter and Elon from raging, nor can you can't Isreal.
What you can stop is giving these puppets headspace time and hold compassion to those who are involved in the conflicts.
Don't you want to watch before the end of the week roundup? To know if you need to lay low?
Either, I wake up dead, wake up conscripted or wake up in to another shite day of the same of what happened yesterday.
Anything else? I'm sure I will be told by my peers.
- [deleted]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I hope you never go through a life event that makes you regret this comment.
It’s a freaking fish, man. Of course we should all hope that humans don’t go through the same thing. It’s like looking at salmon and being “I hope you, guy eating the salmon, never experiences being filleted and then cooked into a delicious dish in an oven, with some sliced lemons on top of you and some asparagus on the side”. No shit! Humans are different! This is just one of those pity parties that people throw posting upworthy etc etc because a fish got long covid.
The orca is a mammal[0]. Salmon, while also impressive, are fish.
So are cows and no one ever goes “Aw man, nice wagyu. I hope no one ever slices you up and serves you all fatty on a grill”. That would be weird as fuck. You wouldn’t be welcome at any barbeque.
Besides the obvious "Vegans and Vegetarians", you'll find that an awful lot of folks from India and surrounding regions will not be down with any consumption of cattle what-so-ever.
Okay, yeah, that’s fine. If people are reacting this way because they’re religiously vegan, that makes sense. I’m not, so the anxiety fish who’s been going to therapy for years is not of any significance.
No, Many of those in india will eat Chicken - but not beef. The view of seeing most as either "meat eaters" or "vegetarians" or "vegans" is very "eurocentric"
Sure sure, if they are upset about the neurotic whale for religious reasons it doesn’t matter what chickens they eat. I’m happy to accept that’s why they’re upset. I personally don’t care that much about a cow with intergenerational trauma.
You seem to be the most upset commentator in this entire thread. Perhaps you should not have a “cow”, as they say.
I also hope you never experience being filleted and cooked.
You and me, brother. I pray this every day. But I’m still gonna eat the fish, and may the day never come that our roles are reversed.
You’re admitting to eating orca meat? That’s a serious violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and bears investigation if true.
Why not apply this dismissive logic to all suffering?
[flagged]