Animal rights

I still can't reconcile the idea of the government favouring one group by restricting the rights of those who are not harming other people with the idea of a just, fair and equitable society.

Your talk on non-interventionism overlooks the fact that Person B has infringed upon the rights of another person in the first place. We only have rights so long as we respect the rights of others - were that not the case, it wouldn't be an effective social construct. As such, Person B loses his right to make subjective decisions when he uses them to impede the right of others to do the same. That's all overlooking the fact, of course, that the balance of power between individuals is very different than that between individuals and the government, and that, in the first place, I'm only promoting non-interventionism for the government - private individuals, being however inclined, can do as they wish short of preventing other private individuals from doing as they wish.

That has brought me to my next point. The reason that a permissive system is inherently better at not forcing subjective decisions on anyone is because a permissive system still allows individuals who believe that a prohibitive system is better to prohibit things for themselves. Don't like factory farming? Boycott it and start a social awareness campaign. But if you're in a prohibitive system that bans, say, eating meat, you can't implement your own values, even when they aren't affecting anyone else. If the government bans meat, without breaking the law, you can't eat meat. If the government doesn't ban factory farming, you can still choose not to support it in your personal life. Indeed, it's only when people want to impose their moral judgements on others that there's any issue here. Were this not the case, people who believe that use of animals for human ends are wrong would not seek to enact laws supporting their views. I don't think there's anybody who opposes the "animal rights" movement who thinks that it's acceptable to force those who support animal rights to eat meat and torture animals.

Here's another spin on it: If some people want homosexuals to be kept in cages, and others want homosexuals to be treated fairly, non-intervention would favour the latter. But what if they are wrong? What if, all this time, it transpires that homosexuality has been far worse than we imagined, or it turns out that reasons for justifying X, Y, and Z in same aspects of the homosexual lifestyle are spectacularly faulty? What if, on reflection, we don’t respect people who say "I am sexually attracted to members of the same sex and there's nothing you can do about it"?

I think I've covered this one, but just to summarise: permissiveness allows people to use their own discernment in their own affairs, whereas prohibitiveness forces people to use the discernment of others in their own affairs, even when those affairs do not affect others.

I really suppose I should have tacked on "by totally uninvolved parties/the government" to the end of that statement. Your example is a great counter to the statement as it was written, but not as it was meant.

Democracy is still forcing the will of the majority on everyone, and even, sometimes, things that aren't the will of the majority, but due to party policy, happen to come with it. For that matter, even if 99.95% of people support something... They can still be wrong. And as I've tried to illustrate above, it's better to be wrong but permissive than wrong and prohibitive, since permissiveness lets those who are right keep being right, while prohibitiveness forces everyone to be wrong. And since we don't have any objective grounds to base a judgement on what is right or wrong in this case, we don't know whether we are going to be right or wrong, or better yet, there is no right and wrong that's consistent for everyone. Basically, if and only if we have objective proof that something is wrong, or if permitting it would undermine the consistency of the logical framework upon which society rests, can we have both reason and necessity for outlawing it. If it's an absolute consensus in society that something shouldn't be done, right or wrong, nobody will think of doing it, and it's not necessary to ban it - though some things like this might still be banned. If we ban something that's objectively wrong, there's no valid subjective or objective objection. If it's lacking objective proof, we might be prohibiting people from doing the right thing. If we permit, not having objective moral guidelines, even at the cost of some people doing the "wrong" thing, we at least know that we are not preventing people from doing the "right" thing. The part about things which "undermine the consistency of the logical framework upon which society rests" covers theft, battery, murder, rape, etc. - in a society that functions based on people being allowed to pursue their interests as they will without harming the interests of others, theft, battery, rape and murder all undermine the society. We can't permit those things without allowing private individuals to prohibit other legal things done by others, and thus they run counter to the idea of a permissive society. I guess I've rambled a bit, but to put it in fewer words: If we don't know, we shouldn't impose our lack of knowledge on anyone. If we can't know, it's even more imperative that we don't impose that on anyone.

I'm having a little bit of trouble expressing myself clearly and concisely at the moment. Do bear with me.

edited 30th Jul '11 9:53:27 AM by ekuseruekuseru

I still can't reconcile the idea of the government favouring one group by restricting the rights of those who are not harming other people with the idea of a just, fair and equitable society.

Nor can I, and I was suggesting no such thing. But if the Animal Rights movement’s views are right, then this is precisely what we are doing every time we exploit animals for our own ends. But there are some so-called rights which Western society once held that should be restricted. A right to own slaves, even if the slaves are willing and are treated kindly, is one such right. A right to pay employees too little and to make them work long hours, even if they agree to it and are fed and watered and given a home, is another. If the right to eat meat is another example, we should be careful before dismissing Animal Rights supporters as oppressors.

At the time of typing, I wasn’t thinking of rights, I was trying to show a scenario where non-intervention and permissiveness lead to a moral wrong. They can both lead to a moral good in another scenario. But it isn’t, in itself, valuable – it can only help us as a tactic to gain what is valuable.

And your model of rights as a two-way system is good, but it can’t be the complete picture because it only extends to individuals capable of comprehending those rights. A dementia patient, an infant, a congenitally mentally-impaired patient, and other animals have no idea how such a system works, but look at how we treat each one: dementia patients are looked after until death, an infant is forgiven for its shortcomings, a mentally-impaired patient is assigned to a carer or a guardian, but animals get eaten, experimented-upon, or treated inconsistently. I am interested in resolving the Double Standard, whatever the correct answer is.

What are you expecting? That humans should take care of animals so long as they do not hurt us? If an animal then bites us, we say it has ‘relinquished’ its rights, so presumably it thereafter has none. But why did the animal bite us? Were we threatening it? Did it have no idea that this was not social behaviour? It would be like blaming a baby for puking all over the carpet – how on Earth is it supposed to know? But babies feel pain all the same if you neglect them. Animals do as well.

I told you, I do not agree with authoritarianism or this kind of prohibition you are talking about. We agree on this, and I agree with your points on boycotting, on campaigning and on not imposing our judgements on others. But judgements can change, and people can judge wrongly, and unless they bounce ideas off other people they’re only likely to be listening to themselves and becoming dogmatic.

The reason I am pushing my points with you is not because I am trying to stifle your views or anyone else’s, but because I want to know if I am making a mistake, or am biased, and the strength or weakness of my ideas should be an indicator of that kind of thinking. If I am biased, I want to know about it. And, though I don’t want to offend you, I feel you and many other people can also benefit from the same. I am not trying to win the argument, I am trying to understand your points and thus come to the right answer or answers, whatever they turn out to be.

If people want the law changed, they must not impose themselves on others, but must convince others that it is good to change the law, you are right. But people on both sides can have biased thinking, and that clouds judgements. Attitudes are another problem. Even if there aren’t people who impose their views, there are certainly people who belittle the views of others.

I am astonished at the homosexual parallel, because at first I thought you were comparing me to a homophobe. But I think you meant something else, so I will ignore that interpretation, and I will look at your points.

We know the answers to those questions now: homosexuality is harmless, like any other kind of sex, in itself. If there are faulty arguments for justifying homosexuality, they should be demolished, because we now have better arguments to justify it (like the fact that it is a harmless private activity that can be done sensibly, and it has no meaning beyond that, like any other sex), and we find that the arguments against it are poor. And we do, in a sense, respect people who are not ashamed of their homosexuality (what have they to be ashamed of?), because there have been good people who have gained public respect for homosexuals as a group, even if there are particular homosexuals who perhaps annoy us by broadcasting the fact when it isn’t necessary, but you always get people like that in any camp.

Democracy may well be unfair on the minority, but as it works at the moment it enables people to speak up who couldn’t express their views any other way, and if not perfect then at least it is an improvement. I see your point about permissiveness, as it reflects the values of freedom of speech and personal choice, but even permissiveness has to have limits – no one allows hate speech or obviously stupid choices to happen, so we must be clear not to overdo either value. Though I think the point is to be flexible in our views, and on that, I agree with you.

If it's an absolute consensus in society that something shouldn't be done, right or wrong, nobody will think of doing it, and it's not necessary to ban it - though some things like this might still be banned.

The banning is not just for our benefit – we have to teach our children to respect the laws and the thinking behind them, and that may involve following rules they don’t yet understand. I don’t mean we should boss them about, but we should make it clear to them that, if they want to be good, if they value X, Y and Z, then following rule A is good because … et cetera.

If we don't know, we shouldn't impose our lack of knowledge on anyone.

Agreed.

If we can't know, it's even more imperative that we don't impose that on anyone.

Also agreed, though I’d add the caveat that we can at least make some kind of probabilistic guess in some cases where the information is tantalisingly close.

I'm having a little bit of trouble expressing myself clearly and concisely at the moment. Do bear with me.

Don't worry, it looks like you’re doing fine. It’s not as if my posts have been any shorter or more coherent.

Er... it was an appeal to popularity, but I intended to imply more. It's an appeal to biology. Humans are omnivores. We eat meat. That's how it works. The difference between eating a human and an animal is that individual animals lack the intelligence to comprehend what it is we're doing. Humans Are Cthulhu, basically. Which is why I don't mind, say, chicken-eating, but I find, say, dolphin-eating to be rather... creepy. If not outright wrong.

Yes, the sapience of humanity dictates that we can defy instinct to a degree, but this is past instinct. Nature is designed for animals to eat other animals. Even if we stop, they're all gonna do it. If we stop them from doing it, we all die. Or we're playing god, and will probably end up causing all other kinds of mayhem—overpopulation, disease, etc. We're supposed to eat meat; the fact that it's tasty and nutritious is the best part, but to stop would actually be bad for the ecosystem. A clash of farm animals to normal animals would be... very not good, really.

Perhaps, but then, I think that experimenting on intelligent things—once again, chimps and dolphins—isn't the greatest ideas. I also think that experiments that are trivial and harmful are bad. If we narrow it down to the non-harmful ones, does it matter anymore? Like I said, the dog getting a bath analogy.

Just because someone can volunteer doesn't mean they should. If you fully knew the consequences of doing said brain surgery experimentation, I still wouldn't let you do it if it were up to me. Once again, we come to the people > animals argument. If not accepted on an ethical plane, then it will be accepted by the majority of people based on a self-preservation plane. Furthermore, nobody sane would volunteer for such an experiment anyhow, and dead bodies only go so far. Perhaps death row inmates? That is a different discussion, however.

What else do we use for mass production food besides those animals? Besides that, there are some animals—turkey comes to mind—that are used for cultural food. Good luck trying to convince people to get rid of that in any kind of timely manner. As for petting zoos, do you realize how many of them are there? That would be a logistical nightmare.

I never said they did it out of altruism. Face facts: humanity is the apex predator and dominant species on planet Earth. Things that aren't human will always be used in some manner for the furthering of human goals. That doesn't mean we can't appreciate the fact that animals are giving up things—willingly or not is besides the point—so that we can be better as a whole.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Er... it was an appeal to popularity, but I intended to imply more. It's an appeal to biology. Humans are omnivores. We eat meat. That's how it works. The difference between eating a human and an animal is that individual animals lack the intelligence to comprehend what it is we're doing. Humans Are Cthulhu, basically. Which is why I don't mind, say, chicken-eating, but I find, say, dolphin-eating to be rather... creepy. If not outright wrong.

Eep! You’re not supposed to say things like “it was an appeal to popularity!” The Appeal to Popularity is a Logical Fallacy: the fact that something is popular does not make it true or morally right. And your appeal to biology is a scientifically described Appeal to Inherent Nature. Again, the continued good health of pescetarians, lacto-ovo vegetarians, and maybe even total vegans invalidates that argument. The claim that we are omnivores, in the case of humans, is little more than an observation of our dietary flexibility. It does not imply compulsory meat eating. Fish and seafood would suffice.

I could also make the case that to continue meat-eating would actually be worse for the ecosystem – most of the destruction of the Amazon rainforest is done to make way for pasture for cattle, and the amount of protein you can get concentrated in a steak had to come from several pounds worth of grain and several gallons of water, a lot of which is simply wasted by the cattle’s digestive system supporting the rest of the body. More grain is given over to feeding livestock than to feeding humans directly. Not to mention the sheer overpopulation of chickens, the monstrous amount of excreted waste given off by the cattle (consider where all that dung goes, because it isn’t usually back into the ground), and the possibility that methane emissions from farms contribute something to global warming.

But even besides that, you appeal to Nature as a source of guidance, as if the fact that tigers eat deer or the fact that ichneumon wasps give caterpillars A Fate Worse Than Death was considered a valid moral argument for anybody. Given that we are not compelled by biology to eat meat, I find it harder to take this argument seriously. We are not caught in a “I’m a carnivore I can’t help it” trap at all. “Even if we stop, they’re all gonna do it” is not a knockdown argument because the wrongs of others do not justify our own wrongs. Consider how we would feel if a violent man said this: “Look, he’s annoying. Even if I didn’t beat him up, someone else would do it sooner or later because he’s so annoying.”

Perhaps, but then, I think that experimenting on intelligent things—once again, chimps and dolphins—isn't the greatest ideas. I also think that experiments that are trivial and harmful are bad. If we narrow it down to the non-harmful ones, does it matter anymore? Like I said, the dog getting a bath analogy.

Yes, that makes sense.

Just because someone can volunteer doesn't mean they should. If you fully knew the consequences of doing said brain surgery experimentation, I still wouldn't let you do it if it were up to me. Furthermore, nobody sane would volunteer for such an experiment anyhow, and dead bodies only go so far.

I think I see your point, because it’s the old altruistic-selfish problem: anyone altruistic enough to volunteer for a life-threatening mission must be more moral, and therefore more worthy of saving, than the people who refused to do the same, with the net result that the selfish people tend to be more common than the altruists. This is a naïve way of putting it, of course, but it is at the back of my mind when I talk about points like this.

You haven’t quite understood what I meant. A person is not insane simply because they volunteer to do something potentially lethal; otherwise people who volunteer for charity work in war-ridden countries or people who sign up for the military would come under that label. I was thinking about it along those lines of altruistic self-sacrifice, but again stressing the importance of autonomy.

What else do we use for mass production food besides those animals? Besides that, there are some animals—turkey comes to mind—that are used for cultural food. Good luck trying to convince people to get rid of that in any kind of timely manner. As for petting zoos, do you realize how many of them are there? That would be a logistical nightmare.

These are real problems, I agree, though there are differences between problems with the principles, and the problems of putting them into practice. I find it easy to imagine how slowly some long-lasting traditions can change because people are unlikely to drop the status quo too readily. That isn’t a point in favour of the status quo or its traditions, however. And I don’t think it would be truly impossible. Petting zoos were just one example. I honestly haven’t given that point much thought, which I should probably do.

I never said they did it out of altruism.

I didn’t literally believe that you meant it that way, it just struck me as a weird way of putting it; so I pointed it out.

edited 31st Jul '11 3:50:47 AM by BlueChameleon

I was admitting that my original phrasing didn't cover the whole argument. Also, something being popular does make it right, in a philosophical manner. It's called moral relativism. Morality exists because we say it does. If tomorrow, everyone decided that murder was right, well, that would be the new morality. Morality is simply a theory enforced by laws, which is all subject to change. On a related note, you would literally have to outlaw meat to get me to eat a vegan diet; 90% of the things I've seen in such a vegan diet are disgusting. That's just me, of course, but there are a lot of people out there who are like me.

Take this with a grain of salt, though. The day humanity has access to food that looks, feels, smells, and tastes exactly like meat—but isn't actually meat, or at least doesn't require killing animals—and which is economically equivalent to food in terms of cost, I will immediately call out everyone for eating meat, and I will never eat meat from a normal animal again. Yes, I believe this is possible. Until then, it's meat for me, my friend.

Are fish and seafood any less deserving of your moral protection than dogs and cats? You realize that dolphins and octopi are probably two of the smartest creatures on Earth, right?

The people destroying the Amazon are stupid. And cows would eat all that anyhow. Besides that, they're eating things produced by humans specifically for them. That is besides the point, however.

Your analogy is amusing, and partially true. But the fact is still that nature was designed for things to kill other things. Things killing other things of the same type is usually bad, but even that happens. We don't kill humans because Ape Shall Never Kill Ape. Of course there is morality behind it, but that's what it boils down to. This how nature was meant to be; it may not be pleasant, but it's true. I never said we should go all holocaust on the animals, or make it anymore unpleasant than it has to be, but it's how it works.

Just because you volunteer for the experimental brain surgery doesn't mean you're insane. It means you have no sense of self-preservation. That is also besides the point, however. Charity work in war-ridden countries doesn't actually promise to hurt you. Surgery by-definition will. That is a product of the example, however.

Your idea that "those who would volunteer cannot be allowed to volunteer because they are needed to run things" is correct. If the animal rights people put all the effort they put into saving whales and dogs and cats and whatever into helping people, perhaps we'd be getting somewhere. That is the number one thing that bothers the hell out of me for animal rights: talk to me about it when we've fixed humanity's problems. Until then, even if I can do it, I won't, because it just isn't as important.

The day when I can stand in the middle of the country of my choice, walk down the street, and see neither bullets flying nor a poor person in sight, is the day that animal rights activists have any standing to argue their case to me. Until then, they are officially last on the totem pole, and will sit there until all the other problems of humanity are dealt with, period.

Except, once again, morality is relative. The vast majority of people think that eating animals is normal and healthy and have no problem with it—which, for the most part, is biologically, and I think morally true. You disagree morally, but since you and people like you are not the majority, there is no reason to conform. Perhaps in the future animals will be "liberated," and prove the racial analogy to be true. That's the future though. Right now, society says that I am correct and you are not. Of course we can still debate it—I would be sad if we didn't—but that also means that I can sit and eat chicken while we do. And there's not a damn thing PETA and the ALF can do about it, either.

Maybe the future will look back at this discussion and see me as a monster and you as a hero. Or maybe they'll think we're both silly for worrying about this instead of more important problems. Either way, in the here and now, trying to make everyone live in a vegan utopia would be neither ethical nor plausible. There are simply too many animals and too much rides on them staying where they are. Comparing it to slavery doesn't even work, either, because they aren't human, and no matter what you say, it will always come back to that—they are not human, and it will always remain so.

Am I a bad person for putting humans ahead of animals? Perhaps. The benefits are tasty and make a lot of money, however. Sunk Cost Fallacy actually works here, and you'll have a hell of a fight to convince the majority otherwise.

edited 31st Jul '11 8:15:12 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Since when does "moral relativism" mean "whatever the most people believe is right is right"? I thought it was a bit more like "morality is relative".

Also, out of the discussion (as interesting as it was) because of time, effort, passion, etc. restraints.

edited 1st Aug '11 3:24:24 AM by ekuseruekuseru

That's what makes it relative. You say something is right or wrong, I can say something else, and neither of us is "right." It's up to society as a whole to decide what "right and wrong" is and act accordingly. Hence, morality is relative, not absolute.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Society's consensus has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong, or even "right" or "wrong". Simply because the majority holds a view doesn't make it any more right for society, from either an absolutist or relativist perspective. The absolutist view is that no matter what, it is right or wrong. The relativist view is that no matter what, right and wrong depends on the perspective. So in this case, from a moral relativist point-of-view, it's just right for that majority. It's still wrong for everyone who doesn't hold that view, and society is everyone, not just the majority.

edited 2nd Aug '11 12:51:06 AM by ekuseruekuseru

Society can't force a person to change their mind—and even then, in theory... but it does decide what morality is enforced. What morality is enforced is what is de facto "right," since law is merely the enforcement of society's morality.

Sure it does. If society as a whole decides that murder is "right," then murder is "right." There must be opposition to something to make it wrong; if not, then it is de facto right, because there is no one enforcing an opposing position.

Society is everyone. But the majority is what decides the laws in the modern democracy, and most of the First World is made up of representative democracies, no? In a dictatorship, "right and wrong" become whatever the dictator believes in and enforces. Only for those people within that society, though. For those within North Korea, the state's will is right and everything else is wrong. From our point of view, the North Korea, as a state, usually holds a grossly immoral view, and the people are slaves to a madman. However, he is only "wrong" because we say he is; the universe has no inherent value judgements—it's up to us to create them for ourselves.

Unless, of course, one can prove the existence of (a) god(s). However, there are multiple problems with that—inability to produce proof, and lack of a good argument for why a god or gods would automatically make that god's or those gods' morality "correct." Unless one believes the Appeal to Force is the way to decide such things.

At the moment, the overwhelming majority in modern society says that animals are less than humans and that, therefore, human concerns come first. Unless something changes about such a society—for starters, a lack of a self-preservation instinct and ability to place priorities in a good order—that is the de facto correct position. There isn't even a near-equal split, which would throw the morality into complete question.

edited 2nd Aug '11 1:23:56 AM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Guys I do not think this is a discussion about morality and stuff like this. You are getting very off topic, and I might call a Mod over.

Refer to the last paragraph of my previous post as to why it's relevant. I'm attempting to keep on-topic, but the reasoning behind the argument is complex. It doesn't help that it's spread across multiple ridiculously-long posts, either, but, eh, what can you do? (<— rhetorical question)

Edit: And, technically, it is a discussion about the morality of animal rights. Or at least, that is the implicit idea that comes with the concept of animal rights. But now I'm just being difficult.

edited 2nd Aug '11 1:51:14 AM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

@ USAF 713: I was admitting that my original phrasing didn't cover the whole argument. Also, something being popular does make it right, in a philosophical manner. It's called moral relativism. Morality exists because we say it does. If tomorrow, everyone decided that murder was right, well, that would be the new morality. Morality is simply a theory enforced by laws, which is all subject to change.

The only compliment I will give to moral relativism is that it is observant – people do disagree over what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. But then people don’t agree over what is ‘true’ or ‘false’, but that doesn’t prove that reality is relative either. Some people are wrong, and they find out about it when they encounter other people with other information, or when they try to put their own views into practice. Morality is the concern over what is right or wrong, whether it is enforced by laws or not.

On a related note, you would literally have to outlaw meat to get me to eat a vegan diet; 90% of the things I've seen in such a vegan diet are disgusting. That's just me, of course, but there are a lot of people out there who are like me.

I wonder how many of them have actually pushed the boat out, never mind tried any of this stuff. And how many times do I have to say it – I’m not advocating veganism. Semi-vegetarianism would suffice.

Take this with a grain of salt, though. The day humanity has access to food that looks, feels, smells, and tastes exactly like meat—but isn't actually meat, or at least doesn't require killing animals—and which is economically equivalent to food in terms of cost, I will immediately call out everyone for eating meat, and I will never eat meat from a normal animal again. Yes, I believe this is possible. Until then, it's meat for me, my friend.

Your basis on calling out everybody else for meat-eating is little more than personal convenience. “It’s delicious” or “It’s not economical” have never been considered serious arguments in any moral debate. Abolishing slavery wasn’t “economical”, but that didn’t stop us, did it? And the economy continues, despite what most slave supporters said. I don’t think the economic case is much different for meat eating.

Are fish and seafood any less deserving of your moral protection than dogs and cats? You realize that dolphins and octopi are probably two of the smartest creatures on Earth, right?

I don’t eat octopus or dolphins, and in any case I never said it was morally clean – it is, however, an improvement over the alternative of eating social animals like cows and sheep, and many use it as a first step towards vegetarianism. It is unlikely that fish suffer as much as cows or humans do.

The people destroying the Amazon are stupid. And cows would eat all that anyhow. Besides that, they're eating things produced by humans specifically for them. That is besides the point, however.

The people destroying the Amazon are farmers who are paid a pittance for what they do and who will starve to death if they don’t raise the cattle to earn their wages and feed their families. They have no more choice over their economic position than you have over where you were born, so don’t start getting snobbish and calling them stupid. It is thank to the current demand for meat eating that they are stuck in that economic mess to begin with. The same demand, I might note, that you yourself are contributing to on the grounds of “it’s delicious” and “it’s not economical to do anything else.” And cows would not “eat all that anyhow” because the only reason they are so abundant is to meet the high demand for beef and dairy in the first place. And don’t counter with the “well we gotta keep the demand up so that they can earn their way”. One alternative is to make other, less destructive agricultural practices viable so that the farmers can switch practices.

Your analogy is amusing, and partially true. But the fact is still that nature was designed for things to kill other things. Things killing other things of the same type is usually bad, but even that happens. We don't kill humans because Ape Shall Never Kill Ape. Of course there is morality behind it, but that's what it boils down to. This how nature was meant to be; it may not be pleasant, but it's true. I never said we should go all holocaust on the animals, or make it anymore unpleasant than it has to be, but it's how it works.

Nature, designed or not, doesn’t have a brain to think with, and it shows. And “this is how Nature was meant to be” is an empty claim because you’re only saying that in hindsight. What about if humanity rebels and designs the ecosystem to be moral AND gets it right? Was that “meant to be” as well?

edited 2nd Aug '11 1:58:01 AM by BlueChameleon

Just because you volunteer for the experimental brain surgery doesn't mean you're insane. It means you have no sense of self-preservation. That is also besides the point, however. Charity work in war-ridden countries doesn't actually promise to hurt you. Surgery by-definition will. That is a product of the example, however.

Such people do have a sense of self-preservation – ask a soldier – but they put it aside to serve some greater cause. In the soldier’s case, that cause is to fight for his country. In the volunteer’s case, that cause is to risk themselves for the benefit of others. The fact that it might be painful does not suddenly change the calculus against them. Besides, I have heard nothing about brain surgery being especially painful for the recipient. Don’t anaesthetics get used?

Your idea that "those who would volunteer cannot be allowed to volunteer because they are needed to run things" is correct.

The problem is not that there are altruistic people who are willing; the problem is that the selfish people get left behind.

If the animal rights people put all the effort they put into saving whales and dogs and cats and whatever into helping people, perhaps we'd be getting somewhere. That is the number one thing that bothers the hell out of me for animal rights: talk to me about it when we've fixed humanity's problems. Until then, even if I can do it, I won't, because it just isn't as important.

That rather assumes that humanity’s problems will get resolved, and that they are not intertwined with animals’ problems. But it’s tough to get wars to stop, and if you’re up against nationalistic fanatics who care more about national glory than about making sure the nation lives to enjoy it, it only gets harder. Becoming a vegetarian, even half of one, is a cinch by comparison. All it requires is for you to take an interest in your diet, get into the habit of trying new food for a bit, and then roll with it. It’s not like you’re giving up smoking; meat isn’t addictive, as far as I am aware. And if you switch from meat to, say, a diet rich in fibre, grains, rice and similar dishes, you’re also reducing the demand for meat and switching the demand to less controversial foods like soy and wheat, rice, pasta, corn, oats, potatoes, peanut butter, and so on, which are less environmentally destructive. Less Amazon is cut down, more existing agricultural land is given over to more productive farming practices, farmers benefit, consumers benefit, Amazon benefits, and at least the environmental costs are diminished. This is very relevant for humanity.

The day when I can stand in the middle of the country of my choice, walk down the street, and see neither bullets flying nor a poor person in sight, is the day that animal rights activists have any standing to argue their case to me. Until then, they are officially last on the totem pole, and will sit there until all the other problems of humanity are dealt with, period.

Human disasters are often worse for everyone involved, but seriously, think of the implications of what you are saying. You expect me to believe that you cannot switch to even a semi-vegetarian diet unless wars are totally abolished, famine a thing of the past, diseases completely cured, psychological health widespread, all human-centred ethical questions like abortion and euthanasia sorted out, and international cooperation a universal? Conversely, how seriously do you believe that the regular culling and butchering of herding beasts, the squalid confinement and abuse of animals unfortunate enough to be in substandard zoos, the mental torture inflicted upon monkeys in the name of inconclusive psychological research, and the regular testing of creatures who, for all you know, are suffering a lot for the sake of diminishing returns, would all be banished from your moral considerations if you heard of even one assassination attempt on one street in all the world, even if it happened on the other side of the world and was a comparative one-off? How much of this kind of ‘humans first’ thinking is soundly based and how much of it is simplified human supremacist thinking?

Except, once again, morality is relative. The vast majority of people think that eating animals is normal and healthy and have no problem with it—which, for the most part, is biologically, and I think morally true. You disagree morally, but since you and people like you are not the majority, there is no reason to conform.

I sincerely doubt that this is a valid moral argument. Popularity, as I keep insisting, is no measure of truth or moral rightness, and to be honest I can’t believe you take seriously the idea that morality is little more than a popularity contest, because that is what this all amounts to. We don’t treat truth in the same way. If a minority of people believed the birds evolved from the dinosaurs, does that mean the majority are right to believe otherwise? Moral beliefs have consequences, and those consequences have always mattered whether or not people were ignorant of what was going on. Slavery may well have been considered right once, but the fact is it has never been right. It just took humanity so long to realise that, that by the time they cottoned on to the fact, they had already dug themselves into a hole. Who do you admire, the people who climbed out or the people who kept digging? More to the point, why do you admire them? It’s painfully obvious that you culture enabled you to do so, but is that all there is to it? Is it really that arbitrary?

edited 2nd Aug '11 2:07:08 AM by BlueChameleon

Of course reality isn't debatable; reality is real. Although there are some scientists trying to prove even that wrong. Morality, on the other hand, is a product of the human condition.

I have tried many different forms of food that isn't meat. It's not a particularly satisfying or fulfilling diet. That is simply personal taste, however. Also, what, exactly, is "semi-vegetarianism?"

Slavery involved humans. Once again, it comes down to humans > animals. Also, yes it is much different, simply through scale. Abolishing slavery had the benefit that slaves are people, and can integrate into society at least partially on their own. Animals, however, cannot reintegrate into the ecosystem on their own, and it would be beyond prohibitive to try and do it for them. Not to mention infinitely worse to simply kill them, or even simply allow them to quietly snuff out into extinction. At least they can live; I find your idea that it's better for them to be free and extinct than alive and, if I could get my way, ethically treated, to be quietly horrifying.

This is an inconsistent argument. All animals have to be equal, for this whole schtick to work. If not at the top—such as dolphins and octopi—than at least at the bottom. Fish cannot be "less equal," or there is a fallacy going on.

That was directed at the loggers, actually. I forgot about the farmers who burn out hundreds of acres. Ok, "make other processes viable." Well, go ahead. Yeah, economics don't work like that. America alone produces enough food to feed the Western Hemisphere, last I checked... or it did, until all the farmers outproduced themselves and went out of business. Production is the bane of agriculture. Trying to add in more production will only create more poverty. Industrialization is hard, and adding more will run into the same economics barrier. I would rather animals die than humans be forced into destitution. Call me cruel, if you like.

Because playing god has ever been a good idea. Changing the fundamentals of an ecosystem can introduce a host of problems, such as new diseases and environmental decay. Terraforming isn't something we should be trying—least of all on the only home we have—when it isn't currently necessary. Nature is designed well enough as it is; nobody ever said life was supposed to be fair. We'd die of starvation and overpopulation if it was "fair," as you imagine it.

The greatest service we can ever do for a soldier is to never give him a war to fight in. That, I'd say, is the ultimate respect to be given. Perhaps painful isn't the right word; impossibly dangerous is better. Poking around in a biological computer we don't really understand never seems like a good idea.

They are still "worth more" on a societal level. They should be running things, not throwing their bodily well-being—and potentially lives—away. If it really must come down to the selfish versus the altruistic and kind, then I would rather force the selfish to challenge themselves and have some Character Development. Society as a whole would certainly benefit.

So it's hard. Life is hard. Deal with it. It's still more important. I would rather spend a hundred lifetimes trying to solve even just this basic problem—war—than even one trying to deal with the concept of animal rights. Humanity > animals; it's that simple, for me.

You'll destroy large swaths of the economy. Yes, there will be more demand for agricultural products, but we're already well past that level of demand, and now there will be untold numbers of animal workers who will need new work. There is already a general lack of jobs. We cannot simply switch to vegetables. It is infinitely more complicated. And the Amazon would still be cut down; if not by farmers, then by loggers. Another industry that has to walk the fine line of ethics versus people who need to live.

Edit:

Yes, well, nobody said we should be cruel towards the animals. It's simply that human concerns > animal concerns. We should care if they feel pain, and only induce what is necessary, but humanity's needs decide what "necessary" entails.

edited 2nd Aug '11 2:26:19 AM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

If it's not sentient and intelligent enough to hold a basic argument with me I don't care how it feels or if it can feel pain or not. The obvious exception to that is if it will become that, as an example, a human baby.

edited 2nd Aug '11 2:23:56 AM by Lessinath

"This thread has gone so far south it's surrounded by nesting penguins. " — Madrugada

Are you actually paying attention to what I put up here? I have never once suggested that we should live in a ‘vegan utopia’, and I resent being misrepresented this way. I never once said that all animals are ‘equal’, whatever that is supposed to mean*

. I never suggested the idea of letting a species ‘be free and extinct’ *

^{This idea of ‘freeing’ the animals gets tossed around in talks of pet ownership, for example, but I still haven’t received a satisfactory response to this weird claim since I pointed it out in post 329}

. I no more think that meddling with the ecosystem is a good option than you do – in fact I addressed this point early on in the discussion *

^{see posts 332 and 342, reply to joeyjojo}

. And what exactly is the point of the ‘life is hard deal with it’ comment? I was pointing out how difficult dealing with wars can be, so I was already aware of that, and I was pointing out the strangeness of your argument against going even slightly vegetarian. And when did I suggest that ‘switch to vegetables’ was the only way to stop the destruction of the Amazon? One, I am fully aware that it is more complicated than that. There’s also the search for raw materials to be mined, like metals and fossil fuels, going on there. And two, vegetarianism isn’t about ‘switching to vegetables’ *

^{I certainly am not advocating full blown vegetarianism for all. I said that earlier, too}

.

Do you have a stereotype in mind when you talk to me? I'm not even a subscriber to Animal Rights, I only stumbled across this sort of thing a few weeks or so ago, and I'm interested in looking at it in more detail and seeing what all the fuss is about. I certainly haven't committed myself to any position yet, and as I explained to ekuseruekuseru above, I'm not trying to win the argument, I'm testing my current ideas to see how well they hold up. If they flop, they flop. If they hold better than I thought, so be it. Don't make the mistake of believing you are talking to someone who's already made up their mind on this, however it comes across in my posts.

I make the slavery comparison not to show that animals are on a morally equal footing with slavery, (which I don’t agree with), but to point out the problems of your ‘convenience’ way of thinking about morals. And I’m getting tired of your near- Argumentum Ad Nauseum repetition of “yeah well humans>animals”. I agreed with that position already, but at least I gave reasons and a qualifier *

. I can’t tell if you’ve got a point to back up that claim or if you are just repeating it.

I already dealt with most of the points you raise about the economy *

, and frankly you misrepresented my position. But I’ll reply to this:

You'll destroy large swaths of the economy. Yes, there will be more demand for agricultural products, but we're already well past that level of demand, and now there will be untold numbers of animal workers who will need new work. There is already a general lack of jobs.

I beg your pardon? It’s the meat-eating industry, not the United States Mint. What large swaths are you talking about? I know it has a widespread influence, in fast food, in catering, in takeaways and in restaurants and supermarkets, but these aren’t going to collapse if meat demand diminished. They’ll stock new and alternative produce, as they already do with vegetarian options and non-meat goods, or gradually phase from one kind of food to another, still selling them both at the same time in the interim. Let me give you a hypothetical example.

The economical effects of raising the animals is about as radical as it’s going to get precisely because the people raising the meat would be raising fewer cattle. But I’m not suggesting leaving the farmers out to dry. If the drop was gradual enough, there would be plenty of time, say, for farmers to turn over some parts of pasture for crops as well, and to carefully arrange breeding so that only slightly fewer cattle are born (it would match the lowering demand and so be more productive for the farmers). A little more crop next year, slightly fewer cattle the next year. So long as it is carefully balanced, closely matched with the level of demand, and drawn out over a long enough time gap, the farmers will be able to reduce their meat and gradually allow crop cultivation to predominate. Government initiatives would, I imagine, be the main vehicle for this kind of change, but they could also be used to suggest guidelines and to enter into negotiations with farmers. Even then, I’d be hesitant to say that the cows will disappear completely – there might still be a few raised cattle farms or sections of farms raising cattle to meet demand, but since meat demand would be less, and alternative crop demands (say, legumes or oats) would have increased, the farmers now have a predominantly agricultural yield that is easier and more economical to manage. I’m not sure how easy this would be to put into practice, but this is the kind of thing I am thinking of when I suggest there could be slight modifications to the economy. Economy is about the production and trade of goods and materials. If one good slowly diminishes with a gradual lowering of demand, there is plenty of time for alternative goods to be produced to slowly supplant it as the dominant one. I no more want the farmers to suffer than I want a complete collapse of the meat industry overnight, which is implausible, undesirable, and frankly not what I, contrary to your comments’ implications, had in mind.

Also, as for the animals themselves, I do not want them to be ‘set free’ or the species left to ‘go extinct’, but my point was about population control, not culling. If less livestock breeding took place as a response to the slight drop in demand, then with each season the livestock population goes down slightly, until eventually it was reduced to manageable levels. In my hypothetical scenario, some of the farmers who have given over their land to crops could, for example, simply prevent the last of the populations from breeding, so that new individuals do not appear and divert his energies from agriculture. The last animals could then live out their lives – ethically, of course – until they die naturally. If you still think this is too nightmarish a conclusion (I don’t understand why, because nothing’s suffering or getting culled), then in some cases the animals would be recruited for other purposes; cattle would still be needed for dairy, for example. The only other place I can imagine for them would be captivity, perhaps as some kind of ‘farming history’ section in zoos or in biological enclosures, but that would require a lot of change in current cultural attitudes, and in any case my point is to suggest the kind of thing that could be done to treat them ethically outside of meat-raising.

This isn’t the only possible way of going about it, and there’s hardly any point for me to get more detailed than that because currently I am not going to implement it, am I? The only major obstacle I can see in the near future is the cultural attitude one.

Anyway, back to points:

Of course reality isn't debatable; reality is real. Although there are some scientists trying to prove even that wrong. Morality, on the other hand, is a product of the human condition.

Tell that to the cultural relativists (the extreme kind, not the sensible ones), who aren’t that far removed from moral relativists. Yes, it is a product of the human condition, but the human condition itself is real, and so is morality, but this is going to get off topic very quickly, so I’ll stop there for this discussion.

I have tried many different forms of food that isn't meat. It's not a particularly satisfying or fulfilling diet. That is simply personal taste, however.

That’s good. At least you know what it is like. To be honest, I was wondering for a while whether you were one of these who just said it was horrible but who had never tried it. Just out of interest, what did you try?

Also, what, exactly, is "semi-vegetarianism?"

Look it up on Wikipedia if you're that interested. I was quite surprised and intrigued when I found out about it, myself.

Nature is designed well enough as it is; nobody ever said life was supposed to be fair. We'd die of starvation and overpopulation if it was "fair, " as you imagine it.

Or rather, as you imagine I imagine it. And Nature is designed well enough to sustain itself, not to meet our moral requirements, which was the point of my comparison to a hypothetical ecosystem designed and implemented by humans (I do not say whether it is possible or not, but it certainly isn't happening anytime soon).

I’ll come back to meet your other points sometime later, as I need a break, but I can’t say when to be precise.

edited 2nd Aug '11 2:11:13 PM by BlueChameleon

Yes, but this is NOT a discussion of Moral Relativism.

<Mod Hat ON>

Nick's right. That's a related topic, but not this topic. Please make a new thread for it.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Not to mention its painful to go through gigantic essay posts.

Indeed it is.

Seeing all these piss ant tropers trying to talk tough makes me laugh. If Matrix were here, he'd laugh too.

This is the animal rights thread. I basically operate under the assumption that someone who doesn't agree with me is pro-animal rights. It's easier that way. That, and I was mostly just reading the posts responding to my arguments, because I participate in multiple threads and I didn't really feel like reading the whole thing. So, whatever conversations you had with ekuseruekuseru, I didn't really read them.

Amusing mental image.

Well, this is less of an issue now, but I find it hard to take any vaguely pro-animal rights position seriously when it involves claiming that, say, X animal is worth less than Y animal, when neither is a member of that coveted "super smart" class. Except insects. They really can't be taken seriously on an individual basis.

This is the ISO Standard Animal Rights argument against animal ownership in general: that it's better to be dead than owned. I misread an implication from you of this.

I've already consistently pointed out that I am pro-animal welfare. Animal rights is the next—and in my opinion, illogical—step above that. So, I would care about the zoos and whatnot; I cannot be brought to bother with the stupider arguments that constantly are brought up from within the movement, however. As for "human supremacist," that's a rather loaded way of phrasing it. The truth is, the most basic, irrefutable idea behind such an argument, if you want to call it by that name, is that it wouldn't make sense as a species to think in any different terms. Once again, however, I am refuting the idea of animal rights, not welfare.

Perhaps this is why our arguments don't actually seem to fit. We weren't talking about the same thing.

Look at the economy at the moment. We still have a huge number of animal-product-related jobs, and it's all still tanking, and there are huge unemployment numbers. The fallacy I was addressing was the idea that the animal-product industry would be the only one affected. Even if you reduce it gradually, the world economy will not be able to take that kind of a hit.

Except I already reminded you that farmers produce far, far more than the world currently needs. If it wasn't for the fact that nothing can be free, we could probably end world hunger in a heartbeat. That's how far farmers produce over the current demand. Think about it: demand cannot outpace the output. You cannot do it. Farmers of the modern age simply outdo any attempt to keep up.

This extends to the livestock sector of agriculture, but not nearly as much. But now you want to make it almost entirely shift to non-livestock production. The agricultural sector would implode. There simply isn't enough demand, and if there was—through an increased birthrate, perhaps—you would have devastating social issues to contend with, to the point where trying to end meat-production or severely limit it would be last on the list of things to do.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether you do it slowly or not, it's going to fuck over a ton of people. Not to mention that even less is going to be consumed, because quite a bit of foodstuff goes towards feeding livestock—exactly as you said, if I recall correctly.

This. Nature is designed so that we can live. I am fine with that. It would simply not be feasible to try and induce such a dramatic shift, even over time. Furthermore, most of the people who want such change wouldn't settle for the gradual shift. They would demand that it happen over as short a period as possible, which would be even worse.

In theory, absolutely. However, since morality is the product of society as a whole, in practice the reality of it changes. Really now, if you wanted to implement this kind of system—economics and ethics be damned—you could. It would only be a matter of convincing the significant majority. After all, the Soviet Union, PRC, and North Korea prove that you can have a society that defies all economic logic and still prevail... until your economy finally collapses entirely, and if not, then you'll be miserable or hated. So, it's not necessarily impossible—just really impractical.

You're on a wiki forum—TV Tropes, no less—in a discussion about politics and morality, and you're complaining that you have to read? Cry me a river.

edited 3rd Aug '11 3:33:18 AM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Don't suffer "as much"? How about "not at all"? Assuming you're referring to embryonic stem cell research, (and not adult stem cell, umbilical stem cell, etc... though I don't think the cells there suffer either) the embryos used in this have no means at all of even being aware what's happening to them, let alone suffering from it. (Well, none we know of. But hey, we don't know if air molecules might have some means of knowing what's happening to them either...)

Anyway, I'd say stem cell research has less REASON to be controversial, but I wouldn't know if it IS less controversial...

[EDITED IN: To lead this sort of back into the topic, while I'm not much of an animal rights person nor embryo rights/early fetus rights person, it's important to remember the significant differences, such as that an embryo is "human" but not sentient, and an animal is sentient but not human. Of course, it's in a very loose sense of the word that an embryo is human, only in that it's of human genetics and has the "potential" to grow into a human or whatever. Personally, I don't think it's a very meaningful sense, as an egg cell could "potentially" grow into one if fertilized, but it still is distinguished from animal rights in ways that one isn't necessarily hypocritical to support one and not the other.]

edited 3rd Aug '11 7:24:48 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Right, last reply and then I'm admitting defeat. I don't have the stamina to keep going.

This is the animal rights thread. I basically operate under the assumption that someone who doesn't agree with me is pro-animal rights. It's easier that way. That, and I was mostly just reading the posts responding to my arguments, because I participate in multiple threads and I didn't really feel like reading the whole thing. So, whatever conversations you had with ekuseruekuseru, I didn't really read them.

OK, can’t blame you for that last one about reading old posts. The references are just there if you want a look. As for the first one, though, I hope you realise that simplifying anybody’s position runs the risk of applying stereotypes where they don’t belong.

''I have never once suggested that we should live in a ‘vegan utopia’, and I resent being misrepresented this way. Amusing mental image.''

What? You used those very words (‘vegan utopia’) yourself (post 380). And you’re mocking me here*

?

I never once said that all animals are ‘equal’, whatever that is supposed to mean. Well, this is less of an issue now, but I find it hard to take any vaguely pro-animal rights position seriously when it involves claiming that, say, X animal is worth less than Y animal, when neither is a member of that coveted "super smart" class. Except insects. They really can't be taken seriously on an individual basis.

I was saying earlier that ‘intelligence’ was one criteria for judging the moral worth of something. Now that you've pointed that out, I've had a rethink, and now I think I’ll rescind that comment. It’s pretty clear that intelligent does not equal moral, otherwise someone like a sophisticated mathematician would be more ‘moral’ than an ordinary person, which is absurd. I do think, however, that neural complexity is a factor because it indicates the kind of experience an organism is likely to be having while it is alive, and a small nervous system is not likely, for example, to have many avenues for suffering, to have avenues for moral or social emotion, or even to be aware of its suffering for long. This is why the death of a fruitfly, for instance, is less tragic than the death of a lizard, which in turn is less tragic than the death of a dolphin. In everyday practice, however, it is more economical to judge all humans as equal until proven otherwise.

I never suggested the idea of letting a species ‘be free and extinct’. This is the ISO Standard Animal Rights argument against animal ownership in general: that it's better to be dead than owned. I misread an implication from you of this.

Fair enough, but again, I am not committed to any position yet. And what Standard Animal Rights Argument? Who said that? I only every hear about this ‘argument’ on forums by people against it.

I've already consistently pointed out that I am pro-animal welfare. Animal rights is the next—and in my opinion, illogical—step above that. So, I would care about the zoos and whatnot; I cannot be brought to bother with the stupider arguments that constantly are brought up from within the movement, however. As for "human supremacist, " that's a rather loaded way of phrasing it. The truth is, the most basic, irrefutable idea behind such an argument, if you want to call it by that name, is that it wouldn't make sense as a species to think in any different terms. Once again, however, I am refuting the idea of animal rights, not welfare. Perhaps this is why our arguments don't actually seem to fit. We weren't talking about the same thing.

I was using it in a strictly logic-bound sense. Supremacism is the belief in the inherent superiority of X on no other grounds than 'it is X'. If your belief in the superiority of humans over other animals actually had reasons attached to it, all well and good. If not, I feel justified in describing it as supremacist talk, using the pedantic definition of supremacism.

And the 'species membership=species loyalty' argument doesn’t work because it’s based on a flawed concept of 'species' or ‘group selectionism’ that says adaptations are ‘for the good of the species’. Dude, that went out of date in biology last millennium. You can’t base arguments on that any more and expect them to be held up by strict intellectual standards because its premises are now considered questionable, if not outright 100% false. Anyway, we already have a limited application of animal rights – it’s called human rights, because humans technically are animals. I only use the word animals to mean non-human animals, which is why I put ‘other’ animals whenever I can.

Look at the economy at the moment. We still have a huge number of animal-product-related jobs, and it's all still tanking, and there are huge unemployment numbers. The fallacy I was addressing was the idea that the animal-product industry would be the only one affected. Even if you reduce it gradually, the world economy will not be able to take that kind of a hit. Except I already reminded you that farmers produce far, far more than the world currently needs. If it wasn't for the fact that nothing can be free, we could probably end world hunger in a heartbeat. That's how far farmers produce over the current demand. Think about it: demand cannot outpace the output. You cannot do it. Farmers of the modern age simply outdo any attempt to keep up. This extends to the livestock sector of agriculture, but not nearly as much. But now you want to make it almost entirely shift to non-livestock production. The agricultural sector would implode. There simply isn't enough demand, and if there was—through an increased birthrate, perhaps—you would have devastating social issues to contend with, to the point where trying to end meat-production or severely limit it would be last on the list of things to do. In the end, it doesn't matter whether you do it slowly or not, it's going to fuck over a ton of people. Not to mention that even less is going to be consumed, because quite a bit of foodstuff goes towards feeding livestock—exactly as you said, if I recall correctly.

What do you want me to do about it? I didn’t design the current economy. There have always been unemployment numbers – employment for furs and leather and for cosmetic animal testing must have taken a dip in recent decades due to some animal welfare movements alone. If you want me to wave a magic wand and suddenly grant jobs to everybody, redirect the food produce to feed the Third World countries, or to come up with a miraculous economic policy that’ll save everybody, you’re not going to get it, however much I’d like to give it. I’d like to advocate the next best thing that took into account as much as possible for everybody concerned, if only I knew what the next best thing (or things for that matter) was. I know there will be people losing out sooner or later, and it’s not their (or my or your) fault they were born into an economy that gave them options that could one day backfire, but I think you overestimate the scale of the problem because the economy is made up of several other industries and people are perpetual entrepreneurs. Besides, I’m not thinking of anything much worse than what’s already happened – the introduction and steady growth of vegetarianism and the associated products that arose to meet its demand. If there are radicals out there who want the meat industry to collapse overnight, I’d think they were being less realistic than you apparently think I am. I don't support their position.

As for the increased birth rate comment – good grief, that’s not a logical consequence of what I said. The total population could stay the same and my hypothetical scenario would still fit. Besides, I’d argue for the redistribution of food goods too, and there is work underway for that somewhere, I’ll bet, and I'll gladly support it. But the redistribution of food won’t happen under the meat industry economy any more than it will under the vegetarian industry economy – in fact, I’d argue it would be less likely to happen because meat production requires more land for both crops and pastures, and land has to be gained all the time. The only place where meat eating would be viable would be for developing countries, and even then they'd have to drop it once they reached the developed benchmark because after that it wouldn't be feasible.

Moreover, if climate change happens, Third World countries will be hit the hardest, and one of the causes of climate change is the destruction of the Amazon. I’ll let you make the last link based on our discussion above. Besides, supporting one cause does not suddenly mean I should neglect another, especially when logically I could be vegetarian and campaign for Third World Aid at the same time. That is what I have in mind. What did you think I was going to do, devote my time to sabotaging animal test clinics? I’m not even putting animals first, as most ‘pro-animal rights’ supporters are allegedly supposed to do (I’m not even pro-Rights and won’t describe myself as such until I’m clear as to what Animal Rights actually means). I’m just saying that looking after them is also another concern.

This. Nature is designed so that we can live. I am fine with that. It would simply not be feasible to try and induce such a dramatic shift, even over time. Furthermore, most of the people who want such change wouldn't settle for the gradual shift. They would demand that it happen over as short a period as possible, which would be even worse.

Correction: We are designed so that we can continue living in Nature *

. Nature isn't a global catering industry; Nature is a military camp where anyone who doesn't fall in line is "binned". And the owner of the camp won't make any concessions for us. If we run ourselves into destruction, Nature won't rush in to save us. That's what survival of the fittest means.

As for the "people who want such change wouldn't settle for the gradual shift"? That’s their problem. I don’t support their position. And use your imagination a little bit. I’m not saying we’ll redesign the ecosystem now anymore than we’ll travel to the stars anytime now. I don’t rule it out as obviously impossible, but I don't think we’ll even be close to doing the necessary work for ecosystem redesign for centuries or millennia, and frankly I think it will be unfeasible for a very long time. So, yeah, I say don’t bother with it and all that.

edited 4th Aug '11 3:55:20 AM by BlueChameleon

I used to be such a terrible person towards animals when I was a kid. This one time I tortured a fish until it was barely alive (much to the immense disgust of my twin sibling). In addition as one of my pastimes, I used to find snails (along with a bunch of other bored elementary school kids) and throw them into the street to be squashed by the oncoming school bus. Now I try not to hurt any insects or fish unless for certain reasons (for example, animals that actively try to stink, bite, or suck my blood). Of course I'm not a paragon of kindness, I know I will hurt animals if I'm in a miserable enough mood (especially insects, if I think I can get away with it) - it's not something I'm proud of. Anyway, I do believe animals used for practical purposes such as food or scientific progress should be treated with the least amount of suffering possible or put down quickly and immediately when their utility has been exhausted. On the other hand, due to my animal prejudices, I do have a skewed attitude towards the treatment of certain animal species. Personally I believe the consumption of cats, dogs, monkeys, apes and horses as an everyday culinary preference should be banned (or at least strictly regulated), yet I remain a neutral attitude towards the consumption of rabbits (which I have eaten without regret), snakes, rats, pigeons, and guinea pigs (which are a delicacy in Peru). Furthermore, I am fine with the eating of animals such as cows, chickens, ducks, and pigs (even though pigs rank in sociability and intelligence comparable to dogs and horses). I do think it's wrong to harp on another culture for eating things we find undesirable while we participate in the same manner on different creatures (for example, we tend to ridicule India's perception of sacredness towards their bovines), but my upbringing can make it difficult to sympathize with ones who consume things that I keep as companions in my home.

Being an owner of two dogs, I can't help but maintain the belief that animals do have souls. I think anyone who has owned a dog or cat can attest that such animals are basically human beings with far less mental capacity.

However, the 'animal liberationist' mentality is ridiculous to me, since their ideals include releasing pets. One of my dogs is a Chinese Crested, which for reference is basically the most inbred perversion of evolution known to the canine world. Left alone, he wouldn't last an hour in the wild. And he lives so comfortably that kicking him out of the house would probably be the least ethical thing to do .

I'm disdainful about animal breeding. In my opinion, the horrible health of dog breeds is a prime example as to why eugenics and ethnic cleansing are awful ideas. However, I also own two pure breeds, so I guess I'm a hypocrite in that regard.

They never travel alone.