Philosophy Discussion Forums

.... so. where does that leave Vegans.

Briefly, a lot of the CO2 in the world comes from animal respiration, the C comes from the body of the animal that breathes out. Plants grow by photosynthesis using, at least partly, animal derived CO2 ergo.....
QED

Seriously Mark? I too think that vegans aren't thinking things through but this is just a cheap point that falls at the first level of analysis, ie. what is the cost to the animals of the carbon consumed? Zip. It's akin to animals eating leaf litter and empty seed pods. Harmless behaviour. Of course, plants are hardly little angels themselves, engaging in ruthless slow motion battles with each other for sunlight and land. Life is nasty. Beautiful, fascinating and often heartbreakingly poignant, but brutal.

This presents vegans with a problem in that most organisms' lives depends on them harming or killing other organisms. Meanwhile, we can't know how many rats, mice, birds, spiders, insects, molluscs and worms die due to displacement or accident in order to grow and harvest our food. It would seem illogical to baulk at eating the occasional prawn or sardine when our vegetables result in the deaths of intelligent mammals like rats and mice.

The ethical question is ultimately deciding which diets and lifestyles generally involve the least damage, needless suffering and waste.

Greta wrote:The ethical question is ultimately deciding which lifestyles generally involve the least damage, needless suffering and waste.

No humans at all.

Mark1955 wrote:

Greta wrote:The ethical question is ultimately deciding which lifestyles generally involve the least damage, needless suffering and waste.

No humans at all. :twisted:

What about you, your family and friends?

Greta wrote:

Mark1955 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

No humans at all.

What about you, your family and friends?

Nah!

Every organism on planet Earth will likely get killed by another species and often separately get consumed by yet another organism. The main variable is: will the organism get killed first and then consumed or will the events happen essentially simultaneously? Personally I prefer the former.

Agribusiness follows this model. The jungle often does not.

LuckyR wrote:The main variable is: will the organism get killed first and then consumed or will the events happen essentially simultaneously? Personally I prefer the former.

Why

LuckyR wrote:Every organism on planet Earth will likely get killed by another species and often separately get consumed by yet another organism. The main variable is: will the organism get killed first and then consumed or will the events happen essentially simultaneously? Personally I prefer the former.

Agribusiness follows this model. The jungle often does not.

True, but there's more to life than the manner of death, so to speak.

Which is preferable? A free and fearful life followed by death of unknown horribleness? Or a life of extreme captivity, stuck in your own filth (which you then absorb and pass on to diners), but your death will be at the low end of possible horror?

If there's no other choice I think I'd take the risk on the former - live fast and die pretty!

Mark1955 wrote:

LuckyR wrote:The main variable is: will the organism get killed first and then consumed or will the events happen essentially simultaneously? Personally I prefer the former.

Why

Oh, just random personal preference. Though I admit I lack practical experience, I imagine dying under hospice care is "better" than getting eaten alive by a tiger.

-- Updated October 25th, 2016, 9:47 am to add the following --

Greta wrote:

LuckyR wrote:Every organism on planet Earth will likely get killed by another species and often separately get consumed by yet another organism. The main variable is: will the organism get killed first and then consumed or will the events happen essentially simultaneously? Personally I prefer the former.

Agribusiness follows this model. The jungle often does not.

True, but there's more to life than the manner of death, so to speak.

Which is preferable? A free and fearful life followed by death of unknown horribleness? Or a life of extreme captivity, stuck in your own filth (which you then absorb and pass on to diners), but your death will be at the low end of possible horror?

If there's no other choice I think I'd take the risk on the former - live fast and die pretty!

In the overly simplistic two option model you present, many would agree with you. Though in Real Life wild animals are wild animals and farm animals are farm animals, they don't get to choose one over the other. Their lives (and deaths) are different, but reasonable minds will disagree on the relative benefits of one and the other. And just as we can discuss whether we would prefer to be a wolf or a sheep, the actual animals don't get to pick. Similarly, even if 100% of everyone agreed that being a wolf was way, way better than being a sheep, that is not a reason to get rid of all the sheep and their "inferior" lives (and deaths), just as even if there was 100% consensus that being a wild animal was "better" than being a farm animal, is not justification for getting rid of agriculture nor hamburgers.

LuckyR wrote:"LuckyR" - The main variable is: will the organism get killed first and then consumed or will the events happen essentially simultaneously? Personally I prefer the former."Mark1955" - Why "LucktR" - Oh, just random personal preference. Though I admit I lack practical experience, I imagine dying under hospice care is "better" than getting eaten alive by a tiger.

I suspect I'm a bit older than you. I've realised my big contributions to life are probably mostly behind me and that a lot of the future will be be pretty mundane. I've also talked to my dad over the last 6 months of his life spent in hospice like conditions. We were both agreed that living like a vegetable wasn't worth the effort. While actually being attacked and killed by a tiger would be s**t scary, it wouldn't last long and you wouldn't be around to get PTSD so of your two options it's my preferred route. In a way I'm trying ot make it happen. when I get on the rowing machine I give it a real go in the last minute, hopefully one day [not too soon but one day] that will be just a bit too much.

Mark1955 wrote:

LuckyR wrote:"LuckyR" - The main variable is: will the organism get killed first and then consumed or will the events happen essentially simultaneously? Personally I prefer the former."Mark1955" - Why "LucktR" - Oh, just random personal preference. Though I admit I lack practical experience, I imagine dying under hospice care is "better" than getting eaten alive by a tiger.

I suspect I'm a bit older than you. I've realised my big contributions to life are probably mostly behind me and that a lot of the future will be be pretty mundane. I've also talked to my dad over the last 6 months of his life spent in hospice like conditions. We were both agreed that living like a vegetable wasn't worth the effort. While actually being attacked and killed by a tiger would be s**t scary, it wouldn't last long and you wouldn't be around to get PTSD so of your two options it's my preferred route. In a way I'm trying ot make it happen. when I get on the rowing machine I give it a real go in the last minute, hopefully one day [not too soon but one day] that will be just a bit too much.

Don't be so sure, though it is possible I can see retirement just ahead, though I am not there right now.

Remember, the topic is NOT: how is the best way to die? The topic is: we are all going to get eaten, do you want to get eaten by worms and bacteria in your coffin (after your death) or do you want to get eaten while still alive?

Mark1955 wrote:

LuckyR wrote:"LuckyR" - The main variable is: will the organism get killed first and then consumed or will the events happen essentially simultaneously? Personally I prefer the former."Mark1955" - Why "LucktR" - Oh, just random personal preference. Though I admit I lack practical experience, I imagine dying under hospice care is "better" than getting eaten alive by a tiger.

I suspect I'm a bit older than you. I've realised my big contributions to life are probably mostly behind me and that a lot of the future will be be pretty mundane. I've also talked to my dad over the last 6 months of his life spent in hospice like conditions. We were both agreed that living like a vegetable wasn't worth the effort. While actually being attacked and killed by a tiger would be s**t scary, it wouldn't last long and you wouldn't be around to get PTSD so of your two options it's my preferred route. In a way I'm trying ot make it happen. when I get on the rowing machine I give it a real go in the last minute, hopefully one day [not too soon but one day] that will be just a bit too much.

Exactly.

Also, it's not "agriculture" that condemns animals to torture but agribusiness, especially in relation to chickens and pigs.

Life can be very hard for other farm animals - mothers are separated from their offspring, there are painful procedures and eventually the animals will probably be killed. Perhaps it's not miles from living in the wild. In that case, non-tortured species used for food, work, resources, gaming and companionship would seem better positioned than most other species to survive this Anthropocene extinction event.

As always, the key to survival is either making yourself useful to the boss or slipping under the radar :)

Greta wrote:

Mark1955 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

I suspect I'm a bit older than you. I've realised my big contributions to life are probably mostly behind me and that a lot of the future will be be pretty mundane. I've also talked to my dad over the last 6 months of his life spent in hospice like conditions. We were both agreed that living like a vegetable wasn't worth the effort. While actually being attacked and killed by a tiger would be s**t scary, it wouldn't last long and you wouldn't be around to get PTSD so of your two options it's my preferred route. In a way I'm trying ot make it happen. when I get on the rowing machine I give it a real go in the last minute, hopefully one day [not too soon but one day] that will be just a bit too much.

Exactly.

Also, it's not "agriculture" that condemns animals to torture but agribusiness, especially in relation to chickens and pigs.

Life can be very hard for other farm animals - mothers are separated from their offspring, there are painful procedures and eventually the animals will probably be killed. Perhaps it's not miles from living in the wild. In that case, non-tortured species used for food, work, resources, gaming and companionship would seem better positioned than most other species to survive this Anthropocene extinction event.

As always, the key to survival is either making yourself useful to the boss or slipping under the radar

Your description of animal existence within agribusiness is fairly accurate, which is not a surprise because the lay understanding of the topic is pretty good. OTOH, it is my experience that the appreciation of the brutality (by Modern human eyes and sensibilities) of the wild animal experience is frankly quite poor and likely deserves more explanation (compared to the farm animal experience).

I don't see any sense in all this thread.

First of all, plants are obviously not carnivores, but even if they were... how is that related with veganism? Do they only want to eat "only things that don't eat other things" in your mind? Say that "C" is "meat" is literally selling pencils like diamonds.

Every carnivor chordate (the only thing that seem to be a problem to vegans are chordates) eat more animals than "one" or more animals than the number of animals it produces, or at least, "more weight. Small birds like sparrows eat three times their weight per day I think.

Veganism is just based in feelings, I don't have the same feelings, and that's all. I mean, if their argument is "it's more healthy" then they are not vegans, they are vegetarians, or they just don't eat meat. Going to "why" do they think that, is going to psichology or that kind of things, and asume that they are all equal, when it's not that way. Vegans don't treat better or worse the rest of humans by being vegans, and so, I don't mind about them.

I enjoy seeing "nature" more than many people, I can tell an enormous amount of "useless"facts about ants, for example. And I give value to diversity, a lot of value compared to many vegans (since I can at least explain what I'm talking about when I talk about diversity). But I don't have any bad feeling at all when an animal dies and I eat it. I can respect their feelings, but I don't see farmers and scientists as ignorant, stupid or bad people, they just do the same, they kill, and they eat. I see stupid to wear a death animal, but not because of the pain, but because of paying a lot for being... pretty? etc.

http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/awKQ3qr_700b.jpg

LuckyR wrote:Your description of animal existence within agribusiness is fairly accurate, which is not a surprise because the lay understanding of the topic is pretty good. OTOH, it is my experience that the appreciation of the brutality (by Modern human eyes and sensibilities) of the wild animal experience is frankly quite poor and likely deserves more explanation (compared to the farm animal experience).

Yes, we greatly underestimate suffering in the wild. Humans tend to forget why they trashed ecosystems to build all this - to escape the dangers of the wild.

However, nature is more of a lucky draw than a guaranteed fate like a farm. There's always a small minority of dominant animals that seem to at least enjoy some very good times (reminiscent of human society, only the lives of "human dominants" are much more secure and less fraught than those of other species who must constantly fight for their position). Many of the middling animals can lead reasonable existences, but the dangers are always present.

It also depends on the farm and the attitude of farmers and farm hands. Some are more kind or cruel, like having a good or a bad boss. Being a slave (ie. farm animal) to a "bad boss" (unempathetic farmer) for life would seem a hard fate.