Hacker News Reader

Comment by DoreenMichele | Hacker News Reader

We have known for years that plants give off a pulse ("scream") when assaulted, communicate chemically etc. I have said for years that the idea that eating plants is morally superior because they aren't sentient is basically speciesist, for lack of a better word.

View on HN

Well, I would argue that eating animals is morally superior to cannibalism :)

So why can't eating plants be morally superior to eat animals.

I would argue that there are lots of valid reasons to eat lower on the food chain, many of which can be framed as having a moral impetus. But the idea that it is morally superior based on plants being stupid is repugnant to me. It opens the door on questions like "So, is it okay to eat mentally retarded people?"

Some moral arguments I can agree with:

A mostly plant based diet is less resource intensive. Since most wars are about scarcity of resources, eating less meat is voting against war in a tangible way. It is about promoting peace globally.

There are health benefits to eating less meat.

Meat is very water intensive. Water shortages are a big deal globally at the moment.

There are no doubt others. Just quick and dirty off the cuff thoughts.

Or for me: I should only eat something that I am willing to kill, clean and cook myself. When we pass the important moral test of killing an animal to someone else or a factory I think we lose touch with the decision we're making.

On the other hand, professionals are more efficient, and you can impose rules on them, as to minimize the suffering. My family is from a rural area, and the stories I've heard of inexpert killings are horrifying, certainly worse than using the wrong levels of CO² or similar.

The rules are important: "As the trend of backyard flock tending skyrocketed in recent years, so has deadly infections"

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/thousands-of-diy-foo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham

"The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

If my IQ is higher than yours, is this evidence that I suffer more deeply than you?

I seriously don't personally like this line of reasoning. At. All.

If IQ measured the depth of emotional understanding, then yes. You don't have to like it, just find another reason to argue against eating people - there are plenty.

Plenty of very smart people have terrible social and emotional intelligence.

So, I don't think so.

It really doesn't matter, because the rationale you provided was essentially: it is wrong because I don't like it. To keep with your utilitarian line of thinking, a position against cannibalism based on disease transmission would make more sense. Personally, I prefer the classic argument of it being the ultimate violation of personal space - but that is likely because I favor Locke's theory of property and the mixing of labor.

Ah. No. To be clear: this line of reasoning is simply not my cup of tea and I feel zero need to take it seriously or justify my preference.

To each his own.

Or maybe they do, but we are unable to perceive it, because of our low emotIQ?

Is war really about scarcity of resources or about conflict over resources, regardless of scarcity?

I think it's about the scarce ones. For example, oil is scarce, and the US goes through great and terrible lengths to ensure we get enough of it.

On the other hand, it's also true that war is often caused by greedy leadership.

>Is war really about scarcity of resources or about conflict over resources, regardless of scarcity?

I think there is a huge difference between the world before the green revolution and after, and I personally think that this difference is a big part of why we haven't seen major power wars after the middle of the 20th century.

World war two was the last major power war, and it was also the last major power war fought when there were not enough calories for everyone to eat their fill. Coincidence?

After world war two (well, after the 'green revolution' that happened in the mid 20th century) there was enough food, and... you could argue that we haven't had a direct major power war since then.

I personally think that the fact that getting enough calories is generally not a problem anymore has a lot to do with the fact that we haven't seen any major power wars lately.

I wouldn't make human source of food a major moral issue. In the end, we can't eat rocks. We need something organic, be it plants or animals. Of course, if human survival is put at risk by meat consumption, we'd need to adapt.

I largely agree.

>There are health benefits to eating less meat.

Are there? To what extent?

I'd very much like to see the science to back up a blanket statement like that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

All the information in the world is but a google search away...

Ruminant animals are far more efficient than us at turning plants into high energy protein and fat. And omnivores like pigs and chickens can eat things that we can't/won't (food waste, insects, worms, grasses, seeds), and turn them into protein and fat.

Our current animal feed system is terrible (grow large quantities of monocrop corn and soy on high quality arable land using vast quantities of fertilizer and terrible soil conservation practices).

But farm animals are an important part of the 'circuit' of a viable small farm. Chickens and ducks can help with weeding. Goats and sheep can turn sod into manure, one of them best fertilizers. Having meat/lard/soup bones in the freezer is an important way to get through the winter.

Legumes don't produce a complete protein that we can survive on by themselves. Vegetarian diets tend to skew too far in the direction of carbohydrates. Plants that produce fats and proteins in the quantities we needs (nuts, avocados, etc.) are pretty much as water hungry as animals.

A pure vegetarian diet may not in fact turn out to be more energy efficient or environmentally sound if it just replaces our monocrop animal feed farms with monocrops of unhealthy insuling-provoking carbohydrates.

Historically, highly hierarchical or slaveholding agricultural societies fed their slaves almost exclusively maize/rice/wheat -- and kept the meat/fish for elites. If you look at the archaeological record and remains of those bodies, the health effects are obvious. Short stature, dental health issues, bone density problems, shortened lifespans. Roman soldiers were terrified of their taller and stockier Germanic/Celtic foes who lived on a more well-rounded diet with more meat and dairy.

What about the argument that we should minimize suffering created by our food choices, and plants appear to be less capable of suffering than almost all animals? Which animals do you think we would be ethically justified in eating instead of eating plants?

Eating plants, as opposed to eating animals that ate lots of plants?

By eating animals you save lots of plants from being eaten in the future!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com