Hacker News Reader

Nature is rough my friend. Dogs and bears (which are closely related to dogs) have emotion and form bonds, but they ruthlessly prey one on the other. You and I might live a comfortable life now, but without society you would put any sentient being on the plate in order to feed your own sentient offspring.

Just as you believe that animals are no different from man, you should realize that man is no different from animals and that our physiology requires us to eat them just as they must eat each other. Of course with modern nutritional knowledge and preparation techniques you _could_ live off flora, but human physiology in the absence of technology requires meat no matter how cute or emotional the prey.

And if we went back to living in caves, I'd take up eating animals again. I used to hunt, and I have no particular qualms in taking it up again if it was necessary, which is more than I could say for a lot of people. I always found it incredibly hypocritical when non-vegetarians used to criticise me for hunting.

We are perfectly capable of eating a plant-based diet, we can derive any missing vitamins (e.g. B12) from supplements and fortified foods. Most of us have the choice to forgo eating animals.

I don't see the relevance. We do live in society and do have technology. Without those things, we wouldn't have hospitals, cardboard, or Hacker News either, but what does that mean?

There's a sort of meme which is like a lecture on how dangerous the world 'really' is, often to justify or advocate a lack of compassion. It's portrayed as 'realism' but I find it surreal: We don't live in a state of nature and we have no desire to. Why are we talking about it? Why don't we aim for more, as our ancestors who built this society did?

> There's a sort of meme which is like a lecture on how dangerous the world 'really' is, often to justify or advocate a lack of compassion.

But on the other hand, compassion is not an absolute value either. Taken to extremes, it fosters individual weakness, hypersensitivity, emotionality. And, on a social level, degeneracy of all sorts - crime, mental disease, etc.

That's why ancient societies took pains to train their young men in the arts of war, long after it had ceased to be objectively necessary. The predatory instincts have a great deal of character-building value.

> Taken to extremes, it fosters individual weakness, hypersensitivity, emotionality. And, on a social level, degeneracy of all sorts - crime, mental disease, etc.

I disagree. What is that based on? Compassion fosters crime? The experts I know, and my experience in the world, say compassion fosters emotional strength, reduces behavioral problems, and increases resilience.

> That's why ancient societies took pains to train their young men in the arts of war, long after it had ceased to be objectively necessary. The predatory instincts have a great deal of character-building value.

Again, is there any basis for this? It's bizarre. Even if it's true of "ancient societies" (what time period? which ones?), I have no desire to live in one - and neither would you. We've moved far beyond their bizarre, archaic beliefs and practices. Should we return to human sacrifice, illiteracy, and constant war too?

I'm guessing that fostering "predatory instincts" fosters crime, mental disease, not to mention war and violence.

> our physiology requires us to eat them just as they must eat each other.

This not true as you pointed out yourself.

Not human physiology but a certain environment requires humans to eat meat because there is nothing better available.

In all societies except the most retarded, a vegan diet with supplements (notably vitamin B12) is the cheapest and healthiest diet.

https://www.eatright.org/food/nutrition/vegetarian-and-speci...

Problem is that by not eating meat you are still killing animals indirectly. You just can`t avoid it. How many pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and other *cides are thrown at your GMO soy crops? How many smaller animals are killed by cultivating that land for the crops? And who are we to say that little mouse is worth less than a cow?

People usually favor bigger animals in their animal empathy pyramid. On top are smart or endangered animals and pets that we do not usually eat. Then come bigger animals that we grow to like because we can see their nuanced expressions because of their size. And then on the bottom are insects, pests and "gross" animals.

But who am I to egotistically judge from a human point of view that a dog's life is more important than pig`s. Or that 1 cow deserves to live more than million of flies.

Life is rough. Animals and people die in many different ways, not just for food. My view now is that that fact is inevitable, but that does not mean that you can be a jerk and disrespect life and do as you please. Eat animals, but respect them. Eat them, but in as humane way as possible. Don`t support industrial farming and production of animals. Don`t throw food. Don`t be mindless about it. Care for the environment. Don`t kill without purpose, even the smallest animals.

For sure. I'm aware that we kill animals either way.

But we kill less animals if we don't eat them. Especially if you're in the USA and eat corn fed beef or chicken.

I like your attitude though, in regards to respecting life, and I wish more people had it.

I have settled on the definition of a soul being, "that which makes us unique."

Animals souls do not burn as bright, or as complex as ours do, and perhaps the higher order animals do, but they are there.

I had a special cat once. Deep bond with my wife and I. When my wife was sick, that cat attended to her. She reported the caring touch, done for the same reasons any of us would.

When she died, it was powerful.

She wanted to be with us, and she communicated basic affection, fear, the need to be close, pain, and more.

It was remarkably like the passing of a person. Simpler, but not less, just simpler.

It is hard to justify a lot of what we do, given these kinds if experiences.

One other thing: Animals do vary. Widely. But, when we invest in them, seek mutual understanding, they respond. The more capable ones can respond more than I belueve we realize.

I like to call my dog a person - a very little person, but a person nonetheless. I love your phrasing "simpler, but not less". That's exactly it.

I personify my animals too. Everything's more robust and fulfilling that way. And I think they appreciate it and respond back.

I've long resigned to the fact that eating meat is not justifiable, and that I continue to do it solely because of the taste. I haven't seen a single convincing argument to prove otherwise.

>My argument for a long time was that animals have no ego

I think the problem with a train of thought like this one is that it assume there are certain fixed properties that makes a human "special". That is perhaps not so considering how we build abstractions on base instincts[1]

> So apparently whales are off the table, but cows are fine?

I hate how people do this for dogs and not pigs either, literally makes no sense how morals are peddled sometimes

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_in_the_Machine

Do dogs, cows, whales, sheep, pigs, etc. etc. have emotions and internal lives that matter, at least to them?

This is another one of those things we don’t need yet another PhD, and yet another tomb of books, and yet more decades and centuries, to discuss and probe.

One has only to watch these animals for five minute to see the answer is clearly yes.

It would seem to me the only reason I don’t eat dogs and whales and dolphins is purely my cultural upbringing.

But, in my opinion, all of this is irrelevant. We don’t need to feel for these creatures.

Rather, what we need to do, en mass, is realise the jury is in: for our own health, and the overall sustainability of human life: we ought significantly reduce our meat consumption.

A friend in college had a pet chicken. I was surprised by how intelligent this seemingly stupid bird could be. It would follow commands, recognize me, and even play with me.

That's for a chicken. You only have to spend 5 minutes with a dog or a cow to see how smart they can be.

Dogs are amazing. I have two Border Collie x somethings. I believe they are siblings, same date of birth, same size, same colourings and markings. They have vastly different personalities. They're both very affectionate, one of them ridiculously so: he sleeps most nights curled up against my chest with the back of his head pressed firmly against my chin. If I move, he follows. The two dogs and I have worked together enough that they know all our little drills, and all the discipline-in-small-things we do that enables them to be relatively calm and well behaved for 16 month old dogs. They won't run through open doors or gates, and I walk them off lead and they won't touch the road nor cross the road uninvited, after first sitting and waiting for 10+ seconds.

There was once a Vietnamese couchsurfer who stayed a few nights. Another couchsurfer asked her: have you ever eaten dog. Her response: yes, we eat dog. Not "yeah I've tried it" just unemotionally "yes we eat it."

I've read that pigs outperform 3-year-old human children on cognition tests and are smarter than any domestic animal, and animal experts consider them more trainable than cats or dogs.

The absurdity of all this just astounds me. And yet I continue to eat meat, including pigs.

So it seems to me our problem, as a the Human Society, is that we just don't care. We don't care that we are reducing our own long term survivability, both personally with regard to our own health, and globally with regard to the resources we all share.

Because if we, as all-the-humans-on-the-planet did care, we certainly wouldn't be in this mess.

The problem, then, isn't money, nor politics, nor pollution, nor climate change, etc etc etc.

The problem is: we don't care.

You're right: we just don't care enough. We've desensitized ourselves to the killing of most animals. Eating dogs is gross because dogs are pets, but pigs and cows are just as adorable and yet we eat them.

The funny thing is that my wife is vegetarian and I know for a fact that vegetarian food can be just as nourishing and delicious as a meat-filled diet.

I don't even know what the solution. Perhaps if lab-grown meat becomes a viable option, I'd switch in a heartbeat.

> delicious as a meat-filled diet

Isn't that highly subjective? I love meat, but I really doubt any sort of vegetable combination can give me the same taste.

To be fair, poster didn't say "the same taste", they said "just as delicious". I think Indian food proves them correct.

There are definitely some Indian dishes where I would pick the vegetarian option over the meat one happily.