Hacker News Reader

Comment by bmitc | Hacker News Reader

> "For now aquaculture is the only available option."

Wrong.

I've stopped eating octopus. Of course, we can't stop eating every animal, even many that obviously feel distress and emotions, but we really need to draw a line on reducing and making sure that we raise or naturally hunt animals in a humane as possible way. Octopus is one I've taken a line on. Others still weigh on me.

"Aquaculture" is being billed as the solution to ocean food and even as "green" and "sustainable", but it's going to be just like or worse than the Green Revolution, which continues to strip land of diversity and nutrients.

Humans are hell bent on destroying this planet. Why do humans have a complete lack of an ability to say "stop, we're not going to do this anymore". Instead, we somehow view continuous growth and consumption as the only available option. It makes no sense.

View on HN

> Of course, we can't stop eating every animal...

...

> Why do humans have a complete lack of an ability to say "stop, we're not going to do this anymore".

I'm trying to understand how these two statements were separated by only a couple sentences.

Unless you can invent life that doesn't require the consumption of other life, we're stuck with what we have. As far as I understand, humans have always eaten meat, including before fire was discovered. There's a certain biological component for being omnivores.

Second, I am human too, you know. I'm made up of the same bullshit everyone else is. However, at least I try to question what I do and try and stop things, and I'm not hell bent on actively trying to make other humans' or animals' lives miserable. I'm still ashamed at the amount of waste and suffering I've brought by eating certain things or using certain products.

Part of my point is that there are people in key moments that can say "enough is enough" but they don't. Usually because they know someone else won't say that and will just do it themselves. And so it goes.

So my question, the second one you quoted, is somewhat rhetorical. We humans don't really possess the ability to be okay with enough. If we did, things would have been a lot different a long time ago. I'm a little curious about the reason why we don't though. There's something off about us. I think this is what you get when you give apes enough intelligence to build technology and societies but not enough emotional capacity and development to handle the consequences.

Sliding into this subthread, this explanation you just gave of where you are is why I commended you upthread. I recognize your embrace of your own self-awareness and moral openness. I like people like that.

The original comment was in reference to animals specifically, not just life, so saying we need to eat life to survive and therefor must eat animals is incoherent.

Also, for how long humans have eaten meat is totally irrelevant: doing something for a long time does not justify it.

Human beings don’t require animal products to thrive, period, so those that eat them anyway engage in unnecessary cruelty against other sentient animals. The unnecessary part is the most crucial.

> Human beings don’t require animal products to thrive, period

As much as I am in favor of reducing meat consumption of all kinds, is this an accepted fact?

For some measure of "accepted fact", yes: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/

> It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.

Eating quite minimal animal products is the norm in societies with the best longevity. A "good" vegan diet is very very healthy and cheap, only requiring supplementation with B12. This specific need for supplementation is more an artifact of modern farming practices -- we clean vegetables of the bacteria that produce B12, because we use fertilizers that must be washed away or else risk disease. Animal products contain B12 because those animals still eat enough bacteria produced B12 -- all animals get B12 from bacteria or from eating animals that get it from bacteria.

There are parts of the world where environment or culture doesn't allow for a "good" vegan diet. If you're in a developed nation and not in a food desert, the environmental aspect doesn't apply.

Actually cows do produce some levels of B12 in their bodies, but we still supplement them with the raw ingredients for that B12 so at the end of the day, basically every person living in the developed world is getting their B12 from supplements, one way or another.

Also, it’s not only the American Dietetic Association that believes veganism is healthy for all stages of, it’s the opinion of all the largest ones around the world!

> Of course, we can't stop eating every animal

Why? There are plenty of people who do.

Because most governments aren't going to use violence to stop you from eating meat. Until then people will eat meat.

I can’t tell how true that is. I’ve certainly heard that a lot of people who claim to be vegan aren’t 100%. Are there any reliable studies on this topic?

Not eating animals does not immediately get you to vegan. Human body is not designed for a vegan diet. However, eating animal products that don't kill the said animal, (milk, cheese, yogurt, eggs etc) is sustainable and feasible. Of course factory farms, which encourages over consumption, are not the way to go.. Not everything needs to be eaten daily. Also, things like 4 egg omlet with a mountain of cheese etc are an abomination. Consume in moderation and the production won't be a burden on the planet.

The human body also isn't designed for vaccines, going to space, or doing math. Somehow, when we need the human body to do something, we find a way to make it happen.

I appreciate the point you are making. Humans have ingenuity, for sure. But I have to disagree on a finer point. We do not know what the long term effect of vegan diet is. Supplements may work to an extent but may not be complete. To contrast with your examples, vaccines work with the body's natural defences and even there long term testing is needed to uncover unexpected side effects. Going to space is risky and even after controlling for all we can think of disasters happen. Not sure all of human race should embark on a risky mission of vegan diet without fully understanding the long term consequences. Morally I am ok with animals like cows and chicken bred for milk and egg. Your threshold is different and I get that too.

It is not always possible to get all the nutrients you need without animal products, either because they are not available or because the price is too high.

Rice and lentils.

There are definitely people in situations where the burden of a vegan or vegetarian diet would cause much more harm to them personally than the harm an omnivore diet would cause. I don't blame people for the uncontrollable, and I don't know that anyone who holds a well-thought out position on animal suffering would either. Suffering is the superset of all suffering. My ethical heuristic is to make choices with an eye toward reducing that set.

The burden of a violent diet (nmeat and diary) is much higher that a plant based one to any sane human.

Okay, then if that point is ceded, would you agree then that we ought to only eat the fewest animal products necessary to get those nutrients in safe levels?

People always argue against veganism by saying “Ah well, can’t get all my B12 from plants so I guess eating this McDonalds quarter pounder is justified!”. Why not remove everything else that is an animal product lacking the nutrients you need, and only eat what animal products you absolutely need?

For the record, it’s the consensus of every major nutrition and dietetic institute globally that a plant based diet is suffix for all stages of life, so even granting the point that veganism disallows access to a full nutritional profile is generous.

>Okay, then if that point is ceded, would you agree then that we ought to only eat the fewest animal products necessary to get those nutrients in safe levels?

Yes

But we also need to reduce the numbers of our pets. Especially free strolling cats are a massive hit to the ecosystem.

Agreed

Ignoring the price issue.

If I were to consume my daily protein via plant sources, it would come with an INSANE amount of carbs.

Absolute nonsense. There are over 80 million fit and healthy vegans worldwide.

Processed food weather it is vegan or carnist is always more expensive but fruit, vegetables, lentils, beans, nuts, seeds, grains etc are all actually very very cheap compared to meat and diary in a western diet.

Maybe you should leave your bubble, there are parts of the world where food is still hunted and vegetables are more expensive

https://www.indy100.com/news/inuit-hunting-vegan-arctic-indi...

There are plenty of people who strive for some kind of vegetarian or vegan diet, but they aren't not eating animals unless they are inspecting every food item they consume for all the microscopic animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-animal

I think it's well understood that when vegans or vegetarians say they don't eat "animals" they are generally talking about, at minimum, macrobiota and not tardigrades, etc.

Well then they aren't not eating any animal. It's pretty simple. I'm not attacking them for the oversight just pointing it out. It should be forgivable for swallowing a fly but vegan and vegetarian food production still harms animals(example: insects are animals) and they still eat some animals accidentally. It's an improvement but it's not perfect.

I’m genuinely not sure what you think matters about this fact.

I'm just defending the statement "Of course, we can't stop eating every animal".

Why are you here?

Aquaculture is really a hedge against terrestrial crop failures, and you will be glad we developed this industry today come 50 years of climate change from now.

Yeah, i've not eaten much Octapus previously, but I had it occasionally in sushi or civeche that came with it. But I really can't continue to eat it even in that capacity in good conscience.

Was something that I had thought about previously, but wasn't until I actually saw one while diving that I decided I couldn't continue eating.

I've eaten Octopus in the past but didn't knew how intelligent those creature were until a couple of years ago. Since I saw multiple documentaries about them and read about them, I would now feel like a cannibal for eating them.

I commend you for your decision.

I want to add that framing my ideas about animal suffering in an elastic way makes it easier for me to make incremental changes. An animal is either alive or dead. Maybe eating vegetarian once a week will save a life down the line.

I urge everyone to resist the all-or-nothing approach, especially on such an important aspect of our ethical choices. No one's perfect, not even the vegan straight edge kids on Instagram who sneak a chicken nugget when no one's looking.

The point of reducing your consumption is that the demand for animals is lower, so they aren't born in to lives of non-stop suffering.

> I urge everyone to resist the all-or-nothing approach

There is no other moral stance where someone could reasonably say this. Veganism is a moral stance the same way as "racism is bad" and "abusing my spouse is bad" is a moral stance. No one would ever say "I'm trying to limit kicking dogs to just Tuesday-Sunday".

> vegan straight edge kids on Instagram who sneak a chicken nugget when no one's looking.

You're projecting. Veganism is _not_ a diet.

> There is no other moral stance where someone could reasonably say this. Veganism is a moral stance the same way as "racism is bad" and "abusing my spouse is bad" is a moral stance. No one would ever say "I'm trying to limit kicking dogs to just Tuesday-Sunday".

I agree that this holds from an ethical standpoint, but from an environmental one reduction is perfectly reasonable and needs to be part of the conversation.

The big difference is that racism and abuse invoke a social consensus. Veganism does not - the vast majority of society does not agree that veganism is a necessary, absolute moral stance. In fact, many would probably take offense at putting it on the same level of moral imperative as something like racism.

We also routinely deal with non-absolutes on these types of subjects. It's extremely common for people to disagree with the appropriate level of anti-racism, or the appropriate level of respect with which to treat one's spouse.

> You're projecting. Veganism is _not_ a diet.

It's more than a diet, for sure. But I do know many, many people who aspire to veganism and who at times make concessions. I don't think less of them for doing so.

I disagree and your comparisons aren't accurate. A more accurate comparison would he to say its like "I'm going to ride my bike to work once a week" or "I'll pick up trash at the local park once a week".

I don't have to view eating meat or driving my car an inherently immoral in order to recognize the objective negative ecological impact that those actions have, and to therefore want to engage in some form of harm reduction from time to time.

Yes, excellently stated. That's precisely my original point. I intended to preemptively disarm the conversational decay that absolutes cause.

I think there is a place for that, for example art or activism, but when speaking directly to another human, absolutes seem to place a lot of people on their back foot in defense of their current established decisions.

At risk of getting tedious here, the even-more accurate comparison would be "I'm gonna limit paying someone else to kick a dog from Tuesday to Sunday".

Since there actually exists real-life animal abuse in the case of paying for meat or any animal product ( including dairy ).

I would think that's still not as accurate as the above examples. That implies a form of intended malice and wish to do harm at no personal gain. If the factory in which my car is manufactured happens to employ children that doesn't mean I'm paying for child labor - I'm paying for a car regardless of how it's produced. The attempt to shift the blame to the consumer here fallacious.

I understand where you're coming from. I assume you believe one bad thing is preferable to two bad things. It's the trap I was warning against. Degrees instead of absolutes.

Personally, I am vegetarian due to ethical concerns, not dietary or nutritional ones. In my decade+ of being vegetarian, I have discerned the pattern that moral proselytizing is generally offensive to people. I think most intelligent non-vegetarians are more amenable to talking about clearly objective impacts (number of dead animals, environmental impact, nutrition, etc).

I prefer to be able to have a rational conversation when I talk about the topic with someone. Righteous indignation is more usually a thought extinguishing reaction to all involved. And then no one comes away with anything at all.

Are you okay with male chicks being grinded alive to enjoy your eggs, female cows being artificially inseminated by humans and their babies taken away and murdered just so you can enjoy your milk?

> Why do humans have a complete lack of an ability to say "stop, we're not going to do this anymore".

Because not doing things leaves you with a distinct lack of capital. Not dragging on capitalism, just being descriptive: those who act collect the resources to act more

I also think humans are curious. We want new things, new experiences to discover, etc.

But also agree we should put the brakes on octopus farms. It's like a puppy mill for food.

Wait until you learn about hog farms then.

But what's the point? What's the actual need to continue to acquire more? Why can't we say enough is enough? You're just describing a mechanism. Oh, I know someone will respond with "who gets to decide what's enough?", but why is their answer to that, "well just let anybody do whatever they want"?

The reason is the human condition for power and greed knows no bounds, and multi-millionaires and billionaires who like to play Sim City get to decide things for the rest of us. We're apes with technology and economics.

I mean we still have orcas in nothing more than shallow swimming pools. Orcas are the size of school buses, can weigh up to 10 tons, are likely the greatest predator ever to be on Earth, one of the most intelligent and emotional animals, and we've kept one of them in a single tank, alone, for over three decades and has been in captivity for over five decades. Her name is Lolita and her last pool partner was in the 1980s, where he committed suicide by ramming his head over and over into the side of the concrete pool. Those two are just two examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(killer_whale)

And even in that situation, we can't say to ourselves to stop. Humans are still keeping, capturing, and breeding orcas for nothing more than shallow entertainment. It's really sickening at times.

I agree with you re: apes with electronics. I have a personal theory about human evolution I call "restless ape theory"

other apes might feed themselves, gain some territory, and call it a day, but not us. Some gene flipped a million years ago so that we will never be satisfied. Our ape ancestors hid from the weather and thought, this will not do.

I was not making a moral judgement about those who gain capital, just explaining why they're the ones that get to decide. It might not be the best way to make collective decisions, but on the whole its better than violence, which is the alternative for those who can offer no incentive to act one way or another. I guess religion works too, but the anti-capitalists seem to dislike that as well.

The point is, no one gets to tell anyone else what the point is. We are in competiton to persuade or have power over the unpersuadable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com