Hacker News Reader

Comment by ftxbro | Hacker News Reader

I think it's obvious that people would have agreed that every animal is conscious to some degree like, at least by one or two hundred years ago, if it weren't for "the implication."

View on HN

200 years ago, killing humans that we know have consciousness was quite in vogue (generally speaking via war).

Why do you think this would have been different?

You make it sound like things have changed. There hasn't been a single year in my entire life where the people of my country weren't at war. Killing conscious humans is every bit as popular now! It's never once gone out of fashion.

Probably more than two hundred years ago if you consider where the word "animal" comes from

From the wiki page on "animal"

The word "animal" comes from the Latin animalis, meaning 'having breath', 'having soul' or 'living being'.

What's the implication? That they don't go to some kind of heaven or hell?

That we should consider all of the animals we have killed and enslaved over the millennia as people.

We kill about 80 billion of them a year for food..

Sure, but GP was talking about religion. I've never heard of a religion encouraging its followers to eat meat. The biggest ones generally discourage at least some kinds of meat.

Don’t think Christianity does? And if creatures of god, with consciousness, should it not be all or nothing? Not just some? And for the wrong reasons (pigs are not ‘clean’). Still don’t see why we cannot eat humans if we can eat pigs. What’s the diff? I know many humans dumber than my dogs or pig. Outside religion and humans having more power (aka law), what’s the moral difference?

Genesis 9:2-6 NIV [2] The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. [3] Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. [4] “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. [5] And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. [6] “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.

The god of Moses says that man has dominion over all animals.

Can’t get much more primal than Genesis 1.

For what it's worth, Genesis doesn't specifically mention eating meat until after the fall.

Genesis 1 says "I have given you every plant yielding seed ... and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food." Likewise to the animals, "I have given every green plant for food."

After the flood: Genesis 9:2-6 NIV [2] The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. [3] Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. [4] “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. [5] And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. [6] “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.

wait what if eating gods tasty animals in eden was the original sin

It would be a much more interesting story if that were the original sin.

I looked on the internet and some are making that argument that it's true. For example "In the Hebrew original, "the fruit פְּרִי " of "the tree עֵץ of the knowledge דַּעַת of good טוֹב and evil רָע " can mean the offspring of a family group of living creatures who are so self-aware that they covet life (good) and fear death (evil), i.e., the progeny of a den of animals (sentient beings), like piglets or cubs or eggs."

I have dominion over all my possessions, but I treat them with respect. In like manner when given authority over people, I treat them with dignity and respect.

I can't imagine the spirit of such words carries with it the grotesqueries and indignities we're wont to inflict on our fellow sufferers. Nor for that matter the free reign over our environment. Instead I would espouse that the spirit is the maintenance of their well-being. As might a parent, or a landowner with some interest in his lot.

The original Hebrew word is רָדָה (radah), you can see all the other times it is used in the Bible here, which should aid in understanding its meaning and potential nuance: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_7287.htm

christian evangelists propagandise meat-eating in historically vegetarian countries like india. in fact they sponsor large feasts featuring meat dishes, invest in slaughterhouses etc.

My understanding is that people avoiding meat is considered a sign of the endtimes (along with people leaving the faith and avoiding marriage).

At least that's my reading of 1 Timothy 4:3

I'm responding to 'what is the implication' in the suggestion that people would otherwise have accepted animals as conscious centuries ago, if not for 'the implication'. My read of those parts of the conversation is that they have nothing to do with religion, and so I'm not responding to any religious element of the thread.

That we will possibly be judged by future generations as savages, in the same way we look back on people having slaves, ancestors being blatantly racist, or the holocaust.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com