The older I get, the less I want anything sentient on my plate.
I am much more aligned, however, with sustainable harvesting (hunting) than industrial farming these days. There is nothing natural about the modern slaughterhouse.
I'm not trying to overtly convince or coerce you here. I wish I'd more seriously considered the possibility of changing sooner, though. I suppose I maintained my status quo a little lazily for quite a long time despite caring about the possibility of change.
Having said that, the change you've already made makes an enormous difference in the scheme of things. Christ, I remember having meals where I would eat almost exclusively meat. Like an entire chicken after lifting weights or running particularly far. Totally excessive and bizarre in retrospect. Anyone eating moderately as you described has already shifted towards something resembling sustainability; it isn't really a problem in the scheme of things.
I think I almost could be if the biomass of harvestable prey hadn't reduced so dramatically while the number of potential hunters has increased proportionately, if not more. Spearfishing is actually what lead me to give up the pursuit of sustainable hunting. No matter how ethically and fairly I try to harvest, I will only be contributing to the toll which is already countless orders of magnitude beyond something sustainable. In a sense, I was viewing my contribution to the problem too much as my own contribution rather than as part of a whole which is already far too excessive.
It's a tragedy of the commons. Wild land is too disrupted, oceans polluted and over-fished, and yet farming is too disgusting to contemplate supporting either. The best contribution I can make is to relieve pressure on the system and encourage others to consider doing the same (if they appear interested in listening, that is).
Even so, I'm grateful there are people out there who are willing to consider hunting as an alternative to farming. There are opportunities to hunt over-populated species which are harming ecosystems, for example, which at least has something of a positive impact on the places where the hunting occurs. Wild pigs and deer are common examples in North America. I can't bring myself to do it though, as I'm an invasive species not much unlike the pigs or deer.
> this has put me more at ease with eating meat as we are omnivorous predators in the food chain
I contemplate this at times too. It's not irrational at all. We are omnivores and we are part of the food chain, and there's nothing special about us in that regard.
However, since we're so dramatically over-populated compared to the species we eat (outside of farming, at least), it seems wise not to eat animals so often given that we don't need to and our impact on the food chain is significantly outsized compared to other species. It could be argued that we have something like a practical, moral, and ethical impetus to preserve the food chain such that we can now and in the future continue to sustain the food web we have such immense impacts on. Not only for the lives of the animals we eat and share the world with, but for the future humans of the earth as well.
It is the order of Nature that things eat each other in order to survive, but you don't need to eat animals, so you don't do that.
I like this!
The real reason to not eat cats and dogs is that they are mediocre food
There are people in this world who might steal from me or try to hurt me, too. My response wouldn't be to do the same to them; especially not proactively. I also know that a bear would eat me. Why would this mean I should want to eat it? It may not be discerning, but I certainly am.
My take is that the real reason to not eat cats and dogs is that they appear to have a relatable, sentient experience of the world — just as we do — and ending that for the sake of a meal lasting mere moments is an unthinkably awful thing to do.
(I say this as someone who is not a vegan, or vegetarian)
> In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations. In different Asian religions, the word "sentience" has been used to translate a variety of concepts. In science fiction, the word "sentience" is sometimes used interchangeably with "sapience", "self-awareness", or "consciousness".
Cars are aware of its own self. Know for example its own inner temperature. They know if they are too hot and warn us about it. Know if they are stopped or moving, and how fast. Know in real time the position of many of its parts and take delicate complex actions with this info.
Cars are also aware of the environment. Don't have eyes, but know if is dark or sunny. Don't have ears, but can echolocate. Don't have touch, but register the pressure of the air at real time, or react to our fingers on a screen.
They are as sentient as animals are.
If this proves something is that "sentience" was not used before, because is a term totally useless.
Should we jail somebody if it crashes a car "killing" it?
What if he/she scratches a key against a door, torturing the poor paint layer and creating a permanent scar?