Hacker News Reader

Comment by ada1981 | Hacker News Reader

ada1981

I think such a technical advancement would parallel a moral one.

I’ve been vegan 25 years and would be happy to silence the “but what about plants” people once and for all.

I’m vegan too. Someone will say “what about the microorganisms in your gut” or something. People often have a negative reaction to vegans and that’s not going to change.

> "but what about plants"

I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals -- I'm one because I hate plants.

Some people do care about the plants though, such as Jainism. If you draw the line at plants - that's fine, but some others do not and are wondering why you arbitrarily drew that line where you did. Sure some may be joking around but its still a legit concern for some.

From what I understand, Jains are lacto-vegetarian [1]. Vegans draw that line further (because they also don't take milk).

As a human being, if you avoid eating plants, or things that eat plants, you die.

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

Jains don’t eat foods like onions and potatoes. But, so far as I know, this is on account of the bugs that may be harmed when harvesting soil-based plants.

I believe it's also as the onion or potatoe is the entire plant and when you eat it, it's gone. Verses eating a strawberry or Apple does not destroy the plant.

What about the atoms?

Not too much fission or fusion happening in your body, afaik.

There's a distinction - between obvious BS that is a philosophical puzzle to rebut on one hand, and genuine issues on the other. You don't really have to play the game of the former, unless you don't like philosophical puzzles of course.

Obviously some plants die and others don’t in harvesting.

Mostly the “even broccoli screams when you rip it from the ground” is a joke more often than actual trolling.

I think the valid moral argument is that as a result of modern agricultural practices substantially more animals are killed than animal husbandry. Usually the counter-arguments involves moving the moral goal posts by valuing farm animals over “pests and insects”, or blaming the modern agricultural practices and suggesting organic farming cures those harms.

like all meat we produce is grass fed... livestock lives out of grains in a high % and if you want to take all meat production to free-roam practices, good luck destroying the entire planet for that

I don't think the aim would be to be able to achieve the same level of production that way :)

glad you answered.

what's your opinion on the dialogue between people producing eggs in battery-cages (those classic confined chickens) vs. free-roam ones? so far the discussion points out to _way_ more disease spread in free ones, leading to more suffering and death, specially when we are doing in a commercial scale. wild animals killing those free roam animals also occurs. so far the science on battery-cages went far as: sizing perfectly the cages so you don't have cases of cannibalism between them because they are stressed, decent ventilation........ red meat is also confined for a lot of months before their death to receive proper treatment to not screw the population that's eating their meat. that's also involves tons and tons of (insectoid murder) grains & please don't forget that free-roam practices, considering the amount of land they use, i wouldn't get surprised that the pesticides/herbicides used on the grass fields prior to cows introduction kills a comparable if not more amount of insects vs. plantae/fungi production

seriously, this insect rights argument is pure bullshit from people trying to justify their holocaust-like-inducing diet

Look, I don't think you would want to produce at the same level. Because of the reason you stated.

This is such a great response that perfectly reflects the moving of the moral goal posts that deflects the moral culpability. Thank you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com