Hacker News Reader

Comment by bayganyo | Hacker News Reader

I find it interesting how people justify (or not) whether to eat another animal.

First time talking to humans? We distinguish murder from killing because the latter is sometimes justified (e.g., in war or self-defense).

We justify everything we do.

Farm animals wouldn't even have existed in the first place if it wasn't for farming them. They wouldn't have experienced their life at all. I personally think hunting is horrible, that's going after something that is alive without you having a say in it.

But say for farmed cows, living in a field for a while, that's better than not existing at all. You cannot judge if it's worth it from the cow's perspective, it got to live, enjoy the sun, eating in the field, doing cow stuff, same as us. Even with the hardships in my life I'd rather have existed, for however long I can, than not existing at all.

So you see it's not as simple to look at and judge farming. If it was for you those animals wouldn't even have experienced this reality. It some cases you may be right, depending on their conditions obviously.

What's not existing like?

I know what existing is like, and I like it. Cows seem to like it when they sit in the grass looking at a sunset. Beats nothing.

Do cows experience non-existence the way that non-existent humans do, or more like non-existent rocks, or something in between?

You cannot experience non-existence. I don't even think you understand what you mean by non-existence the way you used it in that phrase. At most you can use it as contrast to existence, which can be enjoyable or not. If your existence is the least bit enjoyable it beats not existing. at least for me, and plenty others if you ask them.

We also know not existing is desired by others with worse lived experience. Which they think that whatever it even is, not existing, must be better than their lived experience. It's basically a way to stop existing, moving into non-existence. So we can only discuss about existing.

If you have any ideas about non-existence that's cute and interesting and you should maybe write a book about it or something.

>experience of non-existing rocks.

This is not really a philosophical argument as it is misuse of logic and words. I'll let you figure out why.

This is an interesting thought experiment, though I generally come to opposite conclusions. I personally think that hunting a wild animal situates the hunter in the broader context of the natural world, in which organisms live by their wits and try to outrun others doing the same.

Conversely, farmed animals owe their existence as you say to our cultivating them. But where you see a moral release in that connection, I see a corruption of life into industrial inputs. A hunted animal many times will catch scent or sound and take flight, winning their life for another day. Livestock can't change their destiny by wit or will. Their entire existence is within the technological apparatus of our species.

The corruption becomes evident in evolution cleaved from the organism's interest and placed in service of our appetites. In turkeys with breasts too large to be able to balance standing up, let alone walk. Such animals can only reproduce by artificial insemination and only eat when food is placed directly in front of them.

Power dynamics such as these tempt us to tell just-so stories about lives well lived. Can we say for them that their lives are preferable to not existing at all? We're surely not neutral.

> hunting a wild animal situates the hunter in the broader context of the natural world, in which organisms live by their wits and try to outrun others doing the same.

It's not exactly a fair fight though. In modern hunting the hunter might not always win, but he never loses.

> Can we say for them that their lives are preferable to not existing at all?

I doubt it. But we don't have to breed animals for maximum meat production at lowest cost in the shortest time. For instance the largest chicken producer in Norway [1] has declared that in future it will only produce slow growing chicken.

[1] https://www.nortura.no/b%C3%A6rekraft-i-nortura/omsorg-for-m...

I am fine with more expensive but higher quality life experience for farmed animals.

Hunting a wild animal is not necessary in most cases. Especially if we have farming. You had no say in the existence of that wild animal, you have no claim on it unless you need it to survive. Say you get lost in the woods and need sustenance to survive, that is excusable sure.

Farmed animals exist purely because of their use to us. We enable their lived experience. Without us they wouldn't exist, they wouldn't experience sitting in the grass looking at a sunset, running around in the field or whatever.

And I did mention it depends on their lived experience. I was not talking about the bleak industrial warehouses animals that never see the light of day and sit in bleak conditions. They don't get much out of it. I am sure we can figure out a fair exchange without getting locked in philosophical conundrums about it.

> You cannot judge if it's worth it from the cow's perspective, it got to live, enjoy the sun, eating in the field, doing cow stuff, same as us.

Yep, same as us.

Except it's a cow, so not the same as us. I mean, presumably.

If the cow doesn't have the same living experience as we do, to some extent, then you have no argument for not farming them, since it doesn't matter, because "there's nobody in there" as it were.

You need to make up your mind.

I'm sorry, make up my mind about what? I think you have me confused with someone else?

Yes, we operate at a different level, and don't serve the same purpose (humans are not food). Similarities are that we are engineered (psychologically, 13+ years of schooling), operate in an artificial environment not a natural one. All sorts of manipulative tricks are used in order to convince us to gift the fruits of our labour. Typically most people hand over > 45% of their effort (taxes) for over 30 years. If the best value humans offered could be provided in just two years of physical growth (like meat cows), we would be facing different terrain and expectations.

Peter Singer, father of the animal liberation movement, also now says that farming animals for food but giving them a good life "may be permissible":

More radically, Singer suggested that meat-eating may be permissible if “farms really give the animals good lives, and then humanely kill them, preferably without transporting them to slaughterhouses or disturbing them. In Animal Liberation, I don’t really say that it’s the killing that makes [meat-eating] wrong, it’s the suffering.”

https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2021/05/peter-singer-why-...

Full disclosure: I have profound disagreements with Singer's utilitarian philosophy.

I find it interesting how people vaguepost without managing to make any semblance of contribution to the discussion

you mean you don't think it's right to make a creature take an IQ test before deciding to eat them or not? "Yes, right, well, you seem sufficiently stupid enough to ingest."

There are hazards to doing it on an individual level, but on a species level sure why not? Between a talking plant and a brainless bovine I know which one I'd say is the obvious right answer to eat (assume both species occurred naturally for this thought experiment).

I like to see where they are farmed before I decide... and having seen much of that in the US I've landed on "maybe some bugs are ok to eat."

Personally that justification is based heavily on the taste.

Based on not having a realistic choice. The only person I personally know to successfully pull it off is an acquaintance that's rich by local standards, doesn't work, spends a lot of time sourcing and cooking it, and also eating it. He needs to eat more for same energy. It's so involved that most of his life revolves around it. It takes a good bit out of his time. The rest of the people from that friend group couldn't afford it, couldn't afford spending the money, couldn't afford spending the extra time on it.

I personally wouldn't eat meat if I had a good alternative. I rarely do, I eat it for health related reasons, considering my setup.

...just buy some beans/lentils and learn to cook those? It's not a herculean effort or particularly expensive.

Yes, and if you have such a care-free attitude towards a vegan diet you should expect to become deficient in all sorts of necessary nutrients.

Everyone who treats plant-based diets with any degree of responsibility will stress the need to plan them carefully, considering the needs of the individual and their stage of life, and to accompany them with supplements to make up for the nutrients that not even well-planned diets cannot provide.

For example, "Top Tips" from the British Dietary Association:

* Carefully planned plant-based diets can support healthy living at every age and life stage

* Plant-based diets can help to manage weight and may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases

* You can get all essential nutrients from plant foods but vegans need to ensure a reliable source of vitamin B12

* If excluding dairy, make sure you consume other calcium-rich foods

* Include a wide variety of plant-derived foods to ensure your diet is balanced and sustainable

https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/vegetarian-vegan-plant-based...

Far, far from "just buy some beans/lentils". TBH that's just irresponsible and dangerous advice.

Can you explain?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com