Enlightened Vegetarianism (and more)

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
It would be a very ethical to do so, since we would boost the evolution of our captive animals by centuries.

This sentence is meaningless.

[Elok]

Grammatically as well as scientifically. It would be a very ethical what to do so? Grr. Anyway, he's right, Heraclitus. Evolution has no endpoint or even a particular direction, it's just a process of continual adaptation to continually changing circumstances. No organism is "better" in an absolute sense than any other, since there's always a metabolic or other cost for being bigger/smaller/stronger/faster/smarter/sharp-eyed. An animal that can digest a certain plant with near 100% efficiency is very "well evolved" until such time as the plant goes extinct, at which point it's got nothing, just a gut that's optimized for a nonexistent food. Since the necessary adaptation includes adapting to the adaptations of other organisms on the fly, it's essentially impossible to predict what will be necessary in the future.

[Heraclitus]

You are right it was a horrid sentence. I’m still struggling with English.

I didn’t find anything odd about when I was posting. But when I got around to actually reading the post I made 15 minutes ago... Needless to say , this is very embarrassing.


BTW Elok by evolution, I mean achieving a result equivalent to millennia of natural selection. The result being animals well suited to their environment. I never meant to imply that evolution has a goal or endpoint., that is precisely why the word devolution is nonsensical.
And I did mention the changing environment (as in human extinction), since the augmented cow and the cow, or even the cow-meat-bag and the cow will still share many genes. The altered animals will simply provide another vector to carry these genes into the future, thus increasing the odds that the genes of cows or cow-like creatures will survive.

PS Its self apparent though that: "Nothing endures but change."

[Lorizael]

The thing is, all the forced natural selection that animal husbandry creates only does one thing - produce cows extremely well adapted to being eaten. That's it. They're not somehow better off for it.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Lorizael
The thing is, all the forced natural selection that animal husbandry creates only does one thing - produce cows extremely well adapted to being eaten. That's it. They're not somehow better off for it.

Well, actually they are. Since we sustain large populations of domesticated animals precisely for this purpose. If cow meat becomes cheaper or healthier or better tasting, this increases the number of living cows and their total biomass. They are better off in the sense that a part of their species is specializing thus allowing it to inhabiting an ecological neiche that would otherwise not exist.

[Lorizael]

Good point.

[Dinner]

This thread reminds me of the stupid environmentalists who attack mink farms and then release all the animals claiming to be "setting them free". Like a farm animal raised with all of its food provided would ever be able to survive in the wilderness. They're just dooming them to slowly starving to death.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Oerdin
This thread reminds me of the stupid environmentalists who attack mink farms and then release all the animals claiming to be "setting them free". Like a farm animal raised with all of its food provided would ever be able to survive in the wilderness. They're just dooming them to slowly starving to death.

Live Free and Die!

[Elok]

I think we need more biodiversity in our meat. Eating ostrich is a good start (bison sucks though), now we need to expand some more. I suppose it's not possible to tame deer to make good venison, but they could be kept on reserves and killed with minimal hassle. Also bear, I bet bear doesn't taste too bad. And rabbit. Maybe import exotic animals and raise them for food.

There'd be a lot more money to save the pandas if we found a way to cook 'em so they tasted nice. It's not like they're good for anything else, after all. They have digestive systems similar to ours, can digest just about anything, so of course they insist on eating $#@! bamboo. They don't have quadruple stomachs like cattle or other grazing animals, so they lose almost as much energy digesting the crap as they gain from it. That's why they eat like a bajillion times their own weight in bamboo every day even though they mostly just sit around looking fat and cute. It's also why they give birth prematurely, they can't afford to hold on to their young any longer. Plus they need the panda equivalent of a college education to successfully mate, which puts them several steps below white lab mice on the evolutionary fitness ladder. Eat the pandas, I say! Or, if they're not tasty, raise them for pelts!

[Blake]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
I don't get Blake's comment on the fact that being keept in horrible conditions clearly isn't in the animals best interest. It beats non-existance doesen't it?

That's kind of a good ethical question. Existence beats non-existence, right?

Well, for me it's an easy one. No.

I say

"No harm can be committed against a being which does not exist"

On the other hand, if you're responsible for a being being born into misery, you're responsible for that misery.

If through your actions or deliberate inactions, a being is created, you are responsible for that beings welfare, at least until such a time that it can take care of itself.

I tend to say that we should always love what we create (note: I tend to say that poop is more something which is discarded than created). I have a lot less problem with the idea of a peasant having to kill and eat their beloved family cow, with a sense of sadness, from having known that steak as when it was actually a cow. Than with the heartless eating, thinking of steak as steak and not as a cow which had feelings as real as any pet or humans.

Eating meat and a sense of loss should go hand in hand.

And you can say all you like, that you feel you honored the animal by enjoying eating it so much, but would the animal feel honored? Would YOU feel honored if someone chopped a bit off you then ate it, and enjoyed it a lot? Would you feel so honored you'd invite them to chop some more off so they can derive yet more pleasure from your tasty flesh? If you rather, you can think about the cannibals (or advanced human-eating aliens) taking one of your beloved parents, children or friends, eating them and enjoying them a lot and wanting to eat another parent, child or friend. "The last one was so tasty! We derived a lot of pleasure from it!". Would you maybe rather try and convince them to take some bread or something instead, even try to convince them it tastes nearly as good and is nearly as good for them as your precious loved ones?

[Nostromo]

Mathew Lipman, the founder of philosophy for children, wrote a book about this issue. Only for kids, of course.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Blake


That's kind of a good ethical question. Existence beats non-existence, right?

Well, for me it's an easy one. No.

I say

"No harm can be committed against a being which does not exist"

Blake that may be the answer you give or I might give, but not the answer life or the universe has given. Look at any manner of life with the possible exception of some human individuals ... it will prefer to live in horrid agony than to die.

PS Why do you want to discuss theoretical answers given by beings which are incapable of giving such answers or even thinking about them or even evaluating their life?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Blake

I tend to say that we should always love what we create

Abandoned children and works of art destroyed by their creators might point to the contrary.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Blake

If through your actions or deliberate inactions, a being is created, you are responsible for that beings welfare, at least until such a time that it can take care of itself.

How do you come to this conclusion, how do you justify it? Is there a God who said so? Are there natural laws which specify so*? If neither is true then the choice to take responsibility is perfectly arbitrary and capricious.


*Many animals as a natural behavior and many human individuals, abandon their offspring or let them to fend for themselves immediately after creation.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Blake

And you can say all you like, that you feel you honored the animal by enjoying eating it so much, but would the animal feel honored? Would YOU feel honored if someone chopped a bit off you then ate it, and enjoyed it a lot? ...

I don't feel "honoured". It's just the way it is. Sucks to be low on the food chain I guess.