Quote: Original post by nobodynews
Second, way to equate murdering Jews with genocide! Jews aren't even really worthy of being called people so what does it matter to you if they were killed by the millions? You're just saying that because you've grown attached to them, emotionally or you were tricked into thinking that there is no real difference between Jews and normal humans.

Wait...what?

I've been a non-strict vegetarian for a couple of months now (although I gave up red meat a long time ago). I'm not really sure why, I mean I like to work toward an ideal of personal non-violence but on the other hand I can't really justify vegetarianism.

I mean, my thinking is that the more people are vegetarians, the fewer animals get killed, and this is probably true, but on the other hand I'm sure there are other things I do in life that give people an economic incentive to kill animals in various indirect ways so there's no real answer.

I mean, obviously there's no clear line to be drawn so I figure I'll just do what I can.

Quote: Original post by Nypyren
At the objective level, "suffering" is just a type of reaction to physical damage or stress which is exhibited by living things with nervous systems.

But you can still inflict physical damage or stress on plants, too. They just react differently. Is it any better (morally) to intentionally inflict damage/stress on plants if they cannot feel the same type of suffering we do?

I think at the objective level biologists (neuroscientists) separate "physical pain" and "mental pain". Physical pain is just the physical sensation, like touch or sound. It just tells you that something is happening. "Mental pain" is that feeling of unpleasantness that is usually associated in humans with physical pain. This is what is usually called "suffering". It's different from just the physical sensation. For example, if you lose $100, you perceive this information and deal with it in a rational manner. If you get your finger stuck in a door, you can't deal with it in a rational manner -- the "mental pain" doesn't let you do that.

Now, in humans and some animals physical pain is usually accompanied by mental pain (except in rare conditions when it's not). In lower animals and plants it is not. So it's true that you can inflict physical damage on a plant, and that the plant will respond to it somehow. (It's also true that you can inflict physical damage on an inanimate object like a wall, and it will respond to it too.) But the plant doesn't feel the mental pain (nor does the wall). So inflicting damage on a plant is like inflicting a non-painful sensation on a human, in the sense that neither will feel mental pain. And that's considered moral for both humans and plants. For example, it is not immoral to ask what time is it, since that doesn't hurt. So why should it be any more immoral to eat plants? That doesn't hurt either.

Quote: Original post by jackolantern1

Quote: Original post by nobodynews
Second, way to equate murdering Jews with genocide! Jews aren't even really worthy of being called people so what does it matter to you if they were killed by the millions? You're just saying that because you've grown attached to them, emotionally or you were tricked into thinking that there is no real difference between Jews and normal humans.

Wait...what?

It wasn't exactly an attempt at being funny (you weren't supposed to laugh at it and go 'oh that was rich'). I was trying to get you to think about what you wrote. To wit, that "Putting the murder of animals for food [...] into the same category as human genocide is insane."

To you and me Jews are humans but to many Nazis Jews were considered subhuman at best. It is much easier to kill someone that you consider less than human. Just like it is easier to kill animals when you consider them less than human. If humans were to travel the stars and encounter an alien race at the stage of society that humans were at, say, 3000 years ago, would you say that murdering them for food was fine because they aren't human? No, of course not. You need a different argument than yours which was essentially "they aren't human so its insane to equate it with human genocide." It may or may not be insane, but you should actually make an argument instead of just brushing it off without any critical thinking to arrive at that conclusion.

A better argument would be for you to try and show why humans and animals are sufficiently different from each other that murdering one is not the same as murdering the other. Merely claiming it to be 'insane' is a very poor argument, just like the arguments Nazis used to show why Jews should be murdered were very poor... and for the same reasons. I'm sorry for not immediately making this obvious to you.

Oh, and by the way? Making the argument that humans and animals are sufficiently different from each other is harder than you are giving it credit for. That is, see if you come up with a check list of differences between animals and humans that will a)not exclude *any* humans and b)take into account other (hypothetical) intelligent beings that we might discover.

Quote: Original post by Gil Grissom

Quote: Original post by Nypyren
At the objective level, "suffering" is just a type of reaction to physical damage or stress which is exhibited by living things with nervous systems.

But you can still inflict physical damage or stress on plants, too. They just react differently. Is it any better (morally) to intentionally inflict damage/stress on plants if they cannot feel the same type of suffering we do?

I think at the objective level biologists (neuroscientists) separate "physical pain" and "mental pain". Physical pain is just the physical sensation, like touch or sound. It just tells you that something is happening. "Mental pain" is that feeling of unpleasantness that is usually associated in humans with physical pain. This is what is usually called "suffering". It's different from just the physical sensation. For example, if you lose $100, you perceive this information and deal with it in a rational manner. If you get your finger stuck in a door, you can't deal with it in a rational manner -- the "mental pain" doesn't let you do that.

Now, in humans and some animals physical pain is usually accompanied by mental pain (except in rare conditions when it's not). In lower animals and plants it is not. So it's true that you can inflict physical damage on a plant, and that the plant will respond to it somehow. (It's also true that you can inflict physical damage on an inanimate object like a wall, and it will respond to it too.) But the plant doesn't feel the mental pain (nor does the wall). So inflicting damage on a plant is like inflicting a non-painful sensation on a human, in the sense that neither will feel mental pain. And that's considered moral for both humans and plants. For example, it is not immoral to ask what time is it, since that doesn't hurt. So why should it be any more immoral to eat plants? That doesn't hurt either.

I agree that eating plants is not immoral. Not because they can't feel it, but because morality is totally subjective. I just adhere to a similar moral code as you do.

I could give someone a bunch of painkillers and cut off their head, and most people would consider that immoral*.

* There are exceptions: Capital punishment**.

** And exceptions to exceptions: Some people also consider capital punishment immoral.

Quote: Original post by Nypyren
I agree that eating plants is not immoral. Not because they can't feel it, but because morality is totally subjective. I just adhere to a similar moral code as you do.

I wasn't saying that eating plants is not immoral because they can't feel it. I was just saying that some things are considered immoral by some people not because it causes physical damage and stress, but rather because it causes mental suffering. So for the sake of consistency, all things that cause mental suffering should be treated similarly, but eating plants is not in that category, because eating plants doesn't cause them mental suffering. So it is possible, within a consistent moral framework, to be against eating animals and not be against eating plants.

Quote: Original post by nobodynews

Quote: Original post by jackolantern1

Quote: Original post by nobodynews
Second, way to equate murdering Jews with genocide! Jews aren't even really worthy of being called people so what does it matter to you if they were killed by the millions? You're just saying that because you've grown attached to them, emotionally or you were tricked into thinking that there is no real difference between Jews and normal humans.

Wait...what?

It wasn't exactly an attempt at being funny (you weren't supposed to laugh at it and go 'oh that was rich'). I was trying to get you to think about what you wrote. To wit, that "Putting the murder of animals for food [...] into the same category as human genocide is insane."

To you and me Jews are humans but to many Nazis Jews were considered subhuman at best. It is much easier to kill someone that you consider less than human. Just like it is easier to kill animals when you consider them less than human. If humans were to travel the stars and encounter an alien race at the stage of society that humans were at, say, 3000 years ago, would you say that murdering them for food was fine because they aren't human? No, of course not. You need a different argument than yours which was essentially "they aren't human so its insane to equate it with human genocide." It may or may not be insane, but you should actually make an argument instead of just brushing it off without any critical thinking to arrive at that conclusion.

A better argument would be for you to try and show why humans and animals are sufficiently different from each other that murdering one is not the same as murdering the other. Merely claiming it to be 'insane' is a very poor argument, just like the arguments Nazis used to show why Jews should be murdered were very poor... and for the same reasons. I'm sorry for not immediately making this obvious to you.

Oh, and by the way? Making the argument that humans and animals are sufficiently different from each other is harder than you are giving it credit for. That is, see if you come up with a check list of differences between animals and humans that will a)not exclude *any* humans and b)take into account other (hypothetical) intelligent beings that we might discover.

The burden of proof that there is a difference between animals and humans is not with me. The governments, legal systems, and general consensus of every first-world country in the world is that human life is more important than animal life. Whether you feel that is wrong or not is up to you, but I can't find a country in the world where the killing of an animal will get equal or more punishment than the killing of a human. Instead, you should be trying to prove the point that a chicken's life is equal to that of a human, which I feel is a hard sell.

Does it have to do with the fact that we are humans, and are looking at everything with a human perspective? Likely, but that is the structure we are living in. Maybe I feel like all drugs should be legalized (I don't, but just an example), but if my ideas for how things should be managed contrasts with what is generally regarded by the masses to be true and proper, I have to prove why things should be different. You will never convince the vast majority of people that a chicken or a pig is worth a human. I don't think it is either, so that is the context that I (and most people) consider the comparison between the Holocaust or Aztec human sacrifices to animal slaughter for food to be ludicrous.

Here are a few illuminating links pertinent to this topic.

Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Quote:
Award-winning food journalist Michael Pollan was invited to speak on October 15 at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo but after pressure from a university donor who is chairman of the Harris Ranch Beef Co., the university changed his speech to a panel discussion.
...
It takes a lot of oil to make a modern fast food hamburger. An astonishing amount of oil. And I did a little research to find out just how much went into this.

The oil comes in in several different stages. There is the biggest part, probably: the petroleum needed to create the fertilizer to grow the corn, which is the diet, typically, of these animals. But there's also the moving of that corn, the moving of the burger, the processing, you know, and getting it to a McDonald's near you.

So oil. Six ounces. Six more ounces. Eighteen. Twenty-four. Twenty-six. That's a lot of oil to make the burger! And you have to ask yourself: Is the system that produces that burger sustainable?
...

Pigs Prove to Be Smart, if Not Vain

Quote:
In the current issue of Animal Behaviour, researchers present evidence that domestic pigs can quickly learn how mirrors work and will use their understanding of reflected images to scope out their surroundings and find their food. The researchers cannot yet say whether the animals realize that the eyes in the mirror are their own, or whether pigs might rank with apes, dolphins and other species that have passed the famed “mirror self-recognition test” thought to be a marker of self-awareness and advanced intelligence.

RPT-SPECIAL REPORT-The fight over the future of food

Quote:
...
Everybody wants to end hunger, but just how to do so is a divisive question that pits environmentalists against anti-poverty campaigners, big business against consumers and rich countries against poor.

The food fight takes place at a time when experts on both sides agree on one thing -- the number of empty bellies around the world will only grow unless there is major intervention now.

A combination of the food crisis and the global economic downturn has catapulted the number of hungry people in the world to more than 1 billion. The United Nations says world food output must grow by 70 percent over the next four decades to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people by 2050.

International leaders are gathering in Rome next week for the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's World Summit on Food Security and will hear competing arguments over how best to tackle the problem. One of the fiercest disputes will be over the relative importance of science versus social and economic reforms to empower small farmers to grow more with existing technology.
...

Quote: Original post by jackolantern1
I don't think it is either, so that is the context that I (and most people) consider the comparison between the Holocaust or Aztec human sacrifices to animal slaughter for food to be ludicrous.

Wait, I'm not sure what your point is. If eating animals is OK because society says that it's OK, then why doesn't it apply to human sacrifice, slavery, and even genocide as long as these practices are considered normal within their societies. I mean, slavery has only been widely considered a bad thing for a few hundred years at most. Furthermore, no one ever "proved" that slavery is inherently wrong.

The only basis you have for your argument is apathy.

As far as ending world hunger, I think the answer can really only come from cultivation breakthroughs. This is where the largest impact on world hunger has come from in the past, and it is likely it will keep coming from that sphere. Look at Normal Borlaug for example. He was an agronomist who is credited as saving perhaps as many as 1 billion lives for his work in creating resistant, hearty, double-season dwarf wheat. Other routes to fixing world food supply are always going to be a band-aid trying to fix a gaping, bleeding wound, which is the fact that food doesn't grow well enough where the hungry people are, or there is not enough land and resources to grow enough food in a population strained environment. Both of these problems can only be truly fixed by being able to produce more with less.

EDIT:

Quote: Original post by cowsarenotevil

Quote: Original post by jackolantern1
I don't think it is either, so that is the context that I (and most people) consider the comparison between the Holocaust or Aztec human sacrifices to animal slaughter for food to be ludicrous.

Wait, I'm not sure what your point is. If eating animals is OK because society says that it's OK, then why doesn't it apply to human sacrifice, slavery, and even genocide as long as these practices are considered normal within their societies. I mean, slavery has only been widely considered a bad thing for a few hundred years at most. Furthermore, no one ever "proved" that slavery is inherently wrong.

The only basis you have for your argument is apathy.

I never tried to say it was right or wrong. Only that the burden of proof is not with me to maintain the status quo. Why should I have to prove that a chicken's life is not worth a humans? The only meter we have for the value of taking life is the law, and the law currently states that an animal's life is not worth a human's life. If someone wants that changed, they have to argue their point and win over minds.