Dave Arnold, another favorite writer of mine, has a solution to this problem: clove oil anesthetizes lobsters (and fish). Clove oil, knife through the head, then boil.
(Myself, I'm kind of grossed out by shellfish).
Radiolab spin-off More Perfect recently discussed the “cosmetic” presence of a paralytic drug in lethal injection concoctions. I can’t help but see a parallel.
At least for the lobster, we're not really sure how they interpret pain. They don't have a brain in the same way the humans do. As a vegetarian, I personally would go back to meat if I just knew my meal had a good life and did not suffer needlessly in order for me to eat it. But for the prisoner, this seems like the worst combination: internalized suffering and externalized indifference... So minimize the the deturrence to crime while maximizing the suffering in society. Isn't this the opposite of how it should be?
I've always been against the death-penalty because it is: permanent, subject to racial bias/applied un-evenly, performed by incompetent persons/botched, recommended by imperfect evidence, highly linked to religious sacrifice and does nothing to actually deter crime.
As for going back to meat, are you following the vat grown protein farmers?
[0: https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-61-blitz-...]
Didn't we just describe the entire aim of the US prison system?
Ah, and I thought I was the only one. They look too damn similar to cockroaches!
Or, you know, don’t kill them.
Not sure why this idea is still considered extreme. Why harm fellow creatures when it is simply unnecessary?
As Tolstoy wrote[1],
"A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral."
If your Tolstoy quote is accurate, it seems fairly sloppy reasoning to me. Animal protein is an essential component of nourishing billions of people. Calling sustenance “appetite” is a rhetorical flourish which undermines the argument.
I think what would be immoral is telling billions of people they can’t eat meat.
There are many ways one could prescribe humans should act to minimize their impact on the flora and fauna of our world. But at the same time, humans are entitled to a certain degree of leeway in this regard. Sustainably eating the plants and animals beneath us on the food chain is one of those areas.
This sounds... tautological. We can morally eat whatever we can eat? Does that include gorilla meat? Weaker humans?
If we ever come into contact with extraterrestrial life, I hope that they don't share this view.
It doesn't have to be; in fact, humans, animals, and the planet would be much better off in many ways were we to transition to plant-based diets:
Go vegan, save the planet https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-pl...
Five things would happen if everyone stopped eating meat http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/five-things-would-happen...
What would happen if everyone went vegan? https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/what-would-world-loo...
What the Health http://www.whatthehealthfilm.com
The Game Changers http://gamechangersmovie.com
Cowspiracy http://www.cowspiracy.com
Can you provide peer reviewed papers making claims comparable to the sources you provided?
[1] https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/science-and-health/2017/7/2...
For a meticulously documented presentation, see "How Not To Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXXXygDRyBU
Point is, if you want to just reduce suffering while staying healthy (e.g. no iron / B12 deficiency) there may be better answers than just to restrict oneself to the one half of living creatures that happens to generate its own food from CO2.
The turn was after hooking you on all of the feelings by anthropomorphizing the plants more to you, then went back to cold logical examination that there is no structure in the plant for pain or learning and literally pointed out the manipulation they did. Radiolab does this a lot, manipulates the listener to get you meta insight into yourself.
We surely can't be that far off of this now?
Diet is not one-size-fits all, and we have basically no idea how complex diet is, or the specific long term effects of most dietary interventions on people. It is absolutely reprehensible to represent going vegan as an obvious way forward when it is unclear that it's even safe for a large majority of people.
In addition, many people are unable to eat yeast or yeast extracts, which are among the few commonly available non-flesh sources of the crucial vitamin B12.
[0]: http://mikhailapeterson.com/2017/12/18/zero-carb-carnivore-d...
All this reminds me of Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered by Ernst F. Schumacher - a great read.
This is a very fascist position, though! I could say the same for a human on life support who's gone through brain death (really, a lobster's smarter, at that point). Although perhaps that's not really that bad, albeit macabre. Perhaps, one day, we'll lab-grow meat, maybe our own, to eat, just to see what we taste like. That's equivalent to consuming non-lab-grown but also unconscious human tissue, I think. BUT SCARIER, this same line of thinking might lead to much-vaster-than-human intelligences deciding we don't have rights and that it's okay to eat us!
Am I okay with being eaten by a hyperintelligent being to whom I have the status of a lobster or a cow? Maybe. Because I really admire a being like that. Maybe it could effortlessly convince me to surrendering to being eaten with arguments more creative and compelling than a million Shakespeares could pen up, effortlessly, like some Saruman-godthing[0], because that just goes with the territory of being that smart! But, short of that, I'd try to run away, and many people don't share my ambivalence...
Ethics is difficult. But chicken is tasty.
Even if you accept my position, you could argue that maybe lobsters do have consciousness. Maybe they're even way more intelligent than we think they are. That'd be a problem. But, being scientific, you have to operate on what you have evidence for, not on what you don't. For the same reason, I don't think abortion is human murder (unless it's late term, after the brain's been thoroughly developed).
Another problem, of course, is where you draw the line. Lobsters aren't intelligent enough for personhood. What about dogs? What about chimps? What about severely mentally handicapped humans? Do you draw the line at doing calculus? (Because then you exclude a lot of normal humans!) That's the problem with fascism. :B I need to rethink my ways. But it's too difficult, and meat is calorically-dense and tasty!
For instance, I keep chickens and let them free-pasture until the day I butcher them. I think they enjoy their time out there as much as any animal would. Depending who or what you believe, the end is very quick for them, so the suffering is minimal.
I realize this isn't the norm, though. I'm sure the "joy" experienced on many factory farms is some kind of dystopian thing, like being happy you got extra gruel last Tuesday.
But it doesn't have to be that way. Just something to think about.
Taken to an extreme, we could have those animals be humans that are somehow born masochists, desperate to get consumed by cannibals.
Hmm. I think it's morally dubious to make them in the first place. Past that, we're talking about fulfilling their desires. If someone wants to die (say they're suffering from some slow, terminal illness or maybe incurable depression), is it ethical to keep them alive and deny them euthanasia? That seems like the same scenario. I say no; you should have the right to die if you want to in the most painless way possible. I think the Universe suffers a loss with the loss of your consciousness because it's an amazing thing, but your subjective suffering is more salient. I make that call on absolutely no rational ground; it's just my silly emotions. Silly emotions from a silly consciousness. :3 And it's that element of silliness that makes my position on this itself, or anyone else's, PERHAPS EVEN ALL THOSE MEAT ANIMALS' SUFFERING, seem sickeningly irrelevant in the grand, inscrutable, uncaring scheme of things. But that's morality for you.
We've gotta be careful here.
I'm so close to bringing up how maybe the self is a lie and how moral relativism justifies the worst levels of suffering imaginable.
The cow in question repeatedly assures the protagonist that the entire process is very humane and that it desires nothing more than to be eaten and enjoyed by others. It's actually quite offended when Arthur only orders a salad.
However, not everyone is like you. Some people develop deficiencies when they exclude meat from their diet. I have witnessed an ex-vegan health/nutritional professional advise a vegetarian to start eating some meat due to chronic health issues and lab-tested nutritional deficiencies.
It was an hard journey for both of them.
I'm glad it works for you right now while providing a sense of moral superiority, but not everyone is the same.
> I'm glad it works for you right now while providing a sense of moral superiority, but not everyone is the same.
Come on.
Any sources? Most of the professionals seem to think otherwise.
I'm not arguing that it's healthier or you can live longer, just that most people can be healthy and live.
Do you have a source that most professionals believe that most people can't live and be healthy on a vegetarian diet?
[Dietitians of Canada](https://www.dietitians.ca/Downloads/Factsheets/Guidlines-for... * A healthy vegan diet can meet all your nutrient needs at any stage of life including when you are pregnant, breastfeeding or for older adults.
[The British National Health Service](http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets... * With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.
[The British Nutrition Foundation](http://www.nutrition.org.uk/publications/briefingpapers/vege... * A well-planned, balanced vegetarian or vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate ... Studies of UK vegetarian and vegan children have revealed that their growth and development are within the normal range.
[The Dietitians Association of Australia](https://daa.asn.au/smart-eating-for-you/smart-eating-fast-fa... * Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. With good planning, those following a vegan diet can cover all their nutrient bases, but there are some extra things to consider.
[The United States Department of Agriculture](http://www.choosemyplate.gov/tips-vegetarians)** * Vegetarian diets (see context) can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.
[The National Health and Medical Research Council](https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/n55_... * Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthy and nutritionally adequate. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle. Those following a strict vegetarian or vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements as long as energy needs are met and an appropriate variety of plant foods are eaten throughout the day
[The Mayo Clinic](http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healt... * A well-planned vegetarian diet (see context) can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.
[The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada](https://www.heartandstroke.ca/get-healthy/healthy-eating/spe... * Vegetarian diets (see context) can provide all the nutrients you need at any age, as well as some additional health benefits.
[Harvard Medical School](http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/becoming-a-veg... * Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses.
[British Dietetic Association](https://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/vegetarianfoodfacts.pdf)** * Well planned vegetarian diets (see context) can be nutritious and healthy. They are associated with lower risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain cancers and lower cholesterol levels. This could be because such diets are lower in saturated fat, contain fewer calories and more fiber and phytonutrients/phytochemicals (these can have protective properties) than non-vegetarian diets. (...) Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life and have many benefits.
[1] http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/blogs/blog-datadelve/article...
I'm one of those people.
Personally, I think refraining from consuming animals is the morally superior option—nothing to do with health. In the longer history of humankind I hope that's the direction we take. I'd happily take an artificial steak made of a complex of vegetable proteins, fast, etc that tastes like prime beef over slaughtering an animal if it contains all the similar nutrients that are absorbed the same way...
My sister-in-law and brother—both former/current athletes—are vegan and vegetarian, respectively, and make great work of the diet. She runs a vegan recipe blog, and he keeps in great physical shape as a provincial police officer while restricting his animal consumption to eggs and dairy.
I unfortunately inherited deficiencies in B12, Iron, and other deficiencies from my mother's side. She, in her old age, has to resort to transfusions once every few years to live. Wouldn't wish it upon anybody. I like to think I can fare much better.
It got to the point in my own restricted diet where my doctor explicitly instructed me to eat a lot more red meat. After some time I've reduced my intake there, and increased my sublingual B12, but still need to keep up enough other nutrients (forgive my omitting details) to keep up.
The difference that appropriate nutrition has isn't limited to the physical, either.
Nutrition is a very complex problem.
Personally, I can see zero moral difference between killing an animal for food, and killing a plant for food. If one is unacceptable, then so should be the other.
For the rest, if we aren't eating them, something else is going to eat them. It's not a question of "taking an animal life"—the animal's life is going to get taken, in a messy, bloody, terrifying way.
It is considered by some to be an increase in marginal global utility, when a human eats an animal that would otherwise have been eaten by something else. Because we cause less suffering in the process of (killing and) eating the animal, than anything else would have.
(I don't personally know how I feel about this argument, but I feel like I should put it out here, because it's not very well-known and usually causes more interesting discussion than the usual responses.)
---
Also, as a bonus argument: if you're a positive utilitarian, then we increase global utility by a lot simply by raising livestock to eat them that would otherwise have never existed at all. (If you're a negative utilitarian, then all the good humanity has ever done is probably wiped out by the suffering of the great number of chickens we keep.)
Either way, though, it's indisputable that the life of e.g. a sheep kept by a shepherd, has higher total QALY than the life of a wild sheep. For some species, we're giving them a virtual garden-of-Eden to live in until they just, one day, die at our hands.
There's actually a part of the Effective Altruism movement that wants to reduce wild animal suffering—i.e. interject ourselves into nature in order to make more animal lives like that of the tended sheep (with or without the eventual culling.) I think they hope to use synthetic meat to solve the "how do you keep both the fox and the hen happy" problem.
The chicken that you buy at the grocer isn't one we swiped away just as a wolf was about it eat it. The chicken was grown indoors in a factory, likely hadn't even seen the light of day. Even a wolf-eaten wild chicken gets that courtesy.
Lobsters, like much of our seafood, are just plucked up out of the ocean. If we don't eat them, an otter or something does.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-fish-number...
While death is often seen as vastly negative (or infinitely, depending on who you ask), positive utilitarians typically reject the idea that procreating more / having more children increases total utility.
Most positive utilitarians further posit that all [evolved, rather than maliciously-engineered-for-the-sake-of-cruelty] lives likely contain at least a little happiness/reward/satisfaction (positive utility), and since the unhappy moments just axiomatically have zero utility, rather than negative utility, all [evolved] lives should "sum up" to being worth creating from their own perspectives—though creating additional lives might make marginal global utility go down, for Malthusian reasons (ten starving wolves that each live for a year aren't don't have as much utility as one well-fed wolf that lives for ten years.)
Personally, I don't like positive utilitarianism very much—but it's important to understand, since it seems to be the intuitive stance a lot of (often religious, but not always) people have without realizing it.
Not necessarily, the amount of ocean inhabitants people consume surely tops what would be taken naturally. I don't see how getting scooped from the ocean, hauled in trucks in small boxes, than kept alive in some aquarium beats living in ocean until any kind of death.
Most studies I read found that vegetarians were more healthy and lived longer than heavy meat eaters, but the once-in-a-while meat eaters were healthier. One of the reasons I stick with the last group.
Selfish?
Yes. But not only for appetite.
Besides, without predators, you probably would not have much forests ... and much more dessert.
I don't think there currently is a sustainable way to live without killing animals. Humanity is not going to live off pure gathering.
Often I see the concept you pointed out presented in a way that implies meat has separate and distinct negative externalities from plants, and that it's roughly equivalent whether you choose set of negatives A or set of negatives B. In reality one is a superset of the other.
They sure are fun!
Unless one argues with the premise that the killing/pain of other creatures is harmful, we'll only be talking past one another.
Everything humanity does destroys the planet and its inhabitants, including ourselves. A vegan thinks they're doing their small part, while texting up a storm on their iPhone, driving to work in their Camry, living in their downtown 1000 sqft apartment. Thinking your diet of all things makes the animals we share this place with feel any better is about as facetious as thinking a band-aid would help a man who just went headfirst into a woodchipper. You could go completely offgrid, live off the land, maximizing everything you can do to help this problem, and you wouldn't even begin to put a dent into it.
But if it helps you sleep at night, then by all means. At least you've some semblance of peace, which is more than most people on this planet have.
I don't think vegans/vegetarians do so because of their singular impact on the world. Worth saying that (presumably) you and I choose not to kill other people, knowing that our taxes might be funding wars, our gadgets might be built in sweatshops, etc.
Some would consider this a dangerous way of thinking, but someone like Temple Grandin would agree, I think, that the correct thing to worry about is suffering, not 'harm' in some abstract sense.
This is a closer scenario, since billions of e.g. cows would not be born and raised if not for our use for them as food. (Of course, in reality, they're mostly not raised happily).
When deciding the answer to the scenario, keep in mind that most parents who have children with e.g. terminally ill diseases, who die in adolescence, or even kids that die as teenagers from accidents, would probably not say it is better that they had not lived.
Also worth considering - we have children knowing that their lives will tragically end in death after 100 years at most. Why is that not wrong? Just cause we're used to 100 years being a lot, doesn't really change the fundamental argument does it?
There is obviously not going to be a simple happiness score at each moment of life—it should at least be a vector of scores. Would make sense to integrate over time, but then there's the spectre of a "happiness maximizer" (like a paperclip maximizer) that might produce undesirable outcomes, whether it's average or aggregate happiness you consider. Ethics is difficult to formalize.
"On his faculty page, Mr. Singer argues: “Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents."
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/peter-singer-...