Cats are "biologically designed to kill and eat flesh" but have you ever seen what cats do to the animals they capture for food? On the other hand, humans don't, as a rule torture our food and we usually kill our food before we eat it. Not all meat-eating animals have the same kind of behaviour toward their prey.

Humans are "biologically designed" to love other animals and care for them. Not in an Elmyra Duff kind of way, but in the way that has allowed us to tame and domesticate the wild ancestors of the animals we still live with. In the same way that our animals have a docile and calm nature that allows them to be domesticated, we have a caring and loving nature that allows us to domesticate them. We are not lions. A lion could not domesticate a flock of sheep. It would just fall on the sheep and slaughter them, on the first day. Without our love for animals, which is just as ingrained into us as our love of eating their flesh, we wouldn't be who we are today, our civilisation wouldn't be what it is today, our bodies and brains wouldn't be what they are today.

Those animals have given us so much, and they will continue to give us even more. The least we can do is to treat them with respect and ensure they have a dignified life and a dignified death.

> A lion could not domesticate a flock of sheep. It would just fall on the sheep and slaughter them, on the first day.

What a simplistic view of lions. I agree that lions don't really have the capacity to domesticate a flock of sheep, but to suggest that they're mindless killing machines that would meaninglessly mass slaughter sheep the first chance they got is weird. They're complicated creatures with rich emotional lives, and I've personally seen them plenty of times pass up opportunities to kill because there was no point. Interestingly, there's also lots of youtube footage of lions and other big cats attempting to care for other animals (albeit typically ineptly).

Lions among other large cats regularly engage in surplus killing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing

A local rancher lost a number of sheep to a mountain lion that apparently enjoyed surplus killing. After the first spree, the cat was captured, collared, and relocated but it came back and took out 11 more sheep plus an alpaca, after which it was culled by the state. Big cats are certainly interesting creatures, but it would be foolish to assume a given cat would care for something, eat it, or kill it for sport. They are all possible outcomes, and depending upon one's perception of cat psychology is a good way to get Roy Horn'ed and end up in a wheelchair.

Nitpick: a mountain lion isn’t a lion; it just looks like a female lion, leading to confusion when they were first seen by Europeans in the Americas (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-cougar-or-puma-called-a-lio... has a nice pair of photos)

The Wikipedia page also has weak evidence for lions being involved in surplus killing. It has two footnotes. http://www.aimspress.com/article/10.3934/mbe.2018031 is a simulation, and the abstract (article is paywalled) of https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1... only mentions “foxes, spotted hyenas and other carnivores”, and hints it may only happen when prey is easily available (as with a fox in a hen house, I suppose)

I think neither article claims it happens regularly.

It seems my views are not simplistic enough to not warrant a snotty response from someone who knows so much better. Oh, what tortured lives we simple folk must live...

> Human civilizations' current abundance of resources allows us the luxury to develop moral "philosophies"

You've got it backwards; Human's current abundance is the creation of human cooperation, which doesn't really work without some sort of ethical framework. Philosophy enables us to achieve more, it is not the result of our achievement.

In order to achieve the leisure time you need to develop these philosophies you need civilization first. Otherwise you'd be too worried about hunting and gathering to even find the time to think about these things.

A very Complex civilization requires what you talk about, but make no mistake; civilization itself came first.

That depends how you define civilisation. Margaret Mead said it started the moment people went from abandoning to caring for each other in spite of catastrophic injuries that would have required very long periods of recovery.

Someone made the decision to care for another, much less functional person at their own significant expense. Was a philosophical principle behind that or just enlightened self interest? Maybe we have an innate capacity for empathy. Other animals appear to as well.

A dictatorship is a human cooperation as well and while it technically has an ethical framework it's not exactly a victory of philosophy.

"Dicatorship and Cooperation are the same thing, lots of people are telling me this, rigth now!"

Chasing an animal down, killing it, and eating it is in my opinion a significantly different activity than subjecting it to thirty likely-invasive procedures over the course of its life and then continuing to perform experiments on its dead body. Not saying it's more or less morally questionable, but significantly different.

Evolutionary biology is overused as justification for human behavior. We were not "designed" to eat meat because we were not designed. We evolved the capacity to eat meat just as we evolved a capacity for sympathy/empathy. Other animals have also been shown to "befriend"/care for/grieve over animals of different species, so our own capacity to sympathize for animals should be no surprise.

>Evolutionary biology is overused as justification for human behavior.

Let me get one thing straight. I am not justifying anything. My angle is, what's the point? Don't justify anything at all. We're evil for killing, so be it. I am looking at it from a completely dispassionate angle. I do not need to somehow merge and mutate my moral framework to make it work with the existing reality.

>We were not "designed" to eat meat because we were not designed.

Ok we were "designed" by natural selection to eat meat. I am not making a theological argument.

> Chasing an animal down, killing it, and eating it is in my opinion a significantly different activity than subjecting it to thirty likely-invasive procedures over the course of its life and then continuing to perform experiments on its dead body. Not saying it's more or less morally questionable, but significantly different.

In the wild, carnivores devour the flesh of their prey while it is alive and awake. Possibly more significant if not equal in being morally questionable.

>Other animals have also been shown to "befriend"/care for/grieve over animals of different species, so our own capacity to sympathize for animals should be no surprise.

No it is not. But what is surprising is that this empathy is the dominant behavior to our own evolutionary detriment (however mild). Empathy evolved to aid in survival of our genome, but when empathy evolves to the point where we are unable experiment on animals to assist in helping our own species... that is something unnatural.

I think we're on the same page in believing that there's not an inherent morality to these behaviors. I'm not accusing of you to try to justify some morally evil act.

The comment you originally replied to said this:

> Weird how this is said without a shred of sympathy or concern for an intelligent, helpless creature

To which you replied:

> It's not weird at all. Biologically speaking, we are designed to eat meat. > The weird thing is how we developed sympathy and concern for such things.

What I was responding to was the claim that because we evolved the capacity to eat meat, we should naturally be dispassionate to the killing of animals. What I'm saying is that since we evolved both the capacity for carnivory and sympathy, that our capacity for eating animals does not make our sympathy for animals at all unnatural.

It's not unnatural for us to want to kill animals for our survival. But it's also not unnatural for us to care about and feel sympathy towards animals. I feel that you've been using our capacity for meat-eating to deem vegetarianism, sympathy towards animals, etc. as against our nature.

With that, the point of my differentiating between the act of hunting and eating animals versus experimenting with them and their dead bodies is comparable to the difference in severity of humans fighting each other versus torturing each other. Humans clearly have the capacity for both, and yet one typically elicits a higher negative reaction in people than the other. Our ability to empathize with all sorts of pain falls along such an axis.

Edit:

To your last point, if people naturally develop an empathy towards animals so strong that it overrides their own sense of self-preservation, why is that unnatural? Is a human giving their life to save other humans unnatural? That's exactly why I keep repeating that there is no "design" - or if you'd prefer, "intent". There is no rule in nature that says species are supposed to prioritize the survival of their own, and so deviating from that nonexistent rule is not unnatural. If experimenting on animals is absolutely necessary to humanity's survival and humanity one day refuses, it will simply die out like millions of species before it. Going extinct isn't unnatural either.

I've never talked about "rules" or "intent" the way you put it.

I am simply saying how else do you describe the hand. The hand is for grasping things the rock is not. How to I ascribe this difference without using the word design or purpose because clearly the hand is much much more efficient at grasping things.

Sure you can use the hand for things it was not "designed" for like hand stands and walking while hand standing and if there was selection pressure your hands can evolve to be less hand like. But in doing such things you are departing from a "design."

Let me put it in a way that won't distract you. Your hand is efficient at grasping things by doing hand stands you are using it in ways that are not efficient. You are departing from the efficiency zone. There is merit in ONLY using the hammer on a nail rather than a screw driver even when the hammer was evolved with Zero actual "design" or "intent" and can one day evolve into something different.

Get it? So the same thing applies to not eating meat. By not doing so, someone is departing from the "efficiency zone." See how awkward it is to use "efficiency zone" in place of "design"?

I'd rather operate in my efficiency zone rather than push the boundaries of it just so that my progeny 1 million years later can walk on their hands. But that's just my personal take. My argument itself has no agenda other than to say that by not eating meat you are willfully departing from the efficiency zone. By being compassionate about the pig you are doing the same. And using the word "design" is just an EASIER way to express this departure from the "efficiency zone".

I appreciate that explanation. While awkward, I believe "efficiency zone" is a much clearer term to use, or at least it was worthwhile clarifying that that's what you meant.

While I understand what you're saying, I still don't think that ultimately matters when talking about what humans should or shouldn't be doing, what we're supposed to or not supposed to be doing, considering:

1. Human nature is not particularly efficient, and neither is evolution, at least on the surface. Peacocks' feathers are not particularly efficient features for them to develop. Yes, avoiding meat may seem harder than not avoiding meat, but the same could be said for following a religion, or organizing into a governing body, or adhering to some social norm, and yet humans have naturally done those for probably their entire existence. They do so because they at least perceive a benefit for them even if some might disagree on that benefit.

2. The human digestive system is not mono-faceted. It evolved to be multi-use and flexible. You are not using a hammer incorrectly by refraining from using the claw side because you've decided your problem can be solved perfectly fine with the hammer face. You are not using a TV incorrectly if you never visit channel 19 because you don't want to watch whatever is on channel 19.

I stand by my point. The fact that you can efficiently do something doesn't mean you're "supposed to" do that thing. It just gives you the option.

"suppose to" is another loaded and ambiguous word. You can smoke and inject your self with heroin everyday. It's not efficient and it doesn't mean you're not "suppose to" do it.

But there is something off with doing these things and I don't want to get into the pedantics of it all. Not eating meat is in the same general area without the social stigma of being a drug abuser.

> Other animals have also been shown to "befriend"/care for/grieve over animals of different species, so our own capacity to sympathize for animals should be no surprise.

This part is actually true. Some animals do befriend, cooperate with or grieve over animals of different species. Not all animals are bugs and spiders.

> Empathy evolved to aid in survival of our genome, but when empathy evolves to the point where we are unable experiment on animals to assist in helping our own species... that is something unnatural.

Evolution is not a god. Things evolve because it happens, not for fixed purpose. If we genetically evolve to be "unable experiment on animals to assist in helping our own species", then that evolution is as natural as anything else.

Yep, I've seen a few people chucking around phrases like "designed by nature" which are both wrong and confusing. "Design" implies intent before the fact, which is not the case.

We, as a species, are not "finished" in any way or "more evolved" than other species. There is no destination evolution as such.

We have plenty of traits that are not useful but also not a hindrance and so they remain.

On the subject of cooperation between species I'm always fascinated by inter-tree species communication. You might think that trees in a forest are all individually fighting each other for resources but it's more complex than that.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/exploring_how_and_why_trees_t...

>Yep, I've seen a few people chucking around phrases like "designed by nature" which are both wrong and confusing.

That's me chucking that phrase and I am telling you there's good reasoning for it. Think about it. How do I differentiate between the human hand and a rock? Do I say:

   The human hand is a low entropy configuration of atoms that is very efficient at grasping things while the rock is a high entropy configuration of atoms that is not efficient at grasping things. 

OR do I say...

   The human hand is designed to grasp things the rock is not. 

See. One sentence just rolls off the tongue better but I guess I have to get into the technicalities otherwise people are confused.

Either way, People like to get into linguistic debates on the definition of a word without realizing that it's a trap. Nothing profound is actually being discussed when we're just talking about how to properly use the word "design." Think about it... you're just debating about the proper definition of a vocabulary word.

Granted I'll tell you it's an effective trap. People get into these debates without realizing how pointless it all is. The famous debate is "What is life?" Well if you want to argue about that you have to realize that the word "life" is loaded and ambiguously defined. Attempting this argument is simply trying to demarcate the complex boundaries of the word. It's simply an attempt to add more bullet points and rules to an overly complex vocabulary word.

How about we stop arguing about vocabulary.

>We, as a species, are not "finished" in any way or "more evolved" than other species. There is no destination evolution as such.

Where did this come from? I don't see anyone making that argument. Sure we can as a species can start ingesting gasoline and likely with enough time and natural selection we could involve into a gasoline eating species.

This does not change the fact that there is meaning to the sentence: "Humans are not designed to eat gasoline." Guess the intent of my usage of that sentence without getting pedantic and try to express and convey the same intent without the use of the word "design" or "purpose."

> Where did this come from?

It’s came from the use of the word “design”, which is a loaded term in the context of evolution.

I take it to imply either a designer or a direction to evolution. Two things I personally don’t consider to be true.

I hope that doesn’t sound pedantic for the sake of it, that’s not my intention and I don’t intend any offence by it.

Without actually knowing you though I only have your choice of words to go on as to what you really mean.

In your gasoline example I would personally just swap the word “designed” for “evolved” unless designed is what you actually mean.

>Evolution is not a god.

Never said such a thing. However we can influence macro features through something called artificial selection. In this sense we design something through the same mechanism used as natural selection. The difference is, the hand that guides is artificial rather then natural but the outcome is the same: a design, a machine with a specific purpose. Man... this is just pedantry. I'm not here to discuss the definition of a unimportant word.

The word is important, because you use it to cast judgement on one kind of evolutionary path. In your comment, it is wrong, because it is not "as originally designed".

You would say that a species advanced enough to throw quantum computing at theoretical math problems would be able to develop and act in ways that are not dictated by the laws of evolution.

After all we manage successfully to abstain from actual reproduction in much of the developed world to a degree that makes our societies shrink. Not exactly fit, from an evolutionary point of view.

I think a more accurate phrasing is that we're "designed" by natural section to _optionally_ eat meat. Large numbers of people like many Hindus, Mahayana Buddhists, and now vegans don't eat meat and can live healthily. By the way, most meat-eaters utilise fire when processing the meat - something that was invented - rather similarly to how Vitamin B12 supplements have been invented and now help vegans.

Re. empathy - I very much doubt it's to our detriment when one of the main threats to our survival is lack of empathy leading to extinction-causing wars - something that may have already destroyed previous intelligent civilisations around the universe. Even with medical experiments on animals - if they were much reduced I think this would likely lead to more effort & subsequent innovations in replacement technologies like cell cultures & simulations - which could lead to faster medical breakthroughs than if we continue on the current animal-testing business-as-usual trajectory.

Human beings are also designed for aggression towards each other, yet we generally try to control those parts of our 'savage nature' in modern society.

Torturing defenseless animals is not an inescapable facet of human nature. It's something we choose to do and be OK with.

> Human beings are also designed for aggression towards each other, yet we generally try to control those parts of our 'savage nature' in modern society.

Yes, we've developed quite sophisticated organizations to coordinate the violence, and then developed quite sophisticated weapons to carry it out.

With the end result of vastly fewer deaths from violence per capita compared to primitive societies.

This sounds true at face but do we have any evidence that violence per capita is lower here now than it is in a tighter but less organized clan society of yesteryear where any violence you would perpetrate would either be against your own extended family or outside aggressors (and modern society or at least US is already very brutal to outside nations).

On the other hand, also a level of terror unimaginable in the past if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

>Human beings are also designed for aggression towards each other, yet we generally try to control those parts of our 'savage nature' in modern society.

No. There is no evolutionary benefit for raw aggression. Raw aggression appears during times of limited resources where aggression contributes to survival. Humans as all living things, are designed to survive and use any means to achieve it.

Given minimal resources we all will revert to our primal natures.

>Torturing defenseless animals is not an inescapable facet of human nature. It's something we choose to do and be OK with.

Nothing is inescapable. You are designed by nature to live out a certain lifetime yet you can escape your nature by killing yourself. This does not change your fundamental nature. We are more prone to follow our nature then to ignore it.

> There is no evolutionary benefit for raw aggression. Raw aggression appears during times of limited resources where aggression contributes to survival.

Those sentences seem to contradict each other very directly.

The benefit doesn't just exist for no reason. It only exists because of limited resources. When resources are not limited we don't display aggressive behavior.

We are not living in a time of limited resources therefore it is actually evolutionary detrimental for us to be aggressive. It's not a coincidence that our popular culture de-emasculates itself bit by bit every decade. It's because we live in plentiful times and our behavior (which is conditioned through natural selection) reflects this.

I agree with this take. Chimps kill and eat smaller monkeys all the time. If you watch any nature documentary you can see how ruthless animals are as it's all a survival game after all.

I'm no biologist but the empathy / sympathy part also seems to be an evolved trait. It should bring stability to a social group and reduce injuries due to needless in-fighting which effectively ensures better survival as a group.

"It should bring stability to a social group and reduce injuries due to needless in-fighting which effectively ensures better survival as a group."

That's probably how it started, but the definition of social group expanded as we came to realise how arbitrary and culturally determined social group boundaries are. Once we account for those biases, and start to see all animals as just trying to survive in the world, it's a natural progression to extend that empathy to them too.

Including all living creatures isn't quite useful in terms of survival chances.

Thinking about this topic, we could also philosophize the whole "torture" aspect. Presumably it means physical pain to an animal which many feel uneasy about. But if you think about it, pain, as signals to the brain are also evolved mechanisms in order to survive. Pain is a crude signal indicating that the life of that animal is in danger but they are not perfect indicators.

If pain signals were more accurate they would activate the moment an animal approaches a human with a shotgun similar to how you feel pain touching boiling water. But the pain mechanism hasn't become that sophisticated yet. So even the pain is an arbitrary crude mechanism so real "torture" would be loss of habitat for example but animals won't feel that as pain.

That is like saying biologically speaking, 65% of the world’s population isn’t designed to drink milk, because they don’t produce the enzyme lactase. Yes, it is true. No, it does not mean anything on its own.

Those same moral philosophies stop us from killing each other for sport, even though it is in our “savage nature”.

Meat consumption is ultimately driven by consumer choice, and consumers will choose what they want to eat

No, humans are omnivores, not carnivores. Our bodies are designed to function on a wide variety of food including fresh produce. To each their own, but consuming meat is a choice, not a necessity.

A swiss army knife is designed to be used in many different ways. Just because you don't use all the ways doesn't mean it's not designed for it.

You are an omnivore and you are designed to eat meat. Additionally, you are not designed to eat cellulose which is a huge component of what it means to be a herbivore. You are designed to eat meat, and designed to eat certain types of veggies. Who's to say that the veggie part is just the back up mechanism?

Either way you ARE designed to eat veggies and MEAT, you can choose to eat veggies and deny half your nature, yes.. that is your choice.

I already said this in a different comment, but the difference is that we were not designed while a Swiss army knife was. Design implies intent— it implies that something was developed for a purpose, that it's supposed to be used in a certain way.

Whether or not I use the corkscrew on my Swiss army knife doesn't change the fact that someone built the corkscrew for the purpose of opening corked bottles.

The enzymes/features humans possess that enable us to consume meat were selected for because at some point in the history of our species they enabled our ancestors to survive while others without the related genes did not.

This can change at any point, for any species. If we are no longer in an environment where eating meat confers a significant survival advantage then the fact that we evolved to be able to eat meat has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we should.

> Design implies intent— it implies that something was developed for a purpose, that it's _supposed_ to be used in a certain way.

You could say "design" by natural selection which is MY primary intent.

What is the appropriate word if not design? Your hands have a purpose even if they were not "designed." The purpose in this case is to grasp things. The purpose of the human body is then to eat meat and vegetables.

The word design flows better than purpose. Take the two sentences:

   The human body was not designed to consume arsenic.
   The purpose of the human body is not to eat arsenic. 

See? Anyway let's not get too pedantic about this. I'm sure you get my intent despite the creationist technicality that the word "design" implies... I am clearly not implying THAT.

I don't think you're a creationist - this is just a very common distinction in thinking about evolution that results in all sorts of illogical fallacies.

This is my exact point: Your hands have no purpose. They evolved in a way that aided in survival. If someone is born mutated with their fingers fused together and then suddenly the entire earth floods and they find their solid hands help them swim better - were their hands evolved for the purpose of swimming? Were they designed? Is that human then "supposed to" swim?

We're finding microorganisms that can consume plastic. Does that mean they evolved for the purpose of eating plastic, a substance not typically found in nature?

In my worldview, no, they weren't. They can consume plastic, but that has no bearing on their purpose, and they aren't leaving part of their purpose unfulfilled if they don't eat plastic and instead eat other substances they evolved to be able to eat.

Your scenario with mutated hands ignores that evolution is about selection, not just single mutations. If hands evolved over a period of millions of years to be able to push water better, you could indeed say they evolved for the purpose of swimming. This is similar to saying that an eye’s purpose is to see, or a heart’s purpose is to pump blood, which are hardly controversial statements.

A purpose doesn’t have to imply concious design, intent, or immutablity.

You're making assumptions and taking the conversation in a pedantic direction.

I am aware of the nature of natural selection and how it builds complexity over time through various selection pressures not all of which are constantly aligned with end result. And although wings were initially little nubs not "designed" for flying you could say that wings are they are now are "designed" for flying.

"Design" and "purpose" as I've said many times throughout this thread is a word that flows better. It is a linguistic choice and you are taking the argument in a direction thinking I don't understand some trivial point about natural selection.

I’m not really sure why you bothered to reply, my comment had nothing to do with you. I was just pointing out the flaws in the scenario the parent comment presented.

Thats an interesting point but I think I'd have to disagree - purpose is very much constrained to concious design. Those traits were selected not for the purpose of swimming but merely due to the pressure of selection itself. In your example of flippers, the selection pressure is likely on mobility but the purpose of a limb is not mobility in and of itself. Would that make a flipper purposeless if moving over land?

Those traits would be selected because being able to swim increases survival. The purpose is survival via swimming.

To put it another way, the fact that the inputs (mutations) are random does not mean the outputs have no purpose.

If I said “the purpose of eyes is to see”, would you really disagree with that?

Also, it is entirely possible for body parts to have multiple purposes, that is quite common.

>purpose is very much constrained to concious design.

Not true. Natural selection can produce the same results as artificial selection. They are both effectively the same process where in one scenario the guiding hand is human and the other scenario nature is the guiding hand.

If both nature and artificial selection evolved a mechanism that is very specifically and efficiently able to do one thing and one thing only does it mean that the thing evolved has no purpose? No it doesn't.

Either way we're getting into a linguistic and philosophical argument on the meaning of the word "purpose." These are traps. Ultimately we begin arguing about the definition of an ambiguous word thinking that the argument is profound. It's like all those arguments about "What is life." Pointless, "life" is the word that is loaded and ambiguous; any debate of that nature is simply an argument about the intricacies of a vocabulary word.

This is pedantic. Everybody knows about evolution and natural selection and the intricacies behind the process, it's old news.

Energy flows into and out of a system in a way where the configuration of particles begins arranging itself in lower and lower entropy formulations. The net entropy of the universe remains forever increasing but within this system it begins lowering. One of these low entropy formulation begins self replication imperfectly thereby introducing memory and mutation into the system allowing complexity to build on itself thereby producing particle configurations of immense low entropy and complexity.

Is there any "intent" in the description above? No. But you must consider the factor below:

Clearly your hands weren't designed with an intelligent intent. Yet there is something different about your hand then there is a rock. What is the word used to describe this difference? "Design" flows better, that's it, no need to get into "illogical fallacies."

>We're finding microorganisms that can consume plastic. Does that mean they evolved for the purpose of eating plastic, a substance not typically found in nature? >In my worldview, no, they weren't. They can consume plastic, but that has no bearing on their purpose,

I don't know if you can see this, but your argument here is not profound. You are making a linguistic argument. You are arguing for the definition of the word "Purpose" or "Design." We BOTH know EXACTLY what is going on with natural selection and "design" is simply an easier way to express a point that your hand is a lower entropy configuration of atoms that is clearly very efficient at grasping things. But my previous sentence is an inefficient way of saying it. I could just say your hand is designed for the purpose of grasping things and the rock is not.

I think this point is very hard to argue against. Natural selection has no intent, mutation is random and its consequences are thus flukes as to whether they work or not to support an organisms survival. Very well explained @_nothing!

Their post missed the fact that evolution is about selection, not just single mutations.

No it doesn't. You're just assuming such.

They described a scenario where someone was born with mutated hands that happened to be useful for swimming after the earth floods. There’s no selection or evolution there.

It means that our ancestors happened to survive by eating meat, among other things, and produced us. Nothing more.

There's more. It means the way you think, your health and your physical features are all naturally designed to help you obtain meat (and veggies).

I guess. But I spend most of the day sitting in a chair typing things on a keyboard. So there is a lot of flexibility.

And I believe that more or less the only thing that sets us apart from animals is that we can reflect on our own actions. We choose. And that also comes with responsibility for our choices.

To argue that something is OK just because it "is in our nature" doesn't cut it for creatures with the ability to discuss this on HN. Is my personal belief.

>And I believe that more or less the only thing that sets us apart from animals is that we can reflect on our own actions. We choose. And that also comes with responsibility for our choices.

Many Animals can choose too.

>To argue that something is OK just because it "is in our nature" doesn't cut it for creatures with the ability to discuss this on HN. Is my personal belief.

I'm not arguing for anything to be OK. I'm saying the argument in itself is pointless. You should note that your "morality" is not a choice. It is a behavioral trait evolved through millions of years of evolution and is trait shared to varying degrees among all humans across all cultures.

Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not lie... etc. Your moral framework is a biological module hardwired into your mind to make you think in a certain way that aids with survival. But it was made for a more prehistoric time where humans had little understanding of the physical world and lived in limited tribal bands of hunters and gatherers.

The complexity of the world today exposes the archaic aspects of the moral module in our brain. We were not designed to feel sorry for the pig as it poses no evolutionary benefit yet we do as a side effect because pig experimentation simply didn't exist in ancient times so there was no selection pressure to make our moral module evolve in a way that will logically account for the pig.

This discussion does not exist because you are "above" your base evolutionary nature. It exists for two reasons: Your moral brain is designed for a more harsher simpler environment; and resources in our society are plentiful.

Once resources become stretched and limited, your brain will begin overriding your moral module. Almost starving to death? You will kill a pig without hesitation with your bare hands if that was the case. Survival is the name of the game in the end.

Not necessarily. We have evolved features that are beneficial to us as well as those that just happened and wasn’t too detrimental nor useful. We are not the “perfect creature”.

It is no longer thought to be a rudimentary organ but let me use it as an example: our appendix could very well serve no purpose, but it was not too detrimental (we didn’t get appendicitis in great enough numbers) so it remained.

While being able to digest meat is likely beneficial (though actually it is very easy to consume meat, especially cooked one compared to raw vegetables — just look at a cow’s digestive track), it doesn’t mean that we are made for that. A horse will gladly eat a small chicken for extra protein if it wanders to it (look up on YouTube)

>Not necessarily. We have evolved features that are beneficial to us as well as those that just happened and wasn’t too detrimental nor useful. We are not the “perfect creature”.

Nobody made an argument for being the perfect creature. I made an argument for the fact we were designed to eat meat and veggies.

>While being able to digest meat is likely beneficial (though actually it is very easy to consume meat, especially cooked one compared to raw vegetables — just look at a cow’s digestive track), it doesn’t mean that we are made for that.

You have enzymes in your body or arrangement of atoms that are targeted towards specifically digesting and breaking down meat. Sure you can put ethanol in a car designed for gasoline but my point remains the same, we were designed to eat meat.

If you want to get pedantic here I can reword it into a stuffy/wordy sentence and avoid utilizing the word "design.":

   We have evolved for millions of years to have bodies that happen to be extremely efficient at digesting and breaking down meat.

> Either way you ARE designed to eat veggies and MEAT, you can choose to eat veggies and deny half your nature, yes.. that is your choice.

Is that similar to you only acknowledging being designed to eat meat and denying half of your nature?

It seems you are getting too focused on "to eat meat": in precise terms, GP never said "to eat meat exclusively" or "to eat only meat".

>GP never said "to eat meat exclusively" or "to eat only meat".

I never said that either. It seems you are artificially injecting extra words into my statements. My phrase "to eat meat" effectively addresses all your technicalities. That is my intent and my meaning.

I think I was supporting your original wording ;)

There are people who do carnivory diet, eating 100% meat and organs for a while. They are mostly okay, some have their health better than their previous diet. Human body is awesome in our flexibility in seeking niches.

No I acknowledge both. So how am I denying my nature. Just FYI, I have no skin in this game. Call me evil call me denying my own nature, I'm just looking at this all as if I was a psychopath (I'm not).

> The weird thing is how we developed sympathy and concern for such things

stupid comment of the year. We kill and eat animals, we sympathize with animals being killed, like where is the contradiction? How about sympathize with animals being killed unnecessarily? (I'm no longer talking about experimenting, just killing in general)

How about we kill other human beings in wars, in capital punishment, does that elude having sympathy for them?

> Human civilizations' current abundance of resources allows us the luxury to...

...kill in excess, bingo

>stupid comment of the year.

You call me stupid and yet you're stupid enough to think that I care about anything else you have to say after you call me stupid? Why even bother wasting your breath?

You are also designed not to harm your fellow beings.

That may sound like a contradiction, but it's just the "fellow beings" parts that is culturally or individually changed. There have been soldiers who went to war who couldn't shoot their enemies, even though they might even have "wanted" to. Compassion seems to be a very fundamental building block of the Human mind.

You are designed to survive. If that survival involves harming people than that is what will occur.

You are also designed to fuck a woman and make her pregnant and many men will fulfill this goal at any cost. Hence why rape exists.

Rape exists independently of the desire to make women pregnant. Quite frankly, bringing it up here as something that humans were “designed” to do and then arguing that we repress ourselves in various ways by not perpetuating rape (or being vegetarian) does not really help your point.

That would not be a counter argument, as OP seems to labor on the simplified assumption that sexual desire has evolved to ensure procreation, and then it doesn't really matter if you intend to father offspring or just to fulfill that desire.

But it's not that easy, because sexual desire in Humans (and many animal species) is way more complicated than ensuring conception.

And more importantly, rape is more complicated than sexual desire. It often isn't about the sex. And I agree that the referring to biological urges when talking about rape is somehow releasing the perpetrator of some of the guilt. It is always also a lack of judgement, empathy, self control and so on. Nothing except very rare brain disorders can make someone a rapist unless he chooses to be.

None of that is true. There are stories over stories of Humans refusing to do harm to other Humans even if it means their death. Conditioning Humans to kill other Humans often involves dehumanizing the enemy in order to circumvent that built-in safety measure. Not everybody can just defuse that switch when he needs to.

You are ASSuming I am male and heterosexual. You are assuming homosexuality has somehow not evolved naturally or does not play a part in the natural repertoire of Human social structure (spoiler alert: it does, even in terms of procreation).

You do not understand sexual desire, which is not about reproduction, even though reproduction can be a side effect (and usually isn't, even without contraception). You do not understand rape and sexual assault which often is not about sex or sexual pleasure.

>None of that is true. There are stories over stories of Humans refusing to do harm to other Humans even if it means their death.

These people won't exist given enough time and selection pressure. It's the only logical outcome. Additionally given the nature of natural selection it can be said many many of these people don't exist at all. The majority of the world will not do this unless it has some evolutionary benefit.

And that benefit only exists among our genetic progeny. Parents will sacrifice themselves for their kids because of the evolutionary benefit.

>You are ASSuming I am male and heterosexual. You are assuming homosexuality has somehow not evolved naturally or does not play a part in the natural repertoire of Human social structure (spoiler alert: it does, even in terms of procreation).

You're the ASS here. You can make an argument without throwing an insult. First off I made no assumption about you personally. I also never stated anything about homosexuality.

You know what I am? I'm black, I'm trans and lesbian. You're assuming that I'm white, male and straight out of nowhere. Oh how the woke world will destroy you for making such baseless assumptions. Man who cares.

>You are assuming homosexuality has somehow not evolved naturally or does not play a part in the natural repertoire of Human social structure

I never said I assumed such a thing. I made no statement about this. You made the statement that it DOES play a natural part. I've heard of these arguments. What evidence do you have to support this? I am not talking about logical arguments that illustrate the possibility that homosexuality is an evolved trait. But empirical statistical evidence that show unmistakably that it is an evolved trait.

The arguments I hear as it stands sounds a bit convoluted and only shows that homosexuality being an evolved trait is only a theoretical possibility.

>You do not understand sexual desire, which is not about reproduction, even though reproduction can be a side effect

Ok this is just BS. When did I say sexual desire is only about reproduction? We're done here.

No, we can eat meat but we are by no means obligate carnivores like cats are.

A cat will die on a no-meat diet, while we can easily live on plants alone.

> we can easily live on plants alone.

This has only been true for about the past 50 years, when vitamin B12 was synthesized. There's no plant source for the vitamin. And I'm not even sure the vegans call a vegan diet "easy".

No. Lack of meat leads to vitamin B12 deficiency which gives you all sorts of neurological issues. Pretty damn horrible ones.

> The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns of the risk of vitamin B12 deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans. Vitamin B12 is found naturally only in animal products. A lack of vitamin B12 can lead to anemia and blindness. It can also cause muscle weakness, tingling, and numbness.

We might not die, we will just get severely disabled. It pretty much mimics MS.

Algae has plenty of B12. Also, this is a vitamin deficiency, compared to obligate carnivores like cat that can’t digest plants. It is a significant difference between the two.

> The usual dietary sources of vitamin B(12) are animal foods, meat, milk, egg, fish, and shellfish. As the intrinsic factor-mediated intestinal absorption system is estimated to be saturated at about 1.5-2.0 microg per meal under physiologic conditions, vitamin B(12) bioavailability significantly decreases with increasing intake of vitamin B(12) per meal. The bioavailability of vitamin B(12) in healthy humans from fish meat, sheep meat, and chicken meat averaged 42%, 56%-89%, and 61%-66%, respectively. Vitamin B(12) in eggs seems to be poorly absorbed (< 9%) relative to other animal food products. In the Dietary Reference Intakes in the United States and Japan, it is assumed that 50% of dietary vitamin B(12) is absorbed by healthy adults with normal gastro-intestinal function. Some plant foods, dried green and purple lavers (nori) contain substantial amounts of vitamin B(12), although other edible algae contained none or only traces of vitamin B(12). Most of the edible blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) used for human supplements predominantly contain pseudovitamin B(12), which is inactive in humans. The edible cyanobacteria are not suitable for use as vitamin B(12) sources, especially in vegans. Fortified breakfast cereals are a particularly valuable source of vitamin B(12) for vegans and elderly people. Production of some vitamin B(12)-enriched vegetables is also being devised.[1]

So it seems like that despite them containing substantial amounts of vitamin B12, they are not suitable for use as vitamin B12 sources because they predominantly contain pseudovitamin B12 which is inactive in humans. They recommend fortified breakfast cereals for vegans.

What you said about cats inability to digest plants is of no significance here. Vitamin deficiency - especially this particular one - is life-threatening. We need it. We can definitely have plants, and we may need plants as well, but we do need to eat something that contains substantial amounts of non-pseudovitamin B12, which is meat. Of course you can just be a vegan and supplement vitamin B12, but...

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17959839/