To eat or not eat meat

[Slasher]

Ever since I can remember I have eaten meat....

For the past few years I have been concerned about weather it is right or wrong for animals to be slaughtered for food on a commercial basis..

Some say meat is part of a humans natural diet whilst others say we can obtain the protein we need from other things such as nuts...

This concern is probably why many are turning vegan..

I also worry what would happen if animals were of no longer use to farmers (except for milk, wool etc)....Farmers would surely suffer financially etc..

What are your views on eating meatless diets.. do you think it is the right thing to do or is meat a necessity of life?

Concerned......

[arj0n]

Ever since I can remember I have eaten meat....

me too, but not on a daily base though.

For the past few years I have been concerned about weather it is right or wrong for animals to be slaughtered for food on a commercial basis..

IMO it is definitely wrong. It became an industry (for a long time already) with no respect to the animals.

Some say meat is part of a humans natural diet whilst others say we can obtain the protein we need from other things such as nuts...

This concern is probably why many are turning vegan..

That's something else. It's ok to be vegan, but I thing there's also nothing wrong with eating meat. As long as one doesn't eat XXL portions and not on a daily bases.
Also, everyone should by it from a reliable source instead of 'as much as possible for as cheap as possible'.
People often say the government should do something about the supermarkets selling cheap meat. I think that's the other way around. People should not buy such meat. Simple.

I also worry what would happen if animals were of no longer use to farmers (except for milk, wool etc)....Farmers would surely suffer financially etc..

No, the farmers aren't the real problem, so they should still exist. It's the industry around it kept alive by the greedy people who want much for almost nothing...

if everyone who wants to eat meat just:
- buy less
- buy better quality
- want to pay a normal price (no cheap meat)
- buy from a source that guarantees the animals had a normal life
- buy from a source that guarantees the animals aren't been slaughtered in a way that is pure torture.

Just my 2 cents 

[Khris]

Meat is not a necessity but it's just so damn tasty

My stance is I try and only buy "organic" meat. They have a 1-4 scale here in Germany on pre-packaged meat, and I simply only buy the more expensive 4 meats, which basically means the animals are treated well. Or directly at the butcher's, which I assume is also kind of ok. I hope.
I also try to eat less meat; it's mostly pasta, veggies, fish and sandwiches for me.

You don't have to decide between being a BBQ fiend and going vegan, obviously.

[Honza]

I eat it, but have occasionally been feeling like a hypocrite about it ever since I stumbled upon this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcVR2OVxPYw

- buy from a source that guarantees the animals had a normal life
- buy from a source that guarantees the animals aren't been slaughtered in a way that is pure torture.

Do you really do this on a day to day basis? How do you manage? I get it when you're buying raw meat for cooking, but what about eating out and buying ready-made stuff? Salami on pizza, the meatballs in your soup, things like that? I should make more effort to look into this, but I'm guessing avoiding products of animal suffering without going full vegan is actually pretty hard.

[cat]

I used to eat meat but not on a daily base. More than 10 years ago, I move to a region where the motto is "if there is no meat in it, it doesn't count as meal". After some time this annoyed me so much, I decided to eat no meat at all for the next month. It may sound weird, but I felt so liberated from the pressure to eat meat, that I still stick to it. I still eat fish and jelly and wear leather shoes, but I don't eat meat. I recently had one of those fake veggie burger patties and didn't like it, because it tasted just like meat. For me, it is mainly about taste and health and animal wellfare is what I call "collateral benefit".

From time to time I try to reduce fish for environmental reasons, but this is very hard for me because I like it so much.


I think arj0n and Khris made a good point: Try to eat less meat but of better quality.

[Slasher]

Thank you guys.....

You've certainly made some very valid points for me to consider...

The video from Honza really hit home! I would hate to know an animal suffered just to satisfy my hunger!

Like Khris and arj0n mentioned: I will only buy the better cuts from the butchers rather than prepacked frozen from Iceland. though my budget is quite low..I will also reduce the amount I buy... I recently supported the stopping of pig cruelty..

I thought I would give this a try for the next fortnight and see how I get on (with one meat dish a week-from a good source):

A WEEK OF *REALISTIC* VEGAN DINNERS 🍔🌿
https://youtu.be/5WHlcdRcGbk

Fingers crossed...

Your vegan recipes welcome..

Thank you so much guys 

[milkanannan]

Some friends of my wife and I are from a province of India called Gujarat, which is a ‘veg’ province (as they call it). Gujarat dishes are so incredibly tasty that you’d never even notice you’re not eating meat. If you like Indian food (lol stupid question everyone does), try googling ‘Gujarat recipes’ for and endless list of cool dish ideas.

Wife and I have always been meat eaters but have cut most of it out as we’ve got older, and I’m like you slasher I’m working towards a more compassionate way of eating. We eat red meat 3-4 times a month. It’s mostly fish and shrimp now and often just tofu and mushrooms (surprisingly high source of protein).  Still eat lots of eggs though.

[Slasher]

Some friends of my wife and I are from a province of India called Gujarat, which is a ‘veg’ province (as they call it). Gujarat dishes are so incredibly tasty that you’d never even notice you’re not eating meat. If you like Indian food (lol stupid question everyone does), try googling ‘Gujarat recipes’ for and endless list of cool dish ideas.

Wife and I have always been meat eaters but have cut most of it out as we’ve got older, and I’m like you slasher I’m working towards a more compassionate way of eating. We eat red meat 3-4 times a month. It’s mostly fish and shrimp now and often just tofu and mushrooms (surprisingly high source of protein).  Still eat lots of eggs though.

Excellent... looking at Gujarat recipes 

[Danvzare]

For the past few years I have been concerned about weather it is right or wrong for animals to be slaughtered for food on a commercial basis..

Oh it's definitely wrong. 
I've heard all of the arguments for vegetarianism and veganism, and they're all sound arguments that I wholeheartedly agree with. Ranging from the moral implications, the health reasons, to the efficiency reasons. They have a lot of sound arguments.
But at the risk of sounding like a total psychopath, I simply don't care. As long as it's not my own pet that I'm eating, I'll gladly eat another animal. 
Maybe' it's because none of those reasons have an effect on my moral philosophy. 

Like everyone says though, even if you do eat meat, you shouldn't eat loads of it every day. Not only are there the obvious moral implications, but there's also obvious health reasons. Variety is the spice of life as they say.

Also, to add to this conversation, my sister is a pescatarian (the only meat she'll eat is fish), so I've eaten a lot of vegetarian food. It's quite nice.
The reason she's a pescatarian isn't for any moral reasons though. She'll gladly eat bacon if given the chance. The reason she's a pescatarian is because she's allergic to something in the meat, and it makes her feel unwell (so in other words, make sure you don't let her see some cooked bacon). The thing is, her boyfriend's mother has the same thing, and I talk to someone online whose girlfriend also has the same problem. So it's clearly not that uncommon.

[Ali]

I don't eat meat, but I think there are a lot of extremely bad arguments made for and against.

I am persuaded by the moral argument that animals don't want to be eaten, so we shouldn't eat them, whenever possible. The health argument is, for me, the weakest. I'm a vegan, but a vegan diet is not the healthiest diet imaginable. It does not, as people on the internet will claim, detox your body or cure cancer. Health-fad veganism tends towards a semi-religious obsession with bodily purity, and I think it encourages disordered eating. The most broadly persuasive argument, for me, is that we all need to eat a lot less meat for environmental reasons. Plant-based diets are much more sustainable (not without environmental impact, of course) and so everyone who can cut down on meat should, even if they have no thought of becoming vegetarian.

It's tricky, because we prefer to imagine that what's good is good. Eating meat is wrong, so being vegan must be healthier - not necessarily. Battery farming is unethical so it must be worse for the environment - unfortunately, not necessarily. Organic beef farming does not seem to have a smaller environmental impact.

[Babar]

I don't have an intrinsic moral opposition to eating meat,  but current meat industry practices don't seem very moral to me. When I lived on or near farms, I had meat more often, but now in a city with only one small scale, reasonable abattoir I am aware of, aside from seafood (which I eat about maybe once a week) I eat meat maybe once or twice a month. Still, I'm cowardly and easily swayed by peer pressure, so I don't put up too much of a fuss when I eat out (that hasn't been in a while, though)- if the restaurant doesn't make any point about ethically sourced meat (which they usually don't), my preference is (balanced) vegetarian, seafood, then meat.

[Spelaeologist]

A poll on this might turn out interesting...

[cat]

When doing a BBQ, I usually eat Halloumi cheese. But I've heard that it has a very bad environmental footprint, so I'm looking for alternatives. I love grilled veggies and bread, but are there any suggestions for protein-rich things apart from fake-meats that I could use?

Oh, and I'll take a look at Gujarat cuisine, sounds awesome!

[Danvzare]

When doing a BBQ, I usually eat Halloumi cheese. But I've heard that it has a very bad environmental footprint, so I'm looking for alternatives. I love grilled veggies and bread, but are there any suggestions for protein-rich things apart from fake-meats that I could use?

Oh, and I'll take a look at Gujarat cuisine, sounds awesome!

Nuts and bugs both have tons of protein.
Unfortunately, most people have an adversity to eating bugs (including me), despite them being safer to eat than meat.

[Babar]

Nuts and bugs both have tons of protein.
Unfortunately, most people have an adversity to eating bugs (including me), despite them being safer to eat than meat.

While the enivironmental footprint is way smaller, I'm pretty sure bugs are still "meat".

Chickpeas, beans, lentils, pulses, mushrooms, soybeans, tempeh all are great sources of protein. You can use their derivatives (e.g. gram flour) to make some great barbequed or fried snacks. For example, I batter whatever vegetables I have in the fridge in gram flour, and bake (it's meant to be deep-fried, but that would be too much for me) to get a great assortment of snacks.

[cat]

Nuts and bugs both have tons of protein.
Unfortunately, most people have an adversity to eating bugs (including me), despite them being safer to eat than meat.

While the enivironmental footprint is way smaller, I'm pretty sure bugs are still "meat".

Yes, and they would certainly fall through the rack.

Chickpeas, beans, lentils, pulses, mushrooms, soybeans, tempeh all are great sources of protein. You can use their derivatives (e.g. gram flour) to make some great barbequed or fried snacks. For example, I batter whatever vegetables I have in the fridge in gram flour, and bake (it's meant to be deep-fried, but that would be too much for me) to get a great assortment of snacks.

Interesting!

[Honza]

While the enivironmental footprint is way smaller, I'm pretty sure bugs are still "meat".

For me, the most compelling argument against meat-eating is that the brain architecture devoted to experiencing physical pain and even some basic types of emotional distress is essentially the same in humans and at least the mammals we eat (not so sure about fish and birds). So while some animal rights sentiments can be naively anthropomorphic, this one is pretty real - what animals experience in factory farms is quite similar to how people would feel in the same situation. Which is pretty horrifying when you think about it for a while.

None of this applies to bugs in any way. You can smash bugs left and right and you haven't caused any real pain to anyone. Counting them as "meat" would be the naively anthropomorphic bit.

[Babar]

For me, the most compelling argument against meat-eating is that the brain architecture devoted to experiencing physical pain and even some basic types of emotional distress is essentially the same in humans and at least the mammals we eat (not so sure about fish and birds). So while some animal rights sentiments can be naively anthropomorphic, this one is pretty real - what animals experience in factory farms is quite similar to how people would feel in the same situation. Which is pretty horrifying when you think about it for a while.

None of this applies to bugs in any way. You can smash bugs left and right and you haven't caused any real pain to anyone. Counting them as "meat" would be the naively anthropomorphic bit.

Interesting. Is that the criteria you would set, then? "They feel the way we feel, so we shouldn't eat them" (yum yum to all the reptiles, fish, insects and plants)?

I've seen people justify their revulsion to eating things like dogs and cats "Because they are intelligent", but that discounts similarly intelligent pigs and goats and such.

[Khris]

It hasn't been brought up yet: artificial meat. Can't wait to try those. They can't be worse than vegan bratwurst.

[Danvzare]

Nuts and bugs both have tons of protein.
Unfortunately, most people have an adversity to eating bugs (including me), despite them being safer to eat than meat.

While the enivironmental footprint is way smaller, I'm pretty sure bugs are still "meat".

Agreed, but they don't really fall into any of the arguments I've heard for why you should go Vegetarian or even Vegan.
For example, like Honza said, they're not even complex enough to properly feel pain. I mean, sure they kinda can, but plants also kinda can. Besides, I'm pretty sure even Vegans will gladly kill a fly buzzing around their house or exterminate ants that have made their way into their kitchen.

Interesting. Is that the criteria you would set, then? "They feel the way we feel, so we shouldn't eat them" (yum yum to all the reptiles and insects and plants)?

Pretty much. I mean, it is the main moral reason isn't it? (Although like I said, insects don't really qualify for any or the arguments I've heard for vegetarinism, from health, environment, morally, or other stuff.)
But personally I think the argument of suffering can still be applied to reptiles, bird, and fish. Probably even arachnids based on what I've seen. But insects and plants. They're fair game. If not, then I guess the only morally correct thing to eat is bacteria and single-cell organisms. 

It hasn't been brought up yet: artificial meat. Can't wait to try those. They can't be worse than vegan bratwurst.

Same. 

[cat]

It hasn't been brought up yet: artificial meat. Can't wait to try those. They can't be worse than vegan bratwurst.

Do you mean something like fake meat made from soy or meat that was produced by growing animal muscle cells in a lab?

[Honza]

Interesting. Is that the criteria you would set, then? "They feel the way we feel, so we shouldn't eat them" (yum yum to all the reptiles and insects and plants)?

Yum yum indeed. Eating anything is actually perfectly fine in my book, it's causing suffering that's wrong. And since suffering is a function of the brain and the human brain is the most developed one in this regard, it just so happens that the more something is like us, the more it can suffer. I don't believe in the sanctity of life or anything like that - my body kills millions of bacteria every day and I'm not planning to do anything about it .

[Babar]

And since suffering is a function of the brain and the human brain is the most developed one in this regard, it just so happens that the more something is like us, the more it can suffer.

I am reading "The human brain has the greatest capacity to suffer", but I'm not sure that's been evidenced.

Also, slightly unrelated, but slightly related timely video:

[Honza]

I am reading "The human brain has the greatest capacity to suffer", but I'm not sure that's been evidenced.

Yeah, I was afraid someone would nitpick on that . It's an assumption I'm making based on the overall complexity of the human brain. If anyone has a better understanding of the neurobiology of pain, I'm happy to be corrected.

[LameNick]

I am reading "The human brain has the greatest capacity to suffer", but I'm not sure that's been evidenced.

Yeah, I was afraid someone would nitpick on that . It's an assumption I'm making based on the overall complexity of the human brain. If anyone has a better understanding of the neurobiology of pain, I'm happy to be corrected.

I think that the burden of proof to back the claim, that human brain is the most adapted to experience suffering and in a way that would make it reasonable to think that animal's capacity to suffer lessens with the distance from our evolutionary branch, is on your shoulders.
Octopuses for instance seem to exhibit quite sophisticated even relatable behavior, to assume they have no consciousness or just no capacity to suffer, because they lack e.g. libmic system seems to me like jumping to conclusions.
And frankly so far my brilliant research that I'm conducting for years by starring at the internet seems to be showing that most of the complexity human brain has evolved is to talk bollocks to improve their social status by appearing like they know more than fuck all.

...I don't believe in the sanctity of life or anything like that - my body kills millions of bacteria every day and I'm not planning to do anything about it .

I don't believe in sanctity either but to decide to contribute to taking away consciousness of another being has moral implications to me.

[Stupot]

I love my meat, and I don’t feel particularly guilty about animals being farmed for food, but I am feeling increasingly hypocritical the more I read about the effect the industry is having in the environment. I never used to imagine even considering vegetarianism, but I have recently thought about cutting down and just not being too greedy with it.

Unfortunately, the simple fact of humans enjoying cows and pigs for dinner is not really the problem. The problem is there are too freaking many of us (by several billion). If there were a reasonable number of humans on the planet we could chop all the trees and eat all the meat and burn all the coal we ever wanted.

TL;DR Thanos was right.

[Honza]

I think that the burden of proof to back the claim, that human brain is the most adapted to experience suffering and in a way that would make it reasonable to think that animal's capacity to suffer lessens with the distance from our evolutionary branch, is on your shoulders.
Octopuses for instance seem to exhibit quite sophisticated even relatable behavior, to assume they have no consciousness or just no capacity to suffer, because they lack e.g. libmic system seems to me like jumping to conclusions.

It seems reasonable to me to assume that the closer a brain is to a human one, the closer would the experience it generates resemble the human experience we have labeled as "suffering" (and deemed immoral to inflict). I don't see how we can pass judgement on other things other brains do when we have no experience of them.

Would you call it "jumping to conclusions" if I assumed bacteria have no subjective experience of suffering? Where do you draw the line and why? Does it possibly have something to do, consciously or not, with the level of similarity to humans?

And frankly so far my brilliant research that I'm conducting for years by starring at the internet seems to be showing that most of the complexity human brain has evolved is to talk bollocks to improve their social status by appearing like they know more than fuck all.

This just improved your social status. 

I don't believe in sanctity either but to decide to contribute to taking away consciousness of another being has moral implications to me.

What moral implications exactly? It seems to me you're just replacing "sanctity of life" with "sanctity of consciousness".

[LameNick]

It seems reasonable to me to assume that the closer a brain is to a human one, the closer would the experience it generates resemble the human experience we have labeled as "suffering" (and deemed immoral to inflict). I don't see how we can pass judgement on other things other brains do when we have no experience of them.

Would you call it "jumping to conclusions" if I assumed bacteria have no subjective experience of suffering? Where do you draw the line and why? Does it possibly have something to do, consciously or not, with the level of similarity to humans?

I too have to derive knowledge from my own experiences, I'm not saying that to me the probability that insects are conscious is exactly the same as that mammals are and I'm not even talking about bacteria, but to claim that "You can smash bugs left and right and you haven't caused any real pain to anyone.", I really don't see where you get the certainty from.
I have no experience of your brain at the moment, I can't rule out the fact that you are a brain zombie or that I am just a Boltzman brain and nothing I experience represents reality. But given I make the epistemological choice of an interpretation that is more sensible, I can observe similarities in my behavior and that of other creatures (including invertebrates) and I know that most if not all I experience corresponds to events in some parts of my central nervous system which is another attribute I share with most animals.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding in that I'm not trying to draw a line here, I don't know where the line is if there is a line. I'm not telling you what to do, what I'm saying I disagree with your reasoning.

This just improved your social status. 

Yeah, as I was writing it I was to that degree aware, didn't mean to exclude myself completely from that sardonic statement. Although I would dare to claim to be a little more careful with what I present as a fact.
But the other thing I meant, is that having huge shriveled layer of neocortex doesn't necessarily mean we in general experience negative stimuli more strongly or frequently than other animals.

What moral implications exactly? It seems to me you're just replacing "sanctity of life" with "sanctity of consciousness".

You're right this is quite a subjective ideal, its not sanctity perhaps only in the regard that its not like some holy book that got imprinted into me without questioning it, but something I observe in myself, which is a very strong discomfort coming directly from the idea of deliberately taking life. Its hard for me to imagine a moral framework where the act of taking other's life is seen as irrelevant.
Does it mean according to you there is nothing wrong with e.g. world like in Loggan's run where everyone lives a happy life and then thinking they're going into a even better place they get killed painlessly even though they could live happily longer?

[Honza]

I too have to derive knowledge from my own experiences, I'm not saying that to me the probability that insects are conscious is exactly the same as that mammals are and I'm not even talking about bacteria, but to claim that "You can smash bugs left and right and you haven't caused any real pain to anyone.", I really don't see where you get the certainty from.
I have no experience of your brain at the moment, I can't rule out the fact that you are a brain zombie or that I am just a Boltzman brain and nothing I experience represents reality. But given I make the epistemological choice of an interpretation that is more sensible, I can observe similarities in my behavior and that of other creatures (including invertebrates) and I know that most if not all I experience corresponds to events in some parts of my central nervous system which is another attribute I share with most animals.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding in that I'm not trying to draw a line here, I don't know where the line is if there is a line. I'm not telling you what to do, what I'm saying I disagree with your reasoning.

I don't know, it looks like the only thing we really disagree on is the level of certainty. Fair enough - I can dial it down a notch and acknowledge this is a complex issue with smart people on both sides. I still see the possibility of a fly having a human-like experience of suffering very implausible, and I insist that a human-like experience is what people really mean when they talk about "cruelty" and "suffering". But that could be a limitation of my not-quite-so-complex brain for all I know .
Other than that, you seem to essentially be using the same reasoning I do. You elevate octopuses above other creatures because you see their behavior as "sophisticated" and "relatable". You're gauging other animals' experiences based on the fact that their nervous system is similar to yours. What else are you doing here if not putting non-human animals on a scale based on how similar they are to you neurologically? Which works for me, because I think it only makes sense to apply human values to entities which have the human-like experiences those values are based on. But I don't know how you justify it? Why is it important to you that some animals have the same central nervous system as you and others don't?

You're right this is quite a subjective ideal, its not sanctity perhaps only in the regard that its not like some holy book that got imprinted into me without questioning it, but something I observe in myself, which is a very strong discomfort coming directly from the idea of deliberately taking life. Its hard for me to imagine a moral framework where the act of taking other's life is seen as irrelevant.
Does it mean according to you there is nothing wrong with e.g. world like in Loggan's run where everyone lives a happy life and then thinking they're going into a even better place they get killed painlessly even though they could live happily longer?

This is an interesting question implying a whole bunch of other interesting questions I'd be happy to try to answer (if only to sort my own thoughts), but it's getting late and my layer of neocortex is more shriveled than ever . Maybe tomorrow?

[Mandle]

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other.

I just came in to say that the way the thread title is cut off on the main forum menu made me chuckle:

"Last Post in Re: To eat or not eat me..."

[LameNick]

I don't know, it looks like the only thing we really disagree on is the level of certainty. Fair enough - I can dial it down a notch and acknowledge this is a complex issue with smart people on both sides. I still see the possibility of a fly having a human-like experience of suffering very implausible, and I insist that a human-like experience is what people really mean when they talk about "cruelty" and "suffering". But that could be a limitation of my not-quite-so-complex brain for all I know .
Other than that, you seem to essentially be using the same reasoning I do. You elevate octopuses above other creatures because you see their behavior as "sophisticated" and "relatable". You're gauging other animals' experiences based on the fact that their nervous system is similar to yours. What else are you doing here if not putting non-human animals on a scale based on how similar they are to you neurologically? Which works for me, because I think it only makes sense to apply human values to entities which have the human-like experiences those values are based on. But I don't know how you justify it? Why is it important to you that some animals have the same central nervous system as you and others don't?

I don't know what you mean by human values and human-like experiences. I don't like pain and (for all intents and purposes) I don't like other beings experiencing it. That is pretty much the crux of what I call morality.
The experiences I have, might be most similar to other humans, goat has goat like experiences, kiwi has kiwi-like experiences, ET has Schmuckfaceians-like, some might not spend time worrying about taxes but non of us is pinned at the top of an objective importance of experiences pyramid.

I don't exactly elevate octopuses above other invertebrates, what I meant is they show a lot of "circumstantial" evidence for consciousness, despite having completely different brain structure than us. You find something relatable because some observations better fit your template of your behaviors, that still doesn't necessarily mean that those that don't are not sentient. The idea that it is something like to be a fly that feels some sort of anxiety when a hand is approaching to slap it or pain when someone is trying to tear it's leg off seems not that improbable to me.

I mentioned central nervous system(apart from few animals like jellyfish all have cns) just as something of a horizon beyond which its much harder to contemplate consciousness for me.

Its not that there is nothing to be said about the size and complexity of a brain or the fact that there are parts of my brain that don't seem to produce experiences in me. But its like finding one blue puzzle piece and saying "wow this is part of a picture showing nothing else but clear sky". Or kind of like saying there is nowhere else life outside of earth. Consciousness doesn't even make sense to me in scientific terms even though its the only thing I can be sure of.

So, yes most of my disagreement was in the way you assign probabilities to claims and make certain conclusions.

[lorenzo]

"Last Post in Re: To eat or not eat me..."

Subtitle: a discussion on self-cannibalism and the ethical intricacies of the act.

[Ali]

I don't exactly elevate octopuses above other invertebrates, what I meant is they show a lot of "circumstantial" evidence for consciousness, despite having completely different brain structure than us. You find something relatable because some observations better fit your template of your behaviors, that still doesn't necessarily mean that those that don't are not sentient. The idea that it is something like to be a fly that feels some sort of anxiety when a hand is approaching to slap it or pain when someone is trying to tear it's leg off seems not that improbable to me.

I tend to agree with LameNick. I'd be prepared to accept that insects are incapable of thought or feeling, but there does seem to be some kind of emergent intelligence in swarms of insects, so I don't feel too thrilled at the (possibly inevitable) prospect of farming them for consumption en masse.

My rule of thumb is that - if an argument would permit a significantly more intelligent alien to eat me, it's a troubling justification for eating something.

[Honza]

I don't know what you mean by human values and human-like experiences. I don't like pain and (for all intents and purposes) I don't like other beings experiencing it. That is pretty much the crux of what I call morality.
The experiences I have, might be most similar to other humans, goat has goat like experiences, kiwi has kiwi-like experiences, ET has Schmuckfaceians-like, some might not spend time worrying about taxes but non of us is pinned at the top of an objective importance of experiences pyramid.

You don't know what those other experiences are like. You may say something is a goat-like experience, but what you imagine when you say that is really just a variation of human experience. All you are doing is projecting your feelings onto other creatures. And what I'm asking is: why are you doing that? Does it always make sense to do that? Does it make sense with a chimp? With a rock? With a dog? With a computer? With a tree? With a fly? What decides when the answer is "yes"?

My rule of thumb is that - if an argument would permit a significantly more intelligent alien to eat me, it's a troubling justification for eating something.

This is a bit similar to the above. You say "a significantly more intelligent alien", but I suspect you are thinking of aliens as just a different kind of humans. If aliens wanted to schmoozle my grom-tron or collapse the wave function of my subatomic particles or do some other super-intelligent alien thing I have no conception or awareness of, I think I wouldn't mind. I also wouldn't be particularly grateful if they decided not to do that because they hate it themselves (and I contain phosphorus, which they find very relatable). Flies don't give a flying fuck about our apish morals.

[Mandle]

"Last Post in Re: To eat or not eat me..."

Subtitle: a discussion on self-cannibalism and the ethical intricacies of the act.

HAHAHA!!! Survivor Type meets Hamlet.

[LameNick]

You don't know what those other experiences are like. You may say something is a goat-like experience, but what you imagine when you say that is really just a variation of human experience. All you are doing is projecting your feelings onto other creatures. And what I'm asking is: why are you doing that? Does it always make sense to do that? Does it make sense with a chimp? With a rock? With a dog? With a computer? With a tree? With a fly? What decides when the answer is "yes"?

All I'm projecting is the idea that it is something like to be another entity and that some of it's experiences are more positive and some more negative in nature. Meaning that such experiences matter in a moral sense. This is as abstract as I can be, I really don't know how else to explain it. Based on the knowledge I have, the reasons to think that, if all other functioning humans have this intrinsic property, no other species has it, are less than trivial. And I don't know about good enough reason to be more than agnostic about small invertebrates lacking this property.

Consciousness is weird thing, as Ali said, maybe hive of insects could generate it, maybe your brain stem has its own consciousness, maybe each cell has one, maybe freakin cpus generate it for all i know 
There are theories describing consciousness as property arising from low entropy systems, there are theories claiming it to be property of elementary particles. Bunch of those theories are trying to explain the 'Hard problem' away, I was alluding to it when I said consciousness doesn't make scientific sense. I can't imagine how they could explain it to some satisfactory degree though.
We are nowhere near concluding with confidence where it makes sense to contemplate the presence of it.

[Ali]

This is a bit similar to the above. You say "a significantly more intelligent alien", but I suspect you are thinking of aliens as just a different kind of humans. If aliens wanted to schmoozle my grom-tron or collapse the wave function of my subatomic particles or do some other super-intelligent alien thing I have no conception or awareness of, I think I wouldn't mind.

No, this is exactly what I mean - an alien with a type of consciousness that's beyond my comprehension, an alien that is to me as I am to bacteria. I still don't want to to be eaten (or schmoozled) on the grounds that I lack some ineffable alien quality. I honestly don't believe you'd be happy about it either.

I think what LameNick and I are getting at is that - yes - we are projecting our experience onto animals. Or, at least, interpreting their behaviour though the lens of our experience. But (and I think David Hume got to this point first) we have exactly the same knowledge of other humans' internal states as we do animals - that is, absolutely none.

[Cassiebsg]

If only animals could talk...

Oh, wait...

Spoiler

[close]

If only animals could feel...

Oh wait...

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twYmI--mYXI

[close]

And yes, I'm an hypocrite, cause I'm a meat eater...
but then again no matter what we eat, we'll be killing living beings cause even plants are alive. Maybe their fruits aren't? I'm not sure anymore...

[Slasher]

Maybe this is the way to go.... or not....  is it a step too far?  What do you guys think?
 
https://youtu.be/UHChCqmFNZU

[Khris]

Not a step too far, no. That's the future. 20 years from now this will be so normal nobody will even be thinking about it is my guess.

[Mandle]

Not a step too far, no. That's the future. 20 years from now this will be so normal nobody will even be thinking about it is my guess.

Yup! And the worldwide population of cows, pigs, and chickens will shrink to about 2% maybe. Some people will still raise the animals for meat for the curious people willing to pay through the nose to taste what real animal meat was like.

[Honza]

All I'm projecting is the idea that it is something like to be another entity and that some of it's experiences are more positive and some more negative in nature. Meaning that such experiences matter in a moral sense. This is as abstract as I can be, I really don't know how else to explain it. Based on the knowledge I have, the reasons to think that, if all other functioning humans have this intrinsic property, no other species has it, are less than trivial. And I don't know about good enough reason to be more than agnostic about small invertebrates lacking this property.

Consciousness is weird thing, as Ali said, maybe hive of insects could generate it, maybe your brain stem has its own consciousness, maybe each cell has one, maybe freakin cpus generate it for all i know 
There are theories describing consciousness as property arising from low entropy systems, there are theories claiming it to be property of elementary particles. Bunch of those theories are trying to explain the 'Hard problem' away, I was alluding to it when I said consciousness doesn't make scientific sense. I can't imagine how they could explain it to some satisfactory degree though.
We are nowhere near concluding with confidence where it makes sense to contemplate the presence of it.

I can accept, in a very abstract impossible-to-really-imagine kind of way, that it could be like something to be an insect, or a cell, or a universe... or evolution itself, apparently? I gravitate towards physicalism and epiphenomenalism when it comes to consciousness (so I'd take Carroll's position here for instance), but lately I've been feeling that there's something I wasn't getting before, so who knows what I'll be saying in a month or a year from now .

But I think consciousness is a red herring here. The problem we keep circling back to is that for your notions of morality to apply – even for the words ,,positive" and ,,negative" the way you use them to carry any meaning – it isn't enough for it to be like something to be another entity, it needs to be something like being you. I believe that human moral values can ultimately be traced to avoiding suffering, including the deeply rooted taboo against taking a life. And it seems to me both you and Ali are taking this taboo and misapplying it to consciousness.

And don't get me wrong – I think a taboo against taking a life is generally a great thing to have (although in my personal opinion it tends to misfire with issues like abortion and euthanasia) and I can relate to the ,,better safe than sorry" intuition when it comes to eating other beings. But it's just that – a human intuition, and one extremely prone to anthropomorphic bias at that. Once I try to disentangle where this intuition comes from and whether I should apply it differently to rocks/plants/insects/pigs/humans/CPUs, I always end up with ,,it's really about suffering". And then centering human experience is not only reasonable (because more neurons = more ways and opportunities to suffer), but in fact absolutely unavoidable (because our experience is the only way we have to even define what ,,suffering" is).

If we can agree on the above, we can talk about more practical matters. Like if neurobiology is a good tool for assessing suffering (as I suggested), or if other ways are better (like the argument by analogy which you seem to favor). I might have been wrong in this regard.

I think what LameNick and I are getting at is that - yes - we are projecting our experience onto animals. Or, at least, interpreting their behaviour though the lens of our experience. But (and I think David Hume got to this point first) we have exactly the same knowledge of other humans' internal states as we do animals - that is, absolutely none.

Doesn't this mean that it's equally reasonable to assume a rock has the same internal states as you as it is that another human does? Wouldn't it render statements like ,,I'd be prepared to accept that insects are incapable of thought or feeling, but there does seem to be some kind of emergent intelligence in swarms of insects" completely irrelevant? Could you make a case for eating plants with this notion in mind?

By the way, the idea that evolution could be a conscious process might be an example of what I meant by ,,schmoozling". It would be a consciousness to which I am like my cells are to me, and it could be ,,exploiting" me in ways I can't even begin to conceptualize. Guess what – I don't mind .

[Ali]

I think what LameNick and I are getting at is that - yes - we are projecting our experience onto animals. Or, at least, interpreting their behaviour though the lens of our experience. But (and I think David Hume got to this point first) we have exactly the same knowledge of other humans' internal states as we do animals - that is, absolutely none.

Doesn’t this mean that it’s equally reasonable to assume a rock has the same internal states as you as it is that another human does? Wouldn’t it render statements like „I'd be prepared to accept that insects are incapable of thought or feeling, but there does seem to be some kind of emergent intelligence in swarms of insects“ completely irrelevant? Could you make a case for eating plants with this notion in mind?

No, it doesn't mean that we should assume rocks feel pleasure and pain. How do we know that a living human feels pain but a dead human doesn't? We have no access to their inner state. It's simply that living humans tend to act as if they experience pain. Just like animals, especially mammals do. Of course, that means we're likely to misinterpret the behaviour of living things that are dissimilar to us. But I think making a moral distinction between humans and species is completely arbitrary.

I can't make an argument that it is ethical to eat plants, only that it's more obviously unethical to eat animals.

[Honza]

No, it doesn't mean that we should assume rocks feel pleasure and pain. How do we know that a living human feels pain but a dead human doesn't? We have no access to their inner state. It's simply that living humans tend to act as if they experience pain. Just like animals, especially mammals do.

So you're saying that we can never be *certain* about the inner states of others? Sure, I agree. But that's very, very different from saying that our knowledge of their states is *exactly zero*, don't you think?

EDIT: Maybe this is too pedantic. If I get what you meant now, we don't have to fuss over semantics.

Of course, that means we're likely to misinterpret the behaviour of living things that are dissimilar to us. But I think making a moral distinction between humans and species is completely arbitrary.

I can't make an argument that it is ethical to eat plants, only that it's more obviously unethical to eat animals.

I feel like we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that humans are somehow objectively more valuable than other species. I'm saying that human moral values apply best to humans and species which are similar to humans in relevant ways, namely in what (if anything) makes them suffer. And once again, it seems to me you are thinking along very similar lines, you're just framing it differently and using behavior instead of neurobiology to gauge suffering.

[Ali]

No, it doesn't mean that we should assume rocks feel pleasure and pain. How do we know that a living human feels pain but a dead human doesn't? We have no access to their inner state. It's simply that living humans tend to act as if they experience pain. Just like animals, especially mammals do.

So you're saying that we can never be *certain* about the inner states of others? Sure, I agree. But that's very, very different from saying that our knowledge of their states is *exactly zero*, don't you think?

Perhaps my oblique reference to David Hume made things less clear than I thought! I am saying that we have no knowledge of people's internal states. We make inferences about how they feel based on a variety of impressions they make on our senses. We don't know that other humans feel pain in the way we know we feel pain. And exactly the same is true with animals. Maybe we are talking past each other, and I probably don't know enough about neurobiology to comment. But I suspect that our understanding of how pain works in the brain depends on our experience of how pain is expressed. How much can we learn from a brain that isn't attached to a living thing going 'ouch'?

[Behis1995]

Specifically, I always eat meat. I am a volunteer and indeed often participate in animal rights rallies, the closure of circuses, dolphinariums and baiting stations. I am a big opponent of hunting for fun. But eating meat is my choice, this is the kind of food that I do not want to refuse. I thought for a very long time what I can do in order not to discriminate against a particular species: I feel sorry for the cow, I don’t eat, but I don’t feel sorry for the pig. I decided to stick with poultry - chicken meat is perfect for me. I don't care if people think that it can be two-faced and hypocritical - I can eat chicken all my life. I am ready to give up any meat and leave only chicken. I think it's better than "today I eat a shark, tomorrow a bear, and then some other meat delicacy."

[Ali]

There are good pragmatic arguments for eating meat, especially in parts of the world where its easier to grow things like grass, that livestock eat but humans can't. And there are compelling environmental arguments for dramatically reducing, but not eliminating, the meat we eat. I haven't heard a strong moral argument for eating meat, though.

[Blondbraid]

There are good pragmatic arguments for eating meat, especially in parts of the world where its easier to grow things like grass, that livestock eat but humans can't. And there are compelling environmental arguments for dramatically reducing, but not eliminating, the meat we eat. I haven't heard a strong moral argument for eating meat, though.

Well, I'd say that for people like the Inuits and people living far up north, eating meat is both part of their native culture and traditions, and many preservation and hunting techniques would be lost forever if they stopped eating meat, but also, to them, hunting and fishing locally is far more environmentally friendly and sustainable than relying on imported crops.

Similarly, in my native Sweden, there are huge areas where you can't grow crops well, but they are ideal for grazing cattle and it's both more economic and eco-friendly to keep them as open areas for livestock to feed on. There are also many species of wild plants and animals that require open areas to thrive, and if the fields for livestock were instead turned into farm fields or forests, a lot of biodiversity would be lost. The cattle wouldn't necessarily have to be for meat, but it'd still require having many domestic animals.