To eat or not eat meat

[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.