Sometimes I am alarmed that so few people are “species ethicists.” In a Darwinian sense, the chicken had won a genetic lottery by being tasty, horse by being fast, dog by being friendly. Discontinuing meat is ethically equivalent to species extinction.
-
-
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl
In other words, the individual suffering of animal is given ethical priority over perpetuation of species. And yet, wild animals typically die much more painful deaths than domesticated ones (being disemboveled by hyenas when you’re old or infirm is no fun).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl
I think the typical animal-welfare moralist argument against eating meat has more to do with the conditions of the animals' lives rather than the circumstances of their deaths.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto
So "quality of life" is being prioritized over suffering? And how is quality of life defined? Closer to natural habitat = good? By that argument, it is highly immoral that humans live in cities and not in mud huts by the river.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl
I think that is the argument, yes. There's some kind of moral calculus that has an equation of the form: Suffering = Pain * Time How is quality of life defined? That's the part where it goes off the rails, and is largely why I'm not persuaded by animal-welfare arguments.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto
There are species of ants that "farm" aphids. Are the ants committing a moral crime by not foraging for the sweet excretions of wild aphids instead? The ants have been doing this for millions of years though. What if the aphids' "natural habitat" involves a symbiosis with ants?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl @danlistensto
If the aphids' symbiosis with ants is considered "natural" while human symbiosis with, say, cows, is "unnatural" -- is it because the latter have recently become radically more efficient at extracting milk? If not, is it because the ants have been doing it for millions of years?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl
I'm certainly not trying to use "natural" as a proxy for "good", as is frequently done by ecologically minded folks. I think that's orthogonal to the question we're discussing. Many things in the non-human influenced parts of the ecosphere are horrific and painful.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I do, however, want to discuss whether we can optimize for minimal suffering in a farm environment though.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.