Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

Thanks for replying! Awesome and interesting answer which I broadly agree with... ...except I wonder if it’s true that you have to break something in yourself to kill for food. (And I wonder about this as someone who also really struggles with this, like you described)

Essentially, to what extent do we naturally hate to see things suffer and die (which I think we naturally do), and what extent is it a post-processed-food era conceit that we might struggle emotionally with, for example, hunting for food?

How much of it is an extension of people who, for example, are revolted to think of chicken breast as muscle, or of a chicken laying an egg? A disconnect from the real world due to lack of knowledge, rather than the natural state of things which has to be forcibly interrupted?

I definitely agree that it’s not the same as industrial farming which I imagine must involve some suspension of empathy

Your questions are really challenging, and bless @webdevMason for having the energy to explain her views pretty thoroughly. I have less energy, after a long, hot weekend with the kids, so I'll give you a one-tweet answer.

Any killing involves violence, which needs a high level of justification in order to co-exist with empathy. In hunter-gatherer societies, I think there probably was a high level of empathy at work. Where animals are widgets, empathy seems nearly impossible.

I've been around many animals as they died, and on a few occasions killed myself, so I think I actually have substantially more experience than the typical person... the transition to death is profoundly creepy and aversive to me. *I* would have to break to endure it often.

On a visceral level, there's a big diff between being a rancher who slaughters in-house & a hunter. To be a good rancher, you nurture a maternal/paternal protective drive. To be a good hunter, you follow a prey drive. It's very different to kill an animal that comes when you call