The Value of a Human Life

[Ryika]

We are a part of this ecosystem whether we like it or not. The less biodiversity there is in it, the less we will be able to do research in the future to understand it and ourselves better.

There is more than enough biodiversity left to be studied, and we're practically but a step away from creating our own, so I really see how that's a strong argument. Not only that, but there are so many species of large cats that surely some will survive a while to be studied. Not only that, but in scope of all life that exists on this planet, felines in general are rather similar to us, so they're not exactly the species we'd study if we were to

And that's not even considering that species falling off the radar can often have a domino effect affecting many others. We sit at the top of the food chain and are a part of this complex system - species going extinct affects all the other species, including us.

Domino effects happen when a key part of the ecosystem suddenly goes away. We're talking about one species that is already at the brink of extinction, a species that always lived in small numbers and has no unique function as far as I know and its role in the ecosystem is just "One of many predators." - the change from "There are very few tigers." to "There are no tigers." has little to no practical influence on the ecosystem as a whole.

But don't get me wrong, if this were a discussion about the loss of biodiversity because of climate change, or something like that, sure. But we're not, we're talking about a species that is already so marginalized that apparently trophy hunters are such a big danger to them that we now have to discuss whether those people deserve to live or not. So that argument about biodiversity doesn't really make sense in my opinion, there's nothing important about a tiger other than the sentimental value we ascribe to them.

 

[Snerk]

You're missing the point, the chicken industry is horrible but chickens aint in danger of extinction. How many moose are there? And I dont have a problem with poor folk who need to hunt moose for lack of other resources, I condemn the trophy hunters who want a rack over the fireplace. I need a source to show tigers and snow leopards are in danger of extinction? You dont see a difference between hunters who like killing animals and industries designed to feed people? The latter have their problems, but sadism aint one of them.

Moose population are thriving in several parts of the world. They are not endangered. In my corner of the world humans has more or less replaces the natural predators of the moose. If moose hunting were stopped, over population, and thus starvation, would be a unavoidable consequence here.

Yes I would very much like a source. I'm not calling you a liar, but I've never seen anything on legal trophy hunting on critically endangered animals before, so I'd like to learn. True or no, we are in full agreement that it's a horrible thing.

No I see huge difference between hunting and the meat industry. One is ethically and environmentally unsustainable, regulated hunting is not.

Of course they dont kill the ones that are starving, they aint out there to prevent starvation - thats an excuse. They kill healthy deer so how do you know they're starving? Course one reason a regional population might get too large is because we killed off the other predators. Deer only starve during winter when resources are scarce, but deer have evolved to cope with that problem. Some might starve but I suspect that doesn't happen to the deer targeted by hunters. And if some starve, thats life. Better that happen than hunters kill the ones who aint starving...and thats what they do. We have to kill them or they'll starve

It's not either a perfectly healthy, or weak and starving individual. That's not how nature works. If there's not enough food to go around, the population collectively suffers. If there is enough food, the population collectively thrives. Your description is incorrect. Properly regulated hunting harvests from the surplus that would otherwise die through natural causes like starvation.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If you think moose or deer hunting is unethical but chicken mcnuggets aren't, then you need a big reality check. Who cares about the hunter's motive? Do you think the moose care? Or the chicken for that matter?

Other people care. People judge other people for their actions. I think it's reasonable to negatively judge someone who kills an animal purely for the enjoyment of killing the animal. That's a very different motivation to just wanting to eat.

 

[Kyriakos]

Chicken, pigs and other animals bred so as to be killed and sold as food, would be around in very smaller numbers otherwise. Not that i think they'd not prefer that to being bred so as to be butchered one fine day. But afaik meat is necessary as part of the human diet.

 

[Snerk]

Other people care. People judge other people for their actions. I think it's reasonable to negatively judge someone who kills an animal purely for the enjoyment of killing the animal. That's a very different motivation to just wanting to eat.

You can't separate it into either or. The vast majority of those who fish or hunt will derive both an enjoyment out of the thrill of the hunt/fishing, and out of the meat/fish that is harvested. Even those who fish or hunt out of pure necessity will enjoy the act of catching their quarry. In extreme cases where fish or animals are caught or killed without a meaningful end purpose (usually food), we should all agree is stupid and should cease.

Chicken, pigs and other animals bred so as to be killed and sold as food, would be around in very smaller numbers otherwise. Not that i think they'd not prefer that to being bred so as to be butchered one fine day. But afaik meat is necessary as part of the human diet.

It's true that meat from wildlife can nowhere near to support our collective appetite for meat. But it can help alleviate the pressure on modern meat production. The problem is that our collective meat appetite has grown to unhealthy and unsustainable proportions. Meat is not necessary as a part of the human diet, but a moderate meat intake is a great source of protein and other nutritions. A high meat intake is a source of cardiac disease.

 

[Ryika]

Chicken, pigs and other animals bred so as to be killed and sold as food, would be around in very smaller numbers otherwise.

Well, the robots that we created to take care of us sort of got out of control and put us all in tubes, because they figured that the best way for humanity to prosper is if each of us needs less space and wastes fewer resources, because that means Earth can carry more of us at the same time. It's kind of boring in this tube, and I have no arms and legs anymore because the robots thought of them as energy wasters, but at least I know that humanity is doing better than ever now that the robots have almost doubled our numbers. If only the robots would give me a bit more fresh air to breath, this constant feeling of suffocation as I get just enough oxygen to not pass out is really getting on my nerves.

But afaik meat is necessary as part of the human diet.

If you're too poor to afford a healthy vegetarian or vegan diet, or have some medical condition that makes living as a vegetarian or vegan very difficulty, then you get a pass. But in all other situations? No, if you live in the first world, eating meat is a luxury. A luxury that people choose, knowing that they create animals - conscious beings - that are going to live terrible lives on farms that are not designed for them to live decent lives, but for them to get fat. If at least people would consume smaller amounts of meat and care about how the meat they consume is produced, then maybe there could be some pseudo-ethical midway, but the way it currently works? No, anybody who eats meat on a very regular basis is a worse person than any of the trophy hunters.

Because the killing of a few animals that have lived lives in their natural habitat is really nothing in comparison. It's ridiculous how people overreact to some tigers being killed because it makes them emotional, but then stuff steak into their mouths as if that wasn't the almost infinitely bigger crime against nature. This idea that "It's okay because we eat them!" is just ridiculous, a way to rationalize away the ethical concerns, so one doesn't have to give up eating meat.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You can't separate it into either or. The vast majority of those who fish or hunt will derive both an enjoyment out of the thrill of the hunt/fishing, and out of the meat/fish that is harvested. Even those who fish or hunt out of pure necessity will enjoy the act of catching their quarry. In extreme cases where fish or animals are caught or killed without a meaningful end purpose (usually food), we should all agree is stupid and should cease.

You just separated it into either/or with your last sentence!

 

[Snerk]

You just separated it into either/or with your last sentence!

If an animal is turned to food or not is either/or. The various motivations of various hunters/fishermen is most definitely not.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes but that was the either/or distinction I was making. Which you then told me I can't separate into either/or. Before proceeding to separate it into exactly the same either/or.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, the robots that we created to take care of us sort of got out of control and put us all in tubes, because they figured that the best way for humanity to prosper is if each of us needs less space and wastes fewer resources, because that means Earth can carry more of us at the same time. It's kind of boring in this tube, and I have no arms and legs anymore because the robots thought of them as energy wasters, but at least I know that humanity is doing better than ever now that the robots have almost doubled our numbers. If only the robots would give me a bit more fresh air to breath, this constant feeling of suffocation as I get just enough oxygen to not pass out is really getting on my nerves.


If you're too poor to afford a healthy vegetarian or vegan diet, or have some medical condition that makes living as a vegetarian or vegan very difficulty, then you get a pass. But in all other situations? No, if you live in the first world, eating meat is a luxury. A luxury that people choose, knowing that they create animals - conscious beings - that are going to live terrible lives on farms that are not designed for them to live decent lives, but for them to get fat. If at least people would consume smaller amounts of meat and care about how the meat they consume is produced, then maybe there could be some pseudo-ethical midway, but the way it currently works? No, anybody who eats meat on a very regular basis is a worse person than any of the trophy hunters.

Because the killing of a few animals that have lived lives in their natural habitat is really nothing in comparison. It's ridiculous how people overreact to some tigers being killed because it makes them emotional, but then stuff steak into their mouths as if that wasn't the almost infinitely bigger crime against nature. This idea that "It's okay because we eat them!" is just ridiculous, a way to rationalize away the ethical concerns, so one doesn't have to give up eating meat.

Surely you are trolling; i can only hear echoes in what you say of

 

[Snerk]

Yes but that was the either/or distinction I was making. Which you then told me I can't separate into either/or. Before proceeding to separate it into exactly the same either/or.

No.

I think it's reasonable to negatively judge someone who kills an animal purely for the enjoyment of killing the animal. That's a very different motivation to just wanting to eat.

This is a pure distinction between motivations. I argued that that is an impossible black/white distinction. The important distinction is if the felling of animals or caching of fish is put to a meaningful use, as in food.

If you've gone back on your initial argument you can go ahead and unquote me in your post #43 as it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

 

[Ryika]

Surely you are trolling;

I'm not trolling. Why would you think it's okay for animals to live in terrible conditions just for you to have the pleasure of eating meat? It's clearly a moral blindspot of today, and people will look back at us and be disgusted, and wonder how we could do this, just as we look back at the things that happened in the past and think of them as barbaric and inhumane.

 

[Hrothbern]

Our current biochemical technology is since years far enough developed to produce fat, carbs and proteins in mass production in biochemical factories, even meat like tissue is within reach.
It is just for proteins and meat too expensive atm for industrial production.
But for the sake of a simple question.
Let's say we have now meat available at a price of 5, and industrial produced meat would cost 7, and meat from humanely raised animals would cost 12.

Who would favor a ban on the current meat of 5 from inhumanely raised animals ?

 

[Synobun]

But for the sake of a simple question.
Let's say we have now meat available at a price of 5, and industrial produced meat would cost 7, and meat from humanely raised animals would cost 12.

Who would favor a ban on the current meat of 5 from inhumanely raised animals ?

That's a small enough difference that I think it could work. I would support this.

 

[Kyriakos]

If the "meat" produced can logically be said to be not causing health issues to human consumers, i'd agree.

I'm not trolling. Why would you think it's okay for animals to live in terrible conditions just for you to have the pleasure of eating meat? It's clearly a moral blindspot of today, and people will look back at us and be disgusted, and wonder how we could do this, just as we look back at the things that happened in the past and think of them as barbaric and inhumane.

Heifer whines could be human cries; Closer comes the screaming knife!

 

[Synobun]

Our current biochemical technology is since years far enough developed to produce fat, carbs and proteins in mass production in biochemical factories, even meat like tissue is within reach.
It is just for proteins and meat too expensive atm for industrial production.
But for the sake of a simple question.
Let's say we have now meat available at a price of 5, and industrial produced meat would cost 7, and meat from humanely raised animals would cost 12.

Who would favor a ban on the current meat of 5 from inhumanely raised animals ?

As it so turns out this post coincides with a Facebook memory of mine from two years ago.

I've been waiting for this. Beef was an excellent starting point and has had some promising early results but I was curious how long it'd be before someone looked at the other major livestock species and asked, "Why not these, too?" Chicken is a great choice as it's a comparatively costly meat and has a huge daily slaughter rate.

Plus, this spells two separate ventures for two separate kinds of meat. Very promising. I look forward to hearing more about this. It's a pleasant surprise.

The post linked to this article.

I have not heard anything else about cultured chicken since then but have been keeping track of cultured beef through the New Harvest organization. Speaking with Isha Batar about commercial viability was a pleasure and involvement in the group is something I'd recommend for anyone interested in switching to sustainable meat. I'm a large proponent of the idea that our approach should be to negate the damage we cause instead of forcibly changing lifestyles through restriction. A transition from widespread pasturing to in-vitro meat is perfect for this and would have fantastic results for our diet and environment.

 

[Snerk]

Hell yeah I'd support a ban on inhumanely raised animals. But it might be problematic though, perhaps an unregulated black marked would arise with meat from animals under even worse conditions.

I have higher hopes for in vitro meat. As it eventually should compete with the production costs of livestock.

 

[Ryika]

Our current biochemical technology is since years far enough developed to produce fat, carbs and proteins in mass production in biochemical factories, even meat like tissue is within reach.
It is just for proteins and meat too expensive atm for industrial production.
But for the sake of a simple question.
Let's say we have now meat available at a price of 5, and industrial produced meat would cost 7, and meat from humanely raised animals would cost 12.

Who would favor a ban on the current meat of 5 from inhumanely raised animals ?

Ban it? No, I don't think that's something that should be mandated by the government. But the government does tons of things that I think it should not have its hands in, and I guess this is one of the cases where I wouldn't mind it that much - just like when they banned eggs from chickens that were living in cages.

In either case though, in the end... once we're good enough at producing meat that way, it comes down to social progress that will happen eventually. Whether that's mandated by the government, or comes by naturally with a delay, in one way or another it will happen.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think it's reasonable to negatively judge someone who kills an animal purely for the enjoyment of killing the animal. That's a very different motivation to just wanting to eat.

In extreme cases where fish or animals are caught or killed without a meaningful end purpose (usually food), we should all agree is stupid and should cease.

?!?!

Please explain to me how you are not seeing these comments as referring to the same thing.

Edit: Oh right, you seem to be fixating on my use of "just" in the next sentence. Replace it with "merely" or something.

And no I'm not going to "unquote" you because it's entirely to do with what you said.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm not trolling. Why would you think it's okay for animals to live in terrible conditions just for you to have the pleasure of eating meat? It's clearly a moral blindspot of today, and people will look back at us and be disgusted, and wonder how we could do this, just as we look back at the things that happened in the past and think of them as barbaric and inhumane.

I'm no fan of the battery farming of chickens or whatever, but when you see cows/sheep hanging around in fields, chewing grass, sitting around etc, I wouldn't exactly describe those as terrible conditions. I'd say they're pretty much exactly the conditions they like.