why do people think this about veganism?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by TaintedLight
I've gone through few of your posts and it's insightful.
But I don't think you have addressed the animals 'natural instincts? Essentially losing its ability to pounce on its prey would end in an animal that is slower in running, weaker in sniffing and poorer in general acrobatics, right?
It's welcoming to hear that we can intervene the food chain and regulate the stress levels of certain animals... but do we have to essentially rob them off their evolutionary instincts?
But I don't think you have addressed the animals 'natural instincts? Essentially losing its ability to pounce on its prey would end in an animal that is slower in running, weaker in sniffing and poorer in general acrobatics, right?
It's welcoming to hear that we can intervene the food chain and regulate the stress levels of certain animals... but do we have to essentially rob them off their evolutionary instincts?
Thanks for the response, and thank you. I don't think that it's necessarily the case that they would lose other natural instincts if we were to genetically engineer them. There would be nothing stopping them from keeping these abilities, in theory, unlike in factory farms where animals, of course, cannot practice their natural instincts due to confinement.
One possibility, I suppose, is that there may be an evolutionary selection pressure against these instincts, because they would be unnecessary in the absence of any desire to devour prey. However, I can't see any real disadvantage to these organisms of keeping these instincts. Even if these instincts were selected against, it wouldn't stop the animals who already have these instincts from keeping them, but future generations of, say, lions, may lack these instincts. However, individuals in these future generations would not have known any differently, so I don't think it can be said that they've been harmed by lacking these instincts.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
Thanks for the response, and thank you. I don't think that it's necessarily the case that they would lose other natural instincts if we were to genetically engineer them. There would be nothing stopping them from keeping these abilities, in theory, unlike in factory farms where animals, of course, cannot practice their natural instincts due to confinement.
One possibility, I suppose, is that there may be an evolutionary selection pressure against these instincts, because they would be unnecessary in the absence of any desire to devour prey. However, I can't see any real disadvantage to these organisms of keeping these instincts. Even if these instincts were selected against, it wouldn't stop the animals who already have these instincts from keeping them, but future generations of, say, lions, may lack these instincts. However, individuals in these future generations would not have known any differently, so I don't think it can be said that they've been harmed by lacking these instincts.
One possibility, I suppose, is that there may be an evolutionary selection pressure against these instincts, because they would be unnecessary in the absence of any desire to devour prey. However, I can't see any real disadvantage to these organisms of keeping these instincts. Even if these instincts were selected against, it wouldn't stop the animals who already have these instincts from keeping them, but future generations of, say, lions, may lack these instincts. However, individuals in these future generations would not have known any differently, so I don't think it can be said that they've been harmed by lacking these instincts.
I guess its true. For all we know, lions in 1742 were more ferocious and mighty than the lions of today. Would be an interesting world to live in!
Slightly a pipe dream, but where would you stand on granting immortality to animals when it will be possible to apply the same on humans?
Original post by viddy9
Thank you for your reply. The answer is yes. As Richard Dawkins describes:
If there are ways to reduce this suffering, we ought to pursue them. One may object that we shouldn't interfere in nature, but what's natural doesn't equate to what is right. In any case, humans constantly intervene in nature already; I'm simply arguing that we should intervene to reduce the amount of suffering in nature. Just today, footage emerged of an elephant being rescued after it fell into an open drain. Does anyone seriously think that we ought not to have intervened in nature to prevent this from occurring?
Another objection is that this would have an impact on ecosystems such that total suffering in the wild increases, perhaps due to a population explosion of herbivores, meaning that more herbivores die of starvation, thirst and disease. I'm not arguing that we should intervene until we've done the ecological research to prevent this from happening. One way of doing so would be to reduce populations of herbivores simultaneously, through fertility regulation via family planning or cross-species immunocontraception.
Are there any feasible techniques for phasing out predation currently out there? Fertility regulation would be one possible technique. Another would be to genetically engineer predators to become herbivores. There are already serious proposals to genetically engineer mosquitoes to stop them from transmitting malaria and Zika, with a good level of debate going on about the possible ecological consequences. If we are willing to consider intervening in nature to prevent suffering from being inflicted on humans, we should be willing to do so to prevent suffering from being inflicted on nonhumans.
And, as I've noted, we already intervene in nature in a plethora of ways. This will happen whether we like it or not, but when considering what actions we could take, we could also take into consideration the possibility of reducing carnivorous and increasing herbivorous populations.
If we were in a position to design and create a world, would we not create a world in which sentient individuals could survive without inflicting huge amounts of suffering on each other? If we encountered an alien civilisation who had abolished suffering on their planet in the wild, would we seriously go up to them and say that they should reverse the changes that they have made, thereby returning the planet's individuals to the state of agony central to Darwinian life?
Plenty of other philosophers and thinkers have explained it much better than I have. The Oxford philosopher Jeff McMahan makes a compelling case for this in the New York Times, and his response to the people who didn't read his article properly is here. The economist Tyler Cowen has also argued in favour of what I've proposed, and it is discussed here by the economist Yew-Kwang Ng. The moral philosopher Peter Singer says that in theory it would be justified, although he is, rightly, very cautious about trying to do anything significant with our current level of knowledge: he has included the topic of predation in some of his lectures. The philosopher David Pearce is interviewed about it here.
If there are ways to reduce this suffering, we ought to pursue them. One may object that we shouldn't interfere in nature, but what's natural doesn't equate to what is right. In any case, humans constantly intervene in nature already; I'm simply arguing that we should intervene to reduce the amount of suffering in nature. Just today, footage emerged of an elephant being rescued after it fell into an open drain. Does anyone seriously think that we ought not to have intervened in nature to prevent this from occurring?
Another objection is that this would have an impact on ecosystems such that total suffering in the wild increases, perhaps due to a population explosion of herbivores, meaning that more herbivores die of starvation, thirst and disease. I'm not arguing that we should intervene until we've done the ecological research to prevent this from happening. One way of doing so would be to reduce populations of herbivores simultaneously, through fertility regulation via family planning or cross-species immunocontraception.
Are there any feasible techniques for phasing out predation currently out there? Fertility regulation would be one possible technique. Another would be to genetically engineer predators to become herbivores. There are already serious proposals to genetically engineer mosquitoes to stop them from transmitting malaria and Zika, with a good level of debate going on about the possible ecological consequences. If we are willing to consider intervening in nature to prevent suffering from being inflicted on humans, we should be willing to do so to prevent suffering from being inflicted on nonhumans.
And, as I've noted, we already intervene in nature in a plethora of ways. This will happen whether we like it or not, but when considering what actions we could take, we could also take into consideration the possibility of reducing carnivorous and increasing herbivorous populations.
If we were in a position to design and create a world, would we not create a world in which sentient individuals could survive without inflicting huge amounts of suffering on each other? If we encountered an alien civilisation who had abolished suffering on their planet in the wild, would we seriously go up to them and say that they should reverse the changes that they have made, thereby returning the planet's individuals to the state of agony central to Darwinian life?
Plenty of other philosophers and thinkers have explained it much better than I have. The Oxford philosopher Jeff McMahan makes a compelling case for this in the New York Times, and his response to the people who didn't read his article properly is here. The economist Tyler Cowen has also argued in favour of what I've proposed, and it is discussed here by the economist Yew-Kwang Ng. The moral philosopher Peter Singer says that in theory it would be justified, although he is, rightly, very cautious about trying to do anything significant with our current level of knowledge: he has included the topic of predation in some of his lectures. The philosopher David Pearce is interviewed about it here.
This has got to be one of the most deluded and idiotic ideas I have ever had the displeasure of being exposed to.
When we're talking about ecology and conservation, what is natural often does equate to what is "right", and this "appeal to nature fallacy" isn't actually a fallacy at all in this case. Often what is natural or close to natural is better than human intervention which can be costly and ineffective. See the discussion about reintroducing wolves and lynx as a solution to deer overpopulation, and numerous other discussions around rewilding.
Predation is essential for any functioning ecosystem, and the idea of human intervention to remove all that is complete fantasy. Simple as that.
Original post by TaintedLight
I guess its true. For all we know, lions in 1742 were more ferocious and mighty than the lions of today. Would be an interesting world to live in!
Good point - humans, even, were probably quite different tens of thousands of years ago.
Original post by TaintedLight
Slightly a pipe dream, but where would you stand on granting immortality to animals when it will be possible to apply the same on humans?
Most nonhuman animals don't appear to be rational or self-aware, so they don't have any interest in continuing to live. I'd certainly advocate it for self-aware animals such as elephants, chimpanzees and other primates; dolphins; whales; and some birds. Although, almost any death is going to be painful unless we constantly supervise and humanely euthanise every organism on the planet "when their time is up". So, it might actually be easier to grant immortality to animals. So, ultimately, I'd be in favour of it personally.
Original post by RF_PineMarten
This has got to be one of the most deluded and idiotic ideas I have ever had the displeasure of being exposed to.
I didn't really expect your reaction to be otherwise! As I understand it, you're something of an environmentalist.
Original post by RF_PineMarten
When we're talking about ecology and conservation, what is natural often does equate to what is "right", and this "appeal to nature fallacy" isn't actually a fallacy at all in this case. Often what is natural or close to natural is better than human intervention which can be costly and ineffective.
You're not saying that what is natural equates to what is right, though: you're saying that what is natural happens to be more cost-effective at combatting overpopulation and that therefore it is right. I'm saying that, despite the material costs, not having deer being brutally ripped to shreds by predators is a better outcome, if we can control the resulting overpopulation of herbivores in other ways, for exaple through fertility regulation.
The material costs are irrelevant to me: it seems to me that reducing the suffering of wild-animals is one of the most, if not the most, pressing ethical issue we face today and that, as a result, we should find the resources for researching ways to do so (and, some are already doing so, as my links may have hinted). If current humane forms of controlling populations are not effective, then we should undertake more research in order to increase their effectiveness.
Original post by RF_PineMarten
Predation is essential for any functioning ecosystem, and the idea of human intervention to remove all that is complete fantasy. Simple as that.
Some prey seem to function well without predation: their populations are merely controlled by other factors (which, granted, may be equally as harmful to the individual). Regardless, you may think that it is fantasy, but you haven't given any reason as to why, if it could be achieved (let's grant in a cost-effective manner), it ought not to be done.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by xobeauty
Because it is expensive ,$ 15.00 for cherries?
Who uses dollars?
@viddy9
This actually raises a can of worms. I would argue it's morally wrong to force a deer to go through immunocontraception since it's a "fundamental breach" of a sentient being's "privacy" and it's probably her "right" to embrace motherhood?
Perhaps, there would be some advancements in the next 100 years to undo evolution and create the utopia you present, but I have difficulty envisioning a society that would actually desire such a thing.
Just look at this food chain.
Killer Whale > Seals > Penguins > Squid > Fish
Are we going to say we need protect the suffering borne by Fish so erase the others gradually? Besides a blue whale is supposed to eat 8,000 pounds of food a day. Can we possibly advise him to follow a plant based diet?
The questions are endless!
This actually raises a can of worms. I would argue it's morally wrong to force a deer to go through immunocontraception since it's a "fundamental breach" of a sentient being's "privacy" and it's probably her "right" to embrace motherhood?
Perhaps, there would be some advancements in the next 100 years to undo evolution and create the utopia you present, but I have difficulty envisioning a society that would actually desire such a thing.
Just look at this food chain.
Killer Whale > Seals > Penguins > Squid > Fish
Are we going to say we need protect the suffering borne by Fish so erase the others gradually? Besides a blue whale is supposed to eat 8,000 pounds of food a day. Can we possibly advise him to follow a plant based diet?
The questions are endless!
Original post by Kittyboy
I just don't see what's so unethical about using animal byproducts.
Just watch Earthlings mate.
You aren't educated on veganism at all which is why you're 'unethical' argument and a majority of the other 2 arguments make no sense at all. Please educate yourself on veganism before you tell people why they shouldn't do it. Go do some research if you want to speak against it.
Original post by Justmoll28
that veganism is 'hard' or 'too expensive' or 'too time consuming'
it baffles me..i want to know why people think this?
it baffles me..i want to know why people think this?
because it is. All the healthy chit costs more in the supermarkets.
hard and time consuming?....... not the words that I would use lol
Original post by zippyRN
humans are omnivores
veganism is not the great altruistic gesuture it;s made out to me
veganism shows many signs of being a cult
veganism is closely associated with terrorism
veganism is not the great altruistic gesuture it;s made out to me
veganism shows many signs of being a cult
veganism is closely associated with terrorism
I hope you're joking hahaha. If not then this is the most ignorant post I've ever read.
Original post by MotorboatMyGoat
Nearly every supermarket sells a litre of alpro for a £1..
Out of interest what dairy free products do you recommend? No soy please.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by MotorboatMyGoat
A glass of any milk alternative has the same abundance of nutrients as milk.
80% of the worlds soya is fed to livestock hence the meat industry is the biggest contributor to rainforest deforestation.
Veganism is not about causing no harm, that is unattainable. It is about reducing the impact as much as possible.
80% of the worlds soya is fed to livestock hence the meat industry is the biggest contributor to rainforest deforestation.
Veganism is not about causing no harm, that is unattainable. It is about reducing the impact as much as possible.
In addition to this, cows are injected with hormones for them to produce more milk like ew ew ew.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Because it is! You want to know why people eat McDonald's more than do greens and veggies?
Because its cheaper. Do you want to know how hard it is to eat vegan only meals at restaurants and stores? Because all of the "good stuff" is made with animal products. Everything has eggs, and everything has at least one animal product.
You have to make big money to support yourself on a vegan diet or sacrifice all the stuff you like for a vegan diet. Also you have to check every label on whether it has animal products in it.
You have to make alternatives for recipes and do extra stuff just to make sure you're "safe" from animals products. Some much stuff is made out of animal products. You have more luck living on vegetarian diet than worrying if this red dye in animal product in it.
Have you been to a vegan grocery store? Only rich people can afford vegan food from vegan grocery stores. Nothing in there is cheap.
Because its cheaper. Do you want to know how hard it is to eat vegan only meals at restaurants and stores? Because all of the "good stuff" is made with animal products. Everything has eggs, and everything has at least one animal product.
You have to make big money to support yourself on a vegan diet or sacrifice all the stuff you like for a vegan diet. Also you have to check every label on whether it has animal products in it.
You have to make alternatives for recipes and do extra stuff just to make sure you're "safe" from animals products. Some much stuff is made out of animal products. You have more luck living on vegetarian diet than worrying if this red dye in animal product in it.
Have you been to a vegan grocery store? Only rich people can afford vegan food from vegan grocery stores. Nothing in there is cheap.
Original post by CharlWills
I hope you're joking hahaha. If not then this is the most ignorant post I've ever read.
no i'm not joking, all you've done is demonstrated your ignorance.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
