Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Even with our current level of scientific knowledge, we're now able to precisely edit the genome of organisms, using techniques such as CRISPR-cas9. It's not at all implausible that, in the future, we could identify the genes responsible for its carnivory. Alternatively, as I outline in my post above, we could use fertility regulation to reduce and eventually eliminate the populations of carnivores, whilst simultaneously using fertility regulation to reduce the populations of herbivores.

    It would be a massive project, although technological development should make it much more feasible in the future. All I am doing is arguing that if it could be done, we ought to do it, and that the objections, which I've replied to in my above post, are not at all convincing.

    Unfortunately, nature is not as it is portrayed in a Disney movie. The common portrayal of nature as "idyllic" is spectacularly off the mark.
    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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    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?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xobeauty)
    Because it is expensive ,$ 15.00 for cherries?
    Who uses dollars?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    @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!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittyboy)
    I just don't see what's so unethical about using animal byproducts.
    Just watch Earthlings mate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Veganism is illogical, far less healthy and unethical.

    Unethical:
    Stunning an animal and then giving it an instant death is far more moral than allowing that same animal to be eaten alive by carnivores. In the latter it can sometimes take the animal quite a while to die and during that time it's in total agony. If I was a cow or sheep or something I know which one I'd choose.

    Less healthy:
    Animal proteins are comprised of a pretty even mix of all the amino acids that we need to stay healthy. Plant proteins on the other hand, lack quite a few of them. Methionine and lycine are two examples. In the few plants which do contain proteins which are hydrolised to these amino acids, the amounts in them are so small that there's just no comparison with animal protein. Then there's case of other minerals and vitamins such as iron, zinc and docosahexaenoic acid. Iron is best absorbed by the body when it's in heme complexes, which aren't produced at all by plants. Zinc is also best absorbed by the body when from animal protein sources and it's mainly found in meat, not plants. Docosahexaenoic acid is vital for proper brain function, but you can't get this from plant sources. Because of this, not eating meat can have serious negative effects on your overall health. Meat is an essential part of our diet.

    Illogical:
    Why would anyone deliberately deprive themselves of things like docosahexaenoic acid? It makes absolutely no sense! It's almost as if they want a low IQ.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    because it is. All the healthy chit costs more in the supermarkets.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Veganism is illogical, far less healthy and unethical.

    Unethical:
    Stunning an animal and then giving it an instant death is far more moral than allowing that same animal to be eaten alive by carnivores. In the latter it can sometimes take the animal quite a while to die and during that time it's in total agony. If I was a cow or sheep or something I know which one I'd choose.
    Of all the terrible arguments I've seen presented, that's up there with my favourites. Are you suggesting that if we didn't farm cows, they'd all live in the wild? And that for every factory bred cow, we're saving them being hunted and killed by a tiger or something? What even hunts cows in the dangerous jungles of England? Has it not occurred to you that we farm them on mass for our own consumption, and they wouldn't be here otherwise? I think you're the unethical and illogical one as they produce mass amounts of greenhouse gases. Global warming is pretty unhealthy, you know. Oh my dear god. Look, this is a graph of biomass for the entire planet:
    Livestock represent most of the domestic animals on earth, and produces more methane than the transport industry. The amount of meat we consume, which is far more than is healthy or natural, regardless of your diet, and speaking as someone who is not a vegetarian, is far too much, and one of the greatest detriments to the planet. To deny so is ludicrous.


    (Original post by lolatmaths)
    Who uses dollars?
    I heard a rumour that the Americans do.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    hard and time consuming?....... not the words that I would use lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    I hope you're joking hahaha. If not then this is the most ignorant post I've ever read.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Veganism is illogical, far less healthy and unethical.

    Unethical:
    Stunning an animal and then giving it an instant death is far more moral than allowing that same animal to be eaten alive by carnivores. In the latter it can sometimes take the animal quite a while to die and during that time it's in total agony. If I was a cow or sheep or something I know which one I'd choose.

    Less healthy:
    Animal proteins are comprised of a pretty even mix of all the amino acids that we need to stay healthy. Plant proteins on the other hand, lack quite a few of them. Methionine and lycine are two examples. In the few plants which do contain proteins which are hydrolised to these amino acids, the amounts in them are so small that there's just no comparison with animal protein. Then there's case of other minerals and vitamins such as iron, zinc and docosahexaenoic acid. Iron is best absorbed by the body when it's in heme complexes, which aren't produced at all by plants. Zinc is also best absorbed by the body when from animal protein sources and it's mainly found in meat, not plants. Docosahexaenoic acid is vital for proper brain function, but you can't get this from plant sources. Because of this, not eating meat can have serious negative effects on your overall health. Meat is an essential part of our diet.

    Illogical:
    Why would anyone deliberately deprive themselves of things like docosahexaenoic acid? It makes absolutely no sense! It's almost as if they want a low IQ.
    You deserve all the upvotes
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    In addition to this, cows are injected with hormones for them to produce more milk like ew ew ew.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.