Create account

1004d · Food
This is a very interesting discussion about fake meat.
It also raises a lot of philosophical questions, though users aren't too interested in those usually.
replied 1004d
(I meant to say memo users). An example philosophical question is, is the actual intent to kill at some point in a process totally irrelevant?
replied 1004d
Before you kill an animal for food it has to be born and raised. So for meat, the ‘intent to kill life’ cannot be separated from the ‘intent to facilitate life’…
replied 1004d
… unless we are talking about lab grown meat, where we have facilitated no life at all, and in fact, negated it altogether. This seems morally worse than the ‘intent to kill’.
replied 1004d
I understand your point, but the point Joe made was that his direct killing of animals was not "worse" than buying meat, since the animal was killed anyway, which isolated makes sense.
replied 1004d
But then he goes on to suggest that animals killed unintentionally (E.g. their habitat ruined) "therefore are also the same", but there I find intent to kill potentially troublesome.
replied 1004d
You seem to talk about something slightly different. Also, Joe kills animals that he did not "intend to facilitate life" of, at least not directly, what then?
replied 1003d
I got sidetracked. I think the unintended killing of mice, reptiles etc by habitat destruction in the name of arable food production is morally worse than intentional killing for meat.
replied 1003d
In the latter you are preserving animals indefinitely (to periodically kill and eat them). In the former you are wiping animals out completely because they’re in your way.
replied 1003d
Interesting! I wonder if this is as principled as you say. Would you feel the same about the difference between killing humans to eat them compared to eg normal agriculture?
replied 1003d
("...as you say" I suppose you didn't say that, but I think you know what I mean). Normal agriculture reportedly ruins soil, which in theory probably will kill people/animals later.
replied 1003d
Free range humans do pretty well. I don’t think I would be preserving anything😆
replied 1003d
Don't have to be free range. The Azteks showed that. Part of my point was that intent to kill seems far more evil to the average person when it is intent to kill humans.
replied 1003d
And would you do the same with a policy like not lowering a speed limit (can lead to economic wins, but very slightly more deaths) vs. intentionally killing people?
replied 1003d
Would you feel the same way about say tobacco plants, which are not necessary for human survival, but many people think are part of what makes life pleasant?
replied 1003d
Idk how I would apply it to every situation. I admit my sentiment is a bit of a knee jerk reaction to what I see as the growing safe & sanitised vegan vision of human animal relations
replied 1003d
The plant based project in the vid breaks our symbiotic relationship with cattle, wipes out a bunch of mice and claims moral high ground because they didn’t ‘intentionally’ kill?
replied 1003d
A project to switch azteks to eating pork "breaks their symbiotic relationship" with their prisoners, is sure to kill a lot of microorganisms and claims moral high ground becau....?
replied 1003d
Mind you, your conclusion seems OK to me, I'm just not so sure you have perfect logical groundwork around it. :)
replied 1003d
I guess that my philosophy on these matters is, "there are always more things to think about". I do not feel it makes sense to make any absolutist choices on any of these issues.