I saw a post on lemmy about how we could prevent 133 holocausts by promoting animal rights and veganism. The article opened by doing some math about how many dogs you could torture and kill in order to be equivalent to taking a human life, and then how many animals humans kill, and concluded that we’re committing holocaust equivalents many times over.
I have respect for people who question the status quo and think seriously about morality. Thinking about slavery, it used to be argued “this is the natural order,” “this is actually the moral thing to do” and so on. It wasn’t easy then to stand up for what we now see as the obvious moral position. So I have some receptivity to this type of argument.
That said, I think back to when I was a Christian (atheist now), and was fully bought into the anti abortion movement. They argued that fetuses were human, that we were committing fetus holocausts all the time. Taking that view to its logical conclusion, one could justify things like killing a few (abortion doctors, judges) to save many (fetuses).
The author of the vegan piece was not advocating for such things. But one could ask why not. I think the fact the conclusion (133 holocausts) is so far outside accepted views should prompt some examination of the starting premises. (Is any killing of an animal for food the same as torturous factory farming, should we do something about animals that eat other animals etc)
I’m glad I read the piece because there’s value in hearing other perspectives. We can’t see ourselves and our own blind spots. I would have responded in-thread but that community description said “not a place for debate”, so tossing out this thought here.
Well the vegans have a few critical issues with their logic.
The average vegan diet actually kills more animals due to pesticides, monocrop agriculture, soil quality degradation, etc etc than that of that of an omnivorous diet. But nobody cares about this because who cares that a couple trillion bugs, beetles, spiders, worms etc died when a couple million cute fluffy little animals died. If it was about saving life then they could do more by not getting a smartphone u know how many human child slaves died to make this thing?
The environmental impact is a mute point because we physically do not globally have enough existing farmland that can support the crops required to produce enough protein sustainably, eg u can farm cattle on a million acres of half desert good luck growing crops their.
Then their the whole evolution argument. We beat every single animal in the African planes not because we where smarter fasted stronger better but because more calories = bigger brain = smarter, we got said additional calories because we discovered 2 things. Smack bone with rock get marrow. 2 put meat in fire more calories. We literally won evolution because we can eat meat more efficiently than other animals could.
Then their is the whole consent thing. Bees can up a leave a hive at any point they want, they do not because they pay honey taxes to the smart monkeys who in exchange offer absolute protection. Bees consented to us eating their honey therefore honey is vegan.
Then u get to the point where u realise evolutionarily most of the species we eat we artificially created and protected putting them in the most successfull evolutionary niche in the history of our planet. That being human support class ie food. Are we using them or are they using us? It looks like a symbiotic relationship to me. Whats the difference between this and the bacteria in my gut cos i sure as shit didnt ask my shit if it consented to be my literal fucking shit.
And finally the pro lifer chicken argument. Why cant u kill a non fertilised chicken egg but u can kill a fertilised human egg? Is it the consent of the eggs creator thats required? Chickens dont exist naturally they are an artificial species that we created so i guess if we can consent to eat a chickens egg on behalf of the chicken really depends on what came first the chicken or the egg?
I think its pretty healthy to always check your assumptions. Some things that are mainstream are actually pretty crazy, but taken as normal because we’re used to them. For instance, GDP is a pretty crazy way to measure economic health.
Yeah, GDP really measures size rather than quality, people just end up ignoring the nuance.
GDP is also significant in that it directly influences how much revenue a government can raise by taxes, and so by proxy how much of public services it can provide. GDP growth also influences what amount of deficit it can sustain (though for various reasons that is not a straightforward relationship as with tax revenue).
For instance, GDP is a pretty crazy way to measure economic health.
I know a lot of economists who agree with you, it’s just everything else we try to use to measure economic health on a macro scale seems to be worse. When your best tool is only 40% accurate, it sucks.
The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
People devalue animals as a whole outside of those that have been accepted by society to be sociable, likable - pets, basically - and only see them as a commodity. They don’t see the animal that dies for their consumption, the suffering they endure, and don’t think about just how many animals die for food. Comparing these mass murders across the globe to the Holocaust might be a little controversial, but I don’t see any other way people realise the sheer absurdity of animal AG.
Fundamentally, there is no right or wrong and there are any number of ways you can morally frame something. Usually “things that benefit me and those close to me” are good, “things that hinder me and those close to me” are bad. But at the end of the day it is all subjective, be it on an individual, family, societal, or global level.
You make a good point about killing for food. I’m against killing animals for food and would rather we switch to lab grown meat. It’s not fair to the animals that were created plump and killed unnaturally for the sake of eating. If it’s a survival situation, that’s different, you do what you can to survive. However, modern society is beyond simple survival, we have the resources and means to eliminate animal meat.
But then it begs the question “what about plants? They’re alive right?” Also “what about lab meat? Even though they’re not a full animal, it’s still living matter.”
To both those arguments, I’d say, yes, it’s still not fair to those lifeforms, however it is much more humane to kill lifeforms without a brain, and that only exist to reproduce. Animals have emotions that we can understand. Fear, joy, and content. They are intelligent. Plants and lab meat are not.
How much brain tho? There is significant evidance that mycelium in large forests is significant simmillar to a brain to exhibit some intelligence. What if we grow artificial neuron in a petri dish and teach it to play doom? What if we map and simulate a cubic mm of human brain is stopping that simulation akin to killing it? What about if its a full brain simulation? What if its an artificial intellgence indistinguishable from a human intellgence? Wait gpt4o is already smarter than a large amount of kids and is arguably an indistinguishable intellgence so should be give rights to ai or say its ok to kill dumb kids?
The thing is, when people try to argue that “killing” plants is also killing so I might as well just eat animals, apart from being an insane take as is imho, significantly fewer plants are harvested if you switch to a fully vegan diet. The net result is a lot fewer plants needed to sustain people vs. the oodles and oodles of plants and grains needed to feed cattle, pigs, whatever. There are these charts that show how much more efficient food intake really is if you cut out the middle-man - being animals - and just eat the plants they’d be fed instead.
People just try to discredit vegan whenever they can because of their own insecurities and cognitive dissonance. People who actively oppose veganism, that is
significantly fewer plants are harvested if you switch to a fully vegan diet.
that has never happened.
If you’re willing, I feel there is a bias in your argument that I’d like to explore more with you.
You make the excellent point that plants are living organisms as well, but you also make the assumption that “it is much more humane to kill life forms without a brain.” You then go on to suggest that their sole purpose for existence is nothing more than reproduction.
I’d like to challenge both of those assertions. But before I continue, I want to make certain of my position as anecdotal, as I am not an expert in these matters.
It turns out that plants can see, smell, feel, and have a memory. And according to the scientist in the article, plants and humans also share DNA.
We’ve all heard the advice that we should talk to our plants, as they react more positively (grow) to the sound of our voices. We also know that plants play a vital role in our existence.
The most obvious is converting carbon dioxide into oxygen. They also provide shelter and protection for animals. They also help produce about 10% of the moisture in our atmosphere.
As for brains, no they do not have the same type of brain or nervous system that we as humans are accustomed to having. But that is not to say that plants are incapable of making decisions.
Take the Venus Flytrap as an example: it can detect when a bug has landed inside of its mouth, and after having another external stimuli triggered will it decide to trap that bug inside before it devours it for nutrients.
I could go on, such that plants do communicate with other (e.g., grass when cut, fungus creating underground networks to each other).
