Dietary (and related) ethics [split from Do plants have minds?]

[Laird]

Maybe not consciously setting out to make an excuse so much as not trying hard enough to resolve any problems that come up, because not taking the moral issue seriously enough.

Various supposed justifications have also been expressed in this thread so far for eating meat.

"But they're free to roam" (paraphrased) is problematic for two reasons:

I don't know whether this item is aimed at me, (since it is a paraphrase rather than a quote). If so, you are incorrect. I'm neutral on the topic of diet. I simply said "I almost envy them". To try to spin this to suit your campaigning is simply to lob rocks in my direction. I've come across some of your views on this topic in the past and been appalled. Trying to be 'holier than thou' doesn't work. It's not a good look.

Laird,

The fact is that there is a vigorous argument (involving medical personnel) as to whether a vegan/vegetarian diet is optimal for health. Plugging into that argument would pull us into politics, and drag us way off course. Clearly Nbtruthman and I have read some of the same information about this subject.

I would say that accepting that plants are conscious, weakens your argument in favour of veganism.

Unfortunately, cats not only kill, but clearly enjoy the process. I am sure dogs would do much the same except that dogs are not allowed to roam for practical reasons. For many people - myself included - getting to know our pets offers the best opportunity to recognise animal consciousness.

I also disagree with the idea that some life forms have "lesser" consciousness compared to others

On the face of it, that would mean that killing insects (or indeed a carrot!) would be equivalent to killing a person! I think it is unproductive to go down that route. I tried to solve that issue with the idea that creatures with 'lesser' consciousness share in a collective morphic field that holds most of their consciousness.

Remember that pets (and also humans in certain circumstances) can pick up tapeworms and other parasites. How are we supposed to deal with this without killing the (animal) parasites?

David

Just to summarise, I think we are all in agreement that:

1) Animals should be farmed humanely if at all.

2) Food is a precious resource and should not be wasted casually. This might mean, for example, that every place that serves food to children should offer child portions of food so that kids are not effectively taught that wasting food is normal!

3) Everything that is alive is also conscious.

David

I do think this discussion is veering into a general politics direction.

I also think we've all said our peace on the dietary consumption question, and I don't see minds being changed...

[Laird]

I don't know whether this item is aimed at me, (since it is a paraphrase rather than a quote). If so, you are incorrect. I'm neutral on the topic of diet. I simply said "I almost envy them". To try to spin this to suit your campaigning is simply to lob rocks in my direction.

Here's my reading of the train of thought of your post, using your own words as much as possible:

The fate of farmed animals is to be "sliced in two from end to end", "[y]et [...] for much of their lives they are able to roam free", and so "I don't force myself into" refraining from eating their flesh.

If it's a misreading, then it's at least a plausible one. I wasn't trying to spin it.

I've come across some of your views on this topic in the past and been appalled. Trying to be 'holier than thou' doesn't work. It's not a good look.

"Appalled"? Huh. The basis of my views is empathy and respect for all living beings. However badly I might advocate for them, being appalled given their (I'd hope obvious) basis seems like a misplaced (over)reaction.

[Laird]

The fact is that there is a vigorous argument (involving medical personnel) as to whether a vegan/vegetarian diet is optimal for health.

Optimal? That might be open to debate, but:

Sufficient? That debate is pretty much over.

I would say that accepting that plants are conscious, weakens your argument in favour of veganism.

That's why I'm not strictly a vegan, as I wrote above. "Producitarian" (a term I've just coined) might describe it better, meaning, "One who eats only that which plants produce, and, thus, not plants themselves, nor animals nor anything animals produce".

Unfortunately, cats not only kill, but clearly enjoy the process. I am sure dogs would do much the same except that dogs are not allowed to roam for practical reasons.

Sure, but that occurs in the context of their survival depending (when not domesticated) on killing. We don't see the same behaviour in herbivores.

On the face of it, that would mean that killing insects (or indeed a carrot!) would be equivalent to killing a person!

I bite that bullet, with the caveats that (1) humans tend to live a lot longer than most insects and carrots, such that killing them (humans) deprives them of much more life, and (2) it's so impractical to avoid killing insects accidentally that I don't treat the risk of that with the same degree of seriousness that I treat the risk of accidentally killing humans. I do have a lot of respect though for those Jains who take the risk seriously enough that they sweep the path in front of them.

I think it is unproductive to go down that route. I tried to solve that issue with the idea that creatures with 'lesser' consciousness share in a collective morphic field that holds most of their consciousness.

And I think we should base our ethics on our best assessment of the empirical facts, rather than the reverse, which (the reverse) is what you seem to be proposing (in this instance).

Remember that pets (and also humans in certain circumstances) can pick up tapeworms and other parasites. How are we supposed to deal with this without killing the (animal) parasites?

Self-defence is a valid justification for killing.

[Laird]

Just to summarise, I think we are all in agreement

Yes, with the qualification that, of course...

1)        Animals should be farmed humanely if at all.

...I take the conditional to be false: animals should not be farmed at all.

[Laird]

I do think this discussion is veering into a general politics direction.

In the past, we've condoned public threads explicitly about dietary ethics. Whether this was a mistake is open to question. I've messaged Ian (@Ninshub) about this to get his view as a fellow admin. Perhaps we should have a general discussion about it, open to everybody, in a separate thread for that purpose. I'm happy for you or anybody else to start it if you think it's worth it. Otherwise, the remaining founders can discuss it amongst themselves and make a decision. If the decision (whether collective or simply by the remaining founders) is to reserve that content for the opt-in forums, then I'll split all of the posts on dietary ethics out of this thread and into a new one there (and potentially move the preexisting threads too).

I also think we've all said our peace on the dietary consumption question, and I don't see minds being changed...

Perhaps so, however, I wasn't content to leave the posts I've just responded to unaddressed. Whether they end up remaining publicly visible is yet to be determined.

I bless the butchers who incur bad karma for me so I can eat bacon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUvBy0VMLDY

3:26 
Because we've been fed the wrong information about nutrition for generations, we have been feeding our brains improperly our entire lives and therefore you know we really don't have any idea how much better we could feel if we start to feed the brain properly.