You have a tablet that uses Gelatine in it's construction and you have the beef sandwich. Both items have used the body of a cow to be produced, but which would you say is better or worse and why?
Given the state of factory farming, I'd say eating beef is more morally questionable. That being said, I have no idea what condition prawns are kept in inside fisheries. I'm fairly confident they can feel pain, at least.
I'm fairly confident they can feel pain, at least.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 05, 2016, 08:29:26 AMGiven the state of factory farming, I'd say eating beef is more morally questionable. That being said, I have no idea what condition prawns are kept in inside fisheries. I'm fairly confident they can feel pain, at least.Prawn and fish farming is about the same, shit tonnes of them squashed in a cage in the sea/lake with antibiotics doused over the them to keep them healthy. So condensed into one spot that the waste from a cage can pollute the area around it, in lakes starting eutrophication.That aside, I weigh it by relative abundance. Beef coming from 0.whatever of a cow, out of a total of several billion cows, puts the % quite low. Prawns I reckon would have even lower %, even if you ate 30 whole ones as the numbers in the wild and farmed would be in the 10's of billions.Beetles... the best surviving creature on Earth. Coming into the trillions, with the beetle alone probably reaching several 10's of billions, the % used comes even lower.The numbers I'm pulling out of my arse to be fair, but that is how I'd weigh it morally. Interestingly enough, that puts eating one human at a higher % than most other animals...except maybe pandas and polar bears.
After thinking over the three questions, what is it that you used to decide which of the two items over the other? The import of their lives? Intelligence? Biomass to food ratio?
SpoilerQuote from: PsygnI on April 05, 2016, 08:55:38 AMQuote from: Meta Cognition on April 05, 2016, 08:29:26 AMGiven the state of factory farming, I'd say eating beef is more morally questionable. That being said, I have no idea what condition prawns are kept in inside fisheries. I'm fairly confident they can feel pain, at least.Prawn and fish farming is about the same, shit tonnes of them squashed in a cage in the sea/lake with antibiotics doused over the them to keep them healthy. So condensed into one spot that the waste from a cage can pollute the area around it, in lakes starting eutrophication.That aside, I weigh it by relative abundance. Beef coming from 0.whatever of a cow, out of a total of several billion cows, puts the % quite low. Prawns I reckon would have even lower %, even if you ate 30 whole ones as the numbers in the wild and farmed would be in the 10's of billions.Beetles... the best surviving creature on Earth. Coming into the trillions, with the beetle alone probably reaching several 10's of billions, the % used comes even lower.The numbers I'm pulling out of my arse to be fair, but that is how I'd weigh it morally. Interestingly enough, that puts eating one human at a higher % than most other animals...except maybe pandas and polar bears.So you measure the ethics of situation by the ratio of things killed against the total population?
May need to revise my logic a bit here.
Quote from: PsygnI on April 05, 2016, 08:55:38 AMMay need to revise my logic a bit here.Indeed. I'd say population is not a relevant factor at all.
occasionally eats shellfish, and has nothing against eating mussels.
Eating the last Dodo or Giant Galapogos tortoise is far worse than eating one cow out of 1.5 billion.
Quote from: PsygnI on April 05, 2016, 09:28:07 AMEating the last Dodo or Giant Galapogos tortoise is far worse than eating one cow out of 1.5 billion.For what ethical reason is there to make the distinction?
I already said I deal with the numbers.Eating 0.0001% of a total species is a better alternative than 100%.
You can slaughter 999,999 cows just fine, as long as there's just one left--but if you kill the last prawn on Earth, we have a problem. That's when it matters.Is that it?
That's rather naive.
It's both a concern as a resource and I suppose an ecological one.
Killing 999,998 cows (assuming they are going to be eaten almost immediately and used as efficiently as possible e.g. glues/gelatin etc) so that the species can reproduce and produce more food and other material for the future is better than killing the last 2 prawns on Earth (or hell, just one of the couple) so that they can no longer produce and go extinct, therefore killing off the species and any chances of whatever future resources were possible.But this is beside the point. Killing 99.8% of the species straight away is also bad because there'll be a huge shortage in the future, near enough as bad as killing off the species as a whole. The total population means everything here if you decide to kill off and eat a majority in one sitting and face a food crisis or a famine in the future, or move on to making another species extinct by doing the same thing.
Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on April 05, 2016, 08:12:54 AMAfter thinking over the three questions, what is it that you used to decide which of the two items over the other? The import of their lives? Intelligence? Biomass to food ratio?Sentience, capacity to feel pain, how they are treated in farms.I don't have a problem with pescatarians, generally, because fish live absolute SHIT lives anyway. We don't need to brutally slaughter them--because they can feel pain--but if we treated them ethically, I wouldn't have a problem if we just ate fish. They're whole purpose is to swim upstream their whole lives, like Sisyphus, just to reproduce and die. For no reason. At least if we ate them, their lives could serve a modicum of purpose.But yeah, treat them right, at the very least.Personally, at this point in my life, I can't see myself ever going back to animal products ever. I've fully assimilated to the lifestyle. It's extraordinarily easy, and I'm relatively healthy, so there's no point in going back at this rate. But if there's someone out there who likes to eat fish, and doesn't want to give up fish--you have Verbatim's blessing.
Quote from: PsygnI on April 05, 2016, 10:09:07 AMThat's rather naive.I agree.Quote It's both a concern as a resource and I suppose an ecological one.Right, but the subject is ethics--unless you think the subjects are intertwined somehow. I don't think they are, and if you think so, it would be great if you could expound upon that a bit.QuoteKilling 999,998 cows (assuming they are going to be eaten almost immediately and used as efficiently as possible e.g. glues/gelatin etc) so that the species can reproduce and produce more food and other material for the future is better than killing the last 2 prawns on Earth (or hell, just one of the couple) so that they can no longer produce and go extinct, therefore killing off the species and any chances of whatever future resources were possible.But this is beside the point. Killing 99.8% of the species straight away is also bad because there'll be a huge shortage in the future, near enough as bad as killing off the species as a whole. The total population means everything here if you decide to kill off and eat a majority in one sitting and face a food crisis or a famine in the future, or move on to making another species extinct by doing the same thing.Right, and this is what I was edging towards.So, to you, ethics boils down to whatever is convenient for us. Right?If we can't make use of it, it's unethical. Is that what you're saying, or am I off-base?
Food Ethics
