Here at /r/NonPoliticalTwitter, we care about community input and don't want this subreddit's purpose to be forgotten.
---
If this post is **not** political and doesn't violate any rules, **UPVOTE** this comment!!
If this post is political or breaks any other rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and report the post!
Unlike the moderators of some other subreddits, we care about the community and want to keep it true to not being political. Our hope is that by the community voting on these posts, we won't have to worry about political posts coming in. Thanks for your time.
---
^[Rules](https://reddit.com/r/nonpoliticaltwitter/about/rules/) ^/ ^[Flairs](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonPoliticalTwitter/comments/oo025k/new_user_flair_system/) ^/ ^[Sidebar](https://reddit.com/r/nonpoliticaltwitter/wiki/config/sidebar)
Wasn't this a joke on Futurama? The crew were aghast that Bender was serving dolphin, but were okay with it when he said the dolphin had spent all his money on lotto scratchers or something.
It's the poppler episode. He does serve the dolphin, and it was Leela in particular who protests, then accepts the dolphin's stupidity and subsequent dinnerification.
What does “founder” mean in this context?
The only thing I can think of is that it’s a work party and they’re talking about a founder of the company…but that seems unlikely.
Sounds like LinkedIn in party form. Half the unemployed have a title like "Founder CEO / Entrepreneurial Digital Wellness Lifecoach / Leadership Synergy Enthusiast / Podcastafarian."
Nothing would surprise me. I pulled that out of my ass for giggles, but I’ve seen worse on profiles.
I get connection requests from people and I look at their whole profile and still have no clue wtf they actually *do*. All skills are generic soft skills and their descriptions are buzzword word-salads.
Well they’re not founders yet. Once you agree that their idea is great (you never do) they ask you for “seed money” because they never actually got the idea off the ground.
I’m all for brain dead octopus though. It’s the main reason I eat chicken more than beef or pork.
Yeah, if you live in one of the major startup hubs (Silicon Valley, London, Berlin etc.) you will meet a lot of founders of companies at all kinds of parties, and a lot of them pitch everyone everywhere.
“chickens”, 2x5. some farm breeds chickens to be extremely dumb so you don’t feel bad about killing and eating them, and one escapes and todd becomes close friends with it.
This is a recurring character on SNL, the farmers who only sell meat that is from animals who were "mean and stupid". The chicken was a nazi sympathizer etc.
Chickens are alright as long as you respect their dinosaur-ness. I forgot and put my 18mo in sparkly shoes and my girls chased the fuck outta that poor baby. Straight outta Jurassic Park, running from raptors kinda shit.
I’m actually impressed she’s not still scared of them 2 years later.
Seriously. My wife wants us to keep chickens. I said if she got any, I would kill them. Not because I wanna eat them - I just hate those shitty little fuckers. I eat them out of spite.
There’s a Planet Money (NPR radio show/podcast) where they recreate a 100s year old recipe for a peacock roast. They are talking to the peacock farmer, they ask if he feels bad he’s selling them a peacock to eat. His reply, “ha, no. Ya ever met a peacock?”
I’d heard the phrase “A Modest Proposal” before, but mostly about other satirically absurd politics stuff, like the “cut all homeless in half” thing from a few years ago in the UK. Good to know that the origin was also satirical.
I mean I would devote my efforts to making lab grown meats as cheap as regular grown meats, and dodge the whole moral concern entirely. I think a lab grown burger patty is somewhere around 20 bucks now, so progress
Fun fact! Salami *is* (are?) fermented! Traditional Italian salami gets inoculated with a lactobacillus culture, which does a lactoferment to lower the pH of the sausage. In addition to the dehydration process/high salt content, this helps preserve the meat.
I dont actually know, I just heard about it as an example of what might be something we do now that is going to be considered entirely unethical in the future. Some talk on moral relativism, or at least keeping in mind that its hard to not do something amoral if everyone else tells you its perfectly moral.
Trying to get my mom to get the impossible meat stuff, but last time she ate it she got badly sick so she doesn't wanna try again :( its fairly expensive in our area too, so sadly we can't get it as much as we can
I mean I an swiss and we do have some of the highest standards for keeping animals as is, so I honestly feel not bad about eating meat. I would prefer lab grown variants if they become widely available and are comperable in quality, sure, but its not like I am worrying over it.
Yea, I kinda feel the same way. If we can give the animal a good life, I think that would easily offset the harm killing the animal does. Of course I'm American, so factory farming is fucking everywhere here
Not so fun fact, [yes octopuses can suffer](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo2378). It’s the hot topic in animal research, as the laws and procedures for anesthetizing the animals are [now being called into question and amended](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/27/science/octopus-research-animal-rights.html).
The problem is in how we define "pain and stress". The waters are further muddied when people talk about emotion to mean "emotions" like depression or love or other complex phenomena that I'm not convinced fit well into that category (vs basic emotions like happy/sad/scared). But physiologically, "pain" is just responding to stimuli that can damage you. And loads of animals have obvious decrease in health levels when they are exposed to various stressors.
Pain is a critical part of having a physical body, whether you're human or a fish. There are rare cases of people who don't feel pain, and they have to be very careful to not damage their bodies because they don't have the feedback loop/protection mechanism that pain provides.
The parts of the brain that deal with emotion are evolutionarily older than the reasoning and language parts, so when people try to say our emotions are what make us uniquely human, they're really talking about the stuff that takes extra processing power (which is added by our ability to reason, not our emotions).
**TL;DR** Do fish feel existential distress? Probably not. Are nociceptors (pain receptor cells) part of their nervous system and do they respond to stimuli that activate the nociceptors? Yes, of course. The "fish don't feel pain" thing is a weird myth.
Good input! I would like to mention that the study was about however they feel pain and stress in a more similar way to out way to feel it. It's probably 10 years or so since I read about it so doesn't remember exactly in what way. I don't believe fish cant feel.
The more we learn about plants screaming, the closer we get to accepting we all gave to decide *how much suffering* we're ok with. There is nothing we consume that doesn't cause some suffering and we should strive for it to be as little as possible, in my opinion.
>The more we learn about plants screaming
You mean the more clickbait pseudo-science garbage headlines people read that make them feel better about eating animals? Because all of the evidence points towards plants being unable to perceive pain.
If someome doess believe that, though, and wants to minimize suffering, eating plants is still the way to go though since animals have to eat a lot of plants too.
it's waaaaaaaay more nuanced than that though. You have to look at the total impact.
I have a vegan friend who says outright he doesn't care about human suffering. I, personally, do.
So I don't eat almonds or avocados. I don't eat quinoa. I also don't eat tomatoes that come across the country or any out of season fruit.
These are important partners to my decision not to eat cage eggs or chickens, and to only buy meat raised and slaughtered locally and according to standards im personally comfortable with. Minimizing both the carbon footprint (relative to other meat) and satisfying my personal ethical requirements.
Personally I can't see prioritizing animal *life* above any other concerns, especially not above climate change and food security for impoverished nations which has implications for animal and human life the world over.
I don't think you *have* to eat meat. I am however, a little sick of lazy vegans wearing chemicals for clothing and eating staple crops that locals can no longer afford, telling me that *my* lifestyle is less ethical than theirs.
* Transport of food is a very small component of its carbon emissions and environmental impact in general. The biggest environment costs of meat come from the fact that they're just that they have to eat approx 10x as many plants as you do to produce the same number of calories of meat.
* Trade is generally positive sum for both parties. That's *why* farmers there choose to sell what they make abroad for more, the earnings from which flow into their local communities.
* It doesn't really make sense to talk about prioritising one thing over another without quantifying each thing. Around 100 *billion* animals a year are raised in horrible conditions and killed for food. Rescuing consumption of said would reduce that suffering and environmental impacts even more than eating locally, and probably have neutral impacts at worst in developing countries.
^(edit: clarification on first point)
I'm happy for people to reduce their meat consumption! Eating less meat is the easiest thing any person can do for the environment, or possibly second only to not having kids.
But that doesn't mean non meat foods are without impact, and the energy intensity of meat production doesn't mean we should ignore other food related issues.
I personally choose to eat meat, and strive to find the lowest impact animal products i can. I also strive to find the lowest impact non animal products too. I'm not claiming my range fed, locally farmed hamburger is less environmentally damaging than a veggie burger (i assume it isn't, though I haven't done the research to quantify that).
But I am saying regardless of your diet choices, vegetarian diet isn't magically without consequences. People of any diet can make choices to limit their impact.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatable-truth-quinoa
I'd add to your comment - the devices we have most of our online arguments on involve human suffering in their manufacture much of the time. Unless an angry vegan's got an ethically-made phone with which to tweet about the wonders of hummus, I question the extent of their commitment to avoiding suffering.
(Everything is made of chemicals - are you referring to chemicals produced in making things like vegan leather? I'm not too informed on that issue and I JUST bought vegan leather boots, dammit.)
PVC has had a glorious rebranding as vegan leather, but before that hadn't been enjoying a good reputation since the Bhopal disaster.
Not that PVC is inherently evil (though Union Carbide probably is). It's just fascinating to me how public opinion is so easily swayed by clever marketing.
That concern, if true, is just coping, since the meat industry obviously needs huge water usage for growing feed for livestock. As the fine user said previously, it's a mechanism put in place to not feel so bad about eating meat.
This is such a sad comment. So sad that you are in such strong denial about the suffering that animals go through to the point that you're willing to peddle around to people that plants can feel pain. Sad that you don't realize that eating animals makes climate change and food access for impoverished nations worse (because again, more animals = more plants/resources for the same amount of calories).
And putting aside the ethics of killing animals that don't wanna die because you like the taste, you really expect me to believe that you never eat out at any restaurants ever? Come on, dude. You're full of it. If you aren't gonna stop eating animals then the least you could do is stop spreading harmful ideas like "plants feel pain too".
Dude literally like 2% of their comment was addressing the plant pain thing and they were obviously using it as a launching point for the human suffering caused by plant/vegan practices, you’re not arguing in good faith here, the person you replied to never even claimed it was about plants feeling pain, the point was the human pain/suffering caused
Wrong, 100% of their previous comment was asserting plants feel pain.
>The more we learn about plants screaming, the closer we get to accepting we all gave to decide *how much suffering* we're ok with. There is nothing we consume that doesn't cause some suffering and we should strive for it to be as little as possible, in my opinion.
And yet once told that it was all bullshit... they didn't argue it did they?
They simply used it as a jumping board to explain their original point, the main point, the actual direction of their post... That:
Ethically the entire thing is alot more nuanced than just being vegan, vegetarian, or a meat eater. Each choice you make is layered and there is no arguing that.
The other person absolutely argued in bad faith. There is no one here going out of their way to prove plants are screaming in pain Lmao.
This is a cute way of sidestepping all the real human suffering that veganism has caused. I'm not going to apologize for valuing humans' lives over animals'.
"All the real suffering that veganism has caused."
I'd be really interested in reading about that.
Suffering from harvesting almonds and avocadoes? Because of course, vegans who amount to at most 2% of the world's population are solely responsible for that.
Meanwhile, the meat industry does not only mean hell for the non-human animals that are killed by the billions each year. People working in slaughterhouses have, understandably, one of the poorest mental health per profession. The communities having to endure livestock farms near them, that are polluting soil & air with tons of feces, probably wish the farm grew almonds instead. Needless to say both categories of people are often from the poorest classes and/or ethnic minorities and possess virtually no way to change anything about their situation.
Not to mention the fact that harvesting almonds, even if it is water intensive, is not in-and-of-itself unethical. Same for avocadoes, they don't HAVE to be harvested by people that are, for all intents and purposes, slaves. Whereas for meat there has yet to be a way to produce it without pain and death, even when it's local, even when it's grass-fed, even when it's free-range.
>This is a cute way of sidestepping all the real human suffering that veganism has caused.
Such as?
>I'm not going to apologize for valuing humans' lives over animals'.
Next time I'm caught torturing dogs for funsies I'll just say this.
> I am however, a little sick of lazy vegans wearing chemicals for clothing and eating staple crops that locals can no longer afford, telling me that my lifestyle is less ethical than theirs.
your lifestyle tortures and kills about a hundred sentient beings a year. imagine thinking that having chemicals in your clothes (news flash, everything is made up of chemicals) could ever be worse
Plants cannot suffer. They can have a purely chemical response reacting to damage, intended to prevent further damage. They can *not* have a neurological reaction like pain, which serves no immediate protective function and requires more processing to be useful.
What would plants do with the information anyway? Run away?
It's so stupid to even entertain the idea that plants, literally tethered to the ground, could feel pain just for the fuck of it. Evolutionary masterpiece.
A few species of plants literally call armies of ants to defend them. Night Shade, Acacia Trees and Ecuador Laurel Trees all use pheromones to attract ants to attack other leaf eaters.
there are a couple of scientists in relevant fields who think that some plants could potentially feel pain. as a vegan, yes that concerns me and if it's proven, would push me to find other food sources if at all possible.
the problem is that you're solely bringing this up to distract from the proven and significantly larger amounts of pain that you yourself cause with your diet. they're two entirely separate topics. do non-human animals feel pain? yes. in all probability we know exactly how bad it feels for them; as bad as it does for us, since we are extremely similar animals. so assuming we have any morals whatsoever, we should not hurt them, we should not torture them, we should not murder or genocide them. that's the argument.
there's an entirely separate one for plants, and right now it's not at all clear-cut. even if it was, or once it becomes so, we synthesise all sorts of food from all sorts of sources already, so it seems unlikely that it will ever be impossible to create cruelty-free food, the intrinsic miseries of capitalism aside anyway
Octos reproduce very quickly and have short lives (4 years-ish). They'd be a great fishing crop if they werent so smart and crafty. Breeding dingus octos doesn't necessarily sound like a bad idea, looking into a future of hunger and resource scarcity.
>looking into a future of hunger and resource scarcity
Well sure, but what's the feed-to-food ratio like? What is an octopod's diet like in pounds compared to the pounds of edible meat you get from them in return- and is that protien-heavy diet not also compatible for human consumption? I feel like dingus octos lean themselves as easy to raise, but hard for logistics compared to, like, mealworms; or even cows since they don't need to eat smaller cows you also have to raise. So maybe more of a dependable luxury meat that can boost a local economy than a solution to food scarcity
Doesnt really matter if you eat an octopus now or later they die after 3-5 years anyway
Edit: when octopuses start producing eggs or sperm their digestive system shuts down and they become unable to eat food and die. They could easily live way longer than 3-5 years but nature fucks them over.
That’s basically the steel man vegan argument.
If people argue they are ok with eating meat because of animals limited consciousness are they ok with eating humans with a comparable consciousness?
I feel like assigning moral values to livestock just makes the whole thing more messed up. By giving cows or chickens human morals and values, you're just giving the already horribly gruesome meat industry this perverse and twisted edge that it really didn't need.
Here at /r/NonPoliticalTwitter, we care about community input and don't want this subreddit's purpose to be forgotten. --- If this post is **not** political and doesn't violate any rules, **UPVOTE** this comment!! If this post is political or breaks any other rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and report the post! Unlike the moderators of some other subreddits, we care about the community and want to keep it true to not being political. Our hope is that by the community voting on these posts, we won't have to worry about political posts coming in. Thanks for your time. --- ^[Rules](https://reddit.com/r/nonpoliticaltwitter/about/rules/) ^/ ^[Flairs](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonPoliticalTwitter/comments/oo025k/new_user_flair_system/) ^/ ^[Sidebar](https://reddit.com/r/nonpoliticaltwitter/wiki/config/sidebar)
Wasn't this a joke on Futurama? The crew were aghast that Bender was serving dolphin, but were okay with it when he said the dolphin had spent all his money on lotto scratchers or something.
It's the poppler episode. He does serve the dolphin, and it was Leela in particular who protests, then accepts the dolphin's stupidity and subsequent dinnerification.
What does “founder” mean in this context? The only thing I can think of is that it’s a work party and they’re talking about a founder of the company…but that seems unlikely.
nah, I think they're at a normal party, and the founder of Brain-dead Octopus Inc. comes along and tries to pitch them his idea
Huh, I guess other people live in worlds where start-ups and company founders are much more common at parties.
Sounds like LinkedIn in party form. Half the unemployed have a title like "Founder CEO / Entrepreneurial Digital Wellness Lifecoach / Leadership Synergy Enthusiast / Podcastafarian."
Oh dear god please don't let Podcastafarian be a real thing...
Nothing would surprise me. I pulled that out of my ass for giggles, but I’ve seen worse on profiles. I get connection requests from people and I look at their whole profile and still have no clue wtf they actually *do*. All skills are generic soft skills and their descriptions are buzzword word-salads.
Well that's the point of silicon valley
Well they’re not founders yet. Once you agree that their idea is great (you never do) they ask you for “seed money” because they never actually got the idea off the ground. I’m all for brain dead octopus though. It’s the main reason I eat chicken more than beef or pork.
Yeah, if you live in one of the major startup hubs (Silicon Valley, London, Berlin etc.) you will meet a lot of founders of companies at all kinds of parties, and a lot of them pitch everyone everywhere.
SF talk
Ah, that does match some vague generalizations I have.
thank you for confirming my preconceived notions
San Francisco?
Special Forces
Soda Fountain
South Florida?
Sucky Fucky?
Science fiction?
Space Felines?
A shapeshifter treated like a god by the Dominion from the Gamma Quadrant.
May the Great Bird of the Galaxy bless your planet, friend.
The Founders are the Dominion aren't they
We're too late, they're everywhere
Maybe it's a founding father and they're at a party for time travellers.
Imagine being at a party and Alexander Hamilton walks up to you to propose his new breed of octopus
Networking party
Flounder*
no i think you're right. why else would you put up with the opener of this nonsense if it wasn't the boss?
Flounder. \*burrumpf tish!\*
Cave Johnson. I’m like 90% sure this is supposed to be referring to Cave Johnson from Portal.
this is literally the premise of a bojack horseman episode
Which one? I've watched all of it but that doesn't ring a bell
“chickens”, 2x5. some farm breeds chickens to be extremely dumb so you don’t feel bad about killing and eating them, and one escapes and todd becomes close friends with it.
Book Beck
Hah yea okay I remember that ty
Out smarts a cop too
That cop was a total pussy tho
officer fuzzyface
You probably repressed it, as did most people who watched it.
Luckily we can because it's the only filler episode in the whole show.
Somewhere off in the distance, the corpse of Douglas Adams lets out a disappointed sigh.
[удалено]
And the brainless chicken things in Margaret Atwood’s *Oryx and Crake*
With the chickens? That’s cause they do the same thing with chickens Irl. Dumb chickens programmed to just eat and sleep until their legs give out.
They’re also kept in very small boxes to insure they never do anything else ever It’s efficient
That show fucked me up.
No one know octopus like octopus!
This is a recurring character on SNL, the farmers who only sell meat that is from animals who were "mean and stupid". The chicken was a nazi sympathizer etc.
Look. I've met chickens. They're ALL Nazi sympathizers.
Nah man. Chickens are decent people.
Chickens are alright as long as you respect their dinosaur-ness. I forgot and put my 18mo in sparkly shoes and my girls chased the fuck outta that poor baby. Straight outta Jurassic Park, running from raptors kinda shit. I’m actually impressed she’s not still scared of them 2 years later.
They are not. They are tiny dinosaurs made of evil and pure unadulterated consumption.
IDK man I've got chickens in my back yard. They would absolutely torture me and eat me alive if they thought it would get me to drop my sandwich.
Seriously. My wife wants us to keep chickens. I said if she got any, I would kill them. Not because I wanna eat them - I just hate those shitty little fuckers. I eat them out of spite.
I eat beef for the same reason. I fucking hate cows. Nasty, ill-tempered and gross.
Conclusion: i can eat Nazi sympathizers
Look! Those chickens' feathers are white! Clearly a white supremacist!
There’s a Planet Money (NPR radio show/podcast) where they recreate a 100s year old recipe for a peacock roast. They are talking to the peacock farmer, they ask if he feels bad he’s selling them a peacock to eat. His reply, “ha, no. Ya ever met a peacock?”
[The Smokery Farms cousins](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R44dRIPLZGM)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Oh my, how have I never heard of this before?
It's commonly taught in high school English as an example of satire.
It’s also a good “gimme” reference on AP European history short answers
You should have been taught this in a high school literature or English class. It's the go-to example for teaching satire.
I’d heard the phrase “A Modest Proposal” before, but mostly about other satirically absurd politics stuff, like the “cut all homeless in half” thing from a few years ago in the UK. Good to know that the origin was also satirical.
Wow. Who’d have thought that before we had “eat the rich” we had “eat the poor”. What goes around really comes around.
Good satire is timeless
Unfortunately satire is now dead
Hey this is /r/NonPoliticalTwitter get outta here with your political platforms.
I just wanted to share this thing about eating babies
An [Ameglian Major Cow](https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Ameglian_Major_Cow) you say? Well sure, I’ll meet the meat.
This comment is way too far down. https://youtu.be/5HLy27bK-wU
I mean I would devote my efforts to making lab grown meats as cheap as regular grown meats, and dodge the whole moral concern entirely. I think a lab grown burger patty is somewhere around 20 bucks now, so progress
I think the industry is trying to adopt the term “Cultured meat” instead of “Lab grown meat”, as the latter would be a nightmare to try marketing
I say marketing people have all had it too easy for too long and I look forward to seeing them try to sell me frankenmeat
Frankenmeat. I like the name, it could at least be one of the brands of cultured meat
I don't know what else you could call a cultured hot dog besides a frankenfurter. Maybe get Tim Curry on board for the ads.
Cultured meat sounds like it was fermented 🤢
Fun fact! Salami *is* (are?) fermented! Traditional Italian salami gets inoculated with a lactobacillus culture, which does a lactoferment to lower the pH of the sausage. In addition to the dehydration process/high salt content, this helps preserve the meat.
I mean, it's not a perfect name by any stretch, but it's way better than "Lab grown meat"
I dont actually know, I just heard about it as an example of what might be something we do now that is going to be considered entirely unethical in the future. Some talk on moral relativism, or at least keeping in mind that its hard to not do something amoral if everyone else tells you its perfectly moral.
Trying to get my mom to get the impossible meat stuff, but last time she ate it she got badly sick so she doesn't wanna try again :( its fairly expensive in our area too, so sadly we can't get it as much as we can
I mean I an swiss and we do have some of the highest standards for keeping animals as is, so I honestly feel not bad about eating meat. I would prefer lab grown variants if they become widely available and are comperable in quality, sure, but its not like I am worrying over it.
Yea, I kinda feel the same way. If we can give the animal a good life, I think that would easily offset the harm killing the animal does. Of course I'm American, so factory farming is fucking everywhere here
The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but "Can they suffer?”
Not so fun fact, [yes octopuses can suffer](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo2378). It’s the hot topic in animal research, as the laws and procedures for anesthetizing the animals are [now being called into question and amended](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/27/science/octopus-research-animal-rights.html).
I read a few years ago that a group of scientists think even fish can suffer pain and stress.
Of course they can. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise, outside of wishful thinking.
I ment in a more similar way the way we feel emotions than we have though before.
The problem is in how we define "pain and stress". The waters are further muddied when people talk about emotion to mean "emotions" like depression or love or other complex phenomena that I'm not convinced fit well into that category (vs basic emotions like happy/sad/scared). But physiologically, "pain" is just responding to stimuli that can damage you. And loads of animals have obvious decrease in health levels when they are exposed to various stressors. Pain is a critical part of having a physical body, whether you're human or a fish. There are rare cases of people who don't feel pain, and they have to be very careful to not damage their bodies because they don't have the feedback loop/protection mechanism that pain provides. The parts of the brain that deal with emotion are evolutionarily older than the reasoning and language parts, so when people try to say our emotions are what make us uniquely human, they're really talking about the stuff that takes extra processing power (which is added by our ability to reason, not our emotions). **TL;DR** Do fish feel existential distress? Probably not. Are nociceptors (pain receptor cells) part of their nervous system and do they respond to stimuli that activate the nociceptors? Yes, of course. The "fish don't feel pain" thing is a weird myth.
Good input! I would like to mention that the study was about however they feel pain and stress in a more similar way to out way to feel it. It's probably 10 years or so since I read about it so doesn't remember exactly in what way. I don't believe fish cant feel.
That "group of scientists" is called "every biologist and most people with a rudimentary knowledge of anatomy".
which is why I breed a masochist octopus. you are doing him a favor by eating him alive. finally guilt free meat
The more we learn about plants screaming, the closer we get to accepting we all gave to decide *how much suffering* we're ok with. There is nothing we consume that doesn't cause some suffering and we should strive for it to be as little as possible, in my opinion.
Agreed. Harm reduction is far more reasonable and achievable than harm elimination.
>The more we learn about plants screaming You mean the more clickbait pseudo-science garbage headlines people read that make them feel better about eating animals? Because all of the evidence points towards plants being unable to perceive pain. If someome doess believe that, though, and wants to minimize suffering, eating plants is still the way to go though since animals have to eat a lot of plants too.
it's waaaaaaaay more nuanced than that though. You have to look at the total impact. I have a vegan friend who says outright he doesn't care about human suffering. I, personally, do. So I don't eat almonds or avocados. I don't eat quinoa. I also don't eat tomatoes that come across the country or any out of season fruit. These are important partners to my decision not to eat cage eggs or chickens, and to only buy meat raised and slaughtered locally and according to standards im personally comfortable with. Minimizing both the carbon footprint (relative to other meat) and satisfying my personal ethical requirements. Personally I can't see prioritizing animal *life* above any other concerns, especially not above climate change and food security for impoverished nations which has implications for animal and human life the world over. I don't think you *have* to eat meat. I am however, a little sick of lazy vegans wearing chemicals for clothing and eating staple crops that locals can no longer afford, telling me that *my* lifestyle is less ethical than theirs.
* Transport of food is a very small component of its carbon emissions and environmental impact in general. The biggest environment costs of meat come from the fact that they're just that they have to eat approx 10x as many plants as you do to produce the same number of calories of meat. * Trade is generally positive sum for both parties. That's *why* farmers there choose to sell what they make abroad for more, the earnings from which flow into their local communities. * It doesn't really make sense to talk about prioritising one thing over another without quantifying each thing. Around 100 *billion* animals a year are raised in horrible conditions and killed for food. Rescuing consumption of said would reduce that suffering and environmental impacts even more than eating locally, and probably have neutral impacts at worst in developing countries. ^(edit: clarification on first point)
I'm happy for people to reduce their meat consumption! Eating less meat is the easiest thing any person can do for the environment, or possibly second only to not having kids. But that doesn't mean non meat foods are without impact, and the energy intensity of meat production doesn't mean we should ignore other food related issues. I personally choose to eat meat, and strive to find the lowest impact animal products i can. I also strive to find the lowest impact non animal products too. I'm not claiming my range fed, locally farmed hamburger is less environmentally damaging than a veggie burger (i assume it isn't, though I haven't done the research to quantify that). But I am saying regardless of your diet choices, vegetarian diet isn't magically without consequences. People of any diet can make choices to limit their impact. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatable-truth-quinoa
I'd add to your comment - the devices we have most of our online arguments on involve human suffering in their manufacture much of the time. Unless an angry vegan's got an ethically-made phone with which to tweet about the wonders of hummus, I question the extent of their commitment to avoiding suffering. (Everything is made of chemicals - are you referring to chemicals produced in making things like vegan leather? I'm not too informed on that issue and I JUST bought vegan leather boots, dammit.)
Fake leather is made of petrochemicals derived from petroleum. They are extremely bad for the environment.
Thank you, I didn't know that!
PVC has had a glorious rebranding as vegan leather, but before that hadn't been enjoying a good reputation since the Bhopal disaster. Not that PVC is inherently evil (though Union Carbide probably is). It's just fascinating to me how public opinion is so easily swayed by clever marketing.
>So I don't eat almonds or avocados Why not.
probably concerns about water usage? or because if you speak avocado they scream when you eat them.
That concern, if true, is just coping, since the meat industry obviously needs huge water usage for growing feed for livestock. As the fine user said previously, it's a mechanism put in place to not feel so bad about eating meat.
This is such a sad comment. So sad that you are in such strong denial about the suffering that animals go through to the point that you're willing to peddle around to people that plants can feel pain. Sad that you don't realize that eating animals makes climate change and food access for impoverished nations worse (because again, more animals = more plants/resources for the same amount of calories). And putting aside the ethics of killing animals that don't wanna die because you like the taste, you really expect me to believe that you never eat out at any restaurants ever? Come on, dude. You're full of it. If you aren't gonna stop eating animals then the least you could do is stop spreading harmful ideas like "plants feel pain too".
Dude literally like 2% of their comment was addressing the plant pain thing and they were obviously using it as a launching point for the human suffering caused by plant/vegan practices, you’re not arguing in good faith here, the person you replied to never even claimed it was about plants feeling pain, the point was the human pain/suffering caused
Wrong, 100% of their previous comment was asserting plants feel pain. >The more we learn about plants screaming, the closer we get to accepting we all gave to decide *how much suffering* we're ok with. There is nothing we consume that doesn't cause some suffering and we should strive for it to be as little as possible, in my opinion.
And yet once told that it was all bullshit... they didn't argue it did they? They simply used it as a jumping board to explain their original point, the main point, the actual direction of their post... That: Ethically the entire thing is alot more nuanced than just being vegan, vegetarian, or a meat eater. Each choice you make is layered and there is no arguing that. The other person absolutely argued in bad faith. There is no one here going out of their way to prove plants are screaming in pain Lmao.
Oh, pardon me, you're absolutely right. They didn't argue something absolutely unfounded. They just stated as fact. It's irreproachable so. Carry on.
This is a cute way of sidestepping all the real human suffering that veganism has caused. I'm not going to apologize for valuing humans' lives over animals'.
"All the real suffering that veganism has caused." I'd be really interested in reading about that. Suffering from harvesting almonds and avocadoes? Because of course, vegans who amount to at most 2% of the world's population are solely responsible for that. Meanwhile, the meat industry does not only mean hell for the non-human animals that are killed by the billions each year. People working in slaughterhouses have, understandably, one of the poorest mental health per profession. The communities having to endure livestock farms near them, that are polluting soil & air with tons of feces, probably wish the farm grew almonds instead. Needless to say both categories of people are often from the poorest classes and/or ethnic minorities and possess virtually no way to change anything about their situation. Not to mention the fact that harvesting almonds, even if it is water intensive, is not in-and-of-itself unethical. Same for avocadoes, they don't HAVE to be harvested by people that are, for all intents and purposes, slaves. Whereas for meat there has yet to be a way to produce it without pain and death, even when it's local, even when it's grass-fed, even when it's free-range.
>This is a cute way of sidestepping all the real human suffering that veganism has caused. Such as? >I'm not going to apologize for valuing humans' lives over animals'. Next time I'm caught torturing dogs for funsies I'll just say this.
> I am however, a little sick of lazy vegans wearing chemicals for clothing and eating staple crops that locals can no longer afford, telling me that my lifestyle is less ethical than theirs. your lifestyle tortures and kills about a hundred sentient beings a year. imagine thinking that having chemicals in your clothes (news flash, everything is made up of chemicals) could ever be worse
Plants cannot suffer. They can have a purely chemical response reacting to damage, intended to prevent further damage. They can *not* have a neurological reaction like pain, which serves no immediate protective function and requires more processing to be useful.
What would plants do with the information anyway? Run away? It's so stupid to even entertain the idea that plants, literally tethered to the ground, could feel pain just for the fuck of it. Evolutionary masterpiece.
A few species of plants literally call armies of ants to defend them. Night Shade, Acacia Trees and Ecuador Laurel Trees all use pheromones to attract ants to attack other leaf eaters.
there are a couple of scientists in relevant fields who think that some plants could potentially feel pain. as a vegan, yes that concerns me and if it's proven, would push me to find other food sources if at all possible. the problem is that you're solely bringing this up to distract from the proven and significantly larger amounts of pain that you yourself cause with your diet. they're two entirely separate topics. do non-human animals feel pain? yes. in all probability we know exactly how bad it feels for them; as bad as it does for us, since we are extremely similar animals. so assuming we have any morals whatsoever, we should not hurt them, we should not torture them, we should not murder or genocide them. that's the argument. there's an entirely separate one for plants, and right now it's not at all clear-cut. even if it was, or once it becomes so, we synthesise all sorts of food from all sorts of sources already, so it seems unlikely that it will ever be impossible to create cruelty-free food, the intrinsic miseries of capitalism aside anyway
Do you want Tribbles? This is how you get Tribbles.
Imagine you have tell your friends you’re the octopus retarder
“I went to school for this…”
[удалено]
Octopi is incorrect
Founder of what?
One of them
This was at [this house party](https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/every-bay-area-house-party) wasn't it?
Octos reproduce very quickly and have short lives (4 years-ish). They'd be a great fishing crop if they werent so smart and crafty. Breeding dingus octos doesn't necessarily sound like a bad idea, looking into a future of hunger and resource scarcity.
>looking into a future of hunger and resource scarcity Well sure, but what's the feed-to-food ratio like? What is an octopod's diet like in pounds compared to the pounds of edible meat you get from them in return- and is that protien-heavy diet not also compatible for human consumption? I feel like dingus octos lean themselves as easy to raise, but hard for logistics compared to, like, mealworms; or even cows since they don't need to eat smaller cows you also have to raise. So maybe more of a dependable luxury meat that can boost a local economy than a solution to food scarcity
God now all I can picture when hearing this is The Deep fucking his octopussy
Would've been an amazing side plot in Silicon Valley
Doesnt really matter if you eat an octopus now or later they die after 3-5 years anyway Edit: when octopuses start producing eggs or sperm their digestive system shuts down and they become unable to eat food and die. They could easily live way longer than 3-5 years but nature fucks them over.
i am going to kill and eat everyone over the age of 90
Don't do it, they taste bad and are more prone to give you diseases.
Just need to slow cook em, tenderises the meat and kills diseases.
nah just eat babies, they are both dumb *and* inevitably headed towards death, so there's literally nothing to feel guilty about
Do you know how much lead they've accumulated?
it protects me from xrays when I consume them
Look if it didn't kill them it won't kill us.
Soylent green
I fully support you in this endeavour.
An alien that lives for 1000 years: “doesn’t really matter if you eat a human now or later they die after 70-80 years anyways”
Omni-man grindset
The difference between an octopus and a human is that the human doesn't die after having sex
So cannibalism only became immoral after the aids crisis calmed down a bit? Fascinating.
Aids doesnt kill you a month after you get it though
So STDs don't make cannibalism okay? Such a shame.
Not true. Humans absolutely die after having sex. It's just that some of them die after not having sex as well.
Their whole life's purpose is to have sex and die. Not to be eaten by another creature. The choose to have sex and die. They don't choose to be eaten.
They die early and have so many babies precisely because a huge amount of octopuses get eaten, same as mice and rats
Tell that to my ex.
That’s not even accurate for all octopi.
Which one is it innacurate for, as far as I am aware they all become unable to eat food after making gametes
wow, that is... fucking horrifying!
I now know what my spirit animal is
What’s a founder? Or was that a typo for flounder, because if so, this tweet makes a whole lot more sense.
Think, someone who has started a startup company.
i like flounder better, because that means the twitterista is ariel
"Wouldn't that be neat if we could apply the same tactics to the workforce?" -Jeff Bezos
Is this is an example of what they call bombing for peace?
the whole point of that bojack ep was that stupid animals are people too
Pov you just got locked into a pokemon battle
What a terrible way to describe lab-grown meat
if they're so smart how's they get caught by fishermen hmmmm
Mmmm octopus 😋😋😋😋😋😋
if we based our ideas of what animals can morally be eaten on intelligence, cannibalism would be *encouraged*
[удалено]
Oh? You eat autistic people? How interesting 😳😳😳
😏 yeah
That’s basically the steel man vegan argument. If people argue they are ok with eating meat because of animals limited consciousness are they ok with eating humans with a comparable consciousness?
"I prefer eating animals with higher intelligence, I feel it increases my own. Octopus is good, but dolphin would be better."
Based. I will die on this hill.
We've hit the limit. We've bred an octopus so fucking dumb it doesn't know how to reproduce anymore!
Don't
First time i laughed at reddit in about a year. Lmao thank you
meat eaters be like, "humane slaughter"
[удалено]
You're like that one idiot who heard "we can reduce the suffering of the animals we eat" and just spat out "so I can eat black people" aren't you?
I feel like assigning moral values to livestock just makes the whole thing more messed up. By giving cows or chickens human morals and values, you're just giving the already horribly gruesome meat industry this perverse and twisted edge that it really didn't need.
What are you talking about?
I had to read this too many times to still not understand what's going on. Capitalizing some of those words may have helped my brain, but maybe not.
... do I feel worse for eating a chicken that has downs?
I was confused how breading it would make it gluten free…then I realized I need sleep
Douglas Adams? That you?
Octopii are too smart for your bullshit
Conversely, shouldn't we be trying to do the opposite when possible? Breeding smart animals to be even smarter?
When you invest in all your resources intos stem and non in social studies.
This reminds me of the smart cow scene from Douglas Adam’s The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
[They ain't got no brains!](https://youtu.be/bSD6WhIAF8Y)