Is it okay to eat meat? Peter Singer tackles the best objections against vegetarianism

Is it okay to eat one hamburger per year? Is it acceptable to eat a hamburger made from a ‘happy cow’? In this interview with Katrien Devolder (philosophy, Oxford), Peter Singer (Princeton, Melbourne) tackles the best objections to vegetarianism

[@dfleischman]

Questions with timestamps 0:11 - Do the economics of supply and demand make it futile to be a vegetarian? 2:05 - Is it better to eat meat from a happy cow i.e. eat a cow that is produced and slaughtered humanely? 3:45 - economic arguments make the case that if people stop buying meat the price of meat will go down, does this make being a vegetarian futile? 5:34 -One estimate says 25X more animals die in the production of plant protein than meat production of grass fed animals, does this make being a vegetarian unethical? 8:15 - Would it be ethical to use gene editing to make livestock who don't feel pain? 9:21 - Wouldn't using gene editing to reduce suffering increase meat consumption? 10:36 - Do you think schools should only offer vegetarian or vegan foods as this might be a way to steer children towards eating less meat? 11:23 - Do you think people are reluctant to do this [offer vegetarian meals to children in schools] because they are concerned about the health of the children? 12:24 - Do you think we should protect certain animals more than others? 13:26 - Should we grant legal rights to the most intelligent animals? Legal rights along the lines of basic human rights. 15:07 - In the future it may be possible to eat in vitro meat, meat created in a laboratory, would it be ok to eat that? 15:38 - Is it ok to eat insects? 17:05 - Jeff McMahan has argued that we should prevent the pain and suffering of wild animals, what do you think about that? 17:39 - Kagan has argued that if we could make fish smarter, like through gene editing, we should. Do you agree with this? 18:31 - You've argued for impartiality but when is ok to be impartial? Let's say you have a pill that could prevent the same amount of pain in your child or in a chimpanzee would it be ok to give it to your child? 20:25 - Could you give people concerned about animal suffering some practical advice? Many find it difficult and overwhelming to avoid products that cause suffering like palm oil- If we want to be careful, what should we do?

[@PracticalEthicsChannel]

Thanks for this!

[@MichaelLopresto]

Thank you, Diana! Very useful.

[@bayesianprior2709]

@sentientist, it should be Jeff McMahan at 17:05, not "Mann"

[@dfleischman]

Thanks, I fixed it.

[@israelgonzalez8703]

Awesome Diana! We all appreciate your time.

[@M3Lucky]

The interviewer is Katrien Devolder, a philosophy research fellow working at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. Though it'd be important or interesting for viewers to know.

[@MithiSevilla]

Thank you. She's asking really intelligent questions.

[@ivoryistorm]

it'd hmm wtf

[@johnwilkins11]

@@ivoryistorm it would

[@bluepeter3470]

I have worked for years on a intensive pig farm I'm retired now and can tell you please people don't buy pigmeat. I wish I got out of the profession earlier but I tried to be as kind as I could to the animals. But I can't make any excuse. Please god forgive me.

[@kalechips5972]

pretty sure god has wiped out more animals then you so you should be fine lol

[@arunshankars8398]

If slaughterhouses had glass walls, the world would be vegan.

[@bluepeter3470]

Kale Chips hello Thank you for your kind comment.

[@aurora9252]

I bet you still eat bacon you savage

[@Azarilh]

@@arunshankars8398 Nope. A lot of people see how they work and still won't go vegan. :/

[@DrReginaldFinleySr]

I interviewed Dr. Singer in 2003. He was such an articulate, honest, and fair guest. He's refined some beliefs and arguments since then and I am happy that he has. I wasn't vegan then, but I am now going into my 7th year. Good interview.

[@arunshankars8398]

So, what turned you vegan ?

[@Targeted_1ndividual]

@@arunshankars8398 the plight of man

[@MrJeffreyromain]

So what I’m hearing, and kindly correct me if I am mistaken, is that depopulation and transhumanism are inextricably connected with animal-free diets? How interesting!

[@walterbenjamin1386]

The choice to not eat meat doesn't necessarily have to be grounded in activism. I still have to live with myself, my conscience and my relationship with animals.

[@globemaster67]

straight answers to straight questions, thank you Prof Singer!

[@trollystomper9044]

I didn’t hear a lot of straight answers… I heard a lot of “well I think”

[@mkkrupp2462]

Calm, empathic common sense.

[@MatticusPrime1]

I like the format of this interview. It's good to challenge our beliefs with the best counter arguments.

[@rahtsnake144]

around 70% of people think they're buying "ethical" animal products, while over 95% of animal products come from factory farm situations. just leave animals alone. it's all marketing, they will say whatever they have to to get you to buy the carnage.

[@bdnnijs192]

"just leave animals alone. it's all marketing, they will say whatever they have to to get you to buy the carnage." Vegan products are off course an exception. Vegan products are actually as animal friendly and healthy as claimed by marketing departments. "who are we to take that from them for a meal?...how could someone who knows all the facts still contribute to this injustice?" 'We' in this context are people who wish to survive. "Someone' are vegans and non-vegans alike. They actually mentioned crop-deaths for grains in the video. "is taking the life of a happy animal, taking away their happiness, ethical?...I don't know and i can't comprehend it." That's a very honest statement. Sadly it seems you have strong opinions about other people despite not quite grasping their position. I think you do comprehend, when you realise vegans downplay or ignore the suffering required to bring a vegan meal on their plates. The same act that makes non-vegans into 'monsters' makes vegans 'not perfect'. Not-perfect is off course code for 'monsters'. Unless you admit vegans are 'monsters' prioritising their meal over the life of a happy animal, then you actually uniquely understand non-vegans. The villain considers himself the hero of their story. Vegans are no different.

[@jasondashney]

I buy free range organic eggs. Much more expensive but it makes me feel like a bit less of a monster (and yes, I know what "free range" actually means as far as their living conditions go)

[@rahtsnake144]

@@jasondashney what's stopping you from giving up the cruel product completely?

[@nishan375]

Clarity and honesty is so refreshing. Thankyou Prof 🙏

[@terrapinsfan16]

Incredibly compelling argument. I've tried to find arguments on the other side this strong and they simply do not exist.

[@godlessheathen100]

To be clear, "the other side" is not "eating animals is positively moral." It is "the acquisition of food is not necessarily a moral question." Or, more directly, Hume's Is-Ought Problem is unresolvable in cases such as this.

[@nathanielg.m.888]

@@godlessheathen100 If you have a plant option, it is immoral to choose the meat option for taste pleasure. I can go even further and say that it also positively moral to pick the plant option because a whole food plant based diet is the only scientifically proven diet to reduce mortality and improve your health.

[@godlessheathen100]

@@nathanielg.m.888 This is only a claim. How does one establish the moral value of an action to support the claim that "x is immoral?" Metaethics interests me. Normative ethics not so much.

[@nathanielg.m.888]

@@godlessheathen100 "Drowning babies is wrong" is also a claim. Do we need to have an in-depth metaethical discussion for you to refrain from drowning babies?

[@godlessheathen100]

@@nathanielg.m.888 As a matter of fact, yes. ANY moral claim requires more than an intuitional response to justify it. (I am familiar with the "drowning baby" scenario as put forth by Singer.)

[@HUSKSUPPE]

Is this Singer's personal office? As a somewhat young man, it is astounding to me how well-read some people are and how much knowledge they must possess.

[@sawtoothiandi]

do not be intimidated by the speculative knowledge of others. it is possible to be well-read so-called but still be deluded, just look at theology (duck!)

[@Skurian_krotesk]

@@sawtoothiandi did you get that from Tim Minchin by any chance. xD

[@sawtoothiandi]

@@Skurian_krotesk nope, i think it came from my own brain, unless i heard it sometime, forgot i heard it, and then thought i thought of it

[@Skurian_krotesk]

@@sawtoothiandi that sounds quite reasonable to be honest. :D I think you might enjoy him though! Check out the british comedian Tim minchin.

[@sawtoothiandi]

@@Skurian_krotesk will do Krotesk!

[@HammerFitness1]

LOVE this! If it would be possible to get both Shelly and Peter on at the same time, I would pay to contribute to that interaction!

[@ethicalphytophage]

Professor Singer is my hero, on this topic that is. Amazing ideas.

[@CarnevalOne]

only an idiot believes cow farts pollute the planet...you have to be reeeeeeeealy stupid to believe this nonsense.

[@marksydney3247]

@@johnwilkins11 maybe we should cull about 7.3 billion humans as I pretty certain that we add a smidge more to pollution

[@johnwilkins11]

@@marksydney3247 The options here are either- stop killing about 2.7 trillion sentient beings per year or kill about 7.3 billion humans per year. Both will produce a similar outcome. Tough choice.

[@Sprite_525]

Mark Sydney - false choice. The true choice: humans eat meals either by: 1-killing something that had a nervous system then eating that nervous system, or 2-not killing & eating that nervous system. The issue of killing people or not is separate from how we eat meals. Why? Because People eat vegetarian to avoid pollution AND to avoid eating sentient beings. Before I explain why that solves the issue, I want To be fair to you since you point is true in the following way: if vegetarians cared about “pollution only,” this logic could easily lead to the absurd conclusion that murdering humans en-masse is ethical. Thankfully, vegetarians have far more than this 1 reason for their dietary choice. Therefore, the absurd conclusion is canceled out by having other reasons that are too humanitarian and compassionate to endorse homocide.

[@lwmaynard5180]

The aboriginal peoples of Australia would have died off with no meats in their diet in a tough arid environment. Also other races use parts of animals for clothing tools, foot wear etc . Singer playing god by cultural butchery . 👎👎👥

[@wadayaduin5517]

Ethical, financial, environmental, nutritional, medical, logical.....pick your favorite.

[@donaldanderson6578]

Yep

[@adammonks591]

Lol, lies

[@collinskocmoc8888]

Do not buy global food from monocultures! Better go hungry!

[@bdnnijs192]

Coherent.

[@StenUustalu]

I did quit meat 11 years ago for consciousness, mental clarity and controlling impulsive animal behaviour like sexual urges. All other reasons came naturally afterwards

[@haytonthomas]

This man makes so much sense! Hard to argue with any of that. Nicely conducted interview. Thumbs up!

[@wadayaduin5517]

How can it be futile to do the right thing?

[@aurora9252]

Complacency. The idea is to be born without the notion of eating animals.

[@02nf2i]

I credit Singer’s famous book, “Animal Liberation” with awakening me from my dogmatic slumber as a middle-schooler and convincing me to become a vegetarian. It also increased my awareness of environmental issues and ethics generally. Thank you, professor Singer, for tackling one of the most urgent issues of our time.

[@misterflak863]

Same thing for me with "The Life You Can Save"!!

[@petter3995]

Vegetarianism makes no sense.

[@HexxyEEE]

just go vegan dude

[@HexxyEEE]

@Stratos I horrrrrrible strawman lol. wtf are you on about? also, source:trust me bro. I forgot this internet troll is more well read than Singer, he has 20 years experience!

[@HexxyEEE]

@Stratos I do you know what sarcasm is? i was making fun of you saying you had "20yrs philosophy experience" and that Singer was "third or fourth rate" when he has a pHD and is a renowned utilitarian and moral realist... also, by definition, it WAS a strawman. you equated me saying to go vegan that I somehow implied I want little kids to starve and die by not eating eggs (weird argument anyway, considering most of the population can go vegan and survive fine) so yes, you created a strawman and misrepresented what I said to say "gotcha!" which didn't work because I know, you know, and everyone else reading this knows you dont have 20yrs of "experience" (which could mean literally anything)

[@AKhanboxing]

the interviewer is also great, asking some killer questions

[@serdikos]

Great questions

[@Gaardofit]

Peter singer very calm, collected and great discussion between these 2 individuals

[@PracticalEthicsChannel]

Glad you like the interview - thanks for the encouraging comment!

[@JamesADavies]

Excellent interview and supreme points made by Peter Singer.

[@vascoamaralgrilo]

Great interview, thanks to both!

[@PracticalEthicsChannel]

Thank you for the positive feedback!!

[@aric85]

Great questions, great answers!

[@DoktorTaiko]

The first time I heard of Prof. Singer was in middle school. Back then we were talking about one of his more extreme quotes out of context (the teacher wasn't bad, the topic was to look at quotes out of context and learn how easy it is to misunderstand context). I am really happy to have listened to him directly now. He seemed much more reflective and considered of the bigger picture than those few quotes I've heard of him so far made it seem. That just shows ones more that one shouldn't believe everything blindly and always try to listen to all partys directly. Thanks for uploading such a good interview. I really enjoyed the variety of questions and feel like this is one of the interviews that actually gives you quality arguments rather than just trying to create an opinion. Prof. Singer does a great job at just describing the world in a relatable way instead of forcing an opinion.

[@jeremiah5319]

The first time I saw Peter Singer interviewed he made me physically ill. I guess I'm just not one to desire sex with a dog as he was describing. He was okay with it, but it made me sick just to hear him talk about it. But it did make me wonder, with as 'normal' as he made it seem, how many people have sex with their dogs? Is that a common thing where you live?

[@thijssmudde]

Its crazy that these questions have to be answered, because the answers are so obvious.

[@Crazytesseract]

You cannot kill innocent animals and GET AWAY WITH IT. vedabase.io/en/ Read Srimad Bhagavatam, the essence of all ancient Vedic literature, here in English. The only source of real knowledge, the highest level of philosophy and genuine ethics in this age. THE TOPMOST SOURCE OF SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE. Read it. You have nothing to lose.

[@Phoenix-King-ozai]

@@Crazytesseract You are an indian ? Or a Hare Krishna ?

[@Crazytesseract]

@@Phoenix-King-ozai The eternal soul is neither Indian, nor Chinese, American, Portuguese, Peruvian... So, don't worry about that. You can say I'm the second one!

[@Phoenix-King-ozai]

@@Crazytesseract it was a simple question because I was curious I wasn't judging you or anything I asked because i am an indian we are born into it I am happy and intrigued to meet a hare Krishna Yes, i read most of iskcon's books Including the bhagavatam, the gita and others So were you a christian who converted or were you born into it ?

[@Crazytesseract]

@@Phoenix-King-ozai I am Indian. भारतीय हूँ। हरे कृष्ण। Keep reading Bhagavatam!!!

[@foustegars671]

One of the best pro vegan interviews I've ever seen

[@JohnFisherChoir]

very excellent questions, this is a refreshing video rather than the usual old objections that are wheeled out. very interesting!

[@katriendevolder956]

Thanks! :-)

[@globemaster67]

Agree!

[@vimalkirti4845]

human is on spiritual journey to the highest level - towards vegan

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

This video needs 7 billion more viewers.

[@blastoirs]

Great questions by the interviewer

[@Im-not-alone-Im-full-of-myself]

00:00:00 - 00:20:00 Peter Singer addresses objections to vegetarianism that suggest individual food choices have no impact on the supply chain. He argues that, collectively, a reduction in meat demand can have an effect, even if an individual's choice alone may not. Singer also disputes the ethical argument for consuming grass-fed meat, noting the environmental impact and suffering involved. He advocates for lab-grown meat and insects as alternatives and emphasizes the importance of impartiality in making ethical decisions. Ultimately, Singer suggests that avoiding factory-farmed animal products can greatly reduce animal suffering and contribute to a more ethical world. 00:00:00 In this section, Peter Singer tackles objections that suggest it is pointless for individuals to be vegetarians since meat production is not sensitive to demand. Singer argues that an individual must act on the expected value of their decision to go vegetarian, using probabilities as their guide for life. Therefore, even though a single person's avoidance of chicken may not significantly affect the supply chain, it is expected that collectively, a reduction in meat demand can have an effect. Singer acknowledges that animals with a happy life are better to eat than those who were made to suffer, but it is still necessary to consider broader factors, such as transport and climate change impact. Finally, Singer addresses the economic argument around the price of meat and explains that a critical mass of people avoiding meat may enable the growth of a market for plant-based alternatives. 00:05:00 In this section, Peter Singer addresses the argument that it is more ethical to consume grass-fed meat than to be a vegetarian because fewer small animals are killed in grain production. He explains that this argument only applies to completely grass-fed meat which is not the majority of Australian beef. Additionally, animal agriculture contributes to greenhouse gases, and there is still suffering involved in the production of grass-fed meat due to the conditions in which animals are rounded up and transported before slaughter. Singer suggests that gene-editing to eliminate the animals' ability to feel pain would be a preferable situation to the current one, but there are still environmental reasons to eliminate the meat industry. Moreover, he argues that reforms in animal welfare have not resulted in increased meat consumption in the past. 00:10:00 In this section, Singer discusses the impact of meat consumption and the possible increase in acceptance of vegetarian and vegan foods following the reforms to EU meat regulations in 2010. He suggests that schools should serve vegetarian or vegan food when possible, although governments may be hesitant to get ahead of where the population is in terms of their readiness for this shift in diet. He disputes concerns about the health of children following a vegetarian or vegan diet, stating that they can be nourished perfectly well on such diets with enough care taken to meet their nutritional needs. Singer also argues for the protection of all animals that can suffer, with focus on the closest relatives of humans, great apes, receiving legal rights. 00:15:00 In this section, philosopher Peter Singer discusses the possibility of consuming lab-grown meat and insects, and how much we know about their possible consciousness. Singer argues that lab-grown meat could be a good alternative since there would be no suffering involved, it would be environmentally cleaner, and it could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, he notes that when it comes to eating insects, we still don't know enough about their consciousness, and he hopes that we will learn more about the possibility of them being conscious. Additionally, Singer agrees in principle about preventing the pain and suffering of wild animals and making fish smarter through gene editing, but he notes that it depends on the context and whether it would have other bad consequences. Lastly, Singer discusses the importance of impartiality, arguing that it's okay to be partial when it comes to making decisions between things that are of equal value, such as choosing to give a painkiller to your child instead of a chimpanzee. 00:20:00 In this section, Peter Singer gives practical advice to those concerned about animal suffering and how they can make a difference with their food choices. While avoiding certain products like palm oil and choosing whether to buy organic or not may be separate concerns, Singer considers the biggest single thing someone can do is to avoid factory-farmed animal products such as chicken, pork, eggs, and beef. Doing so can greatly reduce animal suffering and contribute to a more ethical world.

[@Phoenix-King-ozai]

The extent to which Men would go to justify their burger

[@datagril8855]

To add upon Singer’s answer to the question about vegetarianism bringing down the price of meat, which would in turn make more people buy meat (3:45): The subsequent demand increase will be lower than the initial demand decrease. Eventually, the expected decrease in demand wouldn’t be equal to the amount of animal foods not eaten by vegans, but rather a fraction of that amount, like 0.8 or 0.9 (rather than 1). The exact fraction would depend on the elasticity of demand of said product. Of course, in many countries animal products are seen as basic goods are under price control, so it may change the analysis.

[@jonbbaca5580]

In major cities, we could absolutely survive without meat, eggs, milk or cheese. But do you not understand that there are places, many places on this earth that don't have refrigeration that truly rely on animal protien like meat, eggs, milk, cheese and other animal products that can be preserved for major calories and protien for long winter months? These animals are essential to them, mostly the poorest people in the world!

[@moobengy]

Enjoyed this. They were discussing the idea of eating animals that couldn't feel pain, like it was an actual thing. Funny.

[@ZambeziKid]

It is theoretically possible. Think about it in the human context. It is possible to give birth to babies that are extremely mentally disabled. I am not sure if zero mental function exists but it must be close. Now imagine u could feed that child and then inseminste it w the semen of a similar male.

[@mmmmmmmmmmmmfood]

except we know that virtually all animals feel pain

[@irish_deconstruction]

Such a notion could some day become a reality through gene editing, which is what they were talking about.

[@jmahalekshmymenon9309]

What marks him out as truly sui generis from other academics is his practical and also transdisciplinary approach in his relentless mission to reduce suffering, and he therefore daringly asks to face questions which are in the domain of economics, law, nutrition, animal welfare, animal husbandry, agriculture, finance, accountancy, environmental sciences, behavioural economics etc., etc....in addition to his own home area namely philosophy. He therefore exemplifies 'consilience' : a favourite concept of the Darwin of this century and father of Biodiversity E.O.Wilson.

[@Knight766]

A lot of these arguments can also be transferred to other industries, namely Alcoholic drinks manufacturers.

[@elenaserrato5558]

I think it's the same use about organic and palm oil becouse implicate less animals be harmful in indirected way.

[@MrRyanholder]

If conciousness is a measure of the capacity of suffering, and our ethical goal is to reduce suffering, should we strive to reduce conciousness?

[@PracticalEthicsChannel]

This is an interesting question! Some have argued that it'd be preferable to produce animals that lack consciousness (sometimes described as animal disenhancement).

[@happygimp0]

You mean kill every animal on earth? That is called negative utilitarianism. Most utilitarians argue that well being is something positive, suffering is something negative and we should make that there is as much well being and as little suffering as possible. So if you increase the total suffering only a little bit but increase the total well being more, it would be a good thing.

[@not.a.robott]

Not under the premise that consciousness is what's relevant (which is basically what most consequentialist theory is predicated on). Especially Singer's: moral status is predicated on sentience. Without any consciousness left, nothing would be morally relevant and there's no basis that you can argue we ought to reduce unecessary suffering or not. You can't make normative claims without having a basis for them. Hence cancelling itself out. Even the term that the position is sort of called is a double negative lol. (:

[@collinskocmoc8888]

Buddha said: Life is suffering! He also said intelligens is a monkey who jumps from tree to tree. He never stop

[@TheClownWorldShow]

Enter antinatalism

[@josephpostma1787]

In exploring these ethical topics, I wish we would talk about the ethical foundation for worrying about certain occurances. With ethical veganism, I think the foundation is based on an ought to not cause unnecessary suffering or an ought to balance suffering and pleasure. This foundation may be deontological or utilitarian. But what is the foundation for caring about suffering? Because it is emotionally satisfactory in that it appeals to empathetic people? Why not appeal to another emotion and maybe the best morality is a focus on creating supernovae? As I understand the concept of objective morality, it is incoherent.

[@TheaDragonSpirit]

4:36 - What will happen is the price will go down, people might buy more, they probably will not unless they just have a really unhealthy diet, most people eating meat still already eat a lot, so people will not really buy more, so then these farms will go bust, as more farms go bust the only way farms will be able to stay open is to charge a lot for meat or get a ridiculous amount of subsidies, but most likely as less people buy meat, the subsidies will go away as well, and so the price of meat will go up massively, so it will only be short term the prices go down. Additionally if so many people are not buying meat and the prices go down, at this point it's not likely more people will buy more meat, because most people still buying meat will probably already be buying most of their meals as meat, so basically if less people are eating meat, they can't keep the demand up for everyone that stops. That just isn't realistic.

[@oneandonlykumar007x]

There is ONE and only ONE good logical reason for eating meat and that is.... That it tastes good. Sad, how much harm we can do just for taste.

[@jonbbaca5580]

Not true. Some places, domesticated animals are the only source of milk, eggs, wool, and life saving protien in locations that are too cold or dry to grow enough plant food to supply a large community. Tell Inuit communities or other Arctic groups to live completely off the soil, and stop hunting seal to stay alive. Go ahead and tell the polar bear to do the same. It's not gonna work...

[@rs5570]

Without wishing to be unkind this is a sophomoric and flawed premise. Many people do not like the taste of animal flesh. Many of those will eat it anyway. Many eat it because they're told to. YOU think it tastes "good," clearly.

[@rs5570]

@@jonbbaca5580 Who is "telling them" that? No one here is. Those examples have little to do with the unspeakable agonies of commercial "farming" that supply most of the overfed world with their "products."

[@jonbbaca5580]

@@rs5570 I'm obviously not talking about yuppies who can buy $20 soy burgers at the corner restaurant. I'm not talking about me either. I'm talking about ppl in sub Saharan Africa, where a goat or a cow that makes milk and can eventually be slaughtered during a feast or a famine is literally worth its weight in gold. I'm talking about ppl who live in places where they can't live off plants, and have to fish and dry meats to survive the winter. Oh, that's right, I never hear animal rights activists crying out for the lost lives of fish, unless it's industrial fishing. So if an American Indian or a native Hawaiin catches fish to feed their starving families, is that unacceptable animal cruelty? What about clams or oysters? They're all animals, right? I agree that factory farming is cruel, but why aren't PETA soldiers protesting outside of factory oyster farms? A bit hypocritical, no? Or maybe they're technically animals, but they're too stupid to fight to save? And when we learn that plants have feelings, what the fuck will you eat then? Meat, dairy and eggs can be produced ethically, and tons of humans would starve to death without it. I get your point, but being militant fanatics about any cause is stupid and dangerous

[@marksydney3247]

@@rs5570 What about monoculture vegetable farming, which destroys soils and water sources with Glyphospate? Plant-based diets also have the blood of the earth on their hands

[@brycedozois3826]

I agree with everything he says except for providing lions with road kill rather than them preying on other creatures. That is a ridiculous idea, how can someone so educated on the subject even suggest disrupting an ecosystem and natural laws that have been around since the beginning of the planet?

[@arunshankars8398]

Why should humans even 'provide for lions' ? Just let the lions live in their natural habitats, and they can feed on what is available to them. It's only because we capture and lock them up in cages and zoos that we have to provide for them! Why do we first create problems, and then debate about how to solve them ?

[@kennythelenny6819]

Wild animals were not here since the beginning of the planet. Doing that could also change the ecosystem to take away the pain and suffering wild animals go through. It's not exactly fun for wild beasts to be subjected to perennial stress due to the uncivil nature of the wild. It's a good idea to eliminate that eco system.

[@spenceo8414]

@@kennythelenny6819 lol I think you're on to something

[@hinteregions]

This idea, not his own, was put to Prof. Singer and he commented briefly only on its moral aspects. He was not suggesting that we should adopt the practice. He never has.

[@irish_deconstruction]

1. If Lions can eat road kill and still live a healthy life, then that would be much more preferable than the lion living a healthy life at the expense of another animal, whose life could have easily been saved. 2. Morality matters much more than natural laws and ecosystems. If natural laws and ecosystems can be tweaked to suit goodness, then they ought to be.

[@williammuirhead6927]

The issue with the protein statistic is that it’s a protein statistic. Of course comparing a food with low protein will contribute more to circumstantial killing than high protein foods will, when protein is used at the metric. You’re essentially comparing the death from 5 burgers, against a swimming pool of lettuce. Not to mention it doesn’t talk about how many animals die in the production of the feed that goes to those animals.

[@jasondashney]

And that tons of animals die in the production of crops, but to my knowledge, there's nothing to back this up. If people are talking rodents, and such, then it simply isn't true. Most of the animals that live on a farm are burrowing animals. They live under the ground so combines don't hurt them. This just makes sense. They survive forest fires and all kinds of things. Plus, it's actually been studied. Researchers put little callers on a bunch of animals in fields, and it turns out that there were no deaths. If there is empirical evidence to support the fact that tons of small animals die in the production of crops, then I'm open to it if someone happens to have some links.

[@AbbeyRoadResident]

I have a question even though i don't know if this is relevant to the utilitarian way of thinking at all: If there is a badness in dying young, how is killing a young animal (without it having to suffer) worse than killing a human child (that cannot yet comprehend what it means to miss out on life, in contrast with an adult)?

[@elliehennecke7466]

In a nutshell, a utilitarist believes that good moral decisions are those which make the greatest possible number of people happy (or reduce the suffering of the greatest possible number of people.) Peter Singer takes this approach and expands it, so it includes animals as well. He argues that distinctions drawn between animals and humans are arbitrary at best. Killing a young animal is not worse than killing a child. He never claimed that at all (to my knowledge and how I interpreted his texts). If anything, they are equal. Yes, an adult might suffer more because they can predict and worry. He makes a compelling argument (sort of) against this exact point in his book (which I'm too lazy to summarize right now but you can look it up). Also, there are some exceptions like human cancer patients vs animals with cancer. (Also: Where do the child and the young animal differ? Intelligence? Not really. Ability to predict something? Nope. Intensity of suffering? No. So it really depends where you draw the line and whether you consider humans to be superior to animals in some way, which would increase the worth of human life over animals.) I hope this answered your question? :) There are jumps in logic, but this is due to it being a very, very summarized version of the arguments. I recommend reading the book or exerpts from the texts yourself in case something was unclear.

[@collinskocmoc8888]

@@elliehennecke7466 But what if people are unhappy with animal suffering when in fact the animals isn´t suffering at all? Then people are only plain stupid. And if they believe that farmers produce suffering, they must be a foodproducerhater. Citypeoples don´t like peasants. Citypeoples speak many words of no meaning. Vegans hate a lot? Mostly biochemistry fooddatabase and methabolism? Their heart is full of sit and their mind is food food food

[@ZambeziKid]

@@collinskocmoc8888 what evidence do u have tgat animals di not suffer? I suspect u have zero.

[@JamesADavies]

5:39 The problem is that Australian beef is now (while eaten less per capita in Australia) now sold en masse to/in China, via export.

[@jmahalekshmymenon9309]

and live animals to the middle-east..

[@NoPrivateProperty]

The same argument can be made against owning pets like cats and dogs which depend on animal consumption

[@PracticalEthicsChannel]

Thanks for your comment! You may be interested in our other interview, with Dr Josh Milburn, on whether we should feed our pets a vegan diet kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2rGnoZ5h8iUac0

[@vamsiramineedi6296]

Good and bad about Peter Singer: The Bad: He's not a Vegan. The Good: He has turned tens of thousands into vegans with his philosophy.

[@tobiasyoder]

Wait what singer isn’t vegan ??

[@vamsiramineedi6296]

@@tobiasyoder Nope. He doesn't claim to be vegan.

[@arunshankars8398]

@@tobiasyoder He describes himself as a flexitarian. He is vegan to the extent possible.

[@viever9158]

Singer is vegetarian and attempts to avoid other animal products when possible.

[@belvoirtham]

The economics of supply and demand argument is completely weird (and Singer answers it well). Price alone doesn't determined quantity exchanged. It also depends on the shape of the supply curve (which Peter alludes to it). Even when we assume typical supply and demand curves, a reduction in demand always leads to a reduction in quantity demanded/purchased. (This misunderstood circularity between price and demand is a common misunderstanding between reduction in demand vs quantity demanded in undergrad econs classes.)

[@arunshankars8398]

Sir, can you explain it with an example, maybe ? I couldn't understand. Or, can you give references ?

[@TheaDragonSpirit]

18:54 - I have wondered if intelligence is related to suffering. I mean if an animal has the pain signals, why would intelligence make them suffer more. If someone stabbed a person that had a low IQ, would this hurt less then someone with a high IQ? I mean I think that suffering is more based on if that animal is conscious, and able to feel, then they get a pain signal, I don't really see how intelligence would change this pain signal and make it less or more painful based on intelligence. I guess maybe they might get traumatised more and remember the suffering more? I guess that would be true possibly. But I'm pretty sure most farm animals have a decent memory. So I don't see how intelligence would change this, unless it improves their memory and pain reception some how?

[@Willow4526]

Pain is a response to injury or harm for self preservation. Nothing more, nothing less.

[@TheaDragonSpirit]

@@Willow4526 It's not as simple as that, it's not just a pain signal, it's comprehension of pain. For example there is people that don't feel pain, but still have mental trauma. They don't understand physical pain. So psychology of what people remember or sub consciously remember but repress is also related to trauma & suffering.

[@Willow4526]

@@TheaDragonSpirit you're adding in other concepts to the process of experiencing pain. Evolution wise pain is just a way to help preserve life to continue reproduction. Creatures that feel pain and know to avoid things that cause it are more likely to survive than those that do not. Just look at humans that are born without pain receptors, they are more likely to die from the tinniest of injury due to no feeling pain and thus can't protect themselves from it. Now when you start to add in other concepts like consciousness and the relationship between that, pain and suffering. You're talking about a completely different thing. Pain doesn't care about how you think or feel or your own level of self awareness in the world or universe. It just is. and no matter how much sentient life forms would like to argue over the idea of pain, it's still going to hurt when you or any creature gets nipt in the butt by something that could kill you.

[@TheaDragonSpirit]

@@Willow4526 I agree with your first paragraph. The second paragraph. I don't, see I'm talking not just about pain but understanding what those pain signals mean. Most animals understand what the pain signals mean because they react with screams so it's obvious they understand what pain is. So I'm talking more about the psychological effects of pain. Comprehending pain. As in a dog may hide if it fears being hurt. That is psychological suffering as a result of pain. You can't fear pain, if you can't comprehend pain, and then act to avoid that pain. Do you get what I'm saying? So I'm saying I don't really see how intelligence would make them suffer more, but psychologically if they remember pain longer they might be psychologically traumatised more long term.

[@Willow4526]

@@TheaDragonSpirit OK got ya. So creatures have memories, having a memorie helps you survive, and you don't need to be intelligent or self aware to have one and use it. So a creature experiences a pain and it's brain creates a memory about that pain so it can be better at avoiding it, so it can better survive. That creature then comes near the same thing that caused that pain, triggering a memory to help that creature avoid said pain. but due to creatures not being smart enough to fully realize and comprehend and connect the dots that doesn't exactly stop the creature from going near and getting hurt by said pain. So the brain develops another response, 'Fear' a avoidance response to pain or anything that can stop it's survivel and ability to reproduce. So then a connection develops were a memory is triggered to a potential pain and to help the creature avoid the pain it knows about from its memory then triggers fear, one of the strongest avoidance responses. Now mental pain is still pain, it follows the same response curve. Now this tho to me is were in my opinion we are in the middle of the new age of human survival. The mental one. We have developed all the tools necessary to physically survive now we are evolving our minds to better take on mental pain, that requires different tools to survive bcos using old tools like fear don't actually help people all the time bcos they can just end up developing bad habits that acctuly hurt their survival.

[@putin88100]

I am wondering what Peter Singer´s stance is on the work of people like Temple Grandin; on the one hand they say that they try to decrease suffering of animals, yet at the same point only to the extend that is convenient and feasible for producers/industry. To me this sounds like bigotry as their (animal scientists, animal welfare scientists) main concern is to maintain a financially profitable endeavour to produce cheap meat. The price and most features of current practices are however hardly ever questioned on a fundamental level. Any thoughts?

[@r.b.4611]

If her methods increase slaughter house efficiency she could be a net negative for animal wellbeing. She has a good story in overcoming her autism, but that needs to be isolated from the question of whether what she's done in meat production is good or bad.

[@lydiainphoenix]

Temple Grandin tries to balance pragmatism with humane treatment. She accepts that the world is not going to become vegan any time soon and points out that food animals would not even exist were it not for their production for food. So her view is to reduce physical and psychological suffering (harsh treatment, observation of slaughter, fear) as much as practically possible. That view will never satisfy most animal rights and animal ethicists, but it does represent a move in the right direction toward compassionate treatment and recognition of sentience ... just not enough of a move to arrive at a completely morally defensible position.

[@putin88100]

Hi Lydia, the first argument about animals not even existing without them being needed for products is best discussed in an article called "the illogic of the larder". It is only for that particular example (food animals) that any human being would accept this argument. Just imagine having your dog get pregnant as often as possible and keeping the puppies in crappy conditions BUT, without you doing that these puppies would not even exist. So you improve their conditions just a tiny bit and its all OK? There is no logical argument that I can think of that would support that existing is better than non-existing (even for humans- as D. Benatar argues). Although some make the argument of a "life worth living" and then fight over what life is worth living, and of course there is no agreement on that. I do understand your point about the move in the right direction and the pragmatism behind it. But if you attend Temple Grandins lectures you will see how tainted her opinions are by industry. She called McDonalds move towards cage free eggs in the US "irrational" and only based on "uneducated consumers" who "demand without knowing anything about their food". She likes to play the "science tells us" card but she abuses science-probably unwittingly but nevertheless so. I used to be a fan of her work- until I got to see her in person, in discussions, presentations and such. Clearly, the people behind Temple Grandin who help her publish her work, brief and train her, are smarter than the actual person herself who just seems to be a well-managed puppet and cash-cow. That´s why I like people like Peter Singer, he writes smart, talks smart and really seems genuinely smart. And thankfully most smart people won´t have themselves bought by an industry or lobby group.

[@therawcaviat]

Lydia Cypher Ask yourself the question. Considering these aninals are all just basically children and killed generally more than 10 times younger than they could live. Given that.. If you were a 7 or 8 year old child being shipped off to be murdered, would you be thinking.. Well at least i had 8 good years (normally not the case for 98% of animals who live in horrible conditions). Or would you think.. I wish i had never been born..? A life of torture then to be murdered or no life at all.. Wow thats a hard decision..

[@joecaner]

One could speculate on Temple Grandin's motivations and capacity for compassion, but her slaughter house designs were embraced by industry because it made them more efficient. Judging from the conditions that animals are kept, transported and killed, the industry has little concern for the wellbeing of the animals that they process; the people to which they sell their products; or the environmental degradation that results from their operations. Their concern is for profit, and animal suffering, human health effects and environmental impacts are all externalities that are a secondary concerns if they are considered at all.

[@jaywasd]

The point is, if literally everyone was vegan then there wouldn't be any animal products. If enough people were vegan, there would be significantly less animal products. If there's very little people to buy then, of course, the production would decrease.

[@collinskocmoc8888]

What the f-ck are you? Food fascist? Vegans eat global industrial monoculture-sh-t. Without nutrients! But with pectisides! False prophet, you are.

[@charlottestewart1672]

@@collinskocmoc8888 what lol

[@collinskocmoc8888]

@@charlottestewart1672 kzbin.info/www/bejne/hWKUn6GAd91snrc

[@t.lnnnnx]

Collins Kocmoc the animals you eat do as well lol, eating sick animals is waaaayyy better.. SURE

[@mawalir937]

Being a vegetarian has to be based on personal choice and values (leave morality out). Certainly, science has I believe proven that the meat industry particularly cow emits (euphemism) methane which is very harmful to the environment. I and perhaps other environmentally conscious folks could base the decision on that factor alone which will eventually lead to price reductions and less cows being farmed I suppose. But, I personally know that while I will and have reduced consumption of meat in general and red meat particularly but that is based entirely on health preferences. I also know I will like not to give up meat altogether also for heath reasons primarily protein intake.

[@chrisjmusatto592]

The greatest impact of eating vegetarian or vegan is spiritual (not religious) and personal. Effecting the industry, personal health and not contributing to suffering are merely bonuses.

[@C3NT124LxT1M3]

WOW watching this debate presented in a way where the opposition is made to be as strong as possible with real and genuinely reasonable objections is so refreshing I almost want to cry. Why can’t the news be like this?

[@kozlowsiki2000]

What decides what is ethical or not?

[@hinteregions]

Probably the best place for you to start with this fundamental question is Noam Chomsky as your question isn't so much about ethics as politics. Just as a good baseline. It's both, but what you are asking here really is: who has the power. This groundwork can be covered fairly quickly. Then go and find something basic here on KZbin and get an idea of just how gigantic your question is :D

[@jasondashney]

"If fewer people buy meat, then the price might go down"?! This is the silliest argument. I've heard on either side of this issue. That's not how supply and demand works averaged out over the long haul. The more something is bought the cheaper it is due to competition and economies of scale if it is a renewable resource. Producers can very easily be running at full capacity all the time, because it's not hard to produce new cows, and if demand becomes unbelievably high, then more producers will come online which has a natural way of curtailing high prices. Also, the argument about animals being bad, for the environment isn't necessarily nonsense, but there is a tremendous amount of evidence to suggest that the problem is very drastically overstated. And this is coming from a vegetarian who has thoroughly looked at both sides.

[@skullkrusher4418]

One question I would like to ask is this: Do you actually think EATING MEAT is unethical? Or Is it factory farming that is unethical? (i.e. is eating animals that died from natural causes unethical?)

[@luchan1638]

I'd say the process of farming animals for meat is unethical because the conscience act of killing is always involved. And killing an animal that doesn't want to die makes it unethical. Obviously an animal dying of natural causes would be fine because there is no killing involved. Same with road kill. Eating road kill is not unethical in itself. Because the animal lived freely, unfortunately got hit by a car and died. No one would eat old meat thought because it tastes awful.... The best way of eating meat that can actually be possible in the next 20 years would be lab grown meat since there is no suffering and no killing involved. But for now...there is no real ethical way to eat an animal. I'm vegetarian myself, and I'm still struggling since the dairy industry and the egg industry are still quite unethical. Cows are constantly pregnant, after birth they get their calf taken away, they only live for like 5 Years until they are physically exhausted, and when that happens they are killed for beef. Etc etc. I'd say informing themselves and even if it is just making baby steps in your diet, it is better than just ignoring it. Of course my goal truly is being vegan one day, or being a vegan as best as I can.

[@skullkrusher4418]

@@luchan1638 I agree with you that people wouldnt want to eat old meat. But if one day there was a way to keep track of wild animals that have a broken leg or a disease that is going to kill them shortly, then we could help ease their pain by killing them humanely rather than having them suffer for a few days. And we would be able to have meat from animals at an extremely higher cost (like 500$ for a steak at a restaurant). I agree that lab grown meat is probably gonna be more realistic, but as someone who really loves food and has fairly good sense of taste, I doubt it will be the same. But I'm more than willing to go that route. And I also agree that its better for people to do whatever they can rather than just shaming people who arent full on vegetarians/vegans. I am personally not a vegetarian, but I have cut eating meat down to once or twice a week. Which is obviously nothing close to vegetarianism, but its still I think a lot better than lots of people that eat meat every day.

[@luchan1638]

@@skullkrusher4418 yes if that d be possible to humanely kill a wild animal that is suffering and won't be able to live much longer I would kind of agree with that. The problem always comes down to taste buds... Why are the lives of animals less important than our taste buds... I don't find any moral justification for that. Of course I'm glad people are finally thinking about what they eat and I'm happy to hear that you ve already cut down on meat. I honestly think you shouldnt stop there though because you can always go a step further and better. Of course before going vegan or vegeterian it is highly recommended that you first inform yourself of what and how much you should eat to have a sufficient intake of all the nutrients. Keep on going! Maybe on day you ll be a vegetarian or even a vegan! I still aspire to become a vegan in the near future when I have collected all the necessary information about nutrition. Maybe I ll be able to live one day free from foods where the animals directly have to pay the price for my taste pleasure.

[@skullkrusher4418]

@@luchan1638 yes. I completely agree that good taste doesnt in any way justify cruelty or killing. But I'm just trying to come up with a way in which we can treat animals morally and people can still have the experience of eating a wild animal. The situation I described would obviously make animal meat very expensive and it would be something I could maybe afford 3 times a year. But it would still allow for the experience but in a humane way. Yes. I'm not stopping here. But I also think that cutting down on meat is the first and hardest step in some ways. So many people eat meat every single day. If all those people can at least get to where I am and only eat meat once or twice a week, we would already be cutting out a large portion of the suffering we impart to animals. I think getting the majority of people on board with these ideas is much more important than convincing a few people to go full vegan.

[@Phoenix-King-ozai]

The only meat that is ethical would be a lab grown one Anything else is a slippery slope But i sincerely appreciate your efforts I want to eat meat I also want to get a dog But i won't unless i can feed it meat Waiting for that synthetic meat

[@jeremiah5319]

I'm on a carnivore diet. Is it morally acceptable to eat vegetarians? Not suggesting they would taste good - they'd likely cause awful indigestion - I'm just wondering.

[@terrychinsiangsor3747]

Reinforced my aquaculture business of Crab farming. Since crab probably don't feel pain.

[@gristly_knuckle]

As is written in SAW 3D verse 1 Chapter 13, if you don't defeat your opponent, then you lose the girl. Make them fight, sir.

[@mahammaduli9820]

it's more a shame to put a price on a need, like food, than what you prefer.

[@jeremiah5319]

Whenever I go fishing I'm very careful to only catch and eat fish that have lived 'happy' lives but are ambitious enough to want to evolve to become land-dwellers anyway. That way, we can write off their death to the natural effects of Darwinism.

[@dp0004]

The producers are governed by what they can sell. Buy what suits you.

[@r.b.4611]

Yeah that argument about crop production killing small animals is nonsense. You do the same thing when you feel crops to cattle then eat the cattle! But if you don't eat the cattle you protect cattle wellbeing, so it's clearly better just to eat the crops. Amazingly silly argument.

[@geniusofmozart]

I apologise for my long reply, but I looked into the Archer article a while ago and his numbers don't seem to add up. He also makes a number of unwarranted assumptions. I'm open to changing my mind, though! He asserts that “at least 55 sentient animals die to produce 100kg of useable plant protein: 25 times more than for the same amount of rangelands beef.” He gets this figure from his estimation that 2.2 animals have to be killed to produce 100kg of meat, and that 55 animals are killed due to plant-based agriculture. He gets the 55 animals figure from the poisoning of mice during periodic plagues in grain-producing regions of Australia: he states that around “100 mice are killed per hectare per year” to grow grain. He also states that average annual yields of wheat are around 1.4 tonnes per hectare, and that around 13% of this yield is useable protein. So, he multiplies 1400kg by 0.13. To get useable protein per 100kg, he calculates 100/(1400 * 0.13), and then multiplies this figure by 100. However, he makes numerous errors when it comes to the figures themselves, so his calculations are simply wrong. First, he states that "each area of grain production in Australia has a mouse plague on average every four years". This is false: according to the 2005 study by Singleton and Brown which he himself cites, widespread mouse plagues rarely crop up in Western Australia and, according to Australia's Grain Yearbook 2012, Western Australia accounts for about 40% (11730/29515 * 100 = 39.7%) of the total wheat production in Australia. [1] The errors do not end there, though. It's not the case that each state, or region, of wheat production, bar Western Australia, has a mouse plague once every four years. In actual fact, it's one area of wheat production that has a plague every four years, as the study by Singleton and Brown states: “First, a mouse plague occurs on average about every 3.5 years (31 plagues in 100 years) in Australia with the frequency of occurrence for any particular state being about once every 7 years.” [2] In other words, states don't have them at the same time - the plagues occur in one area on average around every four years. As the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows, there are six areas of wheat production in Australia. [3] Only one of these has a mouse plague every four years, meaning that the vast majority of wheat in Australia is not applicable to Archer's calculation. This interpretation is corroborated by data from Pest Animal Control Australia's report on mouse plagues, which states, on average, "somewhere in the order of between 100,000 and 500,000 hectares of grain crops are subject to mouse infestation each year". [4] This is a minuscule amount compared to how many hectares of land in Australia are devoted to wheat production. According to Australia's Grain Yearbook 2012, around 14 million (14,050,000) hectares are used to grow wheat annually. Taking the median of how many hectares are affected annually, 300,000, this means that around 2% (300,000/14,050,000 * 100) of the land used to grow wheat each year is actually affected by these mouse plagues. So, if 100 mice per hectare of land infested per year are killed, and 2% of the total land in Australia is infested by mice, then 2 mice per hectare are killed due to wheat production in Australia. Furthermore, according to Australia's Grain Yearbook 2012, the yield is 2.1 tonnes of wheat per hectare (29515/14058), not 1.4 tonnes as Archer asserts. Going back to Professor Archer's original calculation, then, assuming all of his other figures, such as the 13% useable protein from wheat, are accurate: 2100kg * 0.13 = 273kg of useable plant protein per hectare. And, 100kg/273kg * 2 animals per hectare killed = 0.7 sentient beings killed per 100kg of useable plant protein, compared with Archer's own figure of 2.2 sentient beings killed per 100kg of useable animal protein. This means that for every 1 sentient being killed due to wheat production in Australia, 3 sentient beings are being killed due to meat production. Once again, a plant-based diet comes out as the most ethical diet. This analysis is still incredibly generous to Mike Archer, however. Firstly, his whole argument rests upon mouse plagues which only ever really occur in Australia, meaning that, for the rest of the world, even if his figures were actually correct, vegetarianism would still be the most ethical choice. Secondly, Archer, in his argument, conveniently uses the mass of protein as a baseline rather than, say, calories, which are a far better way of measuring food intake. Also, by using mass of protein rather than calories, the calculation is skewed towards meat-eating from the start, as it's obvious that you'll need a lot to fill a much larger area with wheat to get the same mass of useable protein as animal flesh: in other words, if this calculation were based on calories, a far smaller area of land would be required, meaning that even fewer sentient beings would have died for a vegetarian meal. Third, the article falsely conflates “wheat” with “plant protein” and “grains” - vegetarians don't just eat wheat, but also fruits, vegetables, legumes, and so on. It's not unreasonable to assume that Archer chooses wheat simply because it's the worst example he could find of plant-based food production and, as demonstrated above, the best form of meat production possible which Archer uses is still at least three times as fatal for sentient beings. Fourth, Archer also fails to take into account the grains that are grown in Australia which are used to feed even the cattle there - he himself admits that some of the cattle, even on grazing, may be fed a small amount of grains as well, so any nonhuman animal deaths from grain production have to be added to the death of the nonhuman animal whose flesh is being eaten itself. Fifth, Archer fails to take into account the various nonhuman animals who are culled by animal farmers, as well as the destruction of ecosystems that often occurs when more pasture is required. Finally, random investigations of numerous slaughterhouses, as well as studies, have found that the slaughter process - even in secular slaughterhouses - goes wrong in a significant proportion of cases. It's impossible to slaughter all of the animals in the meat industry painlessly. [1]: www.ausgrain.com.au/Back%20Issues/217ybgrn12/217ybgrn12.pdf [2]: www.zoology.ubc.ca/~krebs/papers/220.pdf [3]: www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/LookupAttach/1301.0Publication24.05.121/$file/13010_2012.pdf [4]: www.pestsmart.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/CountingTheCost.pdf

[@geniusofmozart]

My point is that the Archer article is incorrect, and that in Australia a vegan diet still kills fewer animals than an omnivorous diet.

[@manlolargh]

Nice work :)

[@dipdo7675]

geniusofmozart Weirdo!!

[@utilitymonster8267]

Even if it was true, more crops are needed for a meat eating diet, so one should still better be a vegetarian or vegan.

[@bill8216]

I object to the instrumentalization of suffering and consciousness; I think we need to find a more thoughtful way of valuing the life of a being besides suppositions about those 2 attributes of their lives.

[@petergilkes4391]

The damage done to the environment by meat farming will kill us all!

[@Kalvis1]

Can anyone tell me why Peter Singer is vegetarian and not vegan? :-)

[@musicsoshiny]

Are you either of those

[@Kalvis1]

@@musicsoshiny What does it matter in relation to my question? :-)

[@arunshankars8398]

He's trying to be vegan whenever possible, and it's not too difficult to be one. It is important that one does whatever one can to reduce the suffering of others. Even if you don't achieve 100%, it still makes a lot of difference.

[@jaywasd]

10:50 it's simply healthier. Should schools serve healthier food? Yes, that should be a no brainer.

[@collinskocmoc8888]

Have you ever seen a fooddatabase? No, you need a brain for that. You are a threat to the children in school. May you never have any power, you are dangerous and fooled

[@GeezerBoy65]

@@collinskocmoc8888 Please be more specific than juvenile name-calling.

[@collinskocmoc8888]

@@GeezerBoy65 Sorry for the delay. Been out of Internet. Answer with a song. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hWKUn6GAd91snrc

[@ZambeziKid]

I imagine the issue is to have enough parents willing to accept the change. Crutical mass, as they ssy.

[@boglenight1551]

If trophic levels and limbic systems didn’t exist then I would still be eating meat.

[@dipdo7675]

Micheal Archer…thank you!! Pulling the curtain back and let us see the liar!!

[@SpicyMacaroni]

why do you even have to eat meat

[@petter3995]

Extend it to animal products in general.

[@ScooterCat64]

Getting enough protein is a lot harder on a vegan diet

[@jasondashney]

Protein is not the rub. Protein is easy on a vegan diet. Rice/beans etc. Some other macro nutrients are not as easily found in plant form like B-12, Vitamin D etc, and are much less bioavailable in plants than meat.

[@narutoyang7787]

i want tot become his son the education would be the best

[@philipmason5547]

Good format, but the interviewer, if she's asking her own questions, hasn't done her research. Peter Singer has addressed most, if not all, of these in his writings and talks over the decades. I'm assuming she is instead asking the questions of others who haven't bothered to look into the topic very seriously.

[@PracticalEthicsChannel]

Thanks for your comment. The video is meant to be interesting for a wider audience, including for those who aren't familiar with (all of) Peter Singer's work.

[@philipmason5547]

@@PracticalEthicsChannel Thank you for the reply. This is good to know, I appreciate what you're doing.

[@allistairneil8968]

Interesting that a happy grass eating cow may produce more methane. Meat has steadily become more expensive and frankly less popular because of the scourge of vegetarianism which is catching on. I am in favour of a varied and balanced diet... which includes meat. Just like our ancestors. We inherited their metabolism, why not feed it?

[@rahtsnake144]

insects and other invertibrates are absolutely capable of suffering. anyone who has worked with these animals knows they have individual personalities and they avoid pain. treat invertibrates with respect.

[@jasondashney]

Plants react to being cut. They communicate with each other and some even can "warn" others around with chemical messages if they are getting eaten or cut. Some change their taste via chemical excretions when then are being eaten. They exhibit many of the same signs of "pain" as invertebrates. How do we parse that?

[@edlebida6331]

Eat a balanced locally grown, prepped and bought food items within traditional growing seasons and utilise as much of each item as possible. Part of the problem is that people have become accustomed to eating the best part of whatever food stuff they have and forgotten about the other bits. Making soups, who uses as much of the vegetable as possible or twice over? People used to make stock and the vegetables were then used in some sort of soup, now it’s advocated to chuck those vegetables out! Instead of using leather people use plastic derived from oil. Take out everything from your household that contains plastic, toys, clothes, furniture, household appliances as see what is left. If you are vegetarian or vegan because of your belief of preventing cruelty to animals, is the life of a brassicas fly beetle worth less than the life of a cow, can you explain why? Lastly, if the “critical mass” discussed was reached, what would happen to the remain livestock? Who would pay for their up keep and how many would be required to keep a species from becoming extinct Just a wee after thought. From a population of around 50M the American bison were wiped out, but to keep the American Plains in their original condition the bison had to be reintroduced and now number around 500,000.

[@liberationtoday8968]

Hi, I can answer your questions pertaining to veganism: 1. There are some arguments for why a beetle may have less moral value than a cow: the beetle is 'less sentient' so it likely values its life less than a cow, beetles do not have as strong a social structure as cows so the beetle's death would cause less suffering to other beetles than the cow's death would to other cows. However, that is not to say the beetle's life is worth so little that it should be killed unnecessarily. If the choice is between killing a beetle and killing a cow you should pick the beetle, however you should first try to kill neither. 2. The transition to a vegan planet will be gradual, it will not be overnight. Vegans advocate to stop breeding new animals into existence as demand decreases. Once demand hits 0, 0 animals will be bred for food. No one will have to pay for their upkeep and certain animals who have been too genetically manipulated to survive on their own, such as farmed turkeys, will go extinct.

[@edlebida6331]

@@liberationtoday8968 that doesn’t work. Animals need to breed to keep evolution going, otherwise it will stop and they will die out. To keep animals in good health they need food, water and the right conditions to survive. Without these they are lost. These items require money, so who will pay for them if they have no value? Look at Africa, the wild animals were protected to a degree by Trophy hunting. This was stopped in some areas and photo tourism introduced. However it takes 1500 photo tourists to contribute the same amount as one Trophy hunter. As I said, the Trophy hunting stopped and suddenly poaching started up big time. Why? The locals lost their income and meat supplied by the hunters. This then led to a big increase in poaching, for bushmeat to eat, to clear animals so that the locals had land to plant crops on and also the Far East’s penchant for “medicines” from wild animals. Every animal has a price and if that price is not paid then they will disappear, whether wild or farmed😞

[@liberationtoday8968]

@@edlebida6331 The animals we farm are not going through the process of evolution by natural selection. They are being selectively bred for the traits that benefit us. For example, the modern chicken grows twice the weight in half the time than it did in the 1960s. This does not benefit the animal in any way, in fact, it causes immense health problems and suffering. I’m also not sure if you understood what I wrote. Yes, many farmed animals will go extinct, that is a pretty obvious fact. As I wrote before, the farmed turkey literally cannot reproduce without human intervention. And this is a good thing. The animals we farm have been bred in such a way that their mere existence is suffering. These are not natural animals and they should not exist.

[@peterfarrelly2437]

He is saying that these animals should have no life because they are going to be eaten. He also says that they should have no life because they are bad for the environment. He clearly wants to eliminate ruminating animals. Who has the moral right to decide that any living mammal should not have a life. Humans have the worst effect on the environment. Also, lots of Humans don't have a happy life, yet we don't advocate that they shouldn't have a life.

[@johnellis2184]

Only one way to be harmless, be a vegetarian pacifist with no more wealth than the poor.

[@simonezitrone1]

John Ellis *vegan though

[@lwmaynard5180]

Locusts love vegans and vegetarians no pesticides and billions of locusts will have field day.

[@thecrimsondragon9744]

An argument I hear a lot is that plants suffer too, how to respond to that?

[@jay13thstep]

If someone asks you that the answer is "no - of course they dont, how on earth could you possibly conceive that breeding and killing pigs is in any way equivalent to planting and harvesting a potato?" Just google nociceptors, but the tldr of it is - not one single species of plant has pain receptors (the nociceptor) or a central nervous system/brain, so they have literally no ability to feel pain/suffer. They CAN react to stimuli like light/heat, but it isnt pain and they arent conscious. I always think the plants feel pain argument is just low level trolling tbh, its so poorly thought out by those who spout it.

[@Uppernorwood976]

1. That’s highly doubtful 2. Even if it’s true in some way, they certainly suffer *less* than animals 3. Meat production uses more plants as animal feed than it would take to simply feed humans directly.

[@thecrimsondragon9744]

Thanks both, I now understand better. 👍

[@arunshankars8398]

Do plants suffer as much as the animals do ? Are plants raped like cows are ? Are plants denied their freedom to move around ? Are plants snatched away from their parents/siblings/mates ? It is true that plants are living beings too, but the degree of suffering varies hugely.

[@jasondashney]

@@jay13thstep I agree, but I don't think the argument is perfectly black and white. We know a dog can suffer pain. But as you move back down the line, where does it end? Can a fish feel pain? A butterfly? I also leave open the possibility that there are ways to experience negative things in ways that humans don't so we have no basis for comparison. 30 years ago you would've been laughed out of the room for stating that your gut microbiome can influence your weight and mood. Now this is an entire field of study. I'm just saying that I don't think we can make an absolutely definitive conclusions about how others perceive things. The nociceptor is how WE experience pain. Is that definitively universal? We used to be convinced that without sunlight there could be no life, yet at the bottom of the sea there is life that subsists entirely on chemicals that come from within the Earth that come out at temperatures that "should" make life impossible. I guess what I'm saying is I think we all exhibit a certain amount of arrogance when we extrapolate to definitive conclusions.

[@godlessheathen100]

What is his response to "the suffering of other sentient organisms is inconsequential?" I don't see a good justification for moralising food choice.

[@not.a.robott]

That requires looking at and asking a lot of things. Read some of his meta ethics if you want. But even if you don't prescribe to his realist foundation for holding the position that causing unecessary harm to other sentient beings for taste pleasure is wrong, his writings will probably still point out why this conclusion still fits in with many ethical frameworks. You might consider reading his book Animal Liberation. A lot of his most famous, proanimal ethics work is semi non cognitivist in the sense that he examines and justifies why animals have moral status and ought to be off the dinner table in consistent ethical theory. (:

[@not.a.robott]

The question is a bit funny, though, because his consequentialist philosophy explicitly acknowledges the inflicting of unecessary and unjust harm to other sentient beings as relevant, especially morally lol.

[@coldturkeypodcast9647]

ben ben he s not vegan, is the reason humans meat is normalized & is a plant based po$er

[@ZambeziKid]

Inconsequential to who?

[@godlessheathen100]

@@ZambeziKid Inconsequential to other sentient organisms which have no genetic or vested interest in a prey item.

[@rahtsnake144]

there's no such thing as a painless way to kill an animal for food. is taking the life of a happy animal, taking away their happiness, ethical? is it fair to their family and friends? is it fair to end their life extremely early, and send them to a slaughterhouse to be hacked apart? of course not. it's insane we even have to discuss this when we're talking about SOMEONE'S LIFE. they want to live, who are we to take that from them for a meal? one person's single decision may not have a big impact, but the number of vegans is risking very quickly. and big animal agriculture companies are starting to sweat. how could someone who knows all the facts still contribute to this injustice? just like David Attenborough. it may come down to the lack of empathy in men as a whole. i don't know and i can't comprehend it.

[@hinteregions]

Yes, of course there is. That is the question here. Are you talking about animals or humans here? That's an emotive repeat of the first question with straw man added. Where you say 'someone else's' are you anthropomorphising or taking Singer to a new level even he hasn't been to? Yes, that is the question here. What evidence do you have for this number [rising] very quickly? I doubt they are. How can you be so silly as to accuse arguably the most famous animal rights activist, who certainly would not say he 'has all the facts' of 'contributing to this injustice.' Just how committed would this man have to be to pass your test which so far no other human being has gotten close to?. David Attenborough makes nature documentaries, what has he got to do with this? Yes, it probably does, but I don't think you mean 'empathy' but 'compassion.' I fully agree with your last sentence.

[@rahtsnake144]

@@hinteregions anthropomorphizing is things like seeing two snakes intertwined and declaring they are cuddling when in fact they're competing. it usually comes from a lack of understanding of animal behavior. it is not the recognition that animals are someones, not somethings. i have been vegan for 25 years, i have seen the world shift dramatically since then. i used to be the only vegan in any given social circle, now i meet others on a daily basis. companies and restaurants would not be offering so many vegan options if there were no one to purchase them. the estimated percentage of the United States population used to be 1% but now it's 3-5% depending on the source. but again, i think it is asinine to casually discuss someone else's oppression and mortality and the "best way" to do the wrong things to them.

[@hinteregions]

@@rahtsnake144 Anthroporphomorphising is a word, in the dictionary, that I'd not have used if I did not know its meaning. Your own snaked-based definition isn't needed. I've answered to your every point, do you see that? No, it is not the 'recognition that animals are someones.' That is not what 'anthropomophising' means. So I felt that if you were serious you had to make that point accurately, to qualify your use of the word 'someone' in what is an unorthodox fashion. My subtext: do you think that if we are going to discuss these matters we might do it in some cogent fashion? The way you are doing now, for example. So if it is 'asinine' to discuss that, then it is, ipso factor, 'asinine' to discuss doing the right things to them. If you care about the issue, and it's obvious you do, then why not make the effort to give a real opinion? Do you think you yourself cannot be killed painlessly? You can. Why should not any creature, regardless of intelligence or consciousness, be so eligible? You begin with an absolutely false statement and it doesn't get better from there. Now are we getting somewhere? Don't try and talk down to me. It's no substitute for having your argument in some legitimate form.

[@rahtsnake144]

@@hinteregions Being the subject of a life isn't a human trait, which it would have to be anthropomorphizing. Painless or not, which I don't think we can really know if a quick death is painless until we get one ourselves, I think I meant that even an instant death would cause pain to others who are linked to that individual. However, I made this comment almost a year ago and in the present I am much more concerned with violating someone's autonomy than if their death is "humane". I don't subscribe to the welfarist approach because welfare doesn't grant individuals the right to their own lives and bodies. Anyway if you can't reply without being hostile, I probably won't get back to you again. I limit myself to very few conversations in internet messages, for my own sanity. I also have a bad hand so texting is difficult. And I'm at work. And you can't minimize the text box on mobile without deleting the message so I have to reply from memory.

[@hinteregions]

@@rahtsnake144 I am not hostile. But just as you do attempt one point semi-seriously, where does this leave euthanasia? If you are 'much more concerned with' X then why are you saying Y. Sadly this isn't coherent but in that no real loss to either of us. Get well soon.

[@spenceo8414]

Does anyone else have a speciest stance but also believes going vegan is most ethical? I personnally have never bought the argument of evaluating the worth of life on ideas of "consciousness" and "suffering" since they are so hard to define and often result in more arbitrary distinctions between different types of animals and their moral worth. Humans, like most animals, care mostly about their own species and the only reason we feel such great empathy for other animals is because we are such a social species. Because of our social tendencies, we tend to empahize with non-human animals that we recognize as having human characteristics. This is most pronounced in other social animals such as dogs, cats, and chimps. (not saying we don't have symbiotic relationships with other animals like dogs and cats, but that these relationships are few compared to the scope of all animals and don't justify universal animal rights) Despite my speciest stance, I still believe veganism is most ethical due to the significant mental health effects that animal cruelty can have on workers in salughterhouses and farms. The only reason our current system exists is the seperation of consumers from the actual production of the meat so to shield them from the mental impact of factory farms. I feel like adding apstract ideas of "personhood" and "consciousness" just muddy the water when there's already a strong ethical basis in human health and well-being. I also believe climate change and better health outcomes make veganism the better option as well, but does anyone else hold this human centric stance on animal ethics?

[@bdnnijs192]

"I still believe veganism is most ethical" I understand how abortion is unethical. (A steady diet of Star Trek and other Sci Fi makes me appreciate to the value of potential life). Should I support a full ban on abortion, or can I be open to other arguments? What I'm trying to say, is ethics the end-all to any argument? "The only reason our current system exists is the seperation of consumers from the actual production of the meat" Our hunter-gatherer ancestors may have consumed diets with up to 50%-70% of meat. Back where I'm from, plenty of farmers have their own bunnies for slaughter. If anything veganism is more prominent amongst city-dwelling folk more removed from agriculture and nature. "I also believe climate change and better health outcomes make veganism the better option as well" Animals are renewable resources. Vegans refuse to use renewable resources out of non-scientific, purely idological reasons. A lot of environmental arguments against animal products are justification by people after they made up their mind on veganism.

[@datagril8855]

17:20 BASED

[@ericksanchez370]

Data Gril what?

[@philiprobey7694]

What if the animal is treated very well and lives a long life before any slaughtering if needed. Why would anyone raise an animal so nicely? for their cells in the case of real lab meat.

[@939Aed]

In every life there is suffering and death. If we don't eat animals, the animals we would have eaten would never have been born. Is a life a net positive or net zero?

[@yacovmitchenko1490]

It's irrelevant whether the meat industry will in some way be altered as a consequence of your individual decision to be a vegetarian. The point is that you're not complicit, that you yourself don't contribute to violence, directly or indirectly. Since you have a body, you will necessarily be violent to some extent - even breathing entails violence. But that is not an argument for having animals killed, because our job is to minimize the degree to which we're violent. The goal doesn't cease to be legitimate just because we can't achieve it fully. Animals have a central nervous system, they're our distant cousins. They have some intelligence too. So eating them is like eating our relatives. There's something low and vulgar about having an animal killed simply to satisfy your taste buds; it points to a poor sense of aesthetics, to say the least. Not to mention the fact that you can eat delicious vegetarian food, which is healthier all around. (Many diseases can be averted simply by becoming a vegetarian.) This woman's question about the legitimacy of eating "a happy cow" completely misses the mark. Would the happy version of you wish to be killed? Just watch a video of animals being slaughtered, and see whether that turns you into a vegetarian. I watched several and it felt as if I was being slaughtered. It was profoundly disturbing and it transformed me. You've got to be quite a petty and sordid creature if you need intellectual arguments involving the economy to sway you. It's much more about the development (or rediscovery) of your humanity and compassion. While I respect Singer generally, all his sophisticated talk about the market and world conditions is largely peripheral, secondary.

[@petter3995]

Vegetarianism makes no sense.

[@jasondashney]

I don't think I could look at a cow and say "I'm going to have you killed, skinned, butchered, your flesh put over a fire and I will eat you. Not because I need to, but because I want to." I don't really have a problem with hunters killing and eating game because that's absolutely natural. Even monkeys occasionally kill and eat each other. Nature videos aren't full of animals happily coexisting, that's for sure. I just feel that you should understand what you're doing and be able to do it yourself. Anyone who eats a chicken or a cow, but wouldn't have the stomach to kill and butcher it themselves is doing something wrong in my opinion. I don't think that can be morally justified. The hunter that goes and kills a deer with a bullet to the head. I don't think it's doing something immoral. I personally couldn't do that, so I feel I have no right to eat meat.

[@marksydney3247]

How ethical is it to decide what an animal eats, this animal that is sentient yet that cannot voice it's opinion? Sounds like humans have a God-complex

[@ZambeziKid]

U know we already decide that w farmed animals and pets, right? What else do u refer to?

[@jasondashney]

It's perhaps ethical if you weigh it as a trade-off to the fact that those animals will never have to want for food, and never be subject to predation. They will never experience a drought which happens often in nature and animals starve to death. They don't have to worry that a pack of wolves is going to hunt them down and slowly tear them apart in the most excruciating ways possible. Lions kill their prey before eating, but bears do not. They just start eating at alive.

[@pegasus6724]

The animals you see hung up in this video are just the body in which a soul inhabits our bodies are not us the are a three dimensional physical body created for our souls to incarnate into .

[@kittyvalium6517]

Do you eat meat?

[@kennythelenny6819]

Do you have evidence of the soul? So if those bodies were of humans?

[@mrknesiah]

What she doesnt tell you is that growing a cow requires 10 times as much plant protein (animal feed) than a vegan diet. Therefore a vegan diet saves 90% of field animals and, in fact, allows most agricultural land to be returned to wilderness, therefore creating space for new life and restoration of carbon sequestration. Additionally, the only reason why mechanical harvesters are reqiured is because animal feed demand is so high. When animal agriculture is killed off, mechanical harvesters become economically unviable due the significant reduction in net demand for plant protein. Grass fed is far more environmentally damaging because it requires three times as much land per kg of beef. Animal abuse is inherently sociopathic.

[@philiprobey7694]

While I agree that humans need to be better to animals, the best thing we can do for nature is make sure there is as little as possible. Suffering imposed on creatures by other creatures is incredibly disgusting. They live a life of constant fear and usually die while being eaten alive. Basically all animals are worse than human serial killers

[@bobleonard7122]

If your interviewer had spend three hours on-line she would have asked better questions (unless y'al have an agenda beyond interviewing the most ethical admirable person on the planet, which I am thinking must be the case). Questions with far reaching global significance would have come to her in short order with just a small amount of research (has she read any of his books). I would suggest you spend that same three hours doing the same and then you would perhaps see my point. She starts out with a simply dumb question (love the look on Peter's face). So she says something like "even I become a committed veg it's not clear that even one animal life would be saved". So, my neighbor has a lot of chickens, they lay eggs and then get get killed regularly, is it not clear that if they stopped eating chicken animal lives would be saved. Not global enought? So, dude, you likely have heard of the Impossible faux meat Burger which is going through the roof at BK, the IB company stock is going crazy, all the meat producers are going with all forms of faux meat ASAP. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT ISN'T GOING TO IMPACT DEMAND, THIS WOMAN WENT TO OXFORD???? Peter Singer is a national treasure, you owed him more than this high school book report interview. You wasted his and my time, you can do better, next time let me know I will send a list of questions and by the way you should take this disgrace down.

[@katriendevolder956]

I'd recommend you begin by reading some relevant philosophical literature-for example: Shelly Kagan - Do I Make a Difference? Philosophy and Public Affairs 39 (2):105-141 (2011). It may help you understand the issue a bit better.

[@bobleonard7122]

@@katriendevolder956 You refer me to a "paper" not a book that is unavailable to most of the people who have viewed. That's really using the Yale, Oxford, whatever, trump card isn't it; like reading a paper with simplistic theoretical situations (e.g. air plane food waste example) is going to turn a light on in the head of a 25 year animal activist. Rather than be condescending, perhaps you could explain where my claims regarding meat consumption and demand go off the rails. If this paper is some esoteric Ivy League reference to an obscure argument, perhaps it should be left in papers accessible to the privileged intellectual (if the pretense fits, wear it) and not posted for public consumption. Singer (can't help but wonder what he thought of your questions) speaks to everyone in terms easily understood, take a lesson, teach!

[@finalbossoftheinternet6002]

I don’t believe it’s moral to eat a living thinking conscious being, would it be moral for extra terrestrials to eat humans? Idk do what you want but for me I’m going to eat a plant based lifestyle.

[@dutoilette]

Hi, in answer to your question: Yes.

[@quidam_surprise]

Well ... yeah 😐.

[@chickenlord11maximumcarnag82]

Which do you think is worse? Slaughter houses that stun the animal and kill it by slitting the throat. Then skinning it and doing all that. To be bought by people, cooked and eaten and then have their remains in the bin? Or prey is running for his life from a predator, and they are bitten by the neck and left to struggle in pain before they finally die, only to be torn to shreds and have their carcass left to be eaten by scavengers until their dead body decompose. Now, not every slaughter house kill animals humanely. I don’t agree with those people. Also to answer your question, yes

[@quidam_surprise]

@@chickenlord11maximumcarnag82 I mean ... To be fair, the difference hardly matters if you set out to take their lives away in the first place.

[@brainerbird]

would have liked him to cite some things so we don't need to take his word on everything... nobody cares about plants lol.

[@kalmdwn7711]

darn rabbit, goat, possum, and a myriad of 4-legged pests in a certain country

[@jaywasd]

cows chickens and pigs suffer more than mice.

[@collinskocmoc8888]

Do you know any animals at all?

[@quietvalleyranch6368]

It’s great when people like Singer make all kinds of lofty proclamations based on the subjective experience of animals and then admit that little is even understood about consciousness. This whole sentience sliding scale thing is WAY more problematic then any of these ideologues will admit to.

[@MrGav1191]

The unknown elements of subjectivity are universal, I know nothing of the conscious experience of any other ostensibly sentient creature other than what can be inferred on the basis of behaviour and biology, that's just as true of humans as it is of animals.

[@quietvalleyranch6368]

John Richards , whatever the case , I would not project the human experience on to a pig, unless I was crafting a script for a children’s film.

[@Untoldanimations]

Nobody is forcing you to do that. Just acknowledge that they indeed are conscious to an extent and that that in of itself is definitely enough to not torture them

[@felixenz7682]

Veganism*

[@MrSingh1150]

Go eat grass

[@goatdeer8403]

Ugh, really? I need protein in my diet, not everyone can go vegan

[@Sentientism]

The "best objection against vegetarianism" is missing: Veganism.

[@chriskappert1365]

Yes , as long as there are preditors in the animal world , I will eat meat . We humans have a mixed set of teeth , as wel for eating vegetables as well as meat .

[@jasondashney]

Let's go with that logic. Primates kill each other, and each other. Monkeys will go on raids to kill and eat other monkeys. There are also monkeys that keep harems and use violent tactics to keep them intact, and rape is also a very real thing in primates. And that's just our closest relatives. If we look at all of the animal kingdom, there is all kinds of stuff that we would find abhorrent. Tons of bird species will have extra chicks as back ups and they will take the weakest and literally picked them up with their bill and toss them out of the nest when it becomes clear which of their offspring has the best chance of survival. Bears, along with lots of other species, will kill infants in order to have sex with their mom, so she can get pregnant and have his offspring instead. I'm not sure using nature as an argument for human morality is the right way to go lest you inadvertently end up justifying the worst horrors imaginable.

[@bobleonard7122]

You refer me to a "paper" not a book that is unavailable to most of the people who have viewed. That's really using the Yale, trump card isn't it, like reading a paper with simplistic situations (air plane food waste) is going to turn a light on in the head of a 25 year animal activist. Rather than be condescending, perhaps you could explain where my claims regarding meat consumption and demand go of the rails. If this is some esoteric Ivy League reference to an obscure argument, perhaps it should be left in papers like the one you mention and not posted for public consumption. Singer speaks to everyone in terms easily understood, take a lesson, teach!

[@katriendevolder956]

I'm happy to send you the paper if you email me. The problem I'm referring to is similar to that of climate change. where many people together are responsible for a really bad result (climate change), but where, arguably, one individual doesn't make a difference. Whether you drive your car all year long may not make any difference to whether global temperatures will rise or not. But all of us driving our cars for a year will make a difference. For those who only look at the consequences of actions to determine how to act (like Singer) this may pose a problem (in philosophy, it's sometimes referred to as a collective action problem). The problem may also arise in the debate about vegetarianism. You buying a steak twice a week in the supermarket may not have any effect on the supply of steak in the supermarket (say, because they only order a new batch when a certain number of steaks have been sold). Thus, it may not have any effect on how much meat the supermarket orders, and thus, on the number of cows killed. Of course, many steak eaters together will have a clear effect on how many cows are killed. But for a consequentialist like Singer, it is not obvious to explain why your individual action of buying steak is wrong (if it may not have any negative effect. Hope that clarifies things.

[@bobleonard7122]

@@katriendevolder956 My second assumption was correct, you refer to a specialized philosophical argument not accessible to most, not because they are less intelligent than philosopher types, but because they see such esoterica as a waste of time. As Singer politely points out, this argument (and the first several you offer) are quite obviously "weak", (and elementary). It almost seems as though you had a hidden agenda or perhaps are simply a reluctant omnivore attempting to find a justification for considering ideas that you know will seem ridiculous in 50 years. (for perspective on that and my view please see kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYO0lIhqrap1isU in particular the Continuum of Animal Consideration at 6:19). Oh and BTW, if tomorrow, Jeff Bezos (one person) decided to spend all of his money feeding the hungry with faux and clean meat, demand would change drastically. Silly, perhaps, but in my view not any more silly than what you offered.