So obviously everyone reading this is going to go away and spawn and computer vision startup, and it turns out much progress has already been made[0][1], including prediction sex before hatching[2].
I have a friend who's working as a chicken sexer. From what I understand they don't teach how to do this anywhere in Europe, so they get people from the asian countries that do to emigrate and basically hold them hostage with temporary worker visas...
Calling it an art does not make it less cruel. That something is lucrative does not mean it's nice (ask slavery victims). Please consider not buying animal products, you can easily do without it. Thank you.
I'm amazed at the aggression this comment is getting. There's a strong moral argument for not eating meat. There's a distinct but also reasonable argument for not consuming derivative products. It's a sane position and I think it can be advocated for.
I can eat meat and still believe I may be wrong in doing so. There's absolutely no reason to take this quite polite advocacy as a personal attack.
There are several arguments listed at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[0]; namely, the argument from animal suffering, the argument from animal killing, the argument from environmental damage, and the argument from harm to humans. These are compatible not just with utilitarian moral frameworks, but a variety of metaethical theories.
I'm not aware of any theory which has convincingly been able to show that animals are not worthy of moral consideration (but all humans are). Similarly, I'm not aware of any theory which successfully argues that human pleasure from eating meat outweighs the suffering of the animals (without also applying to a variety of human behaviours). Justification like that usually entails that the suffering is necessary, yet moral vegetarianism does make any claim as far as people who need to eat meat (or at least purchase meat or kill animals) for dietary reasons.
> I'm not aware of any theory which has convincingly been able to show that animals are not worthy of moral consideration (but all humans are)
To argue against eating animals, you need a moral theory which shows that animals are worthy of moral consideration.
There is none, that I'm aware of. Not in a strictly rational sense. Utilitarianism does not bridge the "is-ought gap," for instance.
(I actually think the "is-ought gap" is an imperfect way to look at it, but that's a simplified way for me to try to explain my objection to these kinds of theories, which may be understandable to people who have at least taken Philosophy 101).
Personally, I'm quite convinced that it's impossible to create a rationally justified moral theory that grants rights to animals.
What exactly makes humans worthy of moral concern but non-human animals not? How does one justify making that exact dichotomy? How can all moral theories somehow intrinsically make that dichotomy?
One of the most prominent utilitarians (and ethicists of modern times), Peter Singer, argues for moral consideration of animals on utilitarian grounds. There are Kantians who do the same. The point of more significant controversy is the strength of that moral consideration, as put by SEP:
"That non-human animals can make moral claims on us does not in itself indicate how such claims are to be assessed and conflicting claims adjudicated. Being morally considerable is like showing up on a moral radar screen—how strong the signal is or where it is located on the screen are separate questions."
>Utilitarianism does not bridge the "is-ought gap," for instance.
That's not utilitarianism's job, that's the job of a realist moral epistemology. It is perfectly possible, for instance, to believe in moral reletavism or moral objectivism while being a utilitarian. And although I think I side more with the Humean side of the is-ought debate with regard to moral realism, I can also see that moral realists have some good arguments that natural science is not the measure of everything.
>Personally, I'm quite convinced that it's impossible to create a rationally justified moral theory that grants rights to animals.
We're not talking about rights, we're talking about moral consideration. What we do with that consideration and how it figures into our priorities is only an orthogonal matter. Singer, for instance, in proposing that animals have moral consideration, would not say they have rights, in this case it would be permissible to kill an animal to save the life of a human, whereas it may never be permissible to kill a human to save the life of another human.
> Peter Singer, argues for moral consideration of animals on utilitarian grounds. There are Kantians who do the same.
I don't agree with either. In my view, the kinds of arguments they make are not even valid kinds of arguments.
> believe in moral reletavism or moral objectivism
I'm neither of those things, nor do I think they are valid positions.
I realize that it's a bit unfair for me to just say that and leave it there, but I can only spend so much time discussing this on HN.
> We're not talking about rights, we're talking about moral consideration.
OK. I wouldn't modify the substance of what I've said even if I accept that. (Though I don't actually agree with this way of separating out the problem space).
On the citations of Singer/various Kantians/etc.:
It's not my intention to talk past you, it's just that if you say "well, $BIGTEXT has a good argument!", that's not really the kind of thing we can discuss efficiently here. I can make very simple and direct arguments for my views without pointing to some $BIGTEXT.
There is nothing wrong with pointing to $BIGTEXT. In fact, somebody might say "Aha! Now I know I need to go read $BIGTEXT."
It's just that we can't really "go there" efficiently on HN. It's better if you can make simple and direct arguments, so that people can actually grapple with them.
But I know that is not always possible (and this time, I'll grant you, probably isn't, if your views happen to agree with some of the people you've cited).
Forgive me for being direct, but I only wanted to respond to the idea that there are no arguments, or rather, to point out the existence of the arguments if you don't know about them. I didn't want to make any claim as to the validity of the arguments beyond the fact that I think they're convincing, and in general, a large portion of professional philosophers consider them to be too. That doesn't mean they are correct of course (in part or entirely), only that they have some serious weight in the development of moral philosophy.
I find it pretty easy to accept some of the arguments within a certain framework, even if I don't subscribe to the framework itself. For instance, I might think that God may have or not have certain qualities or attributes, according to a theological framework, even though I am an atheist, and the question of God is not at all relevant to me. I operate the same way about many moral questions.
On the other hand, I also realize I should spend some time backing up and at least thinking about my alternatives, even if they are 'null' alternatives where I believe the burden of proof is on someone else. With regard to moral nihilism and the burden of proof, for instance, the moral skeptic may need to explain why moral intuitions are not a good starting point (or dismiss the role of intuition entirely, but she still needs an argument). A moral non-cognitivist needs to get around the embedding problem, for instance too.
I could see a moral argument in favor of vegetarianism or veganism because it is better for the environment and prevents global warming which in turn is better for humanity and our long term existence. But even then technology may be able to mitigate the impact. For example, feeding ruminants red algae.
Ah yes, the old "Eating/Kepping animals is just like slavery, you're all monsters" chestnut...
Do you really think that anyone is going to see this comment and reconsider eating meat, or wearing leather? Because "that nice _cies_ person on the internet told me I'm a terrible human being"?
I doubt they expect that. It might, however, encourage others to think about it a bit more.
Their message was very polite, simply pointing out the existence of other lifestyles, and barring personal tastes, it’s functionally not difficult to change your own.
With so many replacements products, it has never been easier. A replacement is at hand within a few meters of the animal derived product in most modern supermarkets. Also, Youtube is full of inspiration of how to replace any animal derived product. It's never been easier.
I think its more the will, than the ability, that's needed. And if someone considers some products "too hard to switch away from" then, just keep buying that one and skip the others.
Dont like cruelty to animals? Then stop buying it. It's that simple.
What I'm saying is, it's really easy for me to boil a dozen eggs, grill some chicken bits, and boil half a pack of brown rice or quinoa. A week's worth of food, the caloric density is astounding. I then only need to make salads or play with frozen veggies.
All of this is really cheap and quick to make. Almond/coconut/soy milk costs nearly three times as much as cow's milk in my country, and the substitute 'meats' are hard to find outside supermarkets. Veganism here might as well be money laundering. To my knowledge, beyond burgers and such food is still pricey in the USA as well, for instance.
I'm just pointing out what makes me consider vegetarianism or veganism is eating more food, better food, for less money, and less pretentious heat treatment. I'm not finding it right now. Hopeful for the future, though.
Dried beans, lentils, pulses and brown rice are cheap and dense in calories + protein. Throw some seasonal vegetables in when you have them. Eat some cut oats for breakfast. Nothing pretentious about that! You don't need all the processed meat substitutes, they're not especially healthy either. Also cows milk surely must be more expensive than oat milk to produce, but we all live in countries where dairy is heavily subsidized.
Cheerful meat-eater here. I think that, if you got your protein through legumes, that would be even cheaper than eggs. It would probably mean rearchitecting your food in general rather than using drop-in replacements.
One website says that the cheapest eggs on its list (Costco) are 70 grams of protein per dollar, while the cheapest beans (pinto) are 80 grams per dollar, and lentils are 116 grams per dollar. Hmm, that difference is smaller than I expected. https://efficiencyiseverything.com/calorie-per-dollar-list/
I’d really like to see someone do the math on how many animals get killed growing plant-based meat substitutes. Mice sucked up when they harvest the corn, bugs sprayed with pesticides, etc.
Pasture-raised grass-fed beef might come out way better in comparison.
This makes it sound like plant based diets are much crueler than they make out to be - but that harm is surely still an order of magnitude reduced compared to farming animals?
One is collateral damage (mice sucked up etc.) but the other is _premised_ on death.
> but that harm is surely still an order of magnitude reduced compared to farming animals?
Probably true if you compare it to conventional cattle farming, as they're largely fed corn from fields.
I suspect pasture raised, grass fed animals have a vastly lower deaths-per-bite count than a veggie burger, though. I don't know that I subscribe to the "accidental deaths matter less" argument, either.
A wild animal that inadvertently dies is not the same as a caged animal that is killed.
But yes, even plant foods incur animal suffering. Vegans know. Much, much less though.
> Pasture-raised grass-fed beef might come out way better in comparison.
If you consider a bugs life equal to a cows life: yes. Most people dont. I kill bugs when I drive my car, if I'd kill cows at the same rate as bug when driving, I'd stop driving.
I see this kind of whataboutism almost every time people discuss the ethics of meat consumption and the surrounding industries. If growing plants commercially kills animals in the process then that's something else to examine but it doesn't change the fact that meat based industries are usually incredibly cruel.
My family eats meat[1] in general yet has had no trouble avoiding chicken[2] specifically.
[1] Dairy farmers maximising milk output for feed input is why there is veal.
(Confining veal calves is illegal here, and labelling is enforced to the point that even restaurant waiters must be able to tell you the provenance of their meats.)
Animals eat plants too, so you significantly reduce plant pain by consuming them directly. Also: fruit are plant based but are "given" by the plant, the plant survives.
Finally, a plant's "pain" is VERY different from animal pain. Where animal pain is in many cases/ways the same as human pain.
This is based on existing farming practices and the second and third order effects of using crop land. It’s entirely possible to grow plants without harming animals, but it’s impossible to eat meat without harm (barring research into lab-grown meat)
One can envision a future where more crops can grown on a smaller footprint with future agricultural developments (e.g hydroponics, multi level farms, etc)
It also ignores the fact that the production of red meat is incredibly bad for the environment, and one of the large contributors to greenhouse gases.
This argument feels similar to criticisms of electric cars because generating energy currently hurts the environment, but this ignores the future potential of widespread renewable energy, with which petroleum vehicles are incompatible.
0: https://vixra.org/pdf/1405.0016v1.pdf
1: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342532726_Estimatio...
2: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00071668.2019.1...