Dr. Doug Graham (80-10-10 raw vegan)

[miniboes]

[The Grand Nudger]

You can be pretty damn certain that the money you give to your local butcher is causing animals to suffer. Therefore, pursuing the best possible outcome, as in causing the least suffering, necessarily includes not buying meat.

I grow alot of my own, but more often the not I buy the majority from someone else (up to and including the grocery store)...no matter who the supplier is, animals suffer.

-and I can be pretty damned certain that the money I pay in taxes is causing animals to suffer. I'm pretty sure the money I don't spend on this or that is causing animals to suffer. My very existence....causes animals to suffer. Obligate parasite, in context. Neither you nor I actually have control over this, and our relative dietary choices are not sufficient grounds to elicit a change in this situation.

But we've already been here, this ground has been covered. All of the above applies to my money hurting people as well, and yours too, ofc.

(I want to mention here that something ought to pop out at you. You can, without having seen what I buy reasonably assume that something on that list causes harm/suffering/death to animals....have you ever thought to go down that same rabbit hole with regards to AG -et al.....how many critters die to get us a head of lettuce or to keep the lights on at our houses?)

The suffering of the animals, how does it reduce the suffering of the animals?

You're asking how a reduction in fossil fuel use and dependence would reduce animal suffering? Just sum up for me the state you feel the fossil fuel industry is in regarding the suffering of animals (including ourselves..of course)?

Since you're having this discussion with me I assumed you are not vegan. Am I not correct? And yes, you have a choice, it is not buying the damn meat.

Nope, not a vegan. I am a picky eater though with much wider leeway than yourself for reliably sourcing my own food in a manner that I can be certain is consistent with my principles. Even so, I can't honestly claim that my freedom of dietary choice relative to yourself actually reduces the suffering of animals - or gives me any moral or ethical purchase.

There's a fundamental difference between bacteria and most animals; the animals are sentient, bacteria are not.

Speciesist. How convenient for your pleasure.

Animals have an interest to live, bacteria do not.

LOL, of all the things about sentience and how it seems to lead to differences in life that -are- easy to quantify, that's not one of them. All life, by any consistent metric, has "interest to live". Not immediately relevant but it's just something I had to opine upon when I saw it.

If something cannot suffer, if something cannot even want anything, then I have no problem with eating it. However, if it can suffer, and it does have a will to live, then it is in our circumstances not justifiable.

Because.......? Also, so long as we're not eating it but are hurting or impeding it in some other way...are we then in a similar position - or will we only extend this criticism to omnivory?

(the short version of that long disappointing convo is that were are simply not at a point in ag where it's even possible to feed people without suffering and harm being done to animals..and that's best or worst case scenarios. We're might not even be in a position where reduction is feasible if possible...as any suffering alleviated on one side will simply be absorbed by the other)

[Aractus]

[KichigaiNeko]

Ummm
Quick interjection.

Without bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract, humans would not be able to digest any food at all.

At least this is my understanding of biology.

---

Great discussion.

[Aractus]

No, humans would still digest food (saliva begins the process in the mouth), and some absorption of the digested food would still take place, but yes bacteria is required as part of the normal digestive process in humans, and other animals.

[miniboes]

[Aractus]

[The Grand Nudger]

Note that I said minimize suffering, not eliminate suffering. To say that because you can't eliminate animal suffering you might as well not try is like saying you can't stop all sexual abuse so you might as well buy child porn and rape the next woman you meet.

Except that nobody said that we shouldn't try except yourself, right here, nubcakes. :hugs: I'm commenting on the likelihood of success in the current environment.

I do feel like the fossil fuel industry is causing animal suffering, but it is nowhere near the scale of animal suffering caused by the dairy and meat industry. I don't see how you can possibly think that integrating livestock production into our overall food production is somehow better than getting rid of livestock production.

Because food production requires a vast amount of chemical inputs that livestock can provide (as well as shallow tilling, pest control, storage etc). Because livestock can be grown in places and times where mixed veg cannot - reducing the cost of transportation (energy cost, mind you). Because livestock can process things which are not useful to us into that which is useful to us (like all of that corn which our livestock industry is currently a byproduct of- or grass). Because I don't have to build offshore rigs, deep wells or strip mines to grow livestock. Because livestock is not a weapon with which countries can wage war, or tinpot dictators can prop themselves up with. Hopefully you've deigned to include not just the environmental destruction of fossil fuels and ag - but also the human conflict over the same...because hey, we're animals too...but even if you don't think we belong in the animal category, we still suffer. As far as the suffering of animals goes, on this rock. Ag and fossil fuels would be my #1 and #2 (and that's unsurprising, since they're currently tied at the hip) with regards to human activities which have caused the most suffering in this word. Something tells me a free range chicken operation isn't approaching their combined and projected death tolls. But you disagree? Perhaps we should quantify that with some numbers? How many heads of cattle do you think suffer on a pasture operation following best practice (preventative vet, captive bolt, inter station screening, etc)? I'd be willing to wager there would be 0 animals suffering - aside from scrapes, bruises, cuts, illness...just usual life stuff (though even here, the livestock will be better offf...since we'll be there to treat them, and have an "interest" in doing so). I'm willing to line up the best practices in livestock vs best practices in non-livestock based ag and best practices in fossil fuel production and see how the chips fall. What would you accept as evidence or a reputable source of the same for lining up some numbers?

Sure, I don't see what is inherently wrong with speciesism if it does not mean claiming superiority of humanity over other sentient beings.

Except that you've conveniently defined your criteria for what you have to be nice to by reference to your own experience or attributes so that you can make an argument about how some experience or attribute of your own is "moral". Again, convenient. I don't have a problem with that, personally...but I'm not taking you to task for eating. You're tossing around moral condemnation so I'd suggest that you screw your shit down extra tight. Tighter than any speciesist excuse is going to allow, anyway.

How can something not conscious have an interest in anything? Come to think of it, how is that even relevant if it is not sentient?

Are you sure that your "interest to live" arises from your conscious...and if it did, how do we explain the startling similarities between ourselves and "non-conscious" life regarding the avoidance of death and harm? Anything you might reference as an example of an animals "interest to live" -including our own- is most likely going to apply to a rage of creatures that you would not attribute sentience to. Go ahead, try to come up with an example. It's wasn't immediately relevant...as I said, it's just a side interest of mine - an area in which people habitually take things for granted (consciousness/sentience/behavior). I could describe to you the interests -even preferences- of plants. I could describe to you how they communicate (even between species and even to animals), cooperate, and how they attempt to reactively defend themselves against predation (sometimes in wondrously complicated ways that defy explanation given the things we assume about plants relative to ourselves). All of this, with no "sentience" to speak of. Fascinating stuff. Now look up at the question and response above again, with new eyes......

Sorry, I don't understand your latter question, could you rephrase? As to why, I believe in a morality based on the minimization of suffering, as Sam Harris has constructed it in his book The Moral Landscape. Do you think we should not seek to minimize suffering?

Nope, I would agree that we should minimize suffering. My second question asked whether or not we're only going to be appraising what we eat with all of this, whether or not this same criteria of suffering is applied equally to any human activity. If so...I'm mystified by your comments about fossil fuels being less deleterious and harmful than livestock production.

How did you determine that?

Simple enough. People are still starving, as we speak - so reducing food sources available to us as a population isn't going to help that (nor do starving human beings do much good for the animal life in their immediate vicinity). Human animals will suffer. Lets say we ramped up our mixed veggie production (to cover the gaps left by livestock - in addition to those already starving) - we'd require more water and more fossil fuel based inputs (as well as an increase in suitable cropland read: clearcutting). Animals (human and none) will suffer en mass - as life as a bloc is already suffering due to water and fossil fuel based issues (let alone environmental destruction). Speaking of which, have you considered the suffering that would be wrought by such economic hardship being imposed? Exacerbating those issues seems unlikely to ameliorate the suffering they cause. Or, hail mary - we could lean on livestock to produce the chemical inputs (we'll still need more water - more production means more water) and remove the death timer that's currently on ag. However.. I don't imagine this is going to be acceptable to you as it will still lead to "the suffering of animals". Damned from all sides on this one and it just stings...because I'm a problem solver, at heart (and more specifically it's what I do for a living - touching on the suffering of my hungry little mouths no matter what angle we come from, lol). I fear that if we consistently applied your criticism to any method of food production available to us we would fall short of the bar you've set for "moral" or "humane". This is an incredibly complicated issue that you've reduced to a one liner...you realize? In any case, to begin explaining food production (either veg or livestock), it is essentially energy capture, processing, and storage. There's a disparity between what we have and what we need (for a wide variety of reasons..not all of which have ready made solutions - they are currently intractable- some of which do, but they are compromises down to the last offering with regards to subject we're discussing). The disparity -could be- quantified by an amount of suffering. We either suffer, or we shove that off on other creatures. Sometimes were deciding to increase or lesson the relative suffering between two groups of animals in the pursuit of minimizing our own. We're in a shitty position on this one (as are a great many other animals) in that we are not among the autotrophs, forced to compromise in a manner that suits our conscience. You and I want the same thing (I assume). We want to have a solution that feeds people in an ethical manner, a manner in which fewer things suffer. I say "fewer" because "no" is plainly off the table. Perhaps someday in the future "no" could be applied, but today is not the day (if it ever comes at all).

How do you propose that we meet our nutrient requirements (both in production and consumption), since you've taken away the one manner in which we know we can rely on indefinitely - the manner in which fertility is built "in the wild" and has been since time immemorial as causing more suffering....than fossil fuels. Is there an alternative to these two....have you told anyone about this alternative? A great many people would appreciate this information, myself included. Tell you what, I'll even cut you in on the trillions of dollars (and subsequent nobel prize) such a solution could rake in. Deal?

That last bit would be a good way to narrow in on the problems that ag faces currently, there aren't any "free lunches" in this world...especially when it comes to lunch, lol. I'll make a little list of the areas where we currently have a problem with ag as regards the suffering of animals. Pick any you like, perhaps offer a solution (not required)- and I'll babble on about the current state of affairs, limitations of knowledge/tech/economic feasability etc. Will give us a more focused convo.
1. Procurement of inputs
2. Development and maintenance of production space
3. Production and post harvest handling/processing of agricultural commodity
4. Transportation and sale of finished goods.

[Cyberman]

Note that I said minimize suffering, not eliminate suffering. To say that because you can't eliminate animal suffering you might as well not try is like saying you can't stop all sexual abuse so you might as well buy child porn and rape the next woman you meet.

Seriously?

Even if that was an accurate summation of what Rhythm said (hint: it's not) it would still be a blatantly obvious false equivocation. You are equating a lack of motivation to act on one side with proactively working to exacerbate the problem on the other.

In order to balance the equation, you need to reword either the left side as "because you can't eliminate animal suffering you might as well promote animal cruelty and maim the next animal you meet"; or the right side as "you can't stop sexual abuse so you might as well not try".

[The Grand Nudger]

Indeed. I aim to minimize suffering where I can (without making some arbitrary/convenient dividing line, ignoring some other suffering that my "solution" to suffering would entail) - and continue to look into areas where I currently cannot. I don't condemn others for not having an answer to the latter. None of chose to be born here, as were are, as this place is. It's not as though I'm calling anyone a moral midget for deciding to be vegan or for having had the blessing/curse to have been born a human being here in the present. I'm clearly handing out exemptions......lol.