[cubesmarching]

All humans eventually die, and most natural deaths are far more horrifying than how we would be able to murder other humans, especially in modern times (though even traditional slaughter is nothing compared to dying of cancer, stroke, being murdered in a car crash, etc.)

So, I think that it is important how the humans are grown (prisons are absolutely horrible, unacceptable places to live in, and should ideally become illegal sooner rather than later, regardless of the consequences on the price of labor). But I really don't think there is any reason to feel bad about the murder of 25 year old people who have led a decent life, even if it may be shorter than they would expect in nature (the huge proliferation of the human species is kind of payment for that, in a way).

[tsimionescu]

This is a silly straw-man.

First of all, most humans in society die relatively peaceful deaths (and this proportion would increase if we supported euthanasia, which I am in favor of in certain cases).

Second of all, humans form powerful attachments to their kin and peers, and the death of a human brings great and lasting sadness to all other humans in their group. This is not something observed with cattle and most other animals (though there are exceptions), except for short periods of time.

Thirdly, there are some admittedly specieist arguments to be made in favor of the value of human cognition as compared to that of a cow or pig or any other animal that currently exists on Earth. At the very least, you could say that every human has the potential of being a great artist or otherwise improving the lot of all current and future humans (and perhaps even cows) in a way that an individual cow does not.

[cubesmarching]

The leading causes of death are diseases, cancers, dementia, road injuries, etc. These are inarguably more "horrifying" deaths than how we could kill people with methods such as those used for euthanasia, which is the point the original comment was making.

If a human has no friends, and their death would not bring great and lasting sadness to other humans, is it ok to murder them?

If a human is mentally or physically incapable of improving the lot of other people, and is in fact a burden on society, is it ok to murder them?

[0-_-0]

Murdering a lonely person or a handicapped person still brings significant distress to other humans.

[cubesmarching]

Murdering animals also brings significant distress to humans. Just not all humans.

[0-_-0]

There are a lot of things that bring distress to a small minority but we don't argue that it should be stopped on a societal level.

[cubesmarching]

70 billion farm animals are the small minority, and 8 billion people are the majority?

Is it ok to cause suffering to humans who are minorities because they are minorities?

[marliechiller]

|Second of all, humans form powerful attachments to their kin and peers, and the death of a human brings great and lasting sadness to all other humans in their group. This is not something observed with cattle and most other animals (though there are exceptions), except for short periods of time.

straight up false. cattle mourn death and seperation from their calves very obviously, for days. Heres just a small example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Woulyd9NWFM&list=PLtc3iQTP5E... some cursory googling will support this. Whos to say they dont carry that burden for the rest of their lives? I only show outward emotion for a brief time period after a death, but I certainly have sadness for a long time after and it would be hubris to think something as intelligent as a pig or a cow would be unnaffected enough to justify that for 5 minutes of taste

[cubesmarching]

To those downvoting: do you believe that dogs are able to mourn when their companions die? There are myriad examples of this occurring. If so, do you believe that dogs are the only animal capable of this?

[dalmo3]

Now do one for plants.

[cubesmarching]

Plants are not conscious and do not feel pain. But even if your argument is in good faith and you genuinely believe that the plight of plants is equivalent to the suffering of animals, then that is still an argument for veganism, as producing a kilo of animal flesh requires several kilos of plant matter, thus increasing the total amount of suffering relative to simply eating plants directly.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

>the plight of plants is equivalent to the suffering of animals

You assume that the plight of humans is equivalent to the suffering of animals.

[cubesmarching]

Humans are animals. Humans do not feel pain differently from other animals. Humans do not suffer differently from other animals. This is why intentionally causing animals like cats and dogs to suffer is illegal and viewed as abhorrent. The only reason this is not extended to other animals like cows and pigs is convenience.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

>Humans are animals.

I'll give you that.

>Humans do not feel pain differently from other animals. Humans do not suffer differently from other animals.

Humans do not feel pain differently than say, a mollusk?

[cubesmarching]

The vast majority of animals raised to be killed and eaten are fowls, pigs, cattle, sheep, and goats. No, humans do not feel pain differently than these animals any more than they feel pain differently from cats or dogs.

[dalmo3]

Sorry for being rude. No, my [non-]argument wasn't in good faith - it was in response to a parody comment, after all.

But you seem serious this time. The problem with that line of reasoning is: sure, you can (quite literally) weigh the pros and cons of veganism like you did. But why stop there? To sustain a kilo of human flesh you still need several thousands of kilos of plant matter. The ultra-utilitarian solution surely must be getting rid of human flesh? Now I'm not so sure your previous comment was really a parody.

[cubesmarching]

Given that plants aren't conscious and do not feel pain, any line of reasoning that is predicated on the assumption that plants are conscious and feel pain is irrelevant.

[hhjinks]

Your argument is just antinatalism, but for farm animals. Every animal will suffer in its life. Eradicating an entire population to reduce suffering is pretty extreme. Other arguments for veganism, like the environmental one, are much more palatable.

[cubesmarching]

Where, exactly, did I argue for the eradication of an entire population? Ending the exploitation of animals does not require eradicating them.