[tablarasa]

Perhaps that is true if you solely interact with food after it is dead and processed. Many people live much closer to their food production. I don't view the phrase "humane slaughter" as an attempt to insulate "us"; I think it is an acknowledgement by practitioners that they are mindful of what they are doing and to whom. It is also a direct reference to applicable laws where that term is codified.

Some people view killing animals for food as entirely humane, which is to say some combination of natural and ethical. You may not view any kind of animal slaughter as humane, but if pressed could you describe how humane your soy, wheat, etc. production is?

[boston_clone]

What is humane about raising an animal in captivity and killing it for unnecessary consumption after only a few years or months of life?

Surely you can figure out how eating beans is a little more kind.

[tablarasa]

Huh, I had considered consumption to be necessary for my own persistence.

Most increase in land-based agricultural productivity in this day and age comes from intensification on existing land or removal of forested habitats. Those come at a huge cost to biodiversity and ecosystem services. They also have social costs to other humans.

> "Surely you can figure out how eating beans is a little more kind." I don't think this snarkiness is very productive, but I'm super used to hearing this sentiment; often the people who express this type of idea have really good intentions that I am totally aligned with, but they also fall into logical fallacies usually due to missing information around ecology, agriculture, and food systems. It makes perfect sense if you take a very narrow view of how food is produced and what alternatives there are for land and water use: just eat a bean because it doesn't scream! Totally. But growing that bean comes at a cost and ignoring that because you read Sinclair or can afford to shop for high-end foods isn't helpful. I think it is a fantasy to suggest that the problems will be solved if peoples and cultures around the world just subscribe to my view of what is ethical or desirable.

Any fish would prefer you eat a bean. But the animals and plants that would use the land on which its grown would prefer you eat a fish. Those of us working to build sustainable food systems that minimize the overall impact on natural systems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services will fail if we take such a simplistic and naive view of the tradeoffs.

[boston_clone]

Interestingly, I too encounter similar arguments. But it is worth it to go beyond surface-level, especially with complex topics.

I described it as unnecessary, because eating animals is simply not necessary to sustain a long, healthy life. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/

The vast majority (>75%) of soybeans grown are simply to feed cattle. The majority of rainforests being cleared in Brazil are for cattle. Animal agriculture is the leading contributor for GHG and anthropogenic climate change. Plenty of data breakdowns can be found here: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use , but this shouldn't be news to you.

Snarkiness is hard to avoid when you're legitimately attempting to compare the humanity of an industry responsible for killing 100 billion animals each year versus growing and eating plants; it's like comparing Hitler to a person who kills a housefly.

You wanna minimize your impact to natural systems and biodiversity? Stop eating animals. Peter Singer is a great place to approach the issue from a modern, truly ethical lens.

Hopefully we both can rid ourselves of simplistic and naive views, but for now, discussions about how we should best function in this universe ought to be had.

[tablarasa]

Yeah sorry I tried to anticipate and cover this response briefly by pointing out that the population of the world simply is not going to stop eating animal protein because you told them you find it unethical. Their beliefs are not morally dissonant because they do not share your view that killing a sentient being for food is wrong. This thread is about fisheries and my argument is in support of using both wild and farmed fish as a much better alternative for protein production than land-based agriculture, whether that be in support of livestock or soy milk. Your response is "everyone should eat plants exclusively because that works for me with minimal negative unintended consequences."

I also tried to point out the inherit issue with the comparison of "killing 100 billion animals each year" with "growing and eating plants" as though the latter avoids all 100 billion animal deaths. It doesn't. It might move those deaths to other species that you care less about or to a different time or make them lives that never existed rather than lives taken, but it still comes at a cost. So your premise is just incomplete and focuses entirely on the issue that seems to be most important to you personally.

If "you" want to minimize your impact, stop eating animals is an argument that only works for a subset of the human population and is only an accessible solution to a fraction of that. Putting aside the gross ethnocenctricity, it simply is not going to work as a solution. The converse is that "some land is not suitable for crop agriculture but is usable for grazing" and I also routinely see that argument abused even though it is true. Some livestock are raised totally sustainably and even provide ecosystem services (trampling is good for some systems and cattle do it in lieu of the native grazers that are now gone). But that doesn't mean that all cattle can be raised at no cost. You're making that argument, just about row crops, I guess.

FWIW, soy production in Brazil in the service of foreign markets is... not very sustainable even if it's not for feed [1].

I remember when I was younger and I was like, "I survive fine on <2 gallons of fresh water a day... how can there possibly be a water supply issue anywhere?" Or, more generally, "I can modify my behavior with few personal consequences to fit into a sustainable model." So that is great. Do it. But I would argue you are avoiding grappling with the full impacts of your own choices and, even if they'd be better alternatives anyway, you're failing to recognize that your choices are not available to everyone.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98256-6

[mhb]

If the animal had a happy few years or months of life do you consider that a net increase in happiness even if the animal is killed?

[boston_clone]

I'm not sure what you mean by "net increase in happiness". Like, if the universe was a big bank of emotions from which we all made withdrawals and deposits? That's a weird premise to accept.

In any case, the act of killing a sentient being is wrong. We've got that more or less universally codified for other humans (and most pets); seems we may just need a few more uncomfortable ethical discussions before we reach consistency.

[mhb]

Yes, but it doesn't have to be the universe. It could just be a farm. Suppose a cow has a happy 3 year life munching grass in the field but is killed after that. There's more happiness on the farm. So should there be more of those cows on the farm? Or would it be better if those cows had never lived.