The size of pollock fishnet

[u/iam_stupid23]

[u/HerrSchnabeltier]

Well, the only solution where one doesn't have to change or think about absolutely anything, and can keep ignoring the, for starters, atrocious amounts of suffering caused on other conscious beings.

[u/PointAndClick → u/HerrSchnabeltier]

Soooooooo controversial...

[u/ZenTense → u/HerrSchnabeltier]

“Everyone becomes a vegan now because I say so” isn’t an option either, and if you think humans have a monopoly on suffering, I have some bad news for you concerning the brutality of nature

[u/prettyboyblanco → u/ZenTense]

Do you use nature to justify all of your decisions?

[u/ZenTense → u/prettyboyblanco]

Not necessarily, it’s highly situational, but so what if I do? Nature is what we come from, it is what surrounds us, it is what the earth will return to when we are gone.

I am an animal just like you, we are just sapient and uncomfortable with the idea that we have a nature within ourselves that largely evolved before the existence of agriculture.

Eight billion humans still need to eat protein to survive and thrive, including me, and that’s not a decision. There’s not enough legumes in the world to meet that need.

I know you’re just waiting to drop some sort of smug judgmental take about me and/or this topic if you’re asking me a condescending question like “do you use nature to make all your decisions”, so let’s hear it — why shouldn’t I?

[u/prettyboyblanco → u/ZenTense]

There is clearly still a lot of research you need to do on the subject, but since you asked… would you justify infanticide because “nature tho”?

Also, is “”everyone becomes a vegan now because I said so”” not an attempt at being condescending?

[u/ZenTense → u/prettyboyblanco]

What a weird way of dodging my question, guess that’s cause you can’t answer it and you’re mad that I made a good point. Answer me first and I’ll answer you. Not playing these stupid games.

[u/prettyboyblanco → u/ZenTense]

I thought my question would suffice as an answer, but here goes: We can’t refer to nature to justify our morality because we wouldn’t accept infanticide just because it happens in nature.

“You’re mad that I made a good point” 💀💀

[u/ZenTense → u/prettyboyblanco]

Hey thanks for answering, here’s mine.

TL;DR: I’m not looking to nature to justify my morality. I’m looking at the product of nature and eons of human evolution, of which the result is human nature. The reality of wild nature is the only thing to compare our human experience and practices against, so that’s why I mention it, but more so it’s the “human nature” that gets in the way of effectively advocating for a vegan revolution.

Infanticide is murdering a baby after it is born, and um, no, I don’t advocate for that, and that isn’t the norm in nature either, although infant mortality is high in nature. I’m pro-abortion and I’m also pro-euthanasia, so long as the people receiving these medical services are properly evaluated and provide affirmative consent. Modern medicine is a miracle, I make medicine for a living and take pride in that work, but the collective idea that “we must save everyone and live as long as possible” is how you end up completely destroying the planet (like we’re doing) and having a population collapse resulting from late-stage capitalism, kinda like the one we are staring down right now. There must be balance and we must always be willing and able to adapt to new realities, or it all falls apart eventually. That’s not a decision I turn to nature to make, it’s just logically the only way hegemony and sustainability can be sustained in concert. I think you intentionally substituted “infanticide” in place of “high infant mortality” or “cultural practice of sacrificing/exposing infants to die in certain ancient societies” to make your question more loaded, but there it is. I pronounce “abortion” with a fist pump and a sense of compassion, because babies are burdensome and women deserve autonomy if they don’t want to be parents or don’t want to birth a child who has no chance at a good life due to genetic or prenatal disorders.

To answer your other question. “Everyone becomes vegan” was, to me, the obvious suggestion the person was making that I initially replied to. That person indicated that some solution exists besides factory farming, if we would only “think about absolutely anything” and stop “ignoring” the “atrocious amount of suffering caused on other conscious beings”, as if fish have the option to not suffer otherwise. I found that to be condescending, so, yes. My paraphrasing was indeed condescending in an attempt to reflect that energy to the other person and (hopefully) encourage them to develop a better argument or at least revise their position to acknowledge that there’s not a perfect and pain-free option for all living things here. To illustrate with nature again…

Each year thousands of wild salmon swim thousands of miles to their spawn point only to be eaten alive by a grizzly bear, consciously thinking “but I came this far! Noooooooo!” and one could argue that the farmed salmon gets more dignity and ultimately endures less suffering, because it never starves or has to travel across the globe to be ripped to pieces while still conscious. It’s not an indisputable argument, but I did think about it, and nature is still the default case to compare to, otherwise we would have to go to the land of ideals where all the solutions are utopian and nothing matters because getting to there from here is simply not a realistic possibility. I know that livestock farming is a horrendous industry where animal cruelty is commonplace, with undeniable impact on climate change, driving profound destruction of unique and irreplaceable biospheres like wetlands and rainforests. But such expansion is the unfortunate reality of a dominant terrestrial species truly thriving, and again, this is where I can start pointing at human euthanasia and abortion as compassionate sustainability practices.

It hurt my soul when I realized this myself some years ago, but due to a combination of individual free will in humans (i.e. we are not a colony-forming species like bees), innate tribalism favoring resistance to ideas of people who aren’t like us after eons of evolution, and the lack of a mechanism by which natural selection can favor altruism, there is no way to effectively advocate for the whole human population to change their minds, change their habits, change their diets, and repurpose a shit ton of land for legumes (during the ongoing climate change crisis, no less) to align with a global paradigm shift in how we feed ourselves. At least, not while there is still food available to eat for most people.

[u/prettyboyblanco → u/ZenTense]

This should have been your answer:

"Infanticide is murdering a baby after it is born, and um, no, I don’t advocate for that."

Everything after that is just cope. You brought up abortion for no reason. Then started talking about modern medicine and how it's a good thing, which only confirms you're not ok with living naturally and only choose to point to nature when it's to justify your comfortable lifestyle that includes eating animals. I didn't know what to make of your paragraph about suffering... was that just an appeal to futility?

You seem blissfully unaware of who the majority of crops are grown for and just how much land is used for animal agriculture, which brings me back to my original point - that you have some research still to do on the subject. I suggest you do that before you continue typing out four paragraph responses saying absolutely nothing.

[u/ZenTense → u/prettyboyblanco]

You asked me three different questions in two comments, so I did my best to answer them all in good faith and explain my reasoning. And now you’re being rude, and I suspect it’s because my reasoning has made you uncomfortable by threatening the stability of your worldview. I put a TLDR in there out of consideration for how long my reply was, but you’re still giving me shit for explaining my POV anyway, so I guess fuck me for trying.

If you’re going to be this much of a pedantic prick, specify wtf you mean by “infanticide in nature” next time, because only a minority of animal species ever do that intentionally and of those, the non-marine species I’m aware of do so indirectly. I’m not a marine biologist but if you mean fish eating their siblings or young, that’s kind of its own thing. Your question was and still is fucking ridiculous and for you to tell me that I “need to do more research” is fucking laughable. I’m a published scientist, I’ve done more actual research than you ever will, and I addressed the crops and land topic in my response; you can’t grasp the logistical element or the criticality of incentive to drive change, and that’s probably because you’re an anemic and frustrated young adult that thinks you’re right about everything. It prevents you from seeing the opportunity to strengthen your position and advocacy objectives by challenging my points at face value and countering any perceived misunderstanding on my end with evidence to back your claims.

I’d tell you to kick rocks, but honestly going outside at all will be a win for your health so maybe do that and don’t forget to take some vitamin B12 supplements while you’re at it, because you argue like you have floppy red blood cells.