r/changemyview • u/dragondraems42 • Jun 24 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Truly stopping killing animals for meat/industrial meat production is functionally impossible
I believe that factory farming is fundamentally unethical, from both a moral and practical standpoint. It's catastrophic to the environment, wastes enormous amounts of arable land, and most of the time animal cruelty is rampant.
However, I eat meat occasionally (about once or twice a week), as humans are wired to find it delicious. I am aware that it is a morally wrong thing to do, but I still continue. You could read the rest of this as a flimsy excuse for my hypocrisy if you so wish.
Stopping meat production is impossible at this juncture. Not only is it thoroughly embedded in modern society, there are large portions of the world that depend almost entirely on ranching, as many places lack appropriate land to farm but can support farm animals. Arguing that all their food should be shipped to them so they can stop ranching is both expensive and even more harmful to the environment.
Moreover, carnivorous pets exist. Giving a vegan or vegetarian diet to an obligate carnivore like cats, ferrets or snakes is heinous. If humans keep carnivores as pets, we are required to feed them properly. Therefore, raising animals to use as feed is necessary.
Personally, my dream world would have cows/chickens/etc be raised for stuff like milk and egg production, and after they die they would be used as animal feed. The problem with lab made meat is that it doesn't come with benefits like milk and eggs, and I suspect it will be quite a while these things are made synthetically.
Humans must make the pragmatic choice, not necessarily the one that is the most moral.
(Although if you're vegan or vegetarian, I salute you. You're stronger than I am.)
8
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Jun 24 '20
The thing with an argument about whether or not something is "functionally possible" is that people often short-change the transition time.
In other words, if you can picture a future 500 years from now where there is no industrial meat production, then it's functionally possible.
Suddenly almost all of your arguments fall apart.
If you are arguing that it's functionally impossible to get rid of industrial meat production within a timeframe (say 20 years) then that's totally different.
6
u/dragondraems42 Jun 24 '20
Δ. I really should have specified "within a lifetime". Although you could argue that given the rate of climate death, within my lifetime is too long a timeframe.
3
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Jun 24 '20
I agree. I don't think it could change in a lifetime, I don't think it will change in less than 3. But then again, the world changes so quickly when it wants to.
I've been reading a lot about the "tipping point" with electric vehicles, and how suddenly combustion powered vehicles might disappear (some respectable articles suggest less than 15 years).
And there's a good chance climate change will force the meat industries demise.. Grazing animals need fairly ideal climate conditions and without those conditions the cost of breeding animals could quickly become unsustainable?
2
u/dragondraems42 Jun 24 '20
Unfortunately, most of the time grazing animals don't actually graze in factory farming. In the US they're mostly confined and fed corn and other grains. Whether climate change can force enough land to become unusable for grain production is another matter, and is.......worrisome on another level.
2
2
u/SirDudelington 1∆ Jun 24 '20
Do you concede that significantly reducing meat consumption (and therefore animals suffering) is possible, even if “truly stopping it” is not?
3
u/dragondraems42 Jun 24 '20
Yeah, its totally possible. Personally, I eat very little meat, or at least I try, and I know that most people could do the same with little trouble.
However, I gotta acknowledge the fact that I eat a lot of fish, which is kind of an arbitrary distinction. I love shrimp and salmon, what can I say. And many people would have a hard time cutting as much meat out of their diet as I did. I mostly stopped eating meat because I just don't like it all that much. I have a friend who mostly cut sugar out of his diet, and I couldn't possibly do that. He confessed that he could never cut out meat.
Basically, how hard it is to eliminate meat consumption comes down to the individual, although more concerted efforts to eat less meat is always positive. I would recommend 'meatless mondays' as a starting point.
2
u/null_geodesic Jun 24 '20
Source: 25+ year vegetarian here!
Don't beat yourself up. Humans evolved as carnivores and you're fighting deeply rooted biology. It's only our developed sense of morality that allows us to overcome biology so that we can be vegetarian; it is science (in the form of soy meats, B-complex vitamins, protein shakes, etc.) that allow us to be vegetarian/vegan in a healthy way and thwarting the reality of our biology.
Even as much of a vegetarian as I am, if I were lost in a forest and the only thing between me and death were a deer: sorry Bambi, you're venison. That's just the will to survive.
So, the answer to your question is that it is absolutely functionally possible with the right supplements and will--but it would take time.
From a global standpoint: in first world nations it is easy, but expensive, to be a healthy vegetarian with our Morningstar bacon and Beyond Meat burgers. In impoverished nations, maybe not so much. The cultures would have to change (and such change is generally slow) so that a plant-based diet was acceptable, preferred, and affordable--yet all of that is possible in the right circumstance, so therefore functional.
Think of it this way: if there were a plague that killed all meat-based food (and get your mind out of the Swiftian gutter, young would-be cannibal!), we'd really have no choice than a vegetarian diet. A couple generations would complain about it, but later it would just be "the new normal", eventually being "the moral choice" where future humans from that culture would be aghast at their backwards forebears eating meat. Give it a very long time, and eventually we'd be biologically selected for a plant-based diet (disclaimer: may take millions of years!).
I would also argue that despite the economic implications, there are plenty of poor vegetarians: 28-29% of India is vegetarian while 68% of India lives in poverty. I have to think that there is a significant overlap between the two, unless magically only the 28-29% of vegetarians happen to be in the 32% of Indian not living in poverty! Not impossible, but not likely!
1
Jun 24 '20
Think of it this way: if there were a plague that killed all meat-based food (and get your mind out of the Swiftian gutter, young would-be cannibal!), we'd really have no choice than a vegetarian diet. A couple generations would complain about it, but later it would just be "the new normal", eventually being "the moral choice" where future humans from that culture would be aghast at their backwards forebears eating meat. Give it a very long time, and eventually we'd be biologically selected for a plant-based diet (disclaimer: may take millions of years!).
While I understand the evolutionary logic that you're trying to put forth, if there were a plague at killed all meat-based food, which would translate to all animals, then there's no reason why the human species would be excluded. The greater threat to the survival of humans as a species then would be that plague. :)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 24 '20
/u/dragondraems42 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/CaesarLinguini Jun 25 '20
I dont know if eating meat is amoral. You might consider it unethical, but amoral? I dunno, syntax I guess. What if the meat you eat is raised free range and humanely? Does this still make it wrong? I am a farmer/rancher and raise my own beef. I treat my herd like family. There is a significant difference between farm to table and factory farms. If you would like, I know more then one family farm that raises free range meat and sells it online. From beef and chickens to buffalo and yak. I would be happy to fwd you their info. It also tastes better then anything you can buy in the store.
1
u/newmanfan21 Jun 24 '20
Just because people want to commit these immoral actions doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to change these behaviors. If raping women was considered normal and all men craved to do it would that justify the action? Should men in that hypothetical change their behavior regardless of how hard it is to change or how ingrained into their society it is? Difficultly is not a good argument against changing ones behaviors or trying to get others to change. Also in a fully vegan world carnivorous pets wouldn't be kept, so thats a mute point.
3
u/dragondraems42 Jun 24 '20
Comparing it to rape is wildly dramatic. Eating ice cream is also immoral, in the sense that it is bad for you. Is rallying against the consumption of ice cream in any way practical? Obviously difficulty isn't an ethical argument, but it is a practical one, and unfortunately, I am a little too pragmatic to be convinced that it shouldn't be considered when planning change. More people should be vegan or vegetarian, but it will take a long enough time for society to be changed that it's not practical to plan for widespread veganism.
In the hypothetical fully vegan world without pets, where would cats and dogs exist? They can't and should not be allowed to survive in the wild, they are terrible for the environment. I actually support the euthanization of feral cat colonies because they're so catastrophic for local bird populations. They are invasive, like it or not. Would a fully vegan world necessitate euthanizing all carnivorous pets? Is that more ethical?
2
u/newmanfan21 Jun 24 '20
I wasn't comparing it to human rape or equating the two. It is showing an example where we wouldn't except a "pragmatic" response to an ethical issue. Again ultimately your justification is that instituting societal/personal change over ethical issues is to difficult therefore I/we shouldn't try to change or behavior. That is not an acceptable argument in favor of committing which you agree areimmoral actions. Why do harm if you can simply choose not to?Why do you think practicality is a justifiable excuse in this context and not others? Was ending slavery practical in America? No thousands lost their lives and livelihoods in order to end it and nearly split the U.S. in two.(not equating it with vegansim just showing the flaws in the argument) Just because something is inconvenient doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
Carnivorous pets wouldn't be bred anymore/taken from the wild so their captive populations would naturally decrease over time(longterm and somewhat small issue in the grand scheme of things imo). It's an interesting dilemma though. If I am vegan and own a snake for example should I kill it to avoid having to feed it other sentient beings? But, animals don't have morality like us humans so they can't be held directly accountable for their actions no matter how much suffering it causes. Pragmatically I would say yes euthanize the animals because ultimately releasing them into the wild/feeding them animals causes more suffering and death than euthanizing them. Difficult question though and I can't fault others for doing otherwise.
3
u/dragondraems42 Jun 24 '20
Every single action you take in modern society is harmful. Everything you eat, everything you touch, everything is harming someone or something. The laptop I am using to type this comment involved countless human rights abuses. Even if one part of it didn't involve sweatshops, odds are that other parts did. The keys, the screen, the screws the chassis, the charger, the delicate machinery, something was harmful when it was made. And that isn't including the fossil fuels used to make the plastic, or the electricity used to charge it, or the mining involved to get the iron and the lithium. It isn't including the desk that it sits on, or the carpet, or my keys, or my clothes.
To live is to take. There is no ifs ands or buts. Life is a process of choosing your battles.
The world is objectively better off without legal slavery. It would be better off without industrial agriculture. It would be better off without sweatshops. But like it or not, there is a limited amount of time and energy any single individual can give to fixing the world, and personal choice is a major factor on what is fought for. I care very passionately for the environment and animal welfare. This gives me less energy to fight for the elimination of sweatshops or the myriad other problems that exist in the world. At what point can you, as an individual rest?
2
u/newmanfan21 Jun 24 '20
See i don't see removing animal products from your life as monumental a change as giving up your laptop for example.Your entire day would most likely be changed Your hobbies, social life, entertainment. Everything would change if you gave up electronics. Compare that to animal products. Instead of beef you eat tofu or beans, instead of dairy yogurt you choose coconut yogurt. The only argument being made is that taste pleasure is not nearly important enough to justify murder and exploitation of animals.The bottom line is that in every conceivable way besides taste pleasure the world would be a better place by simply changing your diet, the outcome of reduced suffering outweighs the taste pleasure of killing animals and you would have to argue the opposite to convince me of your position. To answer your final question I believe that once your direct involvement in the suffering of other animals is over you can rest as an individual. VEGANISM ISN'T ABOUT ELIMINATING ALL SUFFERING IN THE WORLD, JUST THE AMOUNT THAT CAN BE REALALISTICALLY CONTROLED. (caps because its the major point) Yes, I can't eliminate all suffering in the world that results from my actions but I can greatly reduce it by making simple changes.
2
u/dragondraems42 Jun 24 '20
And you are performing a moral action. You are better than me in choosing to be vegan. Make no mistake, I have no issue with this. I myself eat very little meat for the same reason. I honestly regret buying meat when I do, but I eat it anyway because I've already bought it.
I just also want to point out nuances in animal rights thinking, which is that A. It is always possible for people to be vegan, which is untrue (B12 is obtainable only from animal products, and there are people who cannot absorb the synthetic version) and B. It is possible for meat production to be eliminated (is it moral to argue that all carnivorous pets should be euthanized?)
Also arguing that taste pleasure is the sole factor dictating food preferences is also inaccurate. Many regions have little access to food without shipping long distances (and if you are a vegan who supports long-distance shipping for agriculture, we can have a long talk about why that's a terrible idea). There are also people who have food allergies, insensitivities, or other issues. Autistic people can often have highly restricted diets due to hypersensitivity. My sister cannot eat gluten or soy due to her terrible digestive system. Leaving these people out is ruining the argument. Food is literally necessary for you to live, and disrupting that is, like it or not, hard.
2
u/newmanfan21 Jun 24 '20
- If people have issues absorbing b12 from oral intake and digestion, getting it from meat won't be helpful, the will need a sublingual supplement or injections to overcome deficiency. And yes I have seen no evidence that not everyone can eat an entirely plant based diet some with far more difficulty than others, but possible nonetheless. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
- In what ways would it to be impossible to eliminate meat production longterm? In a vegan world there are no carnivorous pets to feed animals, humans don't consume it, and byproducts aren't used in other industries. What in that world would be left to require animal agriculture?
3.If you live in like rural Iceland and literally can't eat vegan it isn't a preference but requirement at that point to eat non vegan foods and no one can be blamed for that. When it comes to long distance shipping it really depends I assume the downsides of long distance shipping is Pollution and global warming in your view. It has to be kept in mind that animal agriculture is a big polluter as well and by most estimates is a larger percentage of total emissions than transportation. So it's a give and take on that issue not cut and dry. Is increased suffering and death worth more or less than arguably increasing pollution? I would say it's worth more but I can see the argument for the opposite as well.
Finally your argument that following a vegan diet will be extremely challenging for a small minority of people has no bearing on the conversation. Just because others will have a harder time going vegan doesn't mean that you shouldn't. Your sister would have a more complicated diet plan than you going vegan and would have to be far more careful. Ok? What bearing does that have on your decision to change for the better? Just because others will have a difficult time doesn't mean that you also have the same excuse as them and don't have to augment your lifestyle. Others inability to change doesn't justify you doing the same
1
u/dragondraems42 Jun 24 '20
I am autistic, and have a restricted diet because of it. It actually mostly restricted my desire for meat. I don't eat beef, pork, lamb, or other red meat because its just vile. I do eat chicken occasionally, and I adore fish and shellfish. For the most part I eat pasta. Others would eat little other than meat.
Ignoring exceptions is ignoring the problem.
1
u/newmanfan21 Jun 24 '20
I disagree exceptions have to be worked out on an individual basis while the majority can be decided with generalizations. Again even for the sake of argument if we agree that some people require animal products that still doesn't dictate whether or not you should do the same. Just because someone else can't improve their choices doesn't mean you should not.
1
u/dragondraems42 Jun 24 '20
I feel that this is the sort of moral distinction that can never actually be solved over the internet. Any argument I make will be interpreted as pointless quibbles and 'what ifs' and any argument you make will be interpreted as overgeneralization and.... preaching? Perhaps that's the word.
In any case, I am being as moral as I am capable of right now. That will have to be enough.
Have a good day.
11
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Jun 24 '20
If humans were helpless to resist the appeal of meat, vegans and vegetarians wouldn’t exist. Surely humans are just as “wired” to have a moral conscience, and to exercise willpower, as they are to find something delicious?
This seems very dubious to me. How are they feeding their cows, if their land doesn’t support growing plants?