Growing meat in vast vats (methane gas no longer put into the atmosphere.)

[Larry of the Lawn]

Actually most stuff is neither. The fact that society decides something is right or wrong doesn't make it so. It depends on what the end, meta goal is, for both the individual and society. I can accept that your own moral code dictates that animal abuse is wrong, but mine does not. And I have already presented a lengthy case (which I can make indefinitely lengthier, should you require) about why I believe it shouldn't be so. One question I must ask you tho is - where do you draw the line about animal abuse being wrong: cute fluffy animals, mammals, vertebrates, multicellular, all living matter, etc.?

I do agree that just because we have wiped out species to make our lives better, it might not be required to do so. But you forget, your initial argument was that not caring about animal cruelty makes me less human. I used historical humankind characteristics to refute this accusation of yours. These characteristics can change (and probably will) in the future and so will the definition of being human.

You obviously have an opinion on the matter, given your vehement pursuit at disproving my argument. The difference is I am not reluctant to disclose my thesis in its entirety - I've thought it through. Kindly do likewise and we'll see if yours has more logical merit.

P.S. Link me the thread (or just say its name in your post edit), now I'm curious, even tho I'm not posting there (I saw your 1st edit). ;).

Oh I'll concede that my position has little to do with logic. It's a moral position so I'm not really sure what you expect to get out of the discussion. As far as the line goes on what's cruel or abusive, I draw an admittedly arbitrary line at what I perceive to be self-awareness. So for me that's somewhere around the vertebrates/invertebrate line.

But I'm not the one advocating cruelty to animals raised as chattel in the name of convenience. I don't mind eating them, but I don't want to eat something that was tortured or abused. Not even trying to make a logical argument here.

and the other thread was the political ideology one, the example was even Darwin.

[Solmyr]

As far as the line goes on what's cruel or abusive, I draw an admittedly arbitrary line at what I perceive to be self-awareness. So for me that's somewhere around the vertebrates/invertebrate line.

If self-awareness is the determinant, it's a very blurry line - I don't know if we can prove self-awareness for a lot of animals that are vertebrates or higher. Consequently, there might be invertebrates, who are self-aware, and we just don't know.

Moreover, there are varying degrees of self-awareness - even lower-tier species may possess some level of self-awareness, albeit very basic.

These are mostly nitpicks, self-awareness is not an unreasonable line to draw, we just need a lot more data to be able to draw it with precision.

But I'm not the one advocating cruelty to animals raised as chattel in the name of convenience. I don't mind eating them, but I don't want to eat something that was tortured or abused. Not even trying to make a logical argument here.

I've already stated I'd rather we don't torture animals, if we can help it, but if raising animals under harsh conditions increases output of food for humans and allows us to produce more (not limited to food, since when enough food is produced, labour is dedicated to other tasks), this is a net benefit for our specie. If animal cruelty is inflicted without any gain for our specie, then it's wrong. As for punishing it, I don't think punishments should be harsh. The biggest problem with animal cruelty is an issue of morality (person who does it for no reason is immoral). There is no tangible harm to our specie (unless animal is property of another human). Immoral people need guidance not prison time.

[Theda Baratheon]

Animals have fuckin nervous systems, they can feel hurt and they can feel pain and the animals in factory farms like pigs and cows also get depressed and suffer mental problems. Stop trying to pretend like they're so vastly different to human beings in terms of the value of their life. ''benefit of our specie'' my fuckin arse. A technical benefit to our species would be NO factory farms, the crops being fed to the tens of billions of animals being fed to the 7 billion of us. factory farms aren't efficient; if you're going to completely ignore the abuse of animals then they're still harmful to the environment, they still take up too much space, they're harmful for both humans and animals in the long run. would you ever fancy living near one? i sure as hell fuckin wouldn't. not only because i'd be so close to abuse, but i'd be so close to all the harmful disgusting stuff like...i don't know, animal waste and what's done with that for example. watch this if you really care about the benefit of our species. FACTORY. FARMS. ARE. EVIL

btw that video isn't about animal abuse and shows no abuse of animals as im not trying to make people feel sick, its showing you WHAT HAPPENS TO ANIMAL WASTE around factory harms. this video shows specifically why factory farms are harmful to PEOPLE.

also solmyr, nothing wrong with people having emotions. you can't explain everything using your ''logic and reason'' rhetoric, what a damn cold life that would be.

[Solmyr]

TB, your argument is a bit disjointed, but I'll do my best to address your main points.

Yes, animals in harsh conditions experience pain, probably even the mental problems you speak of. I don't see how that is a human problem.

If factory farms weren't efficient they wouldn't exist. Somebody with a more efficient solution would put them out of business. If you have a more efficient solution, by all means do not disclose it here, go become a multi-billionaire by realizing it.

Yes, factory farms probably have negative side effects to the environment. So does coal, petrol and sugar. Yet we use all three extensively. There is a whole science of quantifying environmental damages and if the gain of the process outweighs the damages we go along with it.

I wouldn't fancy living near one, same as I wouldn't fancy living near a coal plant, petrol refinery, steel mill and a variety of other industrial buildings. I don't see what this has to do with our discussion, however.

I watched the video, all I saw was a drone flying over some houses and pools of something. If you call that a horrible video, you've clearly not seen what's out there. I watched a video that showed uncensored footage of people brutally abusing animals - beating, torturing, etc. It was quite vivid and gruesome. I do not condone their behaviour, but I wouldn't put them in prison either.

Emotions are a product of chemical reactions in our body that can be logically explained. If holding emotions on some magical pedestal of marvel and unknowability makes your life happier, I see no problem with that.

[DireWolfSpirit]

SAVE THE MOSQUITOES!

http://www.lamayeshe.com/?sect=article&id=319

On Not Killing - The Existential Buddhist | dharma without dogma

www.existentialbuddhist.com/2010/09/on-not-killing/

Sep 13, 2010 - In India, the Jains sweep the ground in front of them so as not to inadvertently kill any insects. ... And what of harmful pests: bed bugs, fleas, flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, fire ants, and rodents? ..... bedbugs just won't leave.

[Larry of the Lawn]

TB, your argument is a bit disjointed, but I'll do my best to address your main points.

Yes, animals in harsh conditions experience pain, probably even the mental problems you speak of. I don't see how that is a human problem.

If factory farms weren't efficient they wouldn't exist. Somebody with a more efficient solution would put them out of business. If you have a more efficient solution, by all means do not disclose it here, go become a multi-billionaire by realizing it.

Yes, factory farms probably have negative side effects to the environment. So does coal, petrol and sugar. Yet we use all three extensively. There is a whole science of quantifying environmental damages and if the gain of the process outweighs the damages we go along with it.

I wouldn't fancy living near one, same as I wouldn't fancy living near a coal plant, petrol refinery, steel mill and a variety of other industrial buildings. I don't see what this has to do with our discussion, however.

I watched the video, all I saw was a drone flying over some houses and pools of something. If you call that a horrible video, you've clearly not seen what's out there. I watched a video that showed uncensored footage of people brutally abusing animals - beating, torturing, etc. It was quite vivid and gruesome. I do not condone their behaviour, but I wouldn't put them in prison either.

Emotions are a product of chemical reactions in our body that can be logically explained. If holding emotions on some magical pedestal of marvel and unknowability makes your life happier, I see no problem with that.

This is all garbage. Why is efficiency the be all - end all of decision making? You say the gain out weighs the consequences, that the ends justify the means like it's some objective thing. It's not. It depends on what you place value on. You clearly place value on efficiency and money. Some people don't have them so high up the priority list.

That's great that you can logically explain emotions, but I don't see what that has to do with justifying animal abuse.

[Weeping Sore]

The borderline impossible solution that might be a consensus-builder among vegetarians and carnivores with a conscience would be removing the agricultural exemption to animal cruelty laws. Meat prices would skyrocket, of course.

I'd give vat-grown meat a try, but I'd probably still prefer the plant-based fake meats that have come a long way.

[Kindly Old Man]

The borderline impossible solution that might be a consensus-builder among vegetarians and carnivores with a conscience would be removing the agricultural exemption to animal cruelty laws. Meat prices would skyrocket, of course.

I'd give vat-grown meat a try, but I'd probably still prefer the plant-based fake meats that have come a long way.

Ha I'd like to see this. As a carnivore with no conscience whatsoever, I think it would be amusing to see what the dollar value of everyone's conscience is. I bet it's less than $1/lb.

For myself, I would eat lab grown meat if it were indistinguishable from regular meat at a comparable price.

[Weeping Sore]

For myself, I would eat lab grown meat if it were indistinguishable from regular meat at a comparable price.

And if lab-grown meat were much cheaper...even more so, right?

[Kindly Old Man]

And if lab-grown meat were much cheaper...even more so, right?

Absolutely

[felice]

it's worse for humans to be punished by humans for cruelty to animals than it is for humans to be cruel to animals. If the specie that we're being cruel to punishes us, then it's not worse.

How do you feel about "It's worse for citizens to be punished by citizens for cruelty to foreigners than it is for citizens to be cruel to foreigners. If a citizen tortures, kills, and eats a foreigner, they shouldn't be imprisoned or otherwise punished for it, they just need guidance. Citizens don't owe anything to foreigners. Though if they visit foreign countries, they are subject to foreign laws while there."

[karaddin]

Oh yes, emotions. Those petty things, I don't feel those, they just stand in the way of logical thinking!

Much like everything is political and you simply see the status quo you agree with as apolitical, emotions colour everything and those that believe they have transcended their emotions are the ones most blind to their impact. Bakker being a wonderful example of someone who thinks having figured out his blind brain theory makes him immune to confirmation bias actually makes him even more blind to his own confirmation bias.

The gap in intelligence between humans and some other species is substantially smaller than we have long thought, and this gap is often the result of our mistakes in trying to measure it. For example cats were deemed to be less intelligent because they didn't cooperate on the tests, when it can be just as easily seen that a creature smart enough to say "fuck you, I'm not participating in your experiment" is intelligent. It's a flaw in our research, not a sign of cats lack of intelligence. I'd like animal cruelty to be minimised and I share Theda's views on factory farms, my value on other species does tend to vary with how intelligent I perceive them to be and how long they live. I don't have a high opinion of cows for example (in part because we've systematically bred those traits out of them) so I'm less bothered by their use as a food source. Animals like Dolphins and Elephants however are close enough to us that I think they should be granted a higher legal status.

I also differ from many animal rights groups that try to preserve wild species purely as wild species. Humans are everywhere, and whether we want them to or not, all species are having to adapt to our presence. Deep connections are possible between animals and humans, and many species are suited to adapting to our presence, trying to prevent that is shouting into the wind. I'd like more of a focus on coexistence, although I do agree with attempting to preserve some wild populations.

To get myself back on topic, bring on the vat grown meat. It's going to be cheaper once the tech is refined and for most things it will be perfectly suitable. Luxury meat can continue to exist, high quality steak etc, and you'll pay the premium for that.

[Weeping Sore]

I don't know why I'm seeing the vat-grown meat as skinless football-sized lumps pulsating on a grid of ersatz blood vessels. Different batches would probably have varying muscular twitch-rates to re-create the texture of different cuts of meat...

[The Mance]

i don't have a problem with the idea of meat grown in a vat, but I guess I'm skeptical that vat meat could ever have the same texture as real meat. I'm sure some sort of ground beef substitute would be fine, even down to precise fat percentages, but actual meat is muscle, and muscle isn't just an amorphous blob of tissue cells. It has grain, and layers, and areas of varying fat content. Can they grow actual muscle masses, or just large quantities of muscle cells that are "beef" on a cellular level, but really have no structural resemblance to an actual steak?

Also, I wonder if there'd be a demand for meat grown onto bone shaped substrates? I know I'm not the only one who'd miss gnawing off morsels of meat from bone-in pork chops, or baby back ribs. And chicken wings! *sigh* I'd miss chicken wings most of all.

[karaddin]

See I hate bones, so lack of that is only a win.

[all swedes are racist]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4O1TbUHGN_k

[Biglose]

Oh yes, emotions. Those petty things, I don't feel those, they just stand in the way of logical thinking!

Much like everything is political and you simply see the status quo you agree with as apolitical, emotions colour everything and those that believe they have transcended their emotions are the ones most blind to their impact. Bakker being a wonderful example of someone who thinks having figured out his blind brain theory makes him immune to confirmation bias actually makes him even more blind to his own confirmation bias.

What you say may be true on an individual level (and granted it is very often the case), but that does not make the general statement void. There are better and there are worse solution to problems. Not emotionally, factually.

The major issue is "lazy brain". Emotions are much easier than logical thinking. So we tend to go with the former and just declare we would do the later. There have been many experiments confirming that. (One I remember was, that they first ask people if they would be swayed by emotions or by rational arguments. The majority said rational arguments. Then the asked them to look at a discussion where one side simply went with "but I am afraid of X" while the other side made rational arguments. Guess which side got the favorable vote.

The point is, that our intuition is not really "build" for our today life. The person who is more emotianally invested has truly a harder time to lie. But thats not the question today, because you do not really have to "lie" per say if most people simple do not understand and do not want to understand the things they are talking about. And the more emotianally invested person is much more likely to missinterpret information to conform with their bias (in ancient time the only time this had been problematic would have been wichtrials or some appease the gods bullock). Today, it is the case with everything. (Add to the fact that our "contact" with the people making those statements is limited too, so it is really hard to tell if they are really invested in the isse or only in themselves...)

And what blind brain theory would have to do with bias eludes me. (Granted if you really would follow it and make every call you have to make under strict defined rules which are not biased, then sure you would have no bias. But the issue is not knowing that, it is doing that. And lets be honest, the complexity of this task on a regular basis is kind of beyond human capability.)

The gap in intelligence between humans and some other species is substantially smaller than we have long thought, and this gap is often the result of our mistakes in trying to measure it. For example cats were deemed to be less intelligent because they didn't cooperate on the tests, when it can be just as easily seen that a creature smart enough to say "fuck you, I'm not participating in your experiment" is intelligent. It's a flaw in our research, not a sign of cats lack of intelligence. I'd like animal cruelty to be minimised and I share Theda's views on factory farms, my value on other species does tend to vary with how intelligent I perceive them to be and how long they live. I don't have a high opinion of cows for example (in part because we've systematically bred those traits out of them) so I'm less bothered by their use as a food source. Animals like Dolphins and Elephants however are close enough to us that I think they should be granted a higher legal status.

This kind of goes at the heart of the problem. It is save the "fluffy" (beautiful, impressive) once. Pigs are kind of smart, too but I guess for most people they are closer to cows than dogs. And if we realised that cats are less intelligent than pigs, would we then go an eat cats?

If you go rationally at this problem, than the best thinkable solution would be GMO plants with the essential proteins. (The point is we are not there yet)

But meh it has not the texture I am used to...It is on the same level as the child: Bah, I do not like broccoli because I never ate it.

So honestly, here the "rational" path in technical terms is quite easy.

To close it: Just because a lot of people say that they are rational, does not mean they are. Just because a lot of people who say they are rational ain't does not mean that it is impossible to be rational.

The problem right now is more or less, that it is by far easier to have a heathy livestyle which includes meat than having one which does not.

(Steak and vegetable+fruits is really hard to beat)

[karaddin]

When you are talking moral questions, which treatment of animals is, it's inherently an emotional decision. The idea that you can step back and make a logical, rational one is utter bollocks. You can make rational arguments for preservation of all sorts of angles around it, you can argue factory farms are more efficient and thus more rational, but you are just blind to the emotional component which is "I don't care about the animals in said farms". It's still there.

Pigs absolutely are much more intelligent than given credit and I should stop eating pig products if I don't want to be a hypocrite, but hey I'm an emotional being and don't try to pretend otherwise and I like pork products so I keep doing it for now. I seek to improve. The status of animals that have an established place in our society will also have an impact, cars are firmly established as companions and pest control, pigs as livestock. While there's a good argument to stop eating pigs, it's not inherently an argument to start eating something else less intelligent. And cats as small carnivores which are strong willed, and good at escaping are hardly what I'd consider a good replacement even if a replacement was needed.

[Solmyr]

This is all garbage. Why is efficiency the be all - end all of decision making? You say the gain out weighs the consequences, that the ends justify the means like it's some objective thing. It's not. It depends on what you place value on. You clearly place value on efficiency and money. Some people don't have them so high up the priority list.

That's great that you can logically explain emotions, but I don't see what that has to do with justifying animal abuse.

I place value of the advancement on our specie. Being efficient about labour and resource utilization is necessary for that. Money is a construct we invented to facilitate the exchange of time.

I don't know what you place value on, but it most likely isn't in unison with my values.

The emotion explanation bit was in response to TB. it is not pertinent to our primary discussion.

How do you feel about "It's worse for citizens to be punished by citizens for cruelty to foreigners than it is for citizens to be cruel to foreigners. If a citizen tortures, kills, and eats a foreigner, they shouldn't be imprisoned or otherwise punished for it, they just need guidance. Citizens don't owe anything to foreigners. Though if they visit foreign countries, they are subject to foreign laws while there."

I don't feel anyhow about it. I think that it's utter garbage.

@karaddin - I am not familiar with Bakker's theory, so I can't address this point of yours. As for the rest:

So far three people have proposed three ways of determining which animals we should be cruel to and which not - self-awareness, ability to feel pain, intelligence. All three cannot be determined objectively; moreover, the determination would most likely be non-binary, i.e. a specie would be deemed intelligent, or somewhat intelligent, etc., but it will all be subjective and based on our own understanding and ability to perceive and measure intelligence. Your example about cat tests confirms that - we have no ways to accurately measure intelligence and self-awareness in other species, therefore anything we may think we know about any specie might be erroneous.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

When you are talking moral questions, which treatment of animals is, it's inherently an emotional decision. The idea that you can step back and make a logical, rational one is utter bollocks. You can make rational arguments for preservation of all sorts of angles around it, you can argue factory farms are more efficient and thus more rational, but you are just blind to the emotional component which is "I don't care about the animals in said farms". It's still there.

Pigs absolutely are much more intelligent than given credit and I should stop eating pig products if I don't want to be a hypocrite, but hey I'm an emotional being and don't try to pretend otherwise and I like pork products so I keep doing it for now. I seek to improve. The status of animals that have an established place in our society will also have an impact, cars are firmly established as companions and pest control, pigs as livestock. While there's a good argument to stop eating pigs, it's not inherently an argument to start eating something else less intelligent. And cats as small carnivores which are strong willed, and good at escaping are hardly what I'd consider a good replacement even if a replacement was needed.

I think the question we're dancing around is whether emotional reactions are a sufficient basis upon which to make moral judgments. And I think the answer to that question really has to be no. There are certain things that we may find emotionally troubling or repulsive, but it would be incredibly dangerous to allow those reactions to be our basis for moral condemnation, because there are a lot of things people have or have had visceral emotional reactions to - for example, interracial marriage, homosexuality, transgenderism, or abortion - that are not wrong or bad, merely because some people react in certain ways to it.

Which, of course, is definitely NOT the same thing as belittling or disparaging people's emotions or emotional reactions. There's nothing wrong with having emotions, and there's nothing wrong with being upset as the physical mistreatment of either people or animals. But emotions are funny things, and sometimes our emotional intuition lines up with what's correct or proper, and sometimes they don't.