What would you call it though? This thread is about killing life because rich folks want meat?
Define "life". Because last I heard, plants count as "alive" too?
One of the possible alternatives I'm aware of is ground up insects. Those are the same kind of "alive" as other animals, and yet AFAICT the "don't kill anything" people seem to things it's at least less bad. Even tho it takes a lot more of them to get the same amount of nutrition.
Are you aware of things called "obligate carnivores"? How do they fit in to your moral framework?
Have you played with evolutionary algorithms? Systems that have appropriate sensors / feedback loops to avoid harm to themselves (could even be as simple as a speed governor on an engine)? It can really be... odd to try to think of "life" (or even whatever term we're currently using to assign moral weight to anything capable of feeling pain) in general as being all that unique and special, when I can build something that meets most parts of most definitions in an afternoon.
.
Humans are omnivores, and I have the teeth to prove it. Stop demanding that I forsake my heritage, especially over some half-baked philosophy that isn't even compatible with my experiences.
I think this comes from vastly underestimating the value humans bring to other life. I would argue that without humans there is no life. We are the only species in the planet that has, in the next couple million years, the ability to allow life to expand throughout the universe. We are literally the only species alive that can do this. Without us life is frail and subject to the whims of cosmic events on our planet that could whipe it out. Humans bring a lot of value to the world and I think we play a critical role in the history of life. I find that people who argue against humans using earths resources forget that we have a very important role in the ecosystem. So important in fact, that a the extinction of a couple thousand of species and habitats is probably a small price to pay for us to learn how to use our incredible ability to control the environment.
I think you're overly optimistic. Our technology does and will explore space at large.
Humans in space (beside the few scientific missions and maybe a Mars trip) make about as much sense as motorized fishbowls on highways. Humans won't leave the solar system, and we may destroy the ecosystem that feeds us before we can start a serious space expansion program.
Beside the CO2 problems (warming and ocean acidification), we've also destroyed a third of arable land in the last 40 years. The presence of biodiversity is needed for resilient ecosystems too.
But I am not; I think I used a word wrong somehow that means something stronger than I meant to say. I serve meat in my restaurant (as much as possible and allowed actual free range and with limited chemicals as allowed) and I think a lot about it but I am not of that school you put me in.
I just do not get the obsession with having to have meat every day multiple times or the 'entitlement' (that might be the wrong word I used?) for people feeling they can demand it like that. But that was more of a discussion topic attempt than getting people angry or something like it.
But I am not; I think I used a word wrong somehow that means something stronger than I meant to say. I serve meat in my restaurant (as much as possible and allowed actual free range and with limited chemicals as allowed) and I think a lot about it but I am not of that school you put me in.
Cool. And given the general tone-deafness of plain text I should probably note that I wasn't trying to go off on you either. I was more going for putting out a variety of thoughts on what seemed to be the topic to see if any interesting discussions might come out of it.
I just do not get the obsession with having to have meat every day multiple times or the 'entitlement' (that might be the wrong word I used?) for people feeling they can demand it like that.
That's probably it, yes. Not sure what the right word would be, tho...
Is it that strong a word? I looked up the meaning and it seems to mean what I intented but seeing the reactions to it, it carries much more weight than I meant.
Yeah, it's actually quite charged -- saying someone is behaving "entitled" is suggesting that they are being extremely childish and bullying on the subject. That word has been used as a weapon by far-left political pundits as well to dismiss people's objections instead of debating them.
I am not telling anyone what to eat or not... I was just commenting that guys get very wound up by touching on the subject. This thread does not point the other way now does it?
That's pretty disingenuous. "Touching the subject" of restricting what other people eat naturally will make them angry. Particularly the way you do it.
English is not my first language; what did I exactly say 'that way'? As I am not sure: by people (guys) getting angry I mean things like blokes shouting at a Thai waiter because they wanted "f*cking serious meat" and there was hardly any in the soup.
