Hacker News Reader

Comment by enraged_camel | Hacker News Reader

>>I really do not understand how people can stand to eat meat.

You realize we're omnivores and evolved to eat both meat and vegetables, right?

This is not to say that everyone MUST eat meat. But you have to understand that finding meat delicious is pretty much the default evolutionary state of human beings.

View on HN

Yes but it's easy as creatures with intelligence, to realize other creatures think and feel, for us to stop that consumption.

There are MANY things our animal cousins do that we do not do, because we can think.

I don't have any fantasies that meat consumption will disappear entirely, I'd just like to see it go down as society evolves, just like slowly increasing the mpg requirements for cars cuts fuel use dramatically over time.

If meat consumption was cut in half, maybe we'd have the time, money and resources to treat livestock much better.

Everyone knows animals think and feel, but that's no reason not to deny our need to eat animals. I think animal cruelty is bad because it shows disregard and they have a propensity to do the same to people. But I think it's ridiculous to have an equivalent level of empathy for people and animals.

Your over-concern with animals and enlightenment as a teenager is only made possible by the advanced state of our civilization.

> Your over-concern with animals and enlightenment as a teenager is only made possible by the advanced state of our civilization.

I think that's exactly the point of many vegetarians are making. In modern times, there is no longer any need to eat meat because cheap, healthy alternatives exist. Hence, eating meat is now a choice, and no longer a necessity.

> Hence, eating meat is now a choice, and no longer a necessity.

It was never, ever a necessity. If it were the Hindus would have died out, back when their vegetarianism was a dictate rather than a still very common preference.

I wonder if you think it was necessary because of nutrition (nonsense) or because of some subtler point about agriculture?

I never argued that eating meat was ever a necessity.

> But I think it's ridiculous to have an equivalent level of empathy for people and animals.

"An equivalent level of empathy"? Do you really think that a person whose empathy for human beings stops at "I shouldn't kill and eat them" would be considered highly ethical? You might not agree with vegetarians' ideology, but I don't think they are exactly setting a very high bar.

If we are accepting that animals and humans are generally treated differently (i.e., without equivalent levels of empathy), why should it be surprising that for some people that difference works out such that eating animals is okay?

We are treating humans differently, too. I love my children more than someone I meet on the streets. Generally, our society considers it still ethically ok to have different amounts of empathy for different people and treat them differently. However, there are some things that are absolutely not ok for humans to do: kill someone, eat them, etc. To me, treating animals differently than humans in general does not logically imply that killing them is ok.

> We are treating humans differently, too.

Absolutely. Anyone who suggests that vegetarians treat animals an humans the same is just being inflammatory. That clearly is not the case.

> To me, treating animals differently than humans in general does not logically imply that killing them is ok.

Of course, you are absolutely correct.

Similarly, having empathy for animals / treating animals ethically does not logically imply that killing them is not okay. For some people it means exactly that, and for others it does not.

> deny our need to eat animals.

That we "need to eat animals" is not a supportable position, speaking nutritionally or economically.

> Your over-concern with animals and enlightenment as a teenager is only made possible by the advanced state of our civilization.

I'm sure you have some rational reason for stating that, but given the large number of people in both the dirt-poor, subsistence-farming developing world and the much wealthier world don't eat meat - and given that this has been the case a long time - whatever correlation you think you've identified doesn't exist.

There is a difference between knowing that animals think and feel, and caring that animals think and feel.

I'm not trying to be funny here, I honestly don't care. Eating things that taste good is more important to me. Different people have different values, go figure.

Reaction 1. Humans are animals: you honestly don't care that humans think and feel. Ergo, you exhibit psychopathic traits.

Reaction 2. Unless of course you meant non-human animals. In which case why the arbitrary distinction? In this case you're not just saying that you have different values, you're saying that your morality is capricious and whimsical.

Reaction 3. By all accounts humans and pigs taste very similar, Google 'long pig' for evidence. Pigs taste good to you, therefore humans taste good to you. If you make the claim (for whatever reason) that you are not interested in eating humans subsequent to the claim that eating things that taste good is more important to you then you'll have to excuse us while we bend our minds around the cognitive dissonance.

Besides you are only able to make such a provocative claim because culturally and legally we live in societies where eating meat is okay - though few people take the radical stance that you do because most people have compassion for non-human animals regardless of whether or not the meat of the animal is pleasing to their taste buds for evolutionary reasons. Since you are being frank and honest, let me be frank and honest - I find your viewpoint repellent, I would go stronger than that, you disgust me. But, hey, they're just my values, go figure.

> you're saying that your morality is capricious and whimsical.

Sure, why not? I am okay with being capricious and whimsical if that means having different standards for members of my species.

> Reaction 3. By all accounts humans and pigs taste very similar, Google 'long pig' for evidence. Pigs taste good to you, therefore humans taste good to you.

As I have pointed out.

> If you make the claim (for whatever reason) that you are not interested in eating humans subsequent to the claim that eating things that taste good is more important to you then you'll have to excuse us while we bend our minds around the cognitive dissonance.

I believe I have covered this in "reaction 2".

> though few people take the radical stance that you do

This is not particularly important to me, but I suspect most omnivores do (although they are unable or unwilling to express their sentiments as bluntly/honestly.)

> I find your viewpoint repellent, I would go stronger than that, you disgust me. But, hey, they're just my values, go figure.

I expect that. That does not bother me at all. I'll go as far as to say that expecting another reaction from you would be rather unreasonable of me. However I do hope that you understand that the feeling is not mutual.

Since when is being a member of the same species an arbitrary distinction?

So if you found out people taste good?

From the accounts I have read, I assume that they do. What is your point?

My point is that I hope you don't find out where I live, because I don't want to be eaten. Also, that if you ever say it's wrong for anyone to murder anyone else, you'll be a hypocrite.

Don't worry, I lack the desire to eat humans and would not do so even if I had the desire.

Remember that thing I said about different people having different values? Well (although I suspect it may seem odd to you) I place more value in humans than I do in other animals. Kind of like how I place more value in family members than friends, and more value in friends than strangers. Although "because I want to" is sufficient justification for me to eat a non-human animal, it is not sufficient for me to eat a human. In my value system a strong necessity, not merely desire, would be required for me to do that. (Incidentally, the strength of the necessity required would be different for family, friends, and strangers...)

None of this should be surprising to you, unless either you honestly thing that omnivores don't realize that animals can feel things, or honestly think that omnivores are all casual cannibals... both clearly absurd things to think.

I hope some day, you realize moral relativism is bullshit.

Who's standard of morality do you suggest I adopt? Yours?

I suggest you realize there is a standard of morality, then work on figuring out what it is.

I see no pressing need. My value system is flawed.. from your perspective. However I, not being you, don't see it as flawed and therefore see no reason to revise it.

Listen, I don't ask you to approve of what I eat (frankly, I don't give one damn about your approval). I expect that you will never agree with me. If you think resolving that is my intention, then you are dreadfully mistaken.

I understand that. But you should understand that, since you don't think morality exists, you can't call the guy who murders your family wrong. You can't call Hitler wrong. You can only say they're people who happen to have a different value system from you, which in absolute terms makes them no more right or wrong than anyone else.

That strikes me as a tad hyperbolic, but what do I know? I guess if I eat meat I must literally be a Nazi!

I don't recall saying that morality doesn't exist, though I am still intrigued by this standard for morality you mentioned earlier. Obviously this isn't something ISO dabbles in; who then shall I consult if I want to learn about it? Are there books? Or perhaps shamans on mountaintops I should consult?

This. I am 80 % vegetarian. I eat beans/pasta/rice and other vegetables for most of my calories. I love it and it's healthy and cheap, 2 things I like. With good diet publicity and low prices on key foods, this kind of diet should become attractive to more people...

I call myself a flexitarian. It's even in the dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flexitarian

I realize other creates think and feel, but I have great appreciation for the meat I take on my own whenever I shoot a deer, elk or turkey. I gutted, skinned and butchered my first deer that I hunted because I wanted to better learn and appreciate the adventure, process and amount of food I then acquired.

There is a writer/hunter who better explains what I'm trying to say, and he currently hosts The Meat Eater on Sportsman's channel (he also host the Wild Within on A&E for one season). Here is a short debate he had with a vegan, warning: it's a very level-headed and rational dialogue: http://youtu.be/J2N0Utg7KYE

Another bigger problem is cultural norms, that moment where your the only vegetarian at a table sucks because now sharing food with friends / SO become so much harder. I mean obviously less of an issue when you cook at home but still.

I've been vegetarian all my life, 31 years. It's been a problem probably once or twice. People always expect it to be difficult, but it just isn't. The only part about it I don't like is the 60 something year old, usually male, who pops up about once a year to make lame jokes that usually somehow relate being vegetarian to being effeminate, homosexual or some such thing. And seem to think its hilarious bringing it into conversation as much as possible. This is by far the most annoying thing. I have travelled through a fair few countries and have never found it to be problematic - and I have been prepared to compromise being veetarian if it would have been rude not to when in foreign countries. I have never had to however.

You have a point. I'm almost completely vegetarian (for ~20 years) and I try to avoid the issue, even if engaged about it, especially at mealtime.

It leads to conversations where people argumentatively try to find logical contradictions in my decisions. It's tiresome, because I can tell where it's headed before they even start ("But, is your belt leather?")

It seems more like they are trying to justify their own behaviors (which are even less well-grounded than mine), than to have a civil exchange of ideas.

And it happens not just with older males, but "logical" nerds as well (of all ages). ("Homo sapiens have evolved to be omnivores." -- gosh, I never thought of that before!)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com