Hacker News Reader

Comment by aaronsw | Hacker News Reader

How does having less cows being born hurt actual cows? It might "hurt" the cow species, but that's a metaphorical point -- surely you don't consider the cow species actually capable of pain.

The evidence (look up "demographic transition") shows that the only reliable way to decrease birth rates is to decrease death rates. In practice, people seem to have more kids when they expect some of their kids to die. That's how societies keep from dying out.

I don't say people are just deluded, I say they're often confused.

I never said people are only allowed to get equal things, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Nobody disputes that things are sometimes complicated. But that just means you need to work a little harder to find out the truth -- not just spout random ideas you have.

View on HN

Hurting cows - I just wanted to point out that if you love having cows around, you might be in for a surprise. Without a judgment, just that it might be an unexpected consequence - just as a lot of other actions that seem ethical might actually backfire.

"The evidence (look up "demographic transition") shows that the only reliable way to decrease birth rates is to decrease death rates."

I don't know about that, but I know that in my country (which has a very good welfare system) there is a lot of discussion about the poor and uneducated having more kids than other parts or society. And their kids tend to go the same route, that is, they tend to end up on welfare. That might be sensationalist reporting of our newspapers, though. Also not saying that the solution would be to "curb" the birth rates - you might find a twist to make the kids fare better than their parents or whatever. I don't know - but it makes me wary about incentives and treating everybody equally. People are not equal - I wish for everybody to have a good live and a fair chance (and that includes if you are born dumb - which might mean you can't take advantage of chances, and it is not your fault - but then what if suddenly a lot of people are dumb - a ka idiocracy?).

Also, about the demographic curve - how come human history is a history of war, struggle and genocide? So people had kids because they were afraid their kids might die, but then they didn't die so they had to exterminate their neighbors to get more room to live?

From my experience, not everybody is friends with everybody. I trust your friends from MIT would feed me if I ended up under a bridge, even if in my previous life I had been a drug dealer?

"I don't say people are just deluded, I say they're often confused."

Sure, but how can you make sure that you are right? The cookies example seems like a no-brainer, but maybe it isn't. Maybe the world would be a worse place without cookies.

"not just spout random ideas you have."

That sounds as if you are entitled to an opinion and I am not. Why - because you read more books on the subject than I did?

For what it's worth, I suspect trying to create value is probably the best way to make the world a better place. If there is enough food, people don't need to fight over it. Thanks to technology, normal people can live today as kings used to live in former times. So it seems to me advancing technology helps the most.

Hurting cows - I just wanted to point out that if you love having cows around, you might be in for a surprise.

I suppose that might be a useful thing to point out if there were anyone on the planet who became a vegetarian to maximize the cow population, regardless of the consequences.

Who are you arguing against?

I think a lot of people become vegetarians out of love for animals. Not sure if fading them out of existence is what they have in mind.

Anyway, it was just an example for naive ethics, because meat eating was mentioned in the original article. I sympathize with wanting to do good, but the approach stated falls apart on all accounts in my opinion.

I think a lot of people become vegetarians out of love for animals.

I think you're tricking yourself with words. When I say "I love brownies" I don't mean that I desire the existence of as many brownies as possible, even if I can't eat them.

I think the vegetarians who say "I love animals" mean something entirely different from what you mean when you say "I love brownies"...

Of course, the "eating" in my analogy isn't the point, which was merely to demonstrate that you're confusing different uses of the word "love."

But, yeah, I obviously should have chosen a different example :)

Re: cows, that argument is exactly the one they use to justify bullfighting. Nobody would grow bulls if it weren't for the torture show. It would seem that the whole animal kingdom relies on human farming for their existance.

Sure there'd be less cows around if we didn't eat them, but they'd lead an actual life.

Birth rates are correlated to poverty and lack of education everywhere, even (especially) in places without proper welfare systems. Want to reduce birth rates? Motivate and enable women to pursue fulfilling careers.

"Nobody would grow bulls if it weren't for the torture show."

Well I didn't want to argue for or against eating meat, just provide an example of far reaching consequences. I don't know what is worse, cows being exploited and abused or them not existing at all. Funny, in the end all plans to improve the world end up with "just blow the whole thing up with atomic bombs", don't they? That would be the only way to end all suffering for good. I am a vegetarian btw - but not because I want to see cows disappear...

But really, how do you think cows and bulls would survive? I suppose we could have a reservation (a zoo) to keep some around, to fulfill our duty to keep them happy? Or we could feed humans, so that they have less children, and more space becomes available for free roaming cows? Seems like a huge gamble to bet on that scenario.

To paraphrase my cows example: what I mean is that usually you can't have your cake and eat it.

"Want to reduce birth rates? Motivate and enable women to pursue fulfilling careers."

That seems like a more promising approach than breaking into MIT to steal food.

There are animals living freely without humans growing them. In my area there are boars, horses, rabbits, badgers, mice, rats, gebrils, wolves, and all sorts of birds large and small. Not very far away (like 200km), deers and bears. Don't get me started on sea life.

Oh, and cows too, in natural reserves (we have zoos too, but I'd rather shut them down.)

Some of the abovementioned animals are hunted, but that's not the reason they are there.

What country are you from, that you don't have room for a little wildlife? Luxembourg, Holland?

That said, it's not all black and white. Between having animals spend all their lives in a cage and leaving them free and wild forever in their natural habitat, there is the option of free range herding. I have recently seen a herd of cows go to the beach in Wales, and take a bath amongst amused surfers and tourists (e-mail me for pics). In these times I count those cows relatively lucky, even if they are eventually killed for food.

While I don't support the guys who broke into MIT, I don't think their goal was to reduce birth rates.

After having accusing the OP of simplism, one would expect more cohesion and rigor in your counterarguments.

The cow thing was not a counter argument. Anyway, we do have wild animals, just not cows. That wild cows exist is news to me - I almost suspected that they are a human creation and not fit for survival of their own (unlike buffaloes).

" I don't think their goal was to reduce birth rates."

Their goal was to feed the hungry. I mentioned that even feeding the hungry is not as simple a mechanism as it sounds, for example because of rising birth rates. In short if you think about eliminating hunger, you should probably think about birth rates. Is that really so uncohesive a line of thought?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com