I heard something to do with Nitrogen and …cow farts(?) I am really unsure of this and would like to learn more.

Answer -

4 Parts

  • Ethical reason for consuming animals
  • Methane produced by cows are a harmful greenhouse gas which is contributing to our current climate crisis
  • Health Reasons - there is convincing evidence that processed meats cause cancer
  • it takes a lot more calories of plant food to produce the calories we would consume from the meat.

Details about the answers are in the comments

  • 4lan@lemmy.world
    41·
    1 year ago

    I’ve heard this tired argument that plants and sentient mammals have the same capacity for suffering so many times. I think it is a disingenuous way of excusing the suffering your choices support.

    A plant does not grieve when it’s offspring is removed from it. It does not have fear, or joy. Plants don’t play with each other and bond.

    Yes. They communicate, and react to stimuli. So does a computer, but neither are sentient

    • ragusa@feddit.dk
      31·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think it is disingenuous at all. You may draw the line at sentience, but you have provided no argument for why this is correct. Why must we consider the harm exactly up to sentience? Why must we only consider conscious pain resulting from harm, and not nociception? It is easy to dismiss people as disingenuous, especially if you don’t really have any arguments for your case.

      I don’t see how there can exist any good arguments for where to draw the line, which is why it bothers me when people claim the moral high ground, but cannot offer any arguments on why their behaviour is most morally correct. You can say “reduce suffering of sentient beings”, and most people probably agree, but I think it is completely natural to prioritise yourself, your family and friends and your species above other animals. So how much suffering of yourself is as important as the suffering of a chicken. Probably substantially less. I don’t think you will ever convince anyone of your beliefs by simply denying that their weightings of human-to-animal suffering is wrong and yours is right.

      • 4lan@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 year ago

        That’s a lot of rationalization with no facts to back it up.

        I’m getting a “well ackchually” vibe from your comment. If I put a mouse on the ground next to a flower and told you to stomp one of them to death, You would be comfortable with either option equally?

        Yes plants respond to negative stimuli, that doesn’t imply suffering on the level of a conscious being.

        You’re making a lot of assumptions about my beliefs in your comment. I do not believe any animal has more right to life than any other animal. With that said if you are in the woods trying to survive like our ancestors then your biological needs take priority, you can’t survive on plants in winter. The thing is that is not our reality. We are wolfing down red meat giving ourselves colon cancer needlessly. Trading suffering for joy, not suffering for survival

        • ragusa@feddit.dk
          12·
          1 year ago

          > That’s a lot of rationalization with no facts to back it up.

          I, honestly, have no idea what you are talking about. Which facts would you find relevant in a philosophical discussion on morality?

          > I’m getting a “well ackchually” vibe from your comment.

          I am sorry you feel that way, that was not my intention.

          > If I put a mouse on the ground next to a flower and told you to stomp one of them to death, You would be comfortable with either option equally?

          Honestly I find this example a little comical because I think most people would definitely choose to rid themselves of the pest and keep their pretty flower. However, I do understand your sentiment. I don’t think my personal views really matter, but I have some rough hierarchy of living organism ordering how highly I value their interests. For example, I think a human is more important than a mouse to me, so I would rather kill a mouse than a human, if I had to choose. Similarly, I think a hare is more important than a flower, so I would rather kill a flower than a hare.

          > You’re making a lot of assumptions about my beliefs in your comment.

          I am sorry, I have incorrectly conflated your comment with that of the original.

          > I do not believe any animal has more right to life than any other animal. With that said if you are in the woods trying to survive like our ancestors then your biological needs take priority, you can’t survive on plants in winter.

          These to statements are completely contradictory. You are more important than other animals, thus you sacrifice them for you own survival. If you have no more “right” to survival than a hare, how is it ethical to kill it to ensure your own survival?