when the post says “vegans are obviously right”, assuming that to mean that humans are made to not eat meat is a very bad faith interpretation. similar equating can happen when someone says all genders are equal and someone pulls out the sexual dimorphism research to claim they aren’t. there’s missing context of what is being said and what is being interpreted. i dont believe there’s a substantial group of vegans claiming humans are incapable or not ‘evolved’ to eat meat.
i am not debating that humans are apes, most carnivore, or adapted to both meat and vegetables. i don’t agree there, citations needed, but taking it as a mere simplification of facts its fine enough.
there’s complexity to the question of eating meat now that society has reached a point where we no longer need it to sustain ourselves. i am not arguing either way here but an argument there exists and we will need to have an answer to it. just like we didnt evolve to be able to see if our eyes fuck up, but we managed to just have spectacles (and surgery) to fix it. we can adopt to a non-meat diet if that is the answer, whether or not we evolved for it.
i am conflicted on if vegans are right. but i can appreciate that they are at least right on pointing towards the question.
So that by itself is a very good question, but the ability of not consuminy it should not mean the obligation(or prohibition), or even the morals on the wheter of eating or not eating meat.
So thats my argument, we really should not matter that much about what is on the meal of people by itself. Maybe, one day, artificial meat becomes better than normal one and we end up replacing meat, and humannity, accidentally, end up as a vegan species by itself.
The thing is that involving the morally good or wrong about something like food shouldnt be a thing if it can be improved or obsoleted.
I appreciate you’re engaging with the question and I’d urge you to keep going.
Here’s a thought experiment: imagine if the only other animals in the planet were other primates, maybe even just Neanderthals. Maybe we ate them in the past, maybe some people still do today. Maybe they’re even farmed. Trapped and milked, or fed and butchered. But it’s all far away from the city, so you don’t even have to think about it, you just go to the back of the store and get your meat or your cheese.
But they are actually people. Not like you and me, sure, but they undeniably have a conscious experience of the world very very similar to ours.
You don’t actually need to eat their body parts or their milk. You can survive just fine without them, it just takes some effort, but most people don’t bother.
Would it still be morally irrelevant whether you ate that meat or not?
It would be more of a thing about sappiency and about their own culture, even considering they could be wildly diferent to us in biology, they could be cephalopods,birds, bears or even plants or funghi,yes, we can survive without them.
My principal point is that que are already asuming too many things about those other sapient beings:
-theyre animals that cannot reproduce sexualy vía grafts
-they have the same fear death than western people
-they may not have canibalistic customs about themselves
And we dont even know if there IS a being that is like that and straight to the point we wouldnt have the alternative to actually subsitute vía emulation.
Being not compulsory to live doens’t mean its not a thing that we can rennounce as fast as a moral vision would like, there is more of nuance and yes, we can survive without animal products but there are big chalenges about It, and more about actually living without them in a normal way,as today we cant really reproduce what meat actually does.
My principal point is that que are already asuming too many things about those other sapient beings: -theyre animals that cannot reproduce sexualy vía grafts -they have the same fear death than western people -they may not have canibalistic customs about themselves
I don’t understand what you mean here. Do you mind clarifying?
I think my answer to this would be that even without worrying over what we don’t know, we can make moral and ethical choices based on what we do know.
It may be imperfect information but if we try our best and admit our ignorance and update our behavior with new information, then I believe we can live in a, for lack of a better word, more virtuous way.
as today we cant really reproduce what meat actually does.
That’s fine because we don’t really need to in order to lead happy, healthy, fulfilling lives. Maybe in the past we did, but basically since the invention of fire starting, it hasn’t been necessary.
And? the thing is that still we can make do, its like implying a modern PC cannot run a NES game.
You have to emulate stuff btw.
giving the most benefit of the doubt to you here.
when the post says “vegans are obviously right”, assuming that to mean that humans are made to not eat meat is a very bad faith interpretation. similar equating can happen when someone says all genders are equal and someone pulls out the sexual dimorphism research to claim they aren’t. there’s missing context of what is being said and what is being interpreted. i dont believe there’s a substantial group of vegans claiming humans are incapable or not ‘evolved’ to eat meat.
i am not debating that humans are apes, most carnivore, or adapted to both meat and vegetables. i don’t agree there, citations needed, but taking it as a mere simplification of facts its fine enough.
there’s complexity to the question of eating meat now that society has reached a point where we no longer need it to sustain ourselves. i am not arguing either way here but an argument there exists and we will need to have an answer to it. just like we didnt evolve to be able to see if our eyes fuck up, but we managed to just have spectacles (and surgery) to fix it. we can adopt to a non-meat diet if that is the answer, whether or not we evolved for it.
i am conflicted on if vegans are right. but i can appreciate that they are at least right on pointing towards the question.
So that by itself is a very good question, but the ability of not consuminy it should not mean the obligation(or prohibition), or even the morals on the wheter of eating or not eating meat.
So thats my argument, we really should not matter that much about what is on the meal of people by itself. Maybe, one day, artificial meat becomes better than normal one and we end up replacing meat, and humannity, accidentally, end up as a vegan species by itself.
The thing is that involving the morally good or wrong about something like food shouldnt be a thing if it can be improved or obsoleted.
I appreciate you’re engaging with the question and I’d urge you to keep going.
Here’s a thought experiment: imagine if the only other animals in the planet were other primates, maybe even just Neanderthals. Maybe we ate them in the past, maybe some people still do today. Maybe they’re even farmed. Trapped and milked, or fed and butchered. But it’s all far away from the city, so you don’t even have to think about it, you just go to the back of the store and get your meat or your cheese.
But they are actually people. Not like you and me, sure, but they undeniably have a conscious experience of the world very very similar to ours.
You don’t actually need to eat their body parts or their milk. You can survive just fine without them, it just takes some effort, but most people don’t bother.
Would it still be morally irrelevant whether you ate that meat or not?
It would be more of a thing about sappiency and about their own culture, even considering they could be wildly diferent to us in biology, they could be cephalopods,birds, bears or even plants or funghi,yes, we can survive without them.
My principal point is that que are already asuming too many things about those other sapient beings: -theyre animals that cannot reproduce sexualy vía grafts -they have the same fear death than western people -they may not have canibalistic customs about themselves
And we dont even know if there IS a being that is like that and straight to the point we wouldnt have the alternative to actually subsitute vía emulation.
Being not compulsory to live doens’t mean its not a thing that we can rennounce as fast as a moral vision would like, there is more of nuance and yes, we can survive without animal products but there are big chalenges about It, and more about actually living without them in a normal way,as today we cant really reproduce what meat actually does.
I don’t understand what you mean here. Do you mind clarifying?
I think my answer to this would be that even without worrying over what we don’t know, we can make moral and ethical choices based on what we do know.
It may be imperfect information but if we try our best and admit our ignorance and update our behavior with new information, then I believe we can live in a, for lack of a better word, more virtuous way.
That’s fine because we don’t really need to in order to lead happy, healthy, fulfilling lives. Maybe in the past we did, but basically since the invention of fire starting, it hasn’t been necessary.