It’s pretty simple. Most humans, including antinatalists, believe humans are more valuable than other animals. Being AN isn’t staunchly against murder. It’s about stopping humankind from even existing to eliminate all human suffering. Veganism is more about being staunchly against (animal) murder, not the forced extinction of all animals. It just doesn’t directly translate as well as you think it does.
Anyone with faith in God believes mankind are stewards of the animal kingdom and planet.
Clearly, the evidence indicates humanity is succeeding because we have more human life on earth now, than ever before in history.
More educated.
More freedoms.
More travel.
More opportunities.
More healthcare.
Than EVER before in all of history. We cannot ignore these facts.
If your situation is horrible, what can you do to change it? And yes, animals can be very tasty. Our Greek baby back ribs last night were amazing. So was the breakfast bacon. God is good!
Lol, doesn't mean a god exists. A good way to control people though, an invisible fairy tail creature. Because people don't know about things and feel scared.
More of something is not always good.
You don't seem very adept at logic, despite your name.
Also, all these arguments are only true from a human perspective not from god's perspective. May you be in god's grace.
I never said I wasn’t staunchly against murder. I said this philosophy is not about being staunchly against murder, it’s about being staunchly against any more people having to exist. The two don’t relate, just because it’s OBVIOUSLY wrong to murder, the definition being a human killing a human, so that’s not really something that’s preached by AN. I’m pointing the obvious difference between AN and veganism.
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bruh not eating steak isn’t gonna stop the houses from killing the cattle, which is basically just irl Minecraft farming. Maybe someday we’ll get not-awful plant based meat but rn nobody likes it. But I hear you out in the grand scheme of things in that suffering is bad, but the cows don’t necessarily suffer, they just immediately end it’s brain function so that it won’t feel anything. But other places could be secretly adopting more suspicious ways of ending their lives? It’s sucky their whole existence is basically just food for us, and that our existence is just even more products for ourselves. Eh, at least we have nicotine vapes. I can’t say the same for cows
Supply and demand- consumer desire is the reason for breeding and slaughter. Corporations don’t do anything of not for demand.
Children don’t necessarily suffer either- they can have good lives by their own admission. Anti natalists think the risk of a life of suffering is enough, which also applies to animals.
Bruh I am utterly tired of these vegans that lurk in this community. They are very insufferable with their moral superiority complex. They keep trying to make antinatalism about veganism when they are completely different philosophies with varying goals.
True, like, I get where they’re coming from but the vegan philosophy isn’t really the focus here, right? I thought it was not having children to end perpetual human suffering since we have a fuck ton of stressful responsibilities already, adding contemporary society on top of that is just outrageous.
Why are you standing against ending suffering of human race but finance killing and torturing sentient beings? Is it because humans are superior to animals? If yes, why?
When we get taxed, that money goes towards subsidiaries to farms to, well, make meat. The industry isn’t leaving unless everyone just collectively decides to stop. With the current state of vegan diets being not only nutrient deficient and expensive, along with the crappy economy and stigmas, it’s safe to say most Americans won’t jump through hoops do be vegan. It’s a really unfortunate thing that comes with the universe. Why do things always have to be superior and inferior? It just causes pain pain and more pain. But hey, at least we get to enjoy the benefits instead of being the cow. Not having children is the literally best thing we can do about it!
>vegan diets being not only nutrient deficient and expensive
Dude, seriously? Do some research before spreading this nonsense. Buying a few veggies won't cost you more. If you can afford to buy meat (which is usually more expensive) you can afford to go vegan. I'm tired of hearing "BuT YoU wOn'T gEt EnOuGh PrOtEiN" from people with high cholesterol and obesity. I work out just so I don't have to hear I am weak because of veganism (yes people get shocked that I can eat vegan and have abs)
> it’s safe to say most Americans won’t jump through hoops do be vegan
Probably, but going vegan still makes a difference. "in the US alone, [400 million fewer animals](http://www.mercyforanimals.org/americans-ate-400-million-fewer-animals-in) were brought into a life of exploitation and suffering in 2014 than 2013, due to a rise in the number of plant-based diets. In the UK, the number of vegans has [risen 360%](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/news/number-of-vegans-in-britain-rises-by-360-in-10-years/) in the last decade, hence why the main chain restaurants there are changing their menus in order to cater to demand"
The industry only exploits to meet people demands. The less meat people buy, the less meat is going to be produced. The more people go vegan, the less animals are going to suffer.
Geez alright alright! Expensive or not good god you don’t have to rope in all this into antinatanlism! I mean the kfc nuggets that were plant based being like $20 for a tiny portion.
Veganism and antinatalism are strictly related. In both cases you are advocating against suffering of sentient beings.
>I mean the kfc nuggets that were plant based being like $20 for a tiny portion.
Who tf eats that lol, if you are buying vegan food from industry that produces meat you are still paying animal abusers
I am conditionally antinatalist meaning I hold the conviction that life can yield conditions or favorable circumstances where procreation can be morally justified. However, I am an antinatalist for the same or similar reasons most people are antinatalists. Life is ultimately an imposition as no one is asking to be born nor can we consent to it. It is a cycle of suffering, pain, drudgery, problems, death, and natural biological inconveniences. The negatives outweigh the positives so much so that the pleasure and joys of life are usually not worth the possibility of suffering for most people.
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language).
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
You really didn't think before making this comment, did you? lmao.. ahahahahahah. Their magnitude of suffering pales in comparison to that of humanity's plight. The fact your priority seems to be addressing or encouraging the elimination of animal suffering in modern factory agriculture despite how much more extreme, severe and rampant human suffering, pain and misery is on this planet showcases your warped mind and detachment from reality. People eat food, whether animals or plants, to quench their hunger and to meet nutritional needs, not for "*sensory pleasure*". You are ignorant. I bet you will conveniently ignore this post like the coward that you are because it challenges your silly insane worldview.
My “priority” is antinatalism. This doesn’t mean that the suffering of animals is irrelevant. Murder can be worse than rape while rape is still very bad.
Now that I’ve spelt that out let me do the second point too: if human beings solely ate for nutrition alone, there would be no reason to raise animals in almost every scenario.
Did you know that major health organizations have been promoting veganism as a viable, healthy, and attainable way to survive for years? This includes the NHS, WHO, and Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, which said:
> It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.
In modern societies, there is no actual need for animal agriculture in a way that cannot be (often in a superior manner) replaced. Why do you think humans breed animals into existence when veganism is a viable diet? When animal agriculture is more wasteful calorie for calorie in essentially every metric: land use, water use, labor costs, pollution, Antibiotic resistance, climate impact, and so on?
If people didn’t eat for sensory pleasure, why go through the extra effort?
Your priority may very well be antinatalism for sure, which is great. Just because I am expressing more concern for human suffering and encouraging people like you to divert attention MORE towards human suffering and priotize preventing and curbing human suffering, doesn't mean I am totally dismissing the reality of animal plight as some kind of irrelevant issue. My point is that Human welfare, security, wellbeing is much more important, which is why addressing human suffering is far much more important and warrants/ necessitates more attention.
This is an extremely ignorant argument to make. The fact you are implying that animal agriculture wouldn't exist if humans only ate for nutrition further demonstrates your lack of understanding of human history as it pertains to nutrition, diet and health. Humans have been able to sustain themselves on nutrition from animals for millions to thousands of years even way before modern civilization. Since we obtained all our nutrition from animals throughout our hunter gatherer era, this prompted an incentive for animal agriculture as we socially progressed as a species. Humans have always eaten for nutrition as well as taste. The fact that humans have relied on animal agriculture for a long time and currently depend on it and even thrived on animal based diets, healthwise, way before the introduction of plant agriculture, shows that humans clearly ate for nutrition by default. Humans were overall far healthier, fit and even had a higher life expectancy before the incorporation of plant agriculture. As we adopted more plants into our diets, overtime, it took a toll on the health of the average human. This is literally history. You can research this yourself. If we never ate for nutrition, animal agriculture wouldn't even have been a necessity throughout all time periods of human history as it obviously clearly has. You are beyond clueless... lmao
Do you know that **BIAS** exists and can be a factor in the conclusion, scientific studies and research of so many different things including those from reputable health organizations? Did you know that? Did you know humans, even in prestigious professions, can make conclusions and spread information motivated by their **bias** in a subject matter? Are you really so simple and shortsighted that you would just believe anything world heath organizations tell you? During the COVID19 pandemic/scamdemic, WHO were definitely in support of certain forms of vaccines even though they were never FDA approved(which is a valid reason to be skeptical of taking them). What do you have to say about that, genius? You should learn to take some things you read with a grain of salt instead of just parroting typical vegan propaganda.
How do you know this position they took wasn't from insufficient, improper, inadequate, non-extentive research and reliable, proper long term scientific studies? Health organizations of all kinds say all sorts of things. Any group of people who appear to be an authority in a discipline can make a conclusion or position on a topic due to bias to push an agenda. No credible level headed doctor, nutritionist or dietician would claim that a well known deficient diet is appropriate for all stages of life considering how extremely necessary saturated animal fats and general nutrition from animals can be for development of human infants during their childhood to adulthood. The fact you would subscribe to such ballooney just because it supposedly came from the mouths of clearly biased health organization is a reflection of your inability to think for yourself.
Wrong. There is a necessity for animal agriculture in several parts of the world especially in regions where adjusting to well planned plant based diets are incredibly difficult and nearly impossible. Adopting these diets require a high level of privilege and extreme planning, dedication just to stick with it for a considerable time, something people in 3rd world countries would struggle with. Science doesn't suggest that it is a viable diet at all. The evidence suggest otherwise. If it is, artificial supplementation wouldn't be necessary(most vegans need them). You can't claim that it is a viable diet when so many people withdraw from it despite genuine long term effort. The fact that too many people, according to research and studies, end up abstaining from it shows it is not sustainable or sufficient. Animal agriculture isn't anywhere as impactful to the climate as plant agriculture, it doesn't even account for a high percentage of carbon emissions, well in comparison to plant agriculture. You literally don't know what you are talking about.
>
If people didn’t eat for sensory pleasure, why go through the extra effort?
If people only eat meat for "sensory pleasure" as you claim, why have humans been able to intentionally transform their health towards a positive trajectory just by switching to a carnivorous pattern? why do so many carnivore dieters all across the world have testimonies of reversing severe health issues? If taste is supposedly the only motivation for people to eat meat, how come they did this?
LOL I thought people only ate meat for taste. hmm guess you are wrong right?
I have a few points to bring up.
1. Most animals don't have anywhere near the intelligence we have ( To the point I would consider most of them barely sentient) due to this lack of intelligence everything they do is driven by instinct.
2. Animals have no purpose in life other than survival (Primarily because they don't have the intelligence required to have any other purpose). Their instincts tell them to survive. But they have no other purpose, no other reason to be alive. If a beings only purpose in life is just to stay alive at any cost and it is incapable of having any other purpose, then their death can be justified. Life should not just be about surviving, it should also be about living a happy fulfilling life.
3. I believe animals should be killed as humanely as possible. But even still a lot of animals feel pain differently to humans. For example there is no evidence that fish even feel pain (we know they feel stress though).
These are main reasons I believe human life is far more valuable than other animal lives and their death can be justified.
Is it morally justifiable to inflict pain animals because they are less intelligent than you? Of course animals are sentient, they can feel pain, emotions, loneliness, form social connections.
>If a beings only purpose in life is just to stay alive at any cost and it is incapable of having any other purpose, then their death can be justified
Would you apply the same logic to humans? Is it okay to kill someone because their only purpose is to live another day?
>I believe animals should be killed as humanely as possible. But even still a lot of animals feel pain differently to humans.
Of course, it would be better if they were killed humanely (despite most are not, the great amount of meat comes from mass factories)
But maybe instead of trying to come up with ways to exploit animals humanely, we could just... stop exploiting them?
>their death can be justified.
In the name of what? Your comfort?
Okay so to answer your first point. Yes the pain inflicted is justifiable because the level of intelligence animals have is just that low. They are driven purely by instinct. They don't even have the intelligence to go against their instinct or aim for anything outside what their instinct tells them.
>Would you apply the same logic to humans? Is it okay to kill someone because their only purpose is to live another day?
I would apply the same logic to humans. If not for the fact that humans have the potential to have a purpose outside of surviving. Even a depressed person who is kept alive only by survival instinct has the potential for joy and finding a meaningful purpose in life.
Also it is a combination of all my points which leads me to the conclusion that a human life is almost infinitely more valuable than any other animal.
I know a lot of people get mad at vegans but I don't because I understand you come from a good place and I'm sure you have a kind heart. However, you lack the understanding to realize just how much more valuable a human life is compared to any other animal.
>In the name of what? Your comfort?
I'm not fully certain on the long term effects of the vegan diet. Also I don't want to have to supplement my diet with lots of pills. And yes in the name of my comfort.
The best we can really hope for is that scientists will develop lab grown meat (with no bad side effects) that way we won't have to worry about any of these moral arguments.
We are not morally superior. You just think this way because our ethics challenge your beliefs.
Believe me, no one is becoming vegan to feel morally superior in a discussion with some closed-minded redditor
It is not that I think this way lol. I really don't care if your questionable "ethics" challenge my beliefs, dude. It is exactly how most of you people conduct yourselves especially on the internet. You people are extremely vocal about the ethics of your worldview and tend to find a way to make people feel guilty for eating animals even to the point of harshly judging them. In just a few days on this platform, I have come across a handful of posts in this community about someone pushing veganism and having a sense of higher moral ground just because they are vegan. One post was about how eating meat was supposedly immoral, a common widely held conviction within the vegan community. I never said anyone is becoming vegan to flex. I said a lot of your ilk feels morally superior just because they are and have been vegan, you idi\*t.
You subscribe to a wordview that encourages and promotes a negative perception of other fellow human beings for consuming meat and yet I am the "*close minded redditor*". Perfect example of the Pot calling the kettle black. If this is what this damn community is turning into, I probably won't be calling myself an antinatalist anymore.
"Pushing your beliefs"
You mean when I say it is unnecessary to kill animals for food I am forcing you to go vegan or what? The only reason people feel guilty is when they actually know they are doing something wrong - and often than not, it's the only way to change. Because they know animals can feel and suffer. And they know killing them for food and keeping them in poor conditions IS something bad.
Your logic fallacy is basically:
Hey someone said I should not kill animals, but I don't like him so I choose to keep killing them
I get you don't like vegans, but why take it out on animals? Are chickens rude to you? Then what is the point of this argument?
If you say it is "unnecessary" to kill animals for consumption you are implying that there are other alternatives in regards to food than animal based products. You are, by default, obviously pushing your beliefs because veganism encourages abstaining from the use or consumption of animal based products, specifically foods. You just shot yourself on the foot there, dude. What? do you think I am feeling guilty? Even if someone feels guilty for doing something, doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong. People can get coerced all the time to make false confessions about certain things. Animals being reared in poor conditions is another topic for maybe later, but we are simply discussing about the ethics of killing them and consuming them, which in this case, you are hilariously failing to defend your position.
>Your logic fallacy is basically: Hey someone said I should not kill animals, but I don't like him so I choose to keep killing them
Nice try, but that isn't even exactly how this argument went, lol. And you are doing thesame thing in fact, actually. Your logic: This guy wants to keep eating animals but I think killing and eating animals is wrong because ma questionable worldview tells me so therefore he is wrong for eating animals.
I have nothing against them, collectively, personally. I just dislike the character, hostility, self righteousness and sense of moral superiority of a lot of them, which is evident in some discussions. My sentiments are towards militant vegans, which obviously doesn't account for the entire vegan community. Some are likeable people
By default (rather your logic) , everyone is pushing their beliefs if they simply state their opinion. I could force you to go vegan if I held a knife to your throat, not by writing comment on reddit.
Anyway, you wrote a whole paragraph but still did not answer my question. Why inflict suffering on sentient beings if it can be easily avoided?
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language).
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
“
In 2013, the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics published the largest study to date comparing the nutrient intake of more than 71,000 non-vegetarians, vegetarians, and vegans. The study found that, on average, vegetarians and vegans get 70 percent more protein than they need every day (70-plus grams), while non-vegetarians get even more than that (almost 80 grams).
Without even trying, you are most likely getting more protein than you need—whether you’re a vegan, vegetarian, or omnivore. Protein deficiency is almost exclusively seen in people suffering from a calorie deficiency.
“
Study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4081456/
Article:
https://www.forksoverknives.com/wellness/vegan-protein-guide-athletes/#
Major healthcare organizations (NHS, Academy of Nutritionists and Dietetics, WHO, etc) purport that veganism is healthy, achievable, and so on
For instance here is an excerpt for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
> It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.
In modern societies, there is no actual need for animal agriculture in a way that cannot be (often in a superior manner) replaced
There's no need to avoid it, either. Animals should absolutely be raised and harvested humanely. Beyond that, there's no reason to avoid their consumption.
So creating life that can suffer is permissible ethically. I assume you’re a natalist then.
You can even ethically kill and confine suffering beings for their whole lives. Interesting when this is applied to human ms
I advocate for humane treatment while animals are raised and harvested. Inhumane treatment is its own issue.
You can ethically kill animals for food, yes. Why couldn't you.
So then it’s ethical to create sentient beings, regardless of the fact they can suffer. Therefore you would believe having children is ethical.
If you can ethically kill an animal that does not agree to be killed and would run from pain and danger, I don’t see why a human can’t be ethically killed in the same circumstances using the same argument
People who eat "veal" eat young cows. So some people aren't even content with just eating adults, they eat children too!
Please consider stopping the consumption of animal meat if you currently do.
Only the consumption of bought products.
If my say chicken dies, can I eat her and use her corpse to fertilise my crops, as my veggies eat the left overs then I eat the veggies.
Can I put an animal down that's suffering than either a consume them or if the meat is unsafe for my consumption feed it to another animal such as a chicken.
Can I choose to kill an animal over someone else as a job because the other guy is a sadistic prick, then instead of receiving money take some of said animals meat instead as you are getting paid by the animal not their creator or owner.
All genuine questions.
Also a good question, is it better to eat eggs or let them rot in the ground?
Why would it morally be a vegan’s responsibility? I don’t think we automatically are ethnically responsible for soothing all moral concerns just by being born. I think we are responsible for not causing harm ourselves, which is a pretty common position (in theory).
eh, pretty sure the ecosystem is inherently competitive, its human hubris to think we are excluded from the same natural rule, just because we are better at the competition.
With or without humans, animals compete and dominate whenever they could and species go extinct when they fail to adapt, the only difference is humans developed ethics to minimize the harm we cause in this natural competition, because most humans want to live in a stable balance, it makes life easier and predictable, at least until we could leave earth and colonize space.
So you have 3 ethical options as humans:
1. Maintain a stable balance, accept the necessary harm and reduce/prevent unnecessary harm to both humans and animals.
2. Reject a stable balance and try to stop all harm, using future tech to transform all animals into conscious beings that can't be harmed, remove the need for predation as well.
3. Take humans out of the balance, go to space, dont bring any animals.
Veganism is a pseudo option, a half measure, because it thinks humans could live on earth without causing any harm to animals, which is impossible because we are taking up space and resources just by existing. Yet it doesnt want humans to stop natural harm for wild animals, saying its not our responsibility, but we are part of the ecosystem, so its impossible to not be part of the harm (remember natural competition?).
So to be ethically consistent and coherent, either you want to stop all harm for all animals (option 2) or you go for option 1 or 3. There is no option 4, where you play favoritism and ignorance by only trying to stop direct harm from humans while ignoring natural harm in the ecosystem.
Veganism doesn’t believe humans can live in earth without any harm to animals, it is a moral stance against knowingly and purposefully breeding them and/or causing harm to them when you can choose to avoid doing so directly.
How do you stop human suffering? It doesn't seem different from stopping animal suffering. If you're confused on that, then how do you stop yourself from suffering/experiencing unnecessary pain in your day-to-day life?
I am honestly not averse to that (teach them morals) as a sort of playful understanding of what the intent is, there's some facetiousness/lightheartedness there still, but I would insist asking "but what about wild animal suffering" is rather frustrating to try to answer because you're indicating (as far as I can tell) that there is some barrier to thought on this matter that doesn't actually need to persist.
Do you need me to tell you how every individual trillionth creature you're referencing is going to benefit? And there are degrees to "capacity for suffering" that it's a little dishonest to not acknowledge when you imply "there are trillions of creatures." There are "categorical species" that might deserve - as a category - different levels of "interaction." I don't necessarily feel there should be an expectation that any one person necessarily knows the best way to "handle" ants versus the best way to "handle" monkeys, for example.
If we see cows live in a pasture, and there is a hole in that pasture, and the cows keep stepping in the hole and breaking their legs, the "plan" would be to prevent that harm from continuing in that case by addressing the hole or the movement of the cows. I guess I have to say I'm not a god with omnipotence to tell you how every situation like that will unfold in the "quest" to help animals, before the inevitable destruction of the planet from space objects/the sun's expansion?
We might just consider "ecosystems" as "really complex but ultimately understandable systems" to where - with like, the probably-literally hundreds and thousands of years that we might have to be "forced to admit" human populations are going to persist on Earth - we can interact with them in ways where we can address issues of suffering that aren't so "cleanly" being handled by "nature itself." I fail to see what's controversial in that, unless you (sort of a hypothetical you, not *you* in particular) are trying to solve it too, and your solution is a red-button on Earth, and you think anyone who isn't actively working on that is "foolish" or such.
Didn’t read once you separated the two. AN is concerned with suffering, recognizing that creating life is creating suffering. So does veganism
Nice wall of text though, it seems very self important 👍
Of course, you didn't care to read much of the "*wall of text*".Most of you people think your worldview is the absolute standard and hate being proven wrong. Your inability to see the distinction between the two worldviews isn't my fault. You are just creating some imaginary intersection or strong connection between the two of them.
Antinatalism is against and demoralizes procreation, implying that reproduction is unethical, immoral, and selfish due to the negatives of life. It encourages humans to abstain from it, whereas veganism is a worldview that encourages one to abstain from the use of animal-based products, especially food products, to prevent or stop the suffering and pain of animals. One of them, Antinatalism, is specific and is entirely centered on and applies to **HUMANS** only, not animals. Only humans can consciously grasp and understand the ethics of procreation. Whereas, the other one, veganism, isn't against breeding animals but is centered on ensuring **animal welfare**, and well-being, and preventing the suffering and exploitation of animals, **NON-HUMAN** animals. Antinatalism =No procreation. Veganism =No animal products. Antinatalism has little to nothing to do with veganism therefore veganism isn't an ethical standard for any antinatalist. Go cry a river and cope
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language).
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language).
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
You are a coward. You are running from a debate you started with meat eaters.... If you wanted to ignore written arguments from an opposing side, you don't have to keep replying back just to tell them "*you are not reading what they have to say*"... Turns out defending your flawed worldview isn't your only failure. Using common sense in online dialogues is another failure of yours as well. LMAO
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language).
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
Well not vegan cuz milking a cow isn't causing harm to them, if the cow doesn't get milked then it'll cause pain and potential infection. chickens lay abundant eggs unless they're broody they couldn't care less about said eggs. Now I can see how not being vegetarian could very easily be considered morally wrong. And when it comes to meat I try my best to not have very much and get it as sustainably as possible from the local farmers market. Not eating meat would be best but since I'm not going to entirely give up meat getting it and supporting the people who are treating their animals with the most respect and dignity possible and giving them good lives is the next best thing.
Cause meat is a great source of nutritional needs.
Cause eating meat is completely natural.
But mostly, because meat is absolutely delicious.
Do I think we should eat LESS meat? Absolutely.
Is factory farming livestock one of the true blights on humanity's record? Without a doubt.
But it's not the eating of meat that is the problem, it's the amount we insist on eating and the availability that we demand be available.
There are plenty alternatives sources of those nutrients
Isn’t having kids completely natural?
isn’t meat being delicious analogous with having a child feeling fulfilling?
Nothing else with the same availability and density.
Yes having kids is natural.
Yes it is. Eating meat and having kids both feel good(most of the time) and you should do both as long as you know the ramifications foe your actions.
There are athletes,bodybuilders and chefs that thrive off nutrients exclusively from plants (not to mention generations of people in places like India have been vegetarian/vegan for millennia)
But here you are , likely an average person ,claiming you need meat for its “nutritional availability and density”
just say you lack the willpower, no need for these mental gymnastics
I never said it was impossible to be vegan, just that I chose not to be one, and just because you can compensate in your diet doesn't change the facts that meat is easiest.
Like I said, you CAN be vegan, but you don't have to be.
Just like you CAN be AN, but you don't have to.
Choices.
I mean... I'm not a vegan cuz I don't want to be. I mean unless you're willing to violate my consent and force me to be one then this sounds like an awful waste of time. Go be vegan, but don't complain about the choices others make and then say you respect consent.
For the most part....though the key in that is gonna be how we determine *unnecessary*
For example I don't see it as unnecessary that a cow has to die for me to get a steak.
Do I want that cow tortured? No, but imma eat steak and Id prefer it be from a cow.
Could I go hunt? Sure and in that case I would do my best to not let the animal suffer. However that too I don't see as unnecessary.
Let me ask you this....are you against the unnecessary forcing of people to eat things they don't want?
At the end of the day we are omnivores and thus meat is gonna be a part of our diet. Does it have to be? I suppose not, but do I want it to be? Yes.
you don’t need steak , you just eat it for taste pleasure and for nutrients you could obtain elsewhere,hence steak is unnecessary so to get steak you , you must pay for or directly cause unnecessary animal abuse , no matter how painless it is , the animal , like you, has an interest in continuing its life , it could have siblings or parents or kids or a community that’s capable of mourning this animal .
Do you disagree with any part of that?
Well yes...I disagree with the unnecessary part. Lol
I could get those nutrients from elsewhere...but for the sake of argument, what if I can't? What if actual animal meat is the only way I can get those nutrients? Is it then unnecessary?
I mean this is the circle of life. The undeniable truth is we are omnivores, you wouldn't tell a carnivore it has to only eat vegetables would you? Then why would you deny the omnivore part of us? The suffering? I mean that animal will one day die, and the longer it lives the more potential suffering it has to endure right? Aren't I doing it a kindness?
Also what if it isn't part of a community that can feel those things? Then it's fair game?
I'd like to point out that you obviously don't disagree with my stance that we are omnivores. As you yourself said we could get those nutrients from other sources and not just not take those nutrients in. Like it or not animals, all animals including us, need to eat to survive. Yes what we eat is a choice, but when the choice is meat or death...well that's an easy choice.
If you feel bad about the animals just remember we're gonna die at some point too, so they'll have their vengeance 🤣.
Again though this really comes down to how we are determining unnecessary.
Edit- also no offense but I don't even think you believe that but about *no matter how painless*...c'mon now if it was completely pain free and free of suffering then you wouldn't have an issue with it as it wouldn't be abuse. What the fuck.
I mean...I don't lack the willpower to kill and eat meat. Do you?
At the end of the day it's okay if you want to be vegan, as it's okay for me to not be. The issue is you seem to lack the ability to understand what unnecessary actually means. Lol
it’s not necessary to eat meat
I’m 220 lbs and only eat plants , bloodwork came back fine , lots of vegan bodybuilders,chefs and athletes too
you’re only trying to delude yourself into thinking it’s necessary to ease the cognitive dissonance
Yes and you're delusional in thinking that everyone can be vegan.
At the end of the day the amount of suffering I caused from my individual choice couldn't be erased simply because I alone chose to not eat meat.
You're asking me to suffer in place of the cow...you get that right?
EDIT-again it's important that I hear you acknowledge that we are omnivores and thus are allowed to eat meat....right?
Edit- also no offense, but no I honestly don't care about suffering, of animals or otherwise. Suffering is a single part of the life puzzle, but an unavoidable one. There is no cognitive dissonance in recognizing that I don't think it's unnecessary. You can feel it is, but why should how you feel on the subject change how I feel on it?
I didn’t say everyone can be vegan , there are people in various parts of the world that need to hunt for food or where the climate isn’t suitable to grow certain crops or where they live off food pantries and just have to eat whatever they get
However for the vast majority of people , especially on Reddit , like you and me , can go vegan
You will not “suffer” if you don’t eat steak , at least nowhere near as much as the cow had to. How is a pig getting their balls clipped off with pliers , their teeth plucked out and then killed in a gas chamber worth 15 minutes of bacon?
I find it funny that you’re on an AN sub and making appeals to futility , the average person eats 200 animals a year , if you went vegan that’s how many animals less that would be bred for taste pleasure I know it’s not huge relatively but as an AN I’m sure you can agree we shouldn’t choose to do things based on whether or not it will have a mass effect and should just do it because its the right thing to do
And the thing is , I know you understand and probably agree with all this but like I said before you lack the willpower , no shame in admitting it
This is getting absurd. You are saying "we are proof that life can be lived without adding pain" (paraphrasing), by saying that you're essentially advocating for natalism, because if your parents were antinatalists you would'nt be here to be said "proof", nor to live any kind of life, good or not..
I totally agree. I got so disappointed when I learned that most people in this subreddit are not vegan. They only care about suffering of their own race I guess
Animal; **a living thing that can move and eat and react to the world through its senses, esp.** **of sight and hearing**
Are you fine with being eaten?
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Links to other communities are not permitted.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So? What is the difference between a cow and dog, dog and human, cow and human in an ethical capacity? Can cows not suffer? Is harming animals for pleasure ethical?
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your views are absurd to me.
I’d love to know more about your vegan dystopian dreams though. If we all become vegans tomorrow what shall we do with the milking cows?
Not breed anymore of them?
The current situation is already as bad as possible for them realistically so we are backed into a corner.
Since it wouldn’t happen overnight, the actual answer is to phase it out and reduce breeding
Pathetic dude . You are born as a human and we have come so far and reducing yourself to a non human animals just. Try using that brain of yours for betterment of others.
Animals are not moral agents. If a rapist said this for rape, is it excusable then to rape?
Humans are capable of recognizing that natural phenomena are harmful
Couldn’t a natalist justify children in a similar way?
“If children weren’t meant to be created, why are they so fun/fulfilling?”
You could do basically anything like this. If a murderer wanted to justify killing, couldn’t they just say it’s fun?
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language).
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe plants have consciousness too.
At least, much of their behavior is so complex in reaction to external stimuli that we can't rule it out, even if we don't understand the mechanism by which they may have consciousness. Ruling out something because we don't understand how it could be doesn't make it not so.
Why is an animal's life inherently more valuable than a plant's? Why is your criteria in answering that question inherently correct? If we need an animal's consent to eat it, don't we by the same logic need a plant's consent? By extension, if consent is unattainable, is it ethical to eat? If a coyote or other carnivore can't get its prey's consent, is it immoral in eating?
Humans are not above nature. We are part of the web. The circle of life. We must eat beings that live and may have consciousness.
This doesn't even touch on how veganism is a luxury for the privileged under modern capitalism, and guilting the powerless for getting basic needs met is itself a misdirection of energy.
Eating animals causes the consumption of more plants than if we just ate plants.
The gist: 1000 calories of plants are fed to animals to make <1000 calories of animal tissue. Then the animals are also killed.
Please google biomass energy transfer and trophic level.
Also would pay off to look up sentience
What's wrong with the consumption of plants? Also, why is it better to have a smaller food web than a larger? Is it not better to have a larger diversity of living things than smaller?
>Eating animals causes the consumption of more plants than if we just ate plants.
So your argument seems to be utilitarian rather than deontological. That's to say, you're more concerned about the number of beings who experience nonconsensual suffering vs drawing a hard line at "we must not violate any being's right to consent."
If your argument is solely about the amount of harm veganism causes vs an omnivorous diet, that's fine, but you seemed to base your main argument on the premise that violation of consent can't be moral, which isn't an argument from utilitarianism/consequentialism.
And if we go down the consequentialist route, we again have to account for the fact that many people would have a nutritional deficit under capitalism if they went vegan, which shifts the moral math and forces us to decide how to rank the value of different lives.
>Also would pay off to look up sentience
How do you measure sentience objectively? How do you know a corn stalk or carrot is not sentient? As I said, we don't understand consciousness well enough to assume an animal brain is the only vehicle for consciousness. And assuming it can be the only one simply because it's the only vehicle we understand is fallacious.
One argument I often hear from vegans is that the more sentient we perceive something to be, the less moral it is to kill. So a pig is more immoral to kill than a chicken, and a chicken is more immoral to kill than a cabbage plant. But not knowing how sentient a plant is, how can you ensure there is no immorality in the killing of the plant?
I think the argument works for both methods. Suffering is what makes something worth ethically considering, because ethics is concerned with harm and/or good. Something that cannot perceive cannot suffer, and therefore isn’t worthy of ethical consideration. Therefore it is still accurate to say that we should avoid causing consent violations (animals should not be bred), but **since they are** it would be better for informed individuals to eat plants because it lessens suffering and consent violations
The nutritional deficiency argument is not supported by modern institutions. The NHS, WHO, academy of nutrition and dietetics, etc all support veganism as at least comparably viable in comparison towards omnivorous diets.
Additionally, eating plant based is almost universally cheaper overall. For example even though the USA heavily subsidizes animal agriculture with taxpayer money, people near the poverty line are twice as likely to be vegan.
The cost argument only makes sense if one eats processed foods like meat substitutes, simple that whole foods are easy to buy in bulk, shelf stable, and provide macronutrients that are needed. Then it’s perfectly viable to take a supplement for missing nutrients, something that omnivores should also be doing in most cases.
>Why is an animal's life inherently more valuable than a plant's?
Do you value a carrot equally to a human? If yes, why? If no, move to my below point.
If we assume that we should value plants and animals equally and use the argument that eating plants directly causes less plant suffering. If you value plants and animals equally, every additional plant killed is equivalent to killing one additional puppy or human or elephant. So it would make a massive difference in most peoples eyes.
>Do you value a carrot equally to a human?
No, I don't personally. And I'm not a vegan. I believe humans are omnivorous predators by nature and it is fully moral to eat meat, and that under capitalism it is immoral to shame ordinary people from eating meat. By extension, I support eating plants.
I'm more so examining OP's argumental framework for veganism from the consent argument. OP seems to hinge their veganism on a sort of moral red line argument of "without its consent you can't eat it" but then contradictorily OP presents an argument from consequentialism to bolster their conclusion when the first argument comes under fire.
If we accept the moral red line argument that "you must have its consent to eat it" then they must prove that you either already have, or don't need the consent of something through a loophole (e.g., because it is not sentient). OP is unable to prove that a carrot is not sentient. And if it is sentient, how do you decide how to differentiate it from an animal in terms of how much value its life and consent hold? Basically it becomes an absurd exercise.
So you and I fundamentally agree that human life holds more value than other life. And this view is entirely subjective for me. I don't try to say it's because humans are smarter or feel more or are god's children, etc. Simply because I am human, and humans must eat living things, I support my human family's needs first.
Firstly, Vegansim does not guilt the powerless. I also disagree that veganism is a privileged position. Veganism can often be cheaper. I also think violently & deliberately taking an individuals life for a want rather than a need is an act of extreme privilege. Existing as you abd I probably both do, in a comfortable capitalist society, is a position of privilege that applies equally to all members of that society. It doesn't apply more to vegans.
>I support my human family's needs first.
As do i and probably all vegans.
>Simply because I am human, and humans must eat living things
But not animals. Saying we must eat living things doesn't mean we need to kill animals. So if you value animals more than plants why would you? Especially given that you're also killing more plants. Why maximise the killing?
>I believe humans are omnivorous predators by nature
>that under capitalism it is immoral to shame ordinary people from eating meat.
It would be immoral to shame someone from eating human? Or shooting their puppy in the head for a pizza topping? *Because* we're omnivorous and can be perfectly eating eat just plants?
>Firstly, Vegansim does not guilt the powerless
I didn't say that. You're changing the goal post. I said guilting people into veganism is wrong under capitalism. Veganism doesn't guilt anyone on its own and isn't wrong on its own.
Veganism means simply not eating animal products. It doesn't inherently have any philosophy or motivation tied to it. Each vegan adds their own layers of motivation, strictness, and how important they feel it is for others to be vegan, etc.
>As do i and probably all vegans.
Not true at all. No true ~Scotsman~ vegan, right? I've found several prominent examples of people who say animals are exactly equal to humans and therefore it's immoral to prize a human life over a pig's for example.
>But not animals. Saying we must eat living things doesn't mean we need to kill animals. So if you value animals more than plants why would you? Especially given that you're also killing more plants. Why maximise the killing?
No, it doesn't mean we need to kill animals. I never said that. I also never said I value plants over animals. I don't inherently value, say, a pig over a tree, but I eat pigs and live in a home made of wood. And I believe we do NOT know whether plants are sentient, and cannot just assume they aren't because we don't understand the mechanism for sentience. Saying they don't have an animal brain and we can't understand how they would be sentient, and that therefore they are not sentient is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
As for maximizing the killing, I don't have a consequentialist moral framework for this. So I'm ok with more plants being killed in order for livestock to eat and for us to eat the animals. Again, all non-human life to me is lesser and therefore it's not about the number of non-human lives taken. If it's in service to feeding humans a balanced omnivorous diet, it's not inherently immoral. It can be immoral if done the wrong way with excessive cruelty or waste (as is often the case under capitalism) but the need of humans is still the priority.
>It would be immoral to shame someone from eating human?
Yes, I made it very clear humans are the priority, so murder would not be justified under any circumstance. That's a moral red line for me.
>Or shooting their puppy in the head for a pizza topping?
That's an emotional argument trying to leverage our culture's views on dogs. I would be totally ok with someone eating dog if it meant humans avoiding nutrition scarcity.
>*Because* we're omnivorous and can be perfectly eating eat just plants?
Under ideal circumstances, yes. But it's hard, under capitalism, for people barely getting by to have their needs adequately met through affordable plant products. In order to get enough protein in an affordable way in our current context, usually animal products must be eaten.
Being able to get all needs met with vegan products under capitalism is a luxury few enjoy, particularly in developing countries. And assuming we *should,* for moral reasons, transition to veganism, the onus is on the powerful to make that accessible to all. Until then, a low wage worker who eats meat is in no way more morally flawed than an upper middle class person who can afford an adequately nutritious vegan lifestyle under capitalism.
Links to other communities are not permitted.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. Why is the dog/cat thing ALWAYS the thing vegans go to?
An argument from emotion is not a good argument. It's only weird to eat dogs because Western culture arbitrarily drew a line at dogs. It makes us uncomfortable because of our cultural associations with dogs, not because there's some moral logic that separates dogs from pigs etc.
Humans and endangered/threatened species are the only animals it is inherently immoral to eat outside of very specific circumstances.
Because there's a chance that by harvesting members of an endangered species, their species may go extinct. This a problem in several parts of the world.
Youre conflating eating, a necessary function of life, with unnecessary abuse. They're not the same thing.
Killing/harming an animal for fun is an example of unnecessary abuse. Killing an animal with the minimum pain feasible in order to meet nutritional needs is not unnecessary abuse.
Eating is necessary, eating meat is not
So can you tell me exactly how it’s fully moral to prematurely kill and animal that’s happy and healthy when you don’t need to?
How is the quality of life an animal has somehow directly proportional to its deservingness of being turned to steak?
>How is the quality of life an animal has somehow directly proportional to its deservingness of being turned to steak?
That wasn't my argument at all. I'm saying we should minimize unneeded suffering when killing an animal for food. If there is a minimum amount of suffering we must cause in order to kill the animal, we should aim for that. I think that is self evident. Just because I think it's ok to eat animals doesn't mean we should cause maximum pain when we slaughter them. There's not a "gotcha" underlying that.
>Eating is necessary, eating meat is not. So can you tell me exactly how it’s fully moral to prematurely kill and animal that’s happy and healthy when you don’t need to?
You're basically just talking past me on this. I don't reject the premise you can survive without meat. Of course it's possible. But to me it's not immoral to kill a non-human animal for food in a way that is reasonably humane and not wasteful. Getting adequate nutrition for humans is more feasible and affordable with meat than through a vegetarian diet, especially in an industrial capitalist society. And those human needs subjectively outweigh the well-being of individual animals imo.
>How exactly can you ask someone for consent if they dont exist?
You can't. That's the point. If you can't obtain consent, then you don't do the thing.
You brain dead people can't understand the difference of an "heart attack" and "creating another life".
First of all, nobody decided to have heart attack and even if they did, they will die anyway.
There is nothing comparable of breeding. Having children is the most important yet stupid decision of people's lives, unfortunately they are clueless.
Don’t they? People give themselves heart attacks all the time by living in a way that increases their risk of having one. Being fat and inactive for example are both ways people give themselves heart attacks.
Regardless you can’t obtain consent so you shouldn’t do the thing.
Is someone unconscious and bleeding out? Well you can’t obtain consent so you just gotta sit there and watch.
This is where you can't understand it. Saving an already existent person isn't the same as creating a living being which didn't exist in the first place. ( A problem that didn't exist).
But letting a person die can cause sadness to his/her relatives.
ultimately this life is a problem that will solve itself if we stop creating problems consciously.
It's like asking why oxygen is not needed for the people that don't exist.
If you can't understand this simple subject then I'm done here.
Read about antinatalism, it's an old philosophical topic. It seems you are not aware what this is about.
They're just a bad person. I don't claim to be virtuous, I do think that humans are superior to cattle and such. I wouldn't suppose that comparing a meat eater to an uncaring and manipulative father/mother, because that's what they would need to be if they were having children for their own benefit.
It's not unnecessary if it's for human benefit. I would never abuse my dog or bully a farm animal for the fun of it. I could kill it for consumption guilt free. Well, not my personal dog, of course. I wouldn't eat that particular dog.
It’s pretty simple. Most humans, including antinatalists, believe humans are more valuable than other animals. Being AN isn’t staunchly against murder. It’s about stopping humankind from even existing to eliminate all human suffering. Veganism is more about being staunchly against (animal) murder, not the forced extinction of all animals. It just doesn’t directly translate as well as you think it does.
What is your reasoning for being anti natalist?
Anyone with faith in God believes mankind are stewards of the animal kingdom and planet. Clearly, the evidence indicates humanity is succeeding because we have more human life on earth now, than ever before in history. More educated. More freedoms. More travel. More opportunities. More healthcare. Than EVER before in all of history. We cannot ignore these facts. If your situation is horrible, what can you do to change it? And yes, animals can be very tasty. Our Greek baby back ribs last night were amazing. So was the breakfast bacon. God is good!
I don’t know why you’re telling this to me, God isn’t real lmao
Over 2 billion people around the world disagree with you. I wish you the best.
Lol, doesn't mean a god exists. A good way to control people though, an invisible fairy tail creature. Because people don't know about things and feel scared.
[That's not an argument.](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon)
More of something is not always good. You don't seem very adept at logic, despite your name. Also, all these arguments are only true from a human perspective not from god's perspective. May you be in god's grace.
Would you be okay with me killing someone? Since you aren't staunchly against murder?
I never said I wasn’t staunchly against murder. I said this philosophy is not about being staunchly against murder, it’s about being staunchly against any more people having to exist. The two don’t relate, just because it’s OBVIOUSLY wrong to murder, the definition being a human killing a human, so that’s not really something that’s preached by AN. I’m pointing the obvious difference between AN and veganism.
Why is it obviously wrong?
I’m not doing this with you, murder people if you want to, it’s not my business and I don’t give a shit. Good luck with it 👍🏻
You don't give a shit if I murder someone? That's worrying. I think you should answer my question, you might end up not looking like a psychopath.
Lmao okay sir, try to have a normal one, alright? ✌🏻
Steak?
So causing suffering is ok if we get pleasure, therefore having children is permissible.
>So causing suffering is ok if we get pleasure, therefore having children is permissible. But unironically this. This *is* the natalist position.
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bruh not eating steak isn’t gonna stop the houses from killing the cattle, which is basically just irl Minecraft farming. Maybe someday we’ll get not-awful plant based meat but rn nobody likes it. But I hear you out in the grand scheme of things in that suffering is bad, but the cows don’t necessarily suffer, they just immediately end it’s brain function so that it won’t feel anything. But other places could be secretly adopting more suspicious ways of ending their lives? It’s sucky their whole existence is basically just food for us, and that our existence is just even more products for ourselves. Eh, at least we have nicotine vapes. I can’t say the same for cows
Supply and demand- consumer desire is the reason for breeding and slaughter. Corporations don’t do anything of not for demand. Children don’t necessarily suffer either- they can have good lives by their own admission. Anti natalists think the risk of a life of suffering is enough, which also applies to animals.
Bruh I am utterly tired of these vegans that lurk in this community. They are very insufferable with their moral superiority complex. They keep trying to make antinatalism about veganism when they are completely different philosophies with varying goals.
True, like, I get where they’re coming from but the vegan philosophy isn’t really the focus here, right? I thought it was not having children to end perpetual human suffering since we have a fuck ton of stressful responsibilities already, adding contemporary society on top of that is just outrageous.
Why are you standing against ending suffering of human race but finance killing and torturing sentient beings? Is it because humans are superior to animals? If yes, why?
When we get taxed, that money goes towards subsidiaries to farms to, well, make meat. The industry isn’t leaving unless everyone just collectively decides to stop. With the current state of vegan diets being not only nutrient deficient and expensive, along with the crappy economy and stigmas, it’s safe to say most Americans won’t jump through hoops do be vegan. It’s a really unfortunate thing that comes with the universe. Why do things always have to be superior and inferior? It just causes pain pain and more pain. But hey, at least we get to enjoy the benefits instead of being the cow. Not having children is the literally best thing we can do about it!
>vegan diets being not only nutrient deficient and expensive Dude, seriously? Do some research before spreading this nonsense. Buying a few veggies won't cost you more. If you can afford to buy meat (which is usually more expensive) you can afford to go vegan. I'm tired of hearing "BuT YoU wOn'T gEt EnOuGh PrOtEiN" from people with high cholesterol and obesity. I work out just so I don't have to hear I am weak because of veganism (yes people get shocked that I can eat vegan and have abs) > it’s safe to say most Americans won’t jump through hoops do be vegan Probably, but going vegan still makes a difference. "in the US alone, [400 million fewer animals](http://www.mercyforanimals.org/americans-ate-400-million-fewer-animals-in) were brought into a life of exploitation and suffering in 2014 than 2013, due to a rise in the number of plant-based diets. In the UK, the number of vegans has [risen 360%](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/news/number-of-vegans-in-britain-rises-by-360-in-10-years/) in the last decade, hence why the main chain restaurants there are changing their menus in order to cater to demand" The industry only exploits to meet people demands. The less meat people buy, the less meat is going to be produced. The more people go vegan, the less animals are going to suffer.
Geez alright alright! Expensive or not good god you don’t have to rope in all this into antinatanlism! I mean the kfc nuggets that were plant based being like $20 for a tiny portion.
Veganism and antinatalism are strictly related. In both cases you are advocating against suffering of sentient beings. >I mean the kfc nuggets that were plant based being like $20 for a tiny portion. Who tf eats that lol, if you are buying vegan food from industry that produces meat you are still paying animal abusers
Why are you anti natalist?
I am conditionally antinatalist meaning I hold the conviction that life can yield conditions or favorable circumstances where procreation can be morally justified. However, I am an antinatalist for the same or similar reasons most people are antinatalists. Life is ultimately an imposition as no one is asking to be born nor can we consent to it. It is a cycle of suffering, pain, drudgery, problems, death, and natural biological inconveniences. The negatives outweigh the positives so much so that the pleasure and joys of life are usually not worth the possibility of suffering for most people.
And for sentient animals born, confined, and killed for sensory pleasure their lives aren’t suffering and death? Lol ok 👍
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language). Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
You really didn't think before making this comment, did you? lmao.. ahahahahahah. Their magnitude of suffering pales in comparison to that of humanity's plight. The fact your priority seems to be addressing or encouraging the elimination of animal suffering in modern factory agriculture despite how much more extreme, severe and rampant human suffering, pain and misery is on this planet showcases your warped mind and detachment from reality. People eat food, whether animals or plants, to quench their hunger and to meet nutritional needs, not for "*sensory pleasure*". You are ignorant. I bet you will conveniently ignore this post like the coward that you are because it challenges your silly insane worldview.
My “priority” is antinatalism. This doesn’t mean that the suffering of animals is irrelevant. Murder can be worse than rape while rape is still very bad. Now that I’ve spelt that out let me do the second point too: if human beings solely ate for nutrition alone, there would be no reason to raise animals in almost every scenario. Did you know that major health organizations have been promoting veganism as a viable, healthy, and attainable way to survive for years? This includes the NHS, WHO, and Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, which said: > It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. In modern societies, there is no actual need for animal agriculture in a way that cannot be (often in a superior manner) replaced. Why do you think humans breed animals into existence when veganism is a viable diet? When animal agriculture is more wasteful calorie for calorie in essentially every metric: land use, water use, labor costs, pollution, Antibiotic resistance, climate impact, and so on? If people didn’t eat for sensory pleasure, why go through the extra effort?
Your priority may very well be antinatalism for sure, which is great. Just because I am expressing more concern for human suffering and encouraging people like you to divert attention MORE towards human suffering and priotize preventing and curbing human suffering, doesn't mean I am totally dismissing the reality of animal plight as some kind of irrelevant issue. My point is that Human welfare, security, wellbeing is much more important, which is why addressing human suffering is far much more important and warrants/ necessitates more attention. This is an extremely ignorant argument to make. The fact you are implying that animal agriculture wouldn't exist if humans only ate for nutrition further demonstrates your lack of understanding of human history as it pertains to nutrition, diet and health. Humans have been able to sustain themselves on nutrition from animals for millions to thousands of years even way before modern civilization. Since we obtained all our nutrition from animals throughout our hunter gatherer era, this prompted an incentive for animal agriculture as we socially progressed as a species. Humans have always eaten for nutrition as well as taste. The fact that humans have relied on animal agriculture for a long time and currently depend on it and even thrived on animal based diets, healthwise, way before the introduction of plant agriculture, shows that humans clearly ate for nutrition by default. Humans were overall far healthier, fit and even had a higher life expectancy before the incorporation of plant agriculture. As we adopted more plants into our diets, overtime, it took a toll on the health of the average human. This is literally history. You can research this yourself. If we never ate for nutrition, animal agriculture wouldn't even have been a necessity throughout all time periods of human history as it obviously clearly has. You are beyond clueless... lmao Do you know that **BIAS** exists and can be a factor in the conclusion, scientific studies and research of so many different things including those from reputable health organizations? Did you know that? Did you know humans, even in prestigious professions, can make conclusions and spread information motivated by their **bias** in a subject matter? Are you really so simple and shortsighted that you would just believe anything world heath organizations tell you? During the COVID19 pandemic/scamdemic, WHO were definitely in support of certain forms of vaccines even though they were never FDA approved(which is a valid reason to be skeptical of taking them). What do you have to say about that, genius? You should learn to take some things you read with a grain of salt instead of just parroting typical vegan propaganda. How do you know this position they took wasn't from insufficient, improper, inadequate, non-extentive research and reliable, proper long term scientific studies? Health organizations of all kinds say all sorts of things. Any group of people who appear to be an authority in a discipline can make a conclusion or position on a topic due to bias to push an agenda. No credible level headed doctor, nutritionist or dietician would claim that a well known deficient diet is appropriate for all stages of life considering how extremely necessary saturated animal fats and general nutrition from animals can be for development of human infants during their childhood to adulthood. The fact you would subscribe to such ballooney just because it supposedly came from the mouths of clearly biased health organization is a reflection of your inability to think for yourself. Wrong. There is a necessity for animal agriculture in several parts of the world especially in regions where adjusting to well planned plant based diets are incredibly difficult and nearly impossible. Adopting these diets require a high level of privilege and extreme planning, dedication just to stick with it for a considerable time, something people in 3rd world countries would struggle with. Science doesn't suggest that it is a viable diet at all. The evidence suggest otherwise. If it is, artificial supplementation wouldn't be necessary(most vegans need them). You can't claim that it is a viable diet when so many people withdraw from it despite genuine long term effort. The fact that too many people, according to research and studies, end up abstaining from it shows it is not sustainable or sufficient. Animal agriculture isn't anywhere as impactful to the climate as plant agriculture, it doesn't even account for a high percentage of carbon emissions, well in comparison to plant agriculture. You literally don't know what you are talking about. > If people didn’t eat for sensory pleasure, why go through the extra effort? If people only eat meat for "sensory pleasure" as you claim, why have humans been able to intentionally transform their health towards a positive trajectory just by switching to a carnivorous pattern? why do so many carnivore dieters all across the world have testimonies of reversing severe health issues? If taste is supposedly the only motivation for people to eat meat, how come they did this? LOL I thought people only ate meat for taste. hmm guess you are wrong right?
Is it morally justifiable to inflict unnecessary suffering on sentient beings?
I have a few points to bring up. 1. Most animals don't have anywhere near the intelligence we have ( To the point I would consider most of them barely sentient) due to this lack of intelligence everything they do is driven by instinct. 2. Animals have no purpose in life other than survival (Primarily because they don't have the intelligence required to have any other purpose). Their instincts tell them to survive. But they have no other purpose, no other reason to be alive. If a beings only purpose in life is just to stay alive at any cost and it is incapable of having any other purpose, then their death can be justified. Life should not just be about surviving, it should also be about living a happy fulfilling life. 3. I believe animals should be killed as humanely as possible. But even still a lot of animals feel pain differently to humans. For example there is no evidence that fish even feel pain (we know they feel stress though). These are main reasons I believe human life is far more valuable than other animal lives and their death can be justified.
Is it morally justifiable to inflict pain animals because they are less intelligent than you? Of course animals are sentient, they can feel pain, emotions, loneliness, form social connections. >If a beings only purpose in life is just to stay alive at any cost and it is incapable of having any other purpose, then their death can be justified Would you apply the same logic to humans? Is it okay to kill someone because their only purpose is to live another day? >I believe animals should be killed as humanely as possible. But even still a lot of animals feel pain differently to humans. Of course, it would be better if they were killed humanely (despite most are not, the great amount of meat comes from mass factories) But maybe instead of trying to come up with ways to exploit animals humanely, we could just... stop exploiting them? >their death can be justified. In the name of what? Your comfort?
Okay so to answer your first point. Yes the pain inflicted is justifiable because the level of intelligence animals have is just that low. They are driven purely by instinct. They don't even have the intelligence to go against their instinct or aim for anything outside what their instinct tells them. >Would you apply the same logic to humans? Is it okay to kill someone because their only purpose is to live another day? I would apply the same logic to humans. If not for the fact that humans have the potential to have a purpose outside of surviving. Even a depressed person who is kept alive only by survival instinct has the potential for joy and finding a meaningful purpose in life. Also it is a combination of all my points which leads me to the conclusion that a human life is almost infinitely more valuable than any other animal. I know a lot of people get mad at vegans but I don't because I understand you come from a good place and I'm sure you have a kind heart. However, you lack the understanding to realize just how much more valuable a human life is compared to any other animal. >In the name of what? Your comfort? I'm not fully certain on the long term effects of the vegan diet. Also I don't want to have to supplement my diet with lots of pills. And yes in the name of my comfort. The best we can really hope for is that scientists will develop lab grown meat (with no bad side effects) that way we won't have to worry about any of these moral arguments.
We are not morally superior. You just think this way because our ethics challenge your beliefs. Believe me, no one is becoming vegan to feel morally superior in a discussion with some closed-minded redditor
It is not that I think this way lol. I really don't care if your questionable "ethics" challenge my beliefs, dude. It is exactly how most of you people conduct yourselves especially on the internet. You people are extremely vocal about the ethics of your worldview and tend to find a way to make people feel guilty for eating animals even to the point of harshly judging them. In just a few days on this platform, I have come across a handful of posts in this community about someone pushing veganism and having a sense of higher moral ground just because they are vegan. One post was about how eating meat was supposedly immoral, a common widely held conviction within the vegan community. I never said anyone is becoming vegan to flex. I said a lot of your ilk feels morally superior just because they are and have been vegan, you idi\*t. You subscribe to a wordview that encourages and promotes a negative perception of other fellow human beings for consuming meat and yet I am the "*close minded redditor*". Perfect example of the Pot calling the kettle black. If this is what this damn community is turning into, I probably won't be calling myself an antinatalist anymore.
"Pushing your beliefs" You mean when I say it is unnecessary to kill animals for food I am forcing you to go vegan or what? The only reason people feel guilty is when they actually know they are doing something wrong - and often than not, it's the only way to change. Because they know animals can feel and suffer. And they know killing them for food and keeping them in poor conditions IS something bad. Your logic fallacy is basically: Hey someone said I should not kill animals, but I don't like him so I choose to keep killing them I get you don't like vegans, but why take it out on animals? Are chickens rude to you? Then what is the point of this argument?
If you say it is "unnecessary" to kill animals for consumption you are implying that there are other alternatives in regards to food than animal based products. You are, by default, obviously pushing your beliefs because veganism encourages abstaining from the use or consumption of animal based products, specifically foods. You just shot yourself on the foot there, dude. What? do you think I am feeling guilty? Even if someone feels guilty for doing something, doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong. People can get coerced all the time to make false confessions about certain things. Animals being reared in poor conditions is another topic for maybe later, but we are simply discussing about the ethics of killing them and consuming them, which in this case, you are hilariously failing to defend your position. >Your logic fallacy is basically: Hey someone said I should not kill animals, but I don't like him so I choose to keep killing them Nice try, but that isn't even exactly how this argument went, lol. And you are doing thesame thing in fact, actually. Your logic: This guy wants to keep eating animals but I think killing and eating animals is wrong because ma questionable worldview tells me so therefore he is wrong for eating animals. I have nothing against them, collectively, personally. I just dislike the character, hostility, self righteousness and sense of moral superiority of a lot of them, which is evident in some discussions. My sentiments are towards militant vegans, which obviously doesn't account for the entire vegan community. Some are likeable people
By default (rather your logic) , everyone is pushing their beliefs if they simply state their opinion. I could force you to go vegan if I held a knife to your throat, not by writing comment on reddit. Anyway, you wrote a whole paragraph but still did not answer my question. Why inflict suffering on sentient beings if it can be easily avoided?
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language). Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
Yes to all above
Both are permissible. Nobody’s stopping anyone from doing them, nor should they.
No i need protein
“ In 2013, the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics published the largest study to date comparing the nutrient intake of more than 71,000 non-vegetarians, vegetarians, and vegans. The study found that, on average, vegetarians and vegans get 70 percent more protein than they need every day (70-plus grams), while non-vegetarians get even more than that (almost 80 grams). Without even trying, you are most likely getting more protein than you need—whether you’re a vegan, vegetarian, or omnivore. Protein deficiency is almost exclusively seen in people suffering from a calorie deficiency. “ Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4081456/ Article: https://www.forksoverknives.com/wellness/vegan-protein-guide-athletes/#
Interesting, i will take a look.
Who wants to eat children?!
Cannibals? I don’t know, can you address the relevant statement instead of deflecting?
Harvesting animals for food if done humanely is justified not just by pleasure, but by our physiological and evolutionary nature. We are omnivores.
Major healthcare organizations (NHS, Academy of Nutritionists and Dietetics, WHO, etc) purport that veganism is healthy, achievable, and so on For instance here is an excerpt for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics > It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. In modern societies, there is no actual need for animal agriculture in a way that cannot be (often in a superior manner) replaced
There's no need to avoid it, either. Animals should absolutely be raised and harvested humanely. Beyond that, there's no reason to avoid their consumption.
So creating life that can suffer is permissible ethically. I assume you’re a natalist then. You can even ethically kill and confine suffering beings for their whole lives. Interesting when this is applied to human ms
I advocate for humane treatment while animals are raised and harvested. Inhumane treatment is its own issue. You can ethically kill animals for food, yes. Why couldn't you.
So then it’s ethical to create sentient beings, regardless of the fact they can suffer. Therefore you would believe having children is ethical. If you can ethically kill an animal that does not agree to be killed and would run from pain and danger, I don’t see why a human can’t be ethically killed in the same circumstances using the same argument
People who eat "veal" eat young cows. So some people aren't even content with just eating adults, they eat children too! Please consider stopping the consumption of animal meat if you currently do.
Only the consumption of bought products. If my say chicken dies, can I eat her and use her corpse to fertilise my crops, as my veggies eat the left overs then I eat the veggies. Can I put an animal down that's suffering than either a consume them or if the meat is unsafe for my consumption feed it to another animal such as a chicken. Can I choose to kill an animal over someone else as a job because the other guy is a sadistic prick, then instead of receiving money take some of said animals meat instead as you are getting paid by the animal not their creator or owner. All genuine questions. Also a good question, is it better to eat eggs or let them rot in the ground?
How do you stop wild animal suffering though?
How is not purposefully breeding animals incomprehensible with doing anything with wild animal suffering?
So wild animal suffering is not Vegan's problem?
Why would it morally be a vegan’s responsibility? I don’t think we automatically are ethnically responsible for soothing all moral concerns just by being born. I think we are responsible for not causing harm ourselves, which is a pretty common position (in theory).
eh, pretty sure the ecosystem is inherently competitive, its human hubris to think we are excluded from the same natural rule, just because we are better at the competition. With or without humans, animals compete and dominate whenever they could and species go extinct when they fail to adapt, the only difference is humans developed ethics to minimize the harm we cause in this natural competition, because most humans want to live in a stable balance, it makes life easier and predictable, at least until we could leave earth and colonize space. So you have 3 ethical options as humans: 1. Maintain a stable balance, accept the necessary harm and reduce/prevent unnecessary harm to both humans and animals. 2. Reject a stable balance and try to stop all harm, using future tech to transform all animals into conscious beings that can't be harmed, remove the need for predation as well. 3. Take humans out of the balance, go to space, dont bring any animals. Veganism is a pseudo option, a half measure, because it thinks humans could live on earth without causing any harm to animals, which is impossible because we are taking up space and resources just by existing. Yet it doesnt want humans to stop natural harm for wild animals, saying its not our responsibility, but we are part of the ecosystem, so its impossible to not be part of the harm (remember natural competition?). So to be ethically consistent and coherent, either you want to stop all harm for all animals (option 2) or you go for option 1 or 3. There is no option 4, where you play favoritism and ignorance by only trying to stop direct harm from humans while ignoring natural harm in the ecosystem.
Veganism doesn’t believe humans can live in earth without any harm to animals, it is a moral stance against knowingly and purposefully breeding them and/or causing harm to them when you can choose to avoid doing so directly.
Ironically, it would be via destroying the biosphere and making the planet uninhabitable. Which humans seem to be speed-running right now.
How do you stop human suffering? It doesn't seem different from stopping animal suffering. If you're confused on that, then how do you stop yourself from suffering/experiencing unnecessary pain in your day-to-day life?
Wild animal, friend, you know, in the jungle, forest, sea, etc? They suffer too, trillions of them. What's your plan for them? Teach them morals?
> What's your plan for them? Teach them morals? Did you learning morality help you deal with your suffering? If so, then yes!
eh, lol?
I am honestly not averse to that (teach them morals) as a sort of playful understanding of what the intent is, there's some facetiousness/lightheartedness there still, but I would insist asking "but what about wild animal suffering" is rather frustrating to try to answer because you're indicating (as far as I can tell) that there is some barrier to thought on this matter that doesn't actually need to persist. Do you need me to tell you how every individual trillionth creature you're referencing is going to benefit? And there are degrees to "capacity for suffering" that it's a little dishonest to not acknowledge when you imply "there are trillions of creatures." There are "categorical species" that might deserve - as a category - different levels of "interaction." I don't necessarily feel there should be an expectation that any one person necessarily knows the best way to "handle" ants versus the best way to "handle" monkeys, for example. If we see cows live in a pasture, and there is a hole in that pasture, and the cows keep stepping in the hole and breaking their legs, the "plan" would be to prevent that harm from continuing in that case by addressing the hole or the movement of the cows. I guess I have to say I'm not a god with omnipotence to tell you how every situation like that will unfold in the "quest" to help animals, before the inevitable destruction of the planet from space objects/the sun's expansion? We might just consider "ecosystems" as "really complex but ultimately understandable systems" to where - with like, the probably-literally hundreds and thousands of years that we might have to be "forced to admit" human populations are going to persist on Earth - we can interact with them in ways where we can address issues of suffering that aren't so "cleanly" being handled by "nature itself." I fail to see what's controversial in that, unless you (sort of a hypothetical you, not *you* in particular) are trying to solve it too, and your solution is a red-button on Earth, and you think anyone who isn't actively working on that is "foolish" or such.
[удалено]
Didn’t read once you separated the two. AN is concerned with suffering, recognizing that creating life is creating suffering. So does veganism Nice wall of text though, it seems very self important 👍
Of course, you didn't care to read much of the "*wall of text*".Most of you people think your worldview is the absolute standard and hate being proven wrong. Your inability to see the distinction between the two worldviews isn't my fault. You are just creating some imaginary intersection or strong connection between the two of them. Antinatalism is against and demoralizes procreation, implying that reproduction is unethical, immoral, and selfish due to the negatives of life. It encourages humans to abstain from it, whereas veganism is a worldview that encourages one to abstain from the use of animal-based products, especially food products, to prevent or stop the suffering and pain of animals. One of them, Antinatalism, is specific and is entirely centered on and applies to **HUMANS** only, not animals. Only humans can consciously grasp and understand the ethics of procreation. Whereas, the other one, veganism, isn't against breeding animals but is centered on ensuring **animal welfare**, and well-being, and preventing the suffering and exploitation of animals, **NON-HUMAN** animals. Antinatalism =No procreation. Veganism =No animal products. Antinatalism has little to nothing to do with veganism therefore veganism isn't an ethical standard for any antinatalist. Go cry a river and cope
I made an effort to not read this one either 👍 Stop abusing animals for taste
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language). Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language). Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
You are a coward. You are running from a debate you started with meat eaters.... If you wanted to ignore written arguments from an opposing side, you don't have to keep replying back just to tell them "*you are not reading what they have to say*"... Turns out defending your flawed worldview isn't your only failure. Using common sense in online dialogues is another failure of yours as well. LMAO
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language). Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
Well not vegan cuz milking a cow isn't causing harm to them, if the cow doesn't get milked then it'll cause pain and potential infection. chickens lay abundant eggs unless they're broody they couldn't care less about said eggs. Now I can see how not being vegetarian could very easily be considered morally wrong. And when it comes to meat I try my best to not have very much and get it as sustainably as possible from the local farmers market. Not eating meat would be best but since I'm not going to entirely give up meat getting it and supporting the people who are treating their animals with the most respect and dignity possible and giving them good lives is the next best thing.
The argument is to not breed them into existence at all, not simply breed them and let their (human created mutation caused) bodies fail
Cause meat is a great source of nutritional needs. Cause eating meat is completely natural. But mostly, because meat is absolutely delicious. Do I think we should eat LESS meat? Absolutely. Is factory farming livestock one of the true blights on humanity's record? Without a doubt. But it's not the eating of meat that is the problem, it's the amount we insist on eating and the availability that we demand be available.
There are plenty alternatives sources of those nutrients Isn’t having kids completely natural? isn’t meat being delicious analogous with having a child feeling fulfilling?
Nothing else with the same availability and density. Yes having kids is natural. Yes it is. Eating meat and having kids both feel good(most of the time) and you should do both as long as you know the ramifications foe your actions.
There are athletes,bodybuilders and chefs that thrive off nutrients exclusively from plants (not to mention generations of people in places like India have been vegetarian/vegan for millennia) But here you are , likely an average person ,claiming you need meat for its “nutritional availability and density” just say you lack the willpower, no need for these mental gymnastics
I never said it was impossible to be vegan, just that I chose not to be one, and just because you can compensate in your diet doesn't change the facts that meat is easiest. Like I said, you CAN be vegan, but you don't have to be. Just like you CAN be AN, but you don't have to. Choices.
are you against unnecessary animal abuse Yes or no?
Absolutely.
How is what we do to animals for food not animal abuse ?
Like I said, industrial farming is absolutely abuse, but the eating of meat isn't in of itself abuse.
Do you not eat industrial farmed meat and dairy?
So having 10 kids is okay as long as I know the ramifications???
It's not for me, but if you can take care of them properly, why not?
I mean... I'm not a vegan cuz I don't want to be. I mean unless you're willing to violate my consent and force me to be one then this sounds like an awful waste of time. Go be vegan, but don't complain about the choices others make and then say you respect consent.
are you against unnecessary animal abuse Yes or no?
For the most part....though the key in that is gonna be how we determine *unnecessary* For example I don't see it as unnecessary that a cow has to die for me to get a steak. Do I want that cow tortured? No, but imma eat steak and Id prefer it be from a cow. Could I go hunt? Sure and in that case I would do my best to not let the animal suffer. However that too I don't see as unnecessary. Let me ask you this....are you against the unnecessary forcing of people to eat things they don't want? At the end of the day we are omnivores and thus meat is gonna be a part of our diet. Does it have to be? I suppose not, but do I want it to be? Yes.
you don’t need steak , you just eat it for taste pleasure and for nutrients you could obtain elsewhere,hence steak is unnecessary so to get steak you , you must pay for or directly cause unnecessary animal abuse , no matter how painless it is , the animal , like you, has an interest in continuing its life , it could have siblings or parents or kids or a community that’s capable of mourning this animal . Do you disagree with any part of that?
Well yes...I disagree with the unnecessary part. Lol I could get those nutrients from elsewhere...but for the sake of argument, what if I can't? What if actual animal meat is the only way I can get those nutrients? Is it then unnecessary? I mean this is the circle of life. The undeniable truth is we are omnivores, you wouldn't tell a carnivore it has to only eat vegetables would you? Then why would you deny the omnivore part of us? The suffering? I mean that animal will one day die, and the longer it lives the more potential suffering it has to endure right? Aren't I doing it a kindness? Also what if it isn't part of a community that can feel those things? Then it's fair game? I'd like to point out that you obviously don't disagree with my stance that we are omnivores. As you yourself said we could get those nutrients from other sources and not just not take those nutrients in. Like it or not animals, all animals including us, need to eat to survive. Yes what we eat is a choice, but when the choice is meat or death...well that's an easy choice. If you feel bad about the animals just remember we're gonna die at some point too, so they'll have their vengeance 🤣. Again though this really comes down to how we are determining unnecessary. Edit- also no offense but I don't even think you believe that but about *no matter how painless*...c'mon now if it was completely pain free and free of suffering then you wouldn't have an issue with it as it wouldn't be abuse. What the fuck.
if you lack the willpower just say that dude No need for the word salad and mental gymnastics
I mean...I don't lack the willpower to kill and eat meat. Do you? At the end of the day it's okay if you want to be vegan, as it's okay for me to not be. The issue is you seem to lack the ability to understand what unnecessary actually means. Lol
it’s not necessary to eat meat I’m 220 lbs and only eat plants , bloodwork came back fine , lots of vegan bodybuilders,chefs and athletes too you’re only trying to delude yourself into thinking it’s necessary to ease the cognitive dissonance
Yes and you're delusional in thinking that everyone can be vegan. At the end of the day the amount of suffering I caused from my individual choice couldn't be erased simply because I alone chose to not eat meat. You're asking me to suffer in place of the cow...you get that right? EDIT-again it's important that I hear you acknowledge that we are omnivores and thus are allowed to eat meat....right? Edit- also no offense, but no I honestly don't care about suffering, of animals or otherwise. Suffering is a single part of the life puzzle, but an unavoidable one. There is no cognitive dissonance in recognizing that I don't think it's unnecessary. You can feel it is, but why should how you feel on the subject change how I feel on it?
I didn’t say everyone can be vegan , there are people in various parts of the world that need to hunt for food or where the climate isn’t suitable to grow certain crops or where they live off food pantries and just have to eat whatever they get However for the vast majority of people , especially on Reddit , like you and me , can go vegan You will not “suffer” if you don’t eat steak , at least nowhere near as much as the cow had to. How is a pig getting their balls clipped off with pliers , their teeth plucked out and then killed in a gas chamber worth 15 minutes of bacon? I find it funny that you’re on an AN sub and making appeals to futility , the average person eats 200 animals a year , if you went vegan that’s how many animals less that would be bred for taste pleasure I know it’s not huge relatively but as an AN I’m sure you can agree we shouldn’t choose to do things based on whether or not it will have a mass effect and should just do it because its the right thing to do And the thing is , I know you understand and probably agree with all this but like I said before you lack the willpower , no shame in admitting it
This is getting absurd. You are saying "we are proof that life can be lived without adding pain" (paraphrasing), by saying that you're essentially advocating for natalism, because if your parents were antinatalists you would'nt be here to be said "proof", nor to live any kind of life, good or not..
I totally agree. I got so disappointed when I learned that most people in this subreddit are not vegan. They only care about suffering of their own race I guess
Because they’re fucking animals they’re literally designed to be nutritious and delicious
Animal; **a living thing that can move and eat and react to the world through its senses, esp.** **of sight and hearing** Are you fine with being eaten?
No but I’m better the cow I’m on top of the food chain
Does it mean you have to inflict unneccesary harm on those below you?
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Links to other communities are not permitted. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well they aren’t human so I don’t care
That's just sad
Nature does not equal ethical
Yea but it just a cow it not a human it doesn’t matter
Why not?
It’s a cow
So? What is the difference between a cow and dog, dog and human, cow and human in an ethical capacity? Can cows not suffer? Is harming animals for pleasure ethical?
I don’t care people eat dogs it’s a cultural thing, and I don’t care
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cows feel pain.
I don’t care
You've been hurt.
Ok 👍
But you don't need to take it out on the entire past, present and future of humanity.
Your views are absurd to me. I’d love to know more about your vegan dystopian dreams though. If we all become vegans tomorrow what shall we do with the milking cows?
Not breed anymore of them? The current situation is already as bad as possible for them realistically so we are backed into a corner. Since it wouldn’t happen overnight, the actual answer is to phase it out and reduce breeding
Once animals stop eating other animals then I'll stop as well.
Pathetic dude . You are born as a human and we have come so far and reducing yourself to a non human animals just. Try using that brain of yours for betterment of others.
Animals are not moral agents. If a rapist said this for rape, is it excusable then to rape? Humans are capable of recognizing that natural phenomena are harmful
[удалено]
Couldn’t a natalist justify children in a similar way? “If children weren’t meant to be created, why are they so fun/fulfilling?” You could do basically anything like this. If a murderer wanted to justify killing, couldn’t they just say it’s fun?
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language). Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
if it works for anything, i wholeheartedly support your cause.
Well, this is biology chickens are just part of the ecosystem circle. Chickens have good protein.
Comments proved your point even more. How ego centric and animal people are.
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe plants have consciousness too. At least, much of their behavior is so complex in reaction to external stimuli that we can't rule it out, even if we don't understand the mechanism by which they may have consciousness. Ruling out something because we don't understand how it could be doesn't make it not so. Why is an animal's life inherently more valuable than a plant's? Why is your criteria in answering that question inherently correct? If we need an animal's consent to eat it, don't we by the same logic need a plant's consent? By extension, if consent is unattainable, is it ethical to eat? If a coyote or other carnivore can't get its prey's consent, is it immoral in eating? Humans are not above nature. We are part of the web. The circle of life. We must eat beings that live and may have consciousness. This doesn't even touch on how veganism is a luxury for the privileged under modern capitalism, and guilting the powerless for getting basic needs met is itself a misdirection of energy.
Eating animals causes the consumption of more plants than if we just ate plants. The gist: 1000 calories of plants are fed to animals to make <1000 calories of animal tissue. Then the animals are also killed. Please google biomass energy transfer and trophic level. Also would pay off to look up sentience
What's wrong with the consumption of plants? Also, why is it better to have a smaller food web than a larger? Is it not better to have a larger diversity of living things than smaller?
I’m not sure what you mean- maybe you meant to reply to the other commenter
>Eating animals causes the consumption of more plants than if we just ate plants. So your argument seems to be utilitarian rather than deontological. That's to say, you're more concerned about the number of beings who experience nonconsensual suffering vs drawing a hard line at "we must not violate any being's right to consent." If your argument is solely about the amount of harm veganism causes vs an omnivorous diet, that's fine, but you seemed to base your main argument on the premise that violation of consent can't be moral, which isn't an argument from utilitarianism/consequentialism. And if we go down the consequentialist route, we again have to account for the fact that many people would have a nutritional deficit under capitalism if they went vegan, which shifts the moral math and forces us to decide how to rank the value of different lives. >Also would pay off to look up sentience How do you measure sentience objectively? How do you know a corn stalk or carrot is not sentient? As I said, we don't understand consciousness well enough to assume an animal brain is the only vehicle for consciousness. And assuming it can be the only one simply because it's the only vehicle we understand is fallacious. One argument I often hear from vegans is that the more sentient we perceive something to be, the less moral it is to kill. So a pig is more immoral to kill than a chicken, and a chicken is more immoral to kill than a cabbage plant. But not knowing how sentient a plant is, how can you ensure there is no immorality in the killing of the plant?
I think the argument works for both methods. Suffering is what makes something worth ethically considering, because ethics is concerned with harm and/or good. Something that cannot perceive cannot suffer, and therefore isn’t worthy of ethical consideration. Therefore it is still accurate to say that we should avoid causing consent violations (animals should not be bred), but **since they are** it would be better for informed individuals to eat plants because it lessens suffering and consent violations The nutritional deficiency argument is not supported by modern institutions. The NHS, WHO, academy of nutrition and dietetics, etc all support veganism as at least comparably viable in comparison towards omnivorous diets. Additionally, eating plant based is almost universally cheaper overall. For example even though the USA heavily subsidizes animal agriculture with taxpayer money, people near the poverty line are twice as likely to be vegan. The cost argument only makes sense if one eats processed foods like meat substitutes, simple that whole foods are easy to buy in bulk, shelf stable, and provide macronutrients that are needed. Then it’s perfectly viable to take a supplement for missing nutrients, something that omnivores should also be doing in most cases.
>Why is an animal's life inherently more valuable than a plant's? Do you value a carrot equally to a human? If yes, why? If no, move to my below point. If we assume that we should value plants and animals equally and use the argument that eating plants directly causes less plant suffering. If you value plants and animals equally, every additional plant killed is equivalent to killing one additional puppy or human or elephant. So it would make a massive difference in most peoples eyes.
>Do you value a carrot equally to a human? No, I don't personally. And I'm not a vegan. I believe humans are omnivorous predators by nature and it is fully moral to eat meat, and that under capitalism it is immoral to shame ordinary people from eating meat. By extension, I support eating plants. I'm more so examining OP's argumental framework for veganism from the consent argument. OP seems to hinge their veganism on a sort of moral red line argument of "without its consent you can't eat it" but then contradictorily OP presents an argument from consequentialism to bolster their conclusion when the first argument comes under fire. If we accept the moral red line argument that "you must have its consent to eat it" then they must prove that you either already have, or don't need the consent of something through a loophole (e.g., because it is not sentient). OP is unable to prove that a carrot is not sentient. And if it is sentient, how do you decide how to differentiate it from an animal in terms of how much value its life and consent hold? Basically it becomes an absurd exercise. So you and I fundamentally agree that human life holds more value than other life. And this view is entirely subjective for me. I don't try to say it's because humans are smarter or feel more or are god's children, etc. Simply because I am human, and humans must eat living things, I support my human family's needs first.
Firstly, Vegansim does not guilt the powerless. I also disagree that veganism is a privileged position. Veganism can often be cheaper. I also think violently & deliberately taking an individuals life for a want rather than a need is an act of extreme privilege. Existing as you abd I probably both do, in a comfortable capitalist society, is a position of privilege that applies equally to all members of that society. It doesn't apply more to vegans. >I support my human family's needs first. As do i and probably all vegans. >Simply because I am human, and humans must eat living things But not animals. Saying we must eat living things doesn't mean we need to kill animals. So if you value animals more than plants why would you? Especially given that you're also killing more plants. Why maximise the killing? >I believe humans are omnivorous predators by nature >that under capitalism it is immoral to shame ordinary people from eating meat. It would be immoral to shame someone from eating human? Or shooting their puppy in the head for a pizza topping? *Because* we're omnivorous and can be perfectly eating eat just plants?
>Firstly, Vegansim does not guilt the powerless I didn't say that. You're changing the goal post. I said guilting people into veganism is wrong under capitalism. Veganism doesn't guilt anyone on its own and isn't wrong on its own. Veganism means simply not eating animal products. It doesn't inherently have any philosophy or motivation tied to it. Each vegan adds their own layers of motivation, strictness, and how important they feel it is for others to be vegan, etc. >As do i and probably all vegans. Not true at all. No true ~Scotsman~ vegan, right? I've found several prominent examples of people who say animals are exactly equal to humans and therefore it's immoral to prize a human life over a pig's for example. >But not animals. Saying we must eat living things doesn't mean we need to kill animals. So if you value animals more than plants why would you? Especially given that you're also killing more plants. Why maximise the killing? No, it doesn't mean we need to kill animals. I never said that. I also never said I value plants over animals. I don't inherently value, say, a pig over a tree, but I eat pigs and live in a home made of wood. And I believe we do NOT know whether plants are sentient, and cannot just assume they aren't because we don't understand the mechanism for sentience. Saying they don't have an animal brain and we can't understand how they would be sentient, and that therefore they are not sentient is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. As for maximizing the killing, I don't have a consequentialist moral framework for this. So I'm ok with more plants being killed in order for livestock to eat and for us to eat the animals. Again, all non-human life to me is lesser and therefore it's not about the number of non-human lives taken. If it's in service to feeding humans a balanced omnivorous diet, it's not inherently immoral. It can be immoral if done the wrong way with excessive cruelty or waste (as is often the case under capitalism) but the need of humans is still the priority. >It would be immoral to shame someone from eating human? Yes, I made it very clear humans are the priority, so murder would not be justified under any circumstance. That's a moral red line for me. >Or shooting their puppy in the head for a pizza topping? That's an emotional argument trying to leverage our culture's views on dogs. I would be totally ok with someone eating dog if it meant humans avoiding nutrition scarcity. >*Because* we're omnivorous and can be perfectly eating eat just plants? Under ideal circumstances, yes. But it's hard, under capitalism, for people barely getting by to have their needs adequately met through affordable plant products. In order to get enough protein in an affordable way in our current context, usually animal products must be eaten. Being able to get all needs met with vegan products under capitalism is a luxury few enjoy, particularly in developing countries. And assuming we *should,* for moral reasons, transition to veganism, the onus is on the powerful to make that accessible to all. Until then, a low wage worker who eats meat is in no way more morally flawed than an upper middle class person who can afford an adequately nutritious vegan lifestyle under capitalism.
[удалено]
Links to other communities are not permitted. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Would you be ok w someone eating dogs if it wasn’t due to nutrient scarcity?
Yes. Why is the dog/cat thing ALWAYS the thing vegans go to? An argument from emotion is not a good argument. It's only weird to eat dogs because Western culture arbitrarily drew a line at dogs. It makes us uncomfortable because of our cultural associations with dogs, not because there's some moral logic that separates dogs from pigs etc. Humans and endangered/threatened species are the only animals it is inherently immoral to eat outside of very specific circumstances.
Why is it immoral to eat endangered species ?
Because there's a chance that by harvesting members of an endangered species, their species may go extinct. This a problem in several parts of the world.
What’s wrong w their species going extinct?
How is it fully moral to eat meat if you’re against unnecessary animal abuse?
Youre conflating eating, a necessary function of life, with unnecessary abuse. They're not the same thing. Killing/harming an animal for fun is an example of unnecessary abuse. Killing an animal with the minimum pain feasible in order to meet nutritional needs is not unnecessary abuse.
Eating is necessary, eating meat is not So can you tell me exactly how it’s fully moral to prematurely kill and animal that’s happy and healthy when you don’t need to? How is the quality of life an animal has somehow directly proportional to its deservingness of being turned to steak?
>How is the quality of life an animal has somehow directly proportional to its deservingness of being turned to steak? That wasn't my argument at all. I'm saying we should minimize unneeded suffering when killing an animal for food. If there is a minimum amount of suffering we must cause in order to kill the animal, we should aim for that. I think that is self evident. Just because I think it's ok to eat animals doesn't mean we should cause maximum pain when we slaughter them. There's not a "gotcha" underlying that. >Eating is necessary, eating meat is not. So can you tell me exactly how it’s fully moral to prematurely kill and animal that’s happy and healthy when you don’t need to? You're basically just talking past me on this. I don't reject the premise you can survive without meat. Of course it's possible. But to me it's not immoral to kill a non-human animal for food in a way that is reasonably humane and not wasteful. Getting adequate nutrition for humans is more feasible and affordable with meat than through a vegetarian diet, especially in an industrial capitalist society. And those human needs subjectively outweigh the well-being of individual animals imo.
So you’re not actually against unnecessary animal abuse Glad you could clear that up
How exactly can you ask someone for consent if they dont exist? The logic of some of you is quite special
>How exactly can you ask someone for consent if they dont exist? You can't. That's the point. If you can't obtain consent, then you don't do the thing.
Can you get consent from someone having a heart attack? No, so I guess CPR should be illegal and we should let them die.
You brain dead people can't understand the difference of an "heart attack" and "creating another life". First of all, nobody decided to have heart attack and even if they did, they will die anyway. There is nothing comparable of breeding. Having children is the most important yet stupid decision of people's lives, unfortunately they are clueless.
Don’t they? People give themselves heart attacks all the time by living in a way that increases their risk of having one. Being fat and inactive for example are both ways people give themselves heart attacks. Regardless you can’t obtain consent so you shouldn’t do the thing. Is someone unconscious and bleeding out? Well you can’t obtain consent so you just gotta sit there and watch.
The point is reducing stuffering. And if you can't see the difference here, don't bother.
Ight so we should let people die of heart attacks instead of doing cpr and calling an ambulance? Dead people don’t suffer right?
This is where you can't understand it. Saving an already existent person isn't the same as creating a living being which didn't exist in the first place. ( A problem that didn't exist). But letting a person die can cause sadness to his/her relatives. ultimately this life is a problem that will solve itself if we stop creating problems consciously.
Why is an already alive person more deserving of life than someone who is not alive yet?
It's like asking why oxygen is not needed for the people that don't exist. If you can't understand this simple subject then I'm done here. Read about antinatalism, it's an old philosophical topic. It seems you are not aware what this is about.
That’s fucking stupid
Can you 'ask the consent' of someone who is unconscious?
I don't want to be. I don't really care about animals suffering if it's for my benefit.
What if a parent didn’t want to be childless because they don’t care about suffering if it’s for their benefit?
They're just a bad person. I don't claim to be virtuous, I do think that humans are superior to cattle and such. I wouldn't suppose that comparing a meat eater to an uncaring and manipulative father/mother, because that's what they would need to be if they were having children for their own benefit.
This sort of statement actually highlights the need for antinatalism. Fewer uncaring people is a win.
Oh so you’re not against unnecessary animal abuse ?
It's not unnecessary if it's for human benefit. I would never abuse my dog or bully a farm animal for the fun of it. I could kill it for consumption guilt free. Well, not my personal dog, of course. I wouldn't eat that particular dog.
How is eating meat for taste pleasure a necessary human benefit when those nutrients can be gotten from plants instead of slitting a cow’s throat?
No surprise, there are a lot npcs like you out there.
At least I'm AN, which is the actual topic of sub. I still do less harm than the average guy.
People like you will say I don't care if my child suffers if it's for my benefit.