Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Aeon.co)   Professor of philosophy:"If you care about animals, you should eat them"   (aeon.co) divider line
    More: Interesting, Thought, Human, Reason, Suffering, human beings, Rationality, Primate, Meaning of life  
•       •       •

584 clicks; posted to Food » on 24 Jan 2022 at 3:20 PM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



56 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-01-24 2:11:52 PM  
We bring animals into existence, care for them, rear them, and then kill and eat them. From this, we get food and other animal products, and they get life. Both sides benefit.

A lack of existence is not a detriment to a non-existent being.
 
2022-01-24 2:45:35 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


/you look tasty
 
2022-01-24 2:47:16 PM  
I know that Troy McClure* made this joke about cattle, but given the chance, a pig would eat you.

*You may remember him from such educational films as "Lead Paint: Delicious But Deadly," and "Here Comes the Metric System!"
 
2022-01-24 2:52:01 PM  

RodneyToady: A lack of existence is not a detriment to a non-existent being.


Even ignoring this, the water and greenhouse gas emissions involved in animal rearing outweighs whatever ethical considerations this guy is proposing.
 
2022-01-24 3:26:38 PM  
Yup. And if you love somebody, you should set them on fire.
 
2022-01-24 3:27:55 PM  

RodneyToady: We bring animals into existence, care for them, rear them, and then kill and eat them. From this, we get food and other animal products, and they get life. Both sides benefit.

A lack of existence is not a detriment to a non-existent being.


That sentence from the article is when I stopped reading. I'm not a vegetarian or vegan. That is just a line of BS to give that person a reason to continue to eat meat without feeling bad.

Like it or not, life is about eating other forms of life.
 
2022-01-24 3:32:50 PM  
That's not wrong...the money spent on hunting licenses help keep game animals protected, and millions of cows/chickens exist because they're food for humans.

Those animals that are domesticated exist because they're useful to us.  Having an existence that ends is better than not having one at all... AND many of them live easy lives.
 
2022-01-24 3:37:41 PM  

Tarl3k: Having an existence that ends is better than not having one at all...


I think that's up for debate.  And as far as humans are concerned, the vast majority of people, globally speaking, don't subscribe to that philosophy.  Otherwise far more women would have 20+ kids in order to bring them into existence.
 
2022-01-24 3:47:17 PM  
By this logic, if I don't eat humans, I don't care about them. So why does cannibalism get such a bad rap?
 
2022-01-24 3:54:12 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-24 3:54:36 PM  

turbocucumber: By this logic, if I don't eat humans, I don't care about them. So why does cannibalism get such a bad rap?


Fark user imageView Full Size


/One of the few SFW ones.
 
2022-01-24 3:59:02 PM  

Picklehead: Like it or not, life is about eating other forms of life.


True for the animal kingdom.  Plants don't usually eat things and rely on their chloroplasts to synthesize stuff out of CO2 and light.  Fungi usually break down dead or decaying plants and animals.  Protists are all over the map, some eat things, some are photosynthetic, some do both at once.  Bacteria are even more widely varied since they add chemosynthesis to the picture.  Viruses don't eat per se, but they hijack things that eat or synthesize chemicals.  When you look at it closely, it gets a bit fuzzy.

I do not know how the people at aeon.co came up with the idea that they should tie almost every article to philosophy in some way.  They could probably produce better articles without that constraint.
 
2022-01-24 4:00:17 PM  
But that is OK, since the argument is not a maximising one, but an appeal to history

Ah, so one of these:
Fark user image

Why is it philosophers always have to spend 10,000+ words to justify whatever predetermined answer they've come up with? We get it, you like to pay someone to kill animals on your behalf so you can have some short-lived culinary pleasure.

/Your blog sucks
 
2022-01-24 4:00:29 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-24 4:03:22 PM  
Far better, eat game. To generate enough surplus animals you have to maintain and preserve lots of habitat, which benefits not only your intended meals but lots of other non-target wildlife.

It's what regulated hunting does now.
 
2022-01-24 4:06:32 PM  
I heard Rush Limbaugh say something similar a couple of decades ago about endangered species. He was also a stupid POS.
 
2022-01-24 4:12:10 PM  
We bring animals into existence, care for them, rear them, and then kill and eat them. From this, we get food and other animal products, and they get life. Both sides benefit.

This is my argument when CPS comes around and demands to know why I keep my kids in cramped cages to be let out only to perform menial labor for my benefit.
 
2022-01-24 4:12:27 PM  

Jeff5: Far better, eat game. To generate enough surplus animals you have to maintain and preserve lots of habitat, which benefits not only your intended meals but lots of other non-target wildlife.

It's what regulated hunting does now.


Sure. We'll switch from beef, pork and chicken to... venison and squirrels?
 
2022-01-24 4:14:04 PM  
You can do whatever you want subby, but I'm not about to start eating cats no matter how surplus cats there are.
 
2022-01-24 4:15:30 PM  

majestic: Jeff5: Far better, eat game. To generate enough surplus animals you have to maintain and preserve lots of habitat, which benefits not only your intended meals but lots of other non-target wildlife.

It's what regulated hunting does now.

Sure. We'll switch from beef, pork and chicken to... venison and squirrels?


I'd trade venison for beef, I know several that have done so. As for squirrel, it's quite good in a stew, but you have to literally strain out the tiny tiny bones.
 
2022-01-24 4:20:58 PM  

Subtonic: We bring animals into existence, care for them, rear them, and then kill and eat them. From this, we get food and other animal products, and they get life. Both sides benefit.

This is my argument when CPS comes around and demands to know why I keep my kids in cramped cages to be let out only to perform menial labor for my benefit.


My, those lampshades are lovely; like to die for.
 
2022-01-24 4:25:20 PM  
Well, good. Because I wasn't prepared to NOT eat animals when I got up this morning...
 
2022-01-24 4:29:12 PM  

Subtonic: majestic: Jeff5: Far better, eat game. To generate enough surplus animals you have to maintain and preserve lots of habitat, which benefits not only your intended meals but lots of other non-target wildlife.

It's what regulated hunting does now.

Sure. We'll switch from beef, pork and chicken to... venison and squirrels?

I'd trade venison for beef, I know several that have done so. As for squirrel, it's quite good in a stew, but you have to literally strain out the tiny tiny bones.


Easier to debone it before you put it in. Boil it off the bone then concentrate that stock to preserve the flavor.

Or just fry it.
 
2022-01-24 4:29:41 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I know that Troy McClure* made this joke about cattle, but given the chance, a pig would eat you.

*You may remember him from such educational films as "Lead Paint: Delicious But Deadly," and "Here Comes the Metric System!"


vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size
 
2022-01-24 4:33:09 PM  

majestic: Jeff5: Far better, eat game. To generate enough surplus animals you have to maintain and preserve lots of habitat, which benefits not only your intended meals but lots of other non-target wildlife.

It's what regulated hunting does now.

Sure. We'll switch from beef, pork and chicken to... venison and squirrels?


Nearly all large game is healthier than beef, and eland and wild sheep are both FAR superior to the beef you can buy at a supermarket. Bison is at least as good as most dead cow, and you can also have pronghorn, deer and elk growing on the same range, since they all eat different plants (or parts thereof). You know, like they did for thousands of years until we killed them off to make room for cattle.
 
2022-01-24 4:35:06 PM  

Jeff5: Subtonic: majestic: Jeff5: Far better, eat game. To generate enough surplus animals you have to maintain and preserve lots of habitat, which benefits not only your intended meals but lots of other non-target wildlife.

It's what regulated hunting does now.

Sure. We'll switch from beef, pork and chicken to... venison and squirrels?

I'd trade venison for beef, I know several that have done so. As for squirrel, it's quite good in a stew, but you have to literally strain out the tiny tiny bones.

Easier to debone it before you put it in. Boil it off the bone then concentrate that stock to preserve the flavor.

Or just fry it.


This seems to be the default for most game food. Want some yummy venison? Here is a piece soaked in buttermilk for 2 days and then battered and fried. How about some yummy catfish? Egg, cornmeal and a fryer, please!

I like (some) seafood. I do not like lakefood. And all the memories I have of catfish, froglegs, vennison,squirrel, etc., when I was a child were all fried.
 
2022-01-24 4:42:20 PM  

Jeff5: majestic: Jeff5: Far better, eat game. To generate enough surplus animals you have to maintain and preserve lots of habitat, which benefits not only your intended meals but lots of other non-target wildlife.

It's what regulated hunting does now.

Sure. We'll switch from beef, pork and chicken to... venison and squirrels?

Nearly all large game is healthier than beef, and eland and wild sheep are both FAR superior to the beef you can buy at a supermarket. Bison is at least as good as most dead cow, and you can also have pronghorn, deer and elk growing on the same range, since they all eat different plants (or parts thereof). You know, like they did for thousands of years until we killed them off to make room for cattle.


Only because most beef is commercial, grain-fed, and jacked full of hormones and antibiotics. You try to introduce eland on a scale to replace beef and you will end up with fatty, sick animals. But they would probably taste better that way.

As far as I know, we didn't kill anything off to make room for cattle. We have deer running across the street all the time right here in the middle of town. My brother-in-law went elk and moose hunting last year.
 
2022-01-24 4:42:25 PM  
What's the author's Fark handle?
 
2022-01-24 4:52:11 PM  
Well, that was certainly 3,400 words assembled into something approximating what dumb people would imagine a scholarly argument sounds like.
 
2022-01-24 4:54:10 PM  

ryebread: RodneyToady: A lack of existence is not a detriment to a non-existent being.

Even ignoring this, the water and greenhouse gas emissions involved in animal rearing outweighs whatever ethical considerations this guy is proposing.


You do understand that to grow your grain it takes nitrogen fertilizers made from natural gas and water from ancient aquifers that aren't refilling.

The cow and the sheep graze the green fields and the ruminant digestive tract upcycle the mostly cellulose into fats and proteins they then make into meat and wool. Their methane is from living plants, and will return after breaking down, while they create their own nitrogen fertilizer for the plants.
 
2022-01-24 5:10:08 PM  
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-24 5:25:15 PM  
There is one true thing in that mess:  most wild animals live a pretty cruel life.  They starve, are hunted by other animals, get diseases, and their lives are no more than a constant struggle to eat and breed.  It's not all fun and games just because we don't eat them.
 
2022-01-24 5:27:31 PM  

wildcardjack: ryebread: RodneyToady: A lack of existence is not a detriment to a non-existent being.

Even ignoring this, the water and greenhouse gas emissions involved in animal rearing outweighs whatever ethical considerations this guy is proposing.

You do understand that to grow your grain it takes nitrogen fertilizers made from natural gas and water from ancient aquifers that aren't refilling.

The cow and the sheep graze the green fields and the ruminant digestive tract upcycle the mostly cellulose into fats and proteins they then make into meat and wool. Their methane is from living plants, and will return after breaking down, while they create their own nitrogen fertilizer for the plants.


That's why we need more room for Mc Cows. That Amazon rainforest was never really a viable ecosystem anyway.
 
2022-01-24 5:44:39 PM  

majestic: Jeff5: Subtonic: majestic: Jeff5: Far better, eat game. To generate enough surplus animals you have to maintain and preserve lots of habitat, which benefits not only your intended meals but lots of other non-target wildlife.

It's what regulated hunting does now.

Sure. We'll switch from beef, pork and chicken to... venison and squirrels?

I'd trade venison for beef, I know several that have done so. As for squirrel, it's quite good in a stew, but you have to literally strain out the tiny tiny bones.

Easier to debone it before you put it in. Boil it off the bone then concentrate that stock to preserve the flavor.

Or just fry it.

This seems to be the default for most game food. Want some yummy venison? Here is a piece soaked in buttermilk for 2 days and then battered and fried. How about some yummy catfish? Egg, cornmeal and a fryer, please!

I like (some) seafood. I do not like lakefood. And all the memories I have of catfish, froglegs, vennison,squirrel, etc., when I was a child were all fried.


I like to take 5-7 pound channel catfish, wrap them in bacon and grill them. If you grill them slow with the backbone down (I have a catfish grill with 4 prongs to hold them) you never have to turn them and when they're done you can grab the end of the backbone with pliers and pull all the bones out together. The fish will make you slap your Momma off her feet and the bacon will make you pick her up, dust her off and reslap her. Nothing wrong with a liberal dusting of your favorite seasoning between the fish and the bacon.
 
2022-01-24 5:46:19 PM  

wildcardjack: ryebread: RodneyToady: A lack of existence is not a detriment to a non-existent being.

Even ignoring this, the water and greenhouse gas emissions involved in animal rearing outweighs whatever ethical considerations this guy is proposing.

You do understand that to grow your grain it takes nitrogen fertilizers made from natural gas and water from ancient aquifers that aren't refilling.

The cow and the sheep graze the green fields and the ruminant digestive tract upcycle the mostly cellulose into fats and proteins they then make into meat and wool. Their methane is from living plants, and will return after breaking down, while they create their own nitrogen fertilizer for the plants.


Methane release will always cause more warming than CO2. Methane will cause more warming then break down to CO2 after about 10 years.
 
2022-01-24 5:47:50 PM  

majestic: Jeff5: majestic: Jeff5: Far better, eat game. To generate enough surplus animals you have to maintain and preserve lots of habitat, which benefits not only your intended meals but lots of other non-target wildlife.

It's what regulated hunting does now.

Sure. We'll switch from beef, pork and chicken to... venison and squirrels?

Nearly all large game is healthier than beef, and eland and wild sheep are both FAR superior to the beef you can buy at a supermarket. Bison is at least as good as most dead cow, and you can also have pronghorn, deer and elk growing on the same range, since they all eat different plants (or parts thereof). You know, like they did for thousands of years until we killed them off to make room for cattle.

Only because most beef is commercial, grain-fed, and jacked full of hormones and antibiotics. You try to introduce eland on a scale to replace beef and you will end up with fatty, sick animals. But they would probably taste better that way.

As far as I know, we didn't kill anything off to make room for cattle. We have deer running across the street all the time right here in the middle of town. My brother-in-law went elk and moose hunting last year.


The bison that weren't killed to starve the natives were killed to keep them from tearing down barbed wire fences.
 
2022-01-24 5:54:45 PM  
If you live out west and recreate in National Forests and BLM land you will encounter beef cattle eating what ever they can and watering in your favorite stream. No pastures our corrals. Just hope they don't wander into camp. Edward Abbey proposed a hunting season for cattle on public lands but they would be nearly inedible.
 
2022-01-24 6:11:43 PM  

wildcardjack: ryebread: RodneyToady: A lack of existence is not a detriment to a non-existent being.

Even ignoring this, the water and greenhouse gas emissions involved in animal rearing outweighs whatever ethical considerations this guy is proposing.

You do understand that to grow your grain it takes nitrogen fertilizers made from natural gas and water from ancient aquifers that aren't refilling.

The cow and the sheep graze the green fields and the ruminant digestive tract upcycle the mostly cellulose into fats and proteins they then make into meat and wool. Their methane is from living plants, and will return after breaking down, while they create their own nitrogen fertilizer for the plants.


Grain which gets turned around and fed to cattle at a rate of 6 pounds of grain (along with about 1,800 gallons of water) per pound of beef (along with 4 pounds of methane)? Yes, I'm well aware.

/I'm not a vegetarian/vegan by any means, but I try to reduce the overall climate impact of what I eat
 
2022-01-24 6:30:34 PM  

melfunction: If you live out west and recreate in National Forests and BLM land you will encounter beef cattle eating what ever they can and watering in your favorite stream. No pastures our corrals. Just hope they don't wander into camp. Edward Abbey proposed a hunting season for cattle on public lands but they would be nearly inedible.


uhm, if they are INEDIBLE why is anyone ranching them on public lands? why is anyone ranching them at all?

or are you telling me these are big herds of "feral cattle" no one even owns?

i farking hate how unmanaged cattle tear the shiat outta public lands with their hooves though. if no ones them they should all be shot.
 
2022-01-24 6:37:50 PM  

luna1580: melfunction: If you live out west and recreate in National Forests and BLM land you will encounter beef cattle eating what ever they can and watering in your favorite stream. No pastures our corrals. Just hope they don't wander into camp. Edward Abbey proposed a hunting season for cattle on public lands but they would be nearly inedible.

uhm, if they are INEDIBLE why is anyone ranching them on public lands? why is anyone ranching them at all?

or are you telling me these are big herds of "feral cattle" no one even owns?

i farking hate how unmanaged cattle tear the shiat outta public lands with their hooves though. if no ones them they should all be shot.


They run them on cheap Federal grass then finish them on grain in feedlots to add weight/fat.
 
2022-01-24 7:51:34 PM  

danceswithcrows: Picklehead: Like it or not, life is about eating other forms of life.

True for the animal kingdom.  Plants don't usually eat things and rely on their chloroplasts to synthesize stuff out of CO2 and light.  Fungi usually break down dead or decaying plants and animals.  Protists are all over the map, some eat things, some are photosynthetic, some do both at once.  Bacteria are even more widely varied since they add chemosynthesis to the picture.  Viruses don't eat per se, but they hijack things that eat or synthesize chemicals.  When you look at it closely, it gets a bit fuzzy.

I do not know how the people at aeon.co came up with the idea that they should tie almost every article to philosophy in some way.  They could probably produce better articles without that constraint.


Good point. I started thinking about it right after I posted. I looked up to see what nourishes plants and the article I was reading pretty much said what you said.

One good thing about this linked article is it got me to think and for me to learn something today.
 
2022-01-24 8:10:30 PM  

melfunction: wildcardjack: ryebread: RodneyToady: A lack of existence is not a detriment to a non-existent being.

Even ignoring this, the water and greenhouse gas emissions involved in animal rearing outweighs whatever ethical considerations this guy is proposing.

You do understand that to grow your grain it takes nitrogen fertilizers made from natural gas and water from ancient aquifers that aren't refilling.

The cow and the sheep graze the green fields and the ruminant digestive tract upcycle the mostly cellulose into fats and proteins they then make into meat and wool. Their methane is from living plants, and will return after breaking down, while they create their own nitrogen fertilizer for the plants.

Methane release will always cause more warming than CO2. Methane will cause more warming then break down to CO2 after about 10 years.


I like people so dedicated to their cause they don't use air conditioning.

Wanna not kill the ozone? Pull the plug on air conditioning!

Yall won't. And I'll forever have a job.

/pay me suckers

//self righteousness is cool until you realize the biggest comfort in your life is literally world death.

///don't believe in AC, but hey pays the bills
 
2022-01-24 10:57:31 PM  

majestic: Jeff5: Subtonic: majestic: Jeff5: Far better, eat game. To generate enough surplus animals you have to maintain and preserve lots of habitat, which benefits not only your intended meals but lots of other non-target wildlife.

It's what regulated hunting does now.

Sure. We'll switch from beef, pork and chicken to... venison and squirrels?

I'd trade venison for beef, I know several that have done so. As for squirrel, it's quite good in a stew, but you have to literally strain out the tiny tiny bones.

Easier to debone it before you put it in. Boil it off the bone then concentrate that stock to preserve the flavor.

Or just fry it.

This seems to be the default for most game food. Want some yummy venison? Here is a piece soaked in buttermilk for 2 days and then battered and fried. How about some yummy catfish? Egg, cornmeal and a fryer, please!

I like (some) seafood. I do not like lakefood. And all the memories I have of catfish, froglegs, vennison,squirrel, etc., when I was a child were all fried.


Either that or roast it in a pot with lots of seasoning until it breaks down.
 
2022-01-24 11:02:43 PM  

luna1580: melfunction: If you live out west and recreate in National Forests and BLM land you will encounter beef cattle eating what ever they can and watering in your favorite stream. No pastures our corrals. Just hope they don't wander into camp. Edward Abbey proposed a hunting season for cattle on public lands but they would be nearly inedible.

uhm, if they are INEDIBLE why is anyone ranching them on public lands? why is anyone ranching them at all?

or are you telling me these are big herds of "feral cattle" no one even owns?

i farking hate how unmanaged cattle tear the shiat outta public lands with their hooves though. if no ones them they should all be shot.


Should be buffalo out there on BLM land. Buffalo are tasty, and do less damage.
 
2022-01-25 5:36:33 AM  
meh, many philosophers are... weird. imagine your high school debate team: the only victory is rhetoric. like, you almost don't care about ethics or morality, or even logic itself. give them literally any position, and trust me something like TFA is easy peasy. making it sound good is the entire goal.
 
2022-01-25 7:56:25 AM  
That piece was so stupid that it turned me into a vegetarian.
 
2022-01-25 10:24:02 AM  

tintar: meh, many philosophers are... weird. imagine your high school debate team: the only victory is rhetoric. like, you almost don't care about ethics or morality, or even logic itself. give them literally any position, and trust me something like TFA is eas

64.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
y peasy. making it sound good is the entire goal.
 
2022-01-25 12:49:54 PM  

majestic: As far as I know, we didn't kill anything off to make room for cattle. We have deer running across the street all the time right here in the middle of town. My brother-in-law went elk and moose hunting last year.


Are you in the American plains?

Not to extinction; but mustangs get rounded up from marginal land that cattlemen decide they want, then auctioned off to people that fill out paperwork saying they won't kill them, but who sell them on so they eventually end up in slaughterhouses (in Canada, since in the USA there are no meat inspectors that inspect horsemeat).

Before that, indigenous people and bison were killed to make room for cattlemen.
 
2022-01-25 2:21:16 PM  

Queen Amy: majestic: As far as I know, we didn't kill anything off to make room for cattle. We have deer running across the street all the time right here in the middle of town. My brother-in-law went elk and moose hunting last year.

Are you in the American plains?

Not to extinction; but mustangs get rounded up from marginal land that cattlemen decide they want, then auctioned off to people that fill out paperwork saying they won't kill them, but who sell them on so they eventually end up in slaughterhouses (in Canada, since in the USA there are no meat inspectors that inspect horsemeat).

Before that, indigenous people and bison were killed to make room for cattlemen.


mustangs are NOT native to the americas. just saying.....they've only been part of the landscape for about 500 years.

so who cares if people want to eat them? in canada? they belong to the great plains exactly as much as the cows: not as ANY KIND of wild creature. they shouldn't be out there. either of them.
 
2022-01-25 3:00:51 PM  

luna1580: mustangs are NOT native to the americas. just saying.....they've only been part of the landscape for about 500 years.


Horses and camels went extinct in North America after the last ice age, yeah. It seems to have happened about the same time that humans entered North America, but not because those humans brought cattle with them.

The point is, today we do kill things to make room for cattle in the USA, but claim we aren't killing them; it's been going on for a long time.

Eating doesn't enter in to it.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.