Animals are entrusted to man's stewardship; he must show them kindness. They may be used to serve the just satisfaction of man's needs.
Whether the moral obligations toward generations to come and to show animals kindness condemn the current system of factory farming is a wise topic for discussion.
dank_xiaopeng posted:the ‘most invasive animal’ in U.S.
marimite posted:I meant that the attitude towards animals taken in this thread is a case of inverted human values. Animals certainly don't have compassion for their prey; we only feel this way either because of an inversion of the predatory instinct against ourselves or the similarity of animals to our own children. Perhaps we should treat animals better, but that would be more compassion for ourselves than animals.
That is exactly I agree about. What is the standard of cruelty we should maintain? Its the minimum amount of cruelty that we need to inflict to get what we need to survive from the animal. The minimum amount of environmental degradation to produce the food we eat. The best we can do, to make this a happy place, for the nice people. That means no more hamburgers. Your needs for hamburgers and pork shoulders and chicken fajita supremes are false needs being used to control you by the shadow government of mind flayers.
daddyholes posted:The dominion granted by the Creator over the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be separated from respect for moral obligations, including those toward generations to come.
Animals are entrusted to man's stewardship; he must show them kindness. They may be used to serve the just satisfaction of man's needs.
Whether the moral obligations toward generations to come and to show animals kindness condemn the current system of factory farming is a wise topic for discussion.
Dude I'm starting to dig this bible shit more and more every day! The bible must kick ass.
There are economic arguments for protecting biodiversity but most of them fall apart completely under cursory examination. LIke one example is "oh, by protecting whales, we create a whale watching industry," but when you look at the numbers, it produces more wealth to just liquidate the entire global whale population and invest the resulting profits, through the magic of compound interest you ultimately generate more value in the long run. The same problem arises if you talk about ecosystem services or medicinally valuable natural compounds. Without valuing life for the sake of life there is no purpose in conservation.
Which is why I think it's hilarious E.O. Wilson created the field of Island Biogeography, including many of the most important theories of modern conservation, by extirpating all animal life from a series of coastal islands with poison gas. All for teh greater good.
Edited by cars ()
What a cult
marimite posted:So what I'm wondering is what forms of animal protein are ecologically sustainable? Someone told me that we're all going to be eating bugs in the future and that seems reasonable, but idk.
Integrating animals into permaculture is a necessity, like chickens to eat insects ect... Meat wouldn't be your main course
roseweird posted:marimite posted:if meat helps you exhaust your possibilities as a human being towards giving birth to the overman then go ahead.
would this argument hold for human flesh too, then? how could eating meat possibly help you exhaust those possibilities, except in cases of starvation (in which case i agree, if eating meat is the only thing between you and death you should do it)? i mean i guess i agree with your overall ethics here on some level, in that i am willing to engage in animal research for the purpose of improving the human future, but consuming flesh seems very different. there are no benefits other than nutrition, and that nutrition can be gained in other ways.
Well, eating people doesn't seem very healthy to me. I know very little about nutrition, but I know the meat of animals, on the other hand, is an easy way to make people strong that's difficult to replace. So I guess for me it's less a question of whether eating meat is permissible but rather who should eat meat. Which of course probably isn't most people.
ilmdge posted:...because of capitalism which has a life of its own, and which is inhuman and predatory. it's for exactly the same reason we're consuming corn syrup in record quantities, it's cheap and it sells, humans like sweet things so corn syrup gets put into everything and people buy it.
interesting post overall but just a heads up that people do not naturally love extreme sweetness any more than extreme salt, bitter, sour, or savory flavors. The lust for hfcs is a learned behavior & an addiction deliberately instilled in childhood by blasting away the normal ranges of sweetness in food, and making the person's digestive cycle dependent on huge doses of sugar. We would expect human populations awash in hfcs to be very diabetic and what a surprise they are. I know people whose admittedly internationalist super-bourgeois parents didn't feed them candy and soda when they were kids, and their diets are realistic - no junk food, fruit every once in a while, lots of staples and greens. The rest of us, have been drugged our entire lives. By candy. They got us with candy, damn we are dumb
pain inna ass to catch em though
Edited by dank_xiaopeng ()
marimite posted:roseweird posted:marimite posted:if meat helps you exhaust your possibilities as a human being towards giving birth to the overman then go ahead.
would this argument hold for human flesh too, then? how could eating meat possibly help you exhaust those possibilities, except in cases of starvation (in which case i agree, if eating meat is the only thing between you and death you should do it)? i mean i guess i agree with your overall ethics here on some level, in that i am willing to engage in animal research for the purpose of improving the human future, but consuming flesh seems very different. there are no benefits other than nutrition, and that nutrition can be gained in other ways.
Well, eating people doesn't seem very healthy to me. I know very little about nutrition, but I know the meat of animals, on the other hand, is an easy way to make people strong that's difficult to replace. So I guess for me it's less a question of whether eating meat is permissible but rather who should eat meat. Which of course probably isn't most people.
It's not difficult to replace. Maybe if you're doing some serious strength training but even then it's possible to get all your protein from plant sources, without resorting to supplements.
gyrofry posted:pyf maoist cooking tips
hand pollinated apple pie
Squalid posted:marimite posted:roseweird posted:marimite posted:if meat helps you exhaust your possibilities as a human being towards giving birth to the overman then go ahead.
would this argument hold for human flesh too, then? how could eating meat possibly help you exhaust those possibilities, except in cases of starvation (in which case i agree, if eating meat is the only thing between you and death you should do it)? i mean i guess i agree with your overall ethics here on some level, in that i am willing to engage in animal research for the purpose of improving the human future, but consuming flesh seems very different. there are no benefits other than nutrition, and that nutrition can be gained in other ways.
Well, eating people doesn't seem very healthy to me. I know very little about nutrition, but I know the meat of animals, on the other hand, is an easy way to make people strong that's difficult to replace. So I guess for me it's less a question of whether eating meat is permissible but rather who should eat meat. Which of course probably isn't most people.
It's not difficult to replace. Maybe if you're doing some serious strength training but even then it's possible to get all your protein from plant sources, without resorting to supplements.
Animals are necessary for the production of vegetables and an uncountable number are killed in all forms of agriculture. To feed people it is necessary to subvert and shape natural nutrient flows. how can it be moral to clear the granary of mice but immoral to eat one? What is it to shoot a deer, clear it's forest for grain, or place it an a park?
daddyholes posted:seriously though my diet mainly consists of various preparations and presentations of vegetables and lean meats and i think my childhood food was as vile as anyone's
Big Candy made me a chocoholic