Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Is this really so hard?

"avoid animal suffering wherever possible"

The slaughtering is not really the problem to me. Cannot be avoided, allright, I can live with that (but there are of course worlds between how the meat I like to eat was slaughtered, compared to the cheap meat from the supermarket, think a deer that died with a clean shot, compared to a animal waiting in stress and panic for hours or days before the slaughtering factory).

And what matters more, are the living conditions the animal had before the slaughtering. Like being outside in the sun and on real grass, compared to tightly locked inside the whole life, literaly living in their own shit.



I mean you’re calling attention to the word you’re ignoring: “whenever.” You’re basically saying some suffering is fine as long as it’s suffering you’re fine with.

Don’t get me wrong, that is a 100% valid attitude to have. But don’t pretend like you’re trying to avoid animal suffering whenever possible — because you’re clearly not.

> The slaughtering is not really the problem to me

Also lol at this. Makes it easy to avoid animal suffering if being slaughtered doesn’t count as suffering to you.


Suffering is part of the world. I just try to minimize it, I do not believe it can be avoided.

Do you believe differently in general?


I’ll agree that there’s no way to eliminate suffering.

But you can continue to reduce your creation of suffering in animals by not eating meat.

It’s fine if that’s a decision you’re not willing to make.

But if you say, “I just try to minimize suffering” and then continue to eat meat, you should instead say, “I just try to minimize suffering that I can’t justify to myself.” Otherwise you’re lying to yourself because you’re doing one thing and saying another.


"I just try to minimize suffering that I can’t justify to myself"

That is clearly implied, isn't it?

There is almost no action, that does not directly or indirectly creates (potential) suffering. Normal agriculture creates a lot of suffering by poisoning the earth and the animals within. But even the most ecological agriculture creates suffering. First, by making a forest to a field. Wild animals and plants had to go away, so that the corn can grow. But yes, growing corn in an ecological way minimizes suffering by comparing it with growing corn in the most toxic way and then feeding it to animals that can barely move, to then feed some fat humans, who can also barely move.


> That is clearly implied, isn't it?

No.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: