1587: "Food Rule"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Djehutynakht » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:24 am UTC

I would think that squid (and octopuses) leave behind beaks that just go swimming around attacking stuff.

The problem is I'd expect they'd swarm. Fighting off a swarm of beaks would be problematic.

User avatar
Drakuun
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:59 pm UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Drakuun » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:54 am UTC

Totally forgot to add 'fungi' as a nono...
Fungi are scary to eat because mostly they aren't dead at all.
Who knows how they continue to grow inside you.
Fungi often prefer moist and dark places.
No mushrooms in my diet, ever.

User avatar
Introbulus
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:09 am UTC
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Introbulus » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:58 am UTC

I'm almost certain that a squid, like an octopus, would leave behind a ghost.

And I don't mean like, a Squid or Octopus ghost, but literally a traditional sheet style ghost.

I mean, look at a squid:

Image

Now look at a ghost:

Image

Now you tell me those aren't the same animal.
If you can read this, you are wasting your time.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby da Doctah » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:28 pm UTC

Drakuun wrote:Totally forgot to add 'fungi' as a nono...
Fungi are scary to eat because mostly they aren't dead at all.
Who knows how they continue to grow inside you.
Fungi often prefer moist and dark places.
No mushrooms in my diet, ever.


No bread either, I take it. Or beer.

Actually, I've been wondering about the hardliner vegan position on fungi. Is it that they don't eat animal protein or that they don't eat anything other than vegetable matter? Because fungus is now considered a separate kingdom from either of those two, and whether they can eat it depends a lot on how the rule is worded.

speising
Posts: 2350
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby speising » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:43 pm UTC

mushrooms are vegetables. culinarily.

I am Jack's username
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:55 am UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby I am Jack's username » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:49 pm UTC

It may be helpful to think of speciesism from the other side: would it be ethical for super smart genetically engineered humans to do to you, what humans are currently doing to animals?

cryptoengineer wrote:I can't see the problem in eating meat. We're evolved as omnivores, and strict vegans have to go to unnatural lengths not to suffer from B-12 deficiency.

This seems like another naturalistic fallacy to me: like carnivores painfully killing their prey, and psychopaths by their very nature torturing and killing people - that doesn't make it ethical to pay people to torture and kill animals for us to eat. I personally think factory farming is vastly more unnatural than making cobalamin supplements. Also, anatomically humans are about 95% herbivore, and 5% omnivore.

rmsgrey wrote:That raises the further questions of how you weigh a lifetime of being looked after against a violent death at the end of it...

Check out Earthlings to see what the standard practices are on factory farms.

da Doctah wrote:Y'know what's just as speciesist as considering some other creature fit to be eaten? Assuming that just because we feel horror at the thought of being eaten it must be the same for everything else.

Anthropomorphism is not actually a problem in this case because almost all farmed animals are capable of fear and pain, and many go insane because of their enslavement - which is why female chicks' beaks are burned off (so they don't peck others to death in their tiny wire cages) without any anesthetics, and why piglets' tails are cut off (because they become cannibalistic) without anesthetics.

Mambrino wrote:This is quite comparable to climate change, really: the suffering / unbearable CO2 emissions won't disappear despite the individuals doing the morally right things in their lives, because one person's life is small and their footprint is small and it's not plausible that enough individuals would ever do it (no matter how much "morally right people" show their displeasure). Rules of the game should be changed.

Going vegan cuts your CO2 emissions in half. Everyone going vegan won't solve anthropogenic climate change tho, because the root cause of anthropogenic climate change, the anthropocene mass extinction event, and habitat destruction is human overpopulation.

Waiting for the rules to change is like saying you'll keep raping your slaves until it becomes illegal.

User avatar
Drakuun
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:59 pm UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Drakuun » Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:07 pm UTC

speising wrote:mushrooms are vegetables. culinarily.

Parasitic vegetables?
Mold/fungi grow onto vegetables as well usurping their life juices.

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby markfiend » Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:07 pm UTC

I am Jack's username: then are you going to consider the inevitable deaths of animals killed during the harvest of your vegan food? Or how about the wildlife displaced to provide arable land to grow your food? All food production causes death and suffering for some animals; a vegan cannot claim any moral high ground on that score.

Vegetarianism / veganism / etc. is an aesthetic choice not an ethical one. And I say that as someone who has made an aesthetic choice to be vegetarian.
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Neil_Boekend » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:00 pm UTC

Vegetarianism is very much an ethical choice for many. Food animals neat to eat. This requires far more land than the land required to grow food for vegetarians and I assume that there are also animals killed during the harvest of that food so even when you count the animals killed during the growing of the vegetables the vegetarians come out positive. Also the CO2 production (again mostly to grow the food for the animals) of a vegetarian meal is far lower than for a nutritionally equivalent vegetarian meal.
Do not forget the rest of the chain. The chain for a steak is longer than the chain for tofu, as a cow eats more than 10 kg of soy, grain and corn to grow one kg,

This is coming from someone who is not fully vegetarian (I am a flexitarian: I eat about 100 gram of meat a week)
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

I am Jack's username
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:55 am UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby I am Jack's username » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:01 pm UTC

markfiend wrote:I am Jack's username: then are you going to consider the inevitable deaths of animals killed during the harvest of your vegan food? Or how about the wildlife displaced to provide arable land to grow your food? All food production causes death and suffering for some animals; a vegan cannot claim any moral high ground on that score.

Not the ethical high ground, but a higher ground. Vegans' food and possessions require about 5.5% of the land required by non-vegans.

markfiend wrote:Vegetarianism / veganism / etc. is an aesthetic choice not an ethical one. And I say that as someone who has made an aesthetic choice to be vegetarian.

English is not my first language, so I may be misunderstanding here, but isn't aesthetics about judgments of sentiment and taste; while ethics is about wrong and right actions? If you agree with the ethic of reciprocity and the harm principle, then enslavement, torture, and mass murder on a scale that dwarfs all other human actions is an ethical question - not a question about taste.

Draconaes
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:20 pm UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Draconaes » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:21 pm UTC

I am Jack's username wrote:enslavement, torture, and mass murder on a scale that dwarfs all other human actions is an ethical question - not a question about taste.


Just wanted to point out a few things here:

"enslavement" - This is probably not as cut and dried as you like the think with regards to animals. Assuming the best case scenario (humane, kind treatment of the animals), are they really any more enslaved than children are to their parents? Most animals are not intelligent enough to be emancipated in our society, and the only other option is dumping them into the wild. Is that more ethical for whatever reason?

"torture" - Presumably torture is not a prerequisite for eating meat. This is then something that should be prohibited and policed. The argument goes against torturing animals then, not against eating them.

"mass murder" - Murder is usually used in a more narrow sense than killing. I think the proper terminology here would be "predation". markfiend's point was that agriculture also results in pain and death for many animals, and that a diet without animals is not free from this. Vegetarianism is then a question of fashion and not the ethics of killing. (Assuming one does not assign differing values to the nature or magnitude of the killing, which is a complex question and probably not easily answered for everyone.)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby orthogon » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:57 pm UTC

Draconaes wrote:(Assuming one does not assign differing values to the nature or magnitude of the killing, which is a complex question and probably not easily answered for everyone.)

It's a complex question, but for sure most of us apply different values according to the nature of killing, as is clearly demonstrated by the plethora of trolley problems. Incidentally leading to the death of wild animals by modifying their habitat is closer to throwing the switch so the trolley hits the fat man; killing an animal to eat it is closer to pushing the fat man off the bridge. Not identical, but closer to those respective ends of the ethical scale.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Neil_Boekend » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:01 pm UTC

Draconaes wrote:"torture" - Presumably torture is not a prerequisite for eating meat. This is then something that should be prohibited and policed. The argument goes against torturing animals then, not against eating them.
In most countries it is. For example: there is a minimum speed of the steel spike that is driven through the brain of a cow, since it determines the chance of success at first try and thus the chance of needless suffering for the animal. Death is near instantaneous and thus painless if this is done properly.
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

J%r
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2015 12:02 pm UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby J%r » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:07 pm UTC

Introbulus wrote:I'm almost certain that a squid, like an octopus, would leave behind a ghost.


I suppose for squid/octopus you would have to fight Cthulhu, or worse the Kraken.

I am Jack's username
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:55 am UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby I am Jack's username » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:21 pm UTC

Draconaes wrote:"enslavement" - This is probably not as cut and dried as you like the think with regards to animals. Assuming the best case scenario (humane, kind treatment of the animals), are they really any more enslaved than children are to their parents?

Not in the sense that we also wouldn't call it slavery to keep severely mentally disabled people in special "homes" for them. It think it would be tho if we bred trillions of severely mentally disabled people in order to keep them in "homes". I'm not a philosopher, so when I write about speciesism I mean the actual things that happen on factory farms and industrial fishing. The best case scenario may be useful in a philosophical discussion where words have no meaning, and facts can't be true, but for me what's important are the actual standard practices.

Draconaes wrote:Most animals are not intelligent enough to be emancipated in our society, and the only other option is dumping them into the wild. Is that more ethical for whatever reason?

I don't see it as dumping them in the wild, but as not breeding them in the first place.

Draconaes wrote:"torture" - Presumably torture is not a prerequisite for eating meat.

It is with the world's current economic system.

Draconaes wrote:"mass murder" - Murder is usually used in a more narrow sense than killing.

Yeah, it's killing, not murder - I shouldn't have used the word "murder" because it's perfectly legal in most of the world.

Draconaes wrote:I think the proper terminology here would be "predation". markfiend's point was that agriculture also results in pain and death for many animals, and that a diet without animals is not free from this. Vegetarianism is then a question of fashion and not the ethics of killing. (Assuming one does not assign differing values to the nature or magnitude of the killing, which is a complex question and probably not easily answered for everyone.)

I don't understand this part. If you choose to have 18 times more animals killed because you prefer meat, milk, eggs, wool, fur, etc. to the vegan alternative; isn't that like saying that since some people are being raped and tortured, it's therefor okay for you to choose to go and rape and torture more people?

Neil_Boekend wrote:Death is near instantaneous and thus painless if this is done properly.

It's not, check out the actual standard practices on factory farms.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Whizbang » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:28 pm UTC

RE: Slavery

If a person is held in captivity, even treated well and even if releasing them would increase their suffering and lead to a quicker death, is that still slavery? Obviously slavery includes an element of forced labor. Also obviously imprisonment of individuals by the state for the committing of crimes is not slavery, nor is quarantine, nor hospitalization, nor a host of other human situations. So, the question to ask is "if a person were in the same situation, would you call it slavery?" Also, "Is the fact that they are not humans relevant to the first question?" And finally, "Where is the line drawn?"

Interesting thought-food.

dg61
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby dg61 » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:29 pm UTC

To be honest, there is merit in both sides of the argument. Certainly eating less or no meat is usually healthier(and meat* historically has rarely if ever been as abundant as it is now-obviously meat consumption patterns varied widely between historical societies but to take one example, the "traditional Mediterranean diet" has historically relied heavily on cheeses, legumes, olives and cereals along with fish, and with meat eaten in low quantities) and it is clear that meat consumption has drastic ecological effects. On the other hand, it seems highly unlikely both that eating meat is a symptom of moral weakness or that moral suasion of many people to eat meat is the best way to reduce meat consumption-the problem is quite straightforwardly meat being heavily subsidized both directly and indirectly and it is pretty clear that if meat gets more expensive, people eat less of it and/or switch to less resource-intensive meats like chicken. It also needs to be made clear that meat production is not automatically as environmentally damaging as it is today; historically at least in the circumstances I am familiar with animals were primarily raised on open or woodland pasturage not suitable for farming and a significant portion of the animals people ate were not farmed but hunted, trapped, etc.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:56 pm UTC

Neil_Boekend wrote:
Draconaes wrote:"torture" - Presumably torture is not a prerequisite for eating meat. This is then something that should be prohibited and policed. The argument goes against torturing animals then, not against eating them.
In most countries it is. For example: there is a minimum speed of the steel spike that is driven through the brain of a cow, since it determines the chance of success at first try and thus the chance of needless suffering for the animal. Death is near instantaneous and thus painless if this is done properly.


The idea of avoiding unnecessary suffering in food preparation goes way back - Kosher and Halal rules, while there are better methods available with modern technology, do a pretty good job of minimising animal cruelty at the point of slaughter when working with bronze age technology.

Poor animal living conditions in factory farms is as much a product of the industrial revolution as poor human working conditions a century ago.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4889
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby HES » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:08 pm UTC

The problem seems to be the "standard practices" of meat production, rather than the consumption of meat. It's perfectly possible to fix one without sacrificing the other, and is encompassed within the general need for us to live more sustainably.
He/Him/His Image

I am Jack's username
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:55 am UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby I am Jack's username » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:09 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:RE: Slavery

If a person is held in captivity, even treated well and even if releasing them would increase their suffering and lead to a quicker death, is that still slavery? Obviously slavery includes an element of forced labor. Also obviously imprisonment of individuals by the state for the committing of crimes is not slavery, nor is quarantine, nor hospitalization, nor a host of other human situations. So, the question to ask is "if a person were in the same situation, would you call it slavery?"

The meaning of slavery for me can exclude forced labor:
the free dictionary wrote:slave
1. One who is owned as the property of someone else, especially in involuntary servitude.

the free dictionary wrote:servitude
1. a. A state of subjection to an owner or master.
b. Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.

If I, as a human, was in the same situation: billions of my species bred by a smarter and more vicious species, having the males ground up alive, having parts of my body burned off without anesthetic, forced to live my entire miserable life in a tiny wire cage along with dead and diseased bodies, wires cutting into my feet, and being shat on; I'd call that slavery.

Whizbang wrote:Also, "Is the fact that they are not humans relevant to the first question?" And finally, "Where is the line drawn?"

There are humans (like severely mentally disabled people) who lack all the things that are usually given as reasons for why it's okay to do it to other species. The only reason then to do it to other species, is that they are from a different species. That's what makes it similar to racism and sexism. Someone of a different sex to yours may not feel things the same way you feel them, but the harm principle still applies, so is the line "things that can feel fear and pain"?

Re: fear, now think about artificial general intelligence...

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby orthogon » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:12 pm UTC

dg61 wrote:[...]it seems highly unlikely [...] that eating meat is a symptom of moral weakness [...]

This is what bothers me though: I've grown up eating meat, enjoy it, would find it difficult to stop* and would continue to miss it; and yet I can see fairly convincing moral arguments against it and have to concede that the vegans have a point. This is where I see an analogy with people a couple of centuries ago who kept slaves or benefited from slavery in some way, and had grown up in a society where that was normal, and yet had a feeling in the back of their minds that the abolitionists probably had a point. We might say today about those people that they "knew it was wrong and yet perpetuated it or did nothing to bring about its end". We would indeed say in hindsight that those people exhibited moral weakness, even though they were in the majority. (Thanks to CB for pointing out that "what would future generations think of me?" is a proxy for "are my actions morally reprehensible?").

*as noted above, I did give up eating mammals and birds, but I'm still an eater of animals; I also consume eggs and dairy products.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

I am Jack's username
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:55 am UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby I am Jack's username » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:13 pm UTC

HES wrote:The problem seems to be the "standard practices" of meat production, rather than the consumption of meat. It's perfectly possible to fix one without sacrificing the other, and is encompassed within the general need for us to live more sustainably.

Agreed. If nervous-system-less meat could be grown in a vat, that could massively reduce the pain and suffering.

I am Jack's username
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:55 am UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby I am Jack's username » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:22 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:I've grown up eating meat, enjoy it, would find it difficult to stop[...] and would continue to miss it

I suggest reading Peter Singer's book Writings on an ethical life, which explains speciesism much better than I can. I also grew up eating and enjoying animal products, but after reading that book as an adult, I immediately became a vegan. It's really easy.

The arguments against speciesism is so strong, and my aversion against taking part in something I swore I would never do after I read The diary of Anne Frank as a kid, means that I don't miss meat, milk, eggs, wool, cane sugar (refined using bone char), etc. at all.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:46 pm UTC

I'd really like to think that it is an aesthetic choice on the grounds that it's a bit easier to understand and accept, really easy, honestly, those don't need to be logical at all and the hardship is minimal, but also so I don't have to picture you routinely assaulting your friends for eating the wrong brand of potato chip.

Like, you think that the cane sugar is the item on your list you need to explain, but wool? Of course it's easy to give up, 0/10 worst fabric would not recommend to a friend, but really? It doesn't follow from any part of your logic. It's just there so you count as vegan.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby mathmannix » Thu Oct 08, 2015 5:12 pm UTC

So, did anyone else have the song "Eyes Without a Face" running through their head after reading the comic?
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Jave D » Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:03 pm UTC

I don't eat (or even touch) shrimp or oysters or squid (or octopus, or scallops, or clams or mussels or lobster or crab ETC) not because they do or don't have faces, not because they do or do not suffer, but because they look icky and conceptually seem gross and weird. My reasoning is unassailable in this case.

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Neil_Boekend » Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:04 pm UTC

I am Jack's username wrote:
Neil_Boekend wrote:Death is near instantaneous and thus painless if this is done properly.

It's not, check out the actual standard practices on factory farms.
For the Netherlands I know that is not standard industry practice. For the USA I assume it is not. I think the people who made that film used the excesses and claimed they were industry standard. This is their industry standard.
One of the reasons I know they at least exaggerate is that a dairy cow that is treated as badly as claimed in that movie doesn't produce much milk. Stress severly decreases milk production and thus profit. So any farmer that actually knows what they are doing does not treat their cows that way.

For example: In the Netherlands de-horning is not required, since the cows have been bred to have only little stumps. Neither is the cow branded, they have RFID ear tags. I have been in both dairy and meat farms and this was far from what I saw.
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby da Doctah » Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:48 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:I don't eat (or even touch) shrimp or oysters or squid (or octopus, or scallops, or clams or mussels or lobster or crab ETC) not because they do or don't have faces, not because they do or do not suffer, but because they look icky and conceptually seem gross and weird. My reasoning is unassailable in this case.

That's the reason I don't eat okra.

Draconaes
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:20 pm UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Draconaes » Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:56 pm UTC

I am Jack's username wrote:
Draconaes wrote:I think the proper terminology here would be "predation". markfiend's point was that agriculture also results in pain and death for many animals, and that a diet without animals is not free from this. Vegetarianism is then a question of fashion and not the ethics of killing. (Assuming one does not assign differing values to the nature or magnitude of the killing, which is a complex question and probably not easily answered for everyone.)

I don't understand this part. If you choose to have 18 times more animals killed because you prefer meat, milk, eggs, wool, fur, etc. to the vegan alternative; isn't that like saying that since some people are being raped and tortured, it's therefor okay for you to choose to go and rape and torture more people?


To clarify on what I meant: I consider the question unclear because it relies on several variables that I don't actually have values assigned to currently:

# of animals killed for meat consupmtion
# of animals killed by/for agriculture
weight of directly killing an animal for meat
weight of directly killing an animal for agriculture
weight of indirectly killing an animal for agriculture (or meat, if such a case presents)
weight of animal's intelligence
weight of animal's "endangered-ness"
weight of human desire/enjoyment of the product (presumably relatively low compared to other weights)
cost/efficiency of producing meat vs. agriculture
weight impact to human society (job redistribution, other indirect impacts on human welfare)
weight of impact to biodiversity (species driven extinct to clear land, species hunted to extinction, indirect impacts to food chains, new species developed (GMO), domestic species abandoned into extinction (or reduced to pets/zoos?))

There are probably more variables to consider as well. Some of these might be easy to answer, even if I don't have the answers in front of me now (# of animals killed in either case is probably a straightforward solution, even if you weight intelligence or other factors.), but I think it is naive to simply assume that vegetarianism is the less impactful option without actually comparing the situations. Perhaps a solution is to make radical changes to both meat production and agriculture, but I think this is more complex than simply forgoing meat consumption.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5394
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:01 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:I don't eat (or even touch) shrimp or oysters or squid (or octopus, or scallops, or clams or mussels or lobster or crab ETC) not because they do or don't have faces, not because they do or do not suffer, but because they look icky and conceptually seem gross and weird. My reasoning is unassailable in this case.

Thank you, I'm glad I'm not the only one!

Tangentially relating that back to the ethics topic, I generally don't like to eat anything that I can tell used to be part of an animal, e.g. bone or skin or gristle, because it's icky and gross and weird. That generally rules out most arthropods and very small animals, and so most sea food. I'm also squeamish about ground or shredded meats because who knows what could be in them, though I've slowly gotten comfortable with a larger selection of them. (My first hamburger was only five years ago, and I've only started eating them without hesitation this year).

I enjoy the kinds of meats that don't gross me out, but I could totally live without them and be quite happy with the large variety of vegetarian protein sources (mostly things made from legumes… tofu, falafel, hummus, lentils, black and pinto beans, etc). I don't think I could ever bring myself to actually kill an animal, at least nothing more developed than an insect, unless it were attacking me. But I don't mind eating animals that are already dead, even if that contributes slightly to the motive to kill future animals; my personal choices there are pretty inconsequential.

And I can totally see the validity of Singer-style arguments, and I think at the very least that captive animals should be treated humanely while they're alive (and killed quickly and painlessly when they are), but aside from that I don't especially care enough about the issue to advocate for it myself. I'm not going to get in the way of people who are advocating for it, though.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:06 pm UTC

It's weird, but shrimp are where I draw the line in the other direction. It doesn't bother me to suck the whole, unadulterated carcass straight out of the bit of tail, but chicken on the bone squicks me.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Quercus » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:25 pm UTC

I have no problem with shrimp - I squick even normal shrimp-eaters out by being perfectly comfortable crunching the whole thing, head, shell, legs, tail and all (as long as they're fried rather than boiled - boiled shrimp shells are too tough).

I'm Randall's worst food nightmare - cephalopods and shellfish are pretty much my favourite foodstuffs.

Waylah
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:01 pm UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Waylah » Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:07 am UTC

I know that the caption saying "have to google" -> "won't eat" doesn't imply "don't have to google" -> "okay to eat", but the figure kinda does (otherwise the vegetables and pork etc wouldn't need to be there with a tick)

So yeah, er, do you need to google if a baby has a face?

Because I applied the food rule to my roast the other night, and my guests weren't happy.

ned3000
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 5:33 am UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby ned3000 » Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:48 am UTC

These seem to be not that good anymore. Back in the day 3/4 of them were either interesting or funny, now it seems like that ratio has fallen substantially.

What was the last one that was really good?

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Whizbang » Fri Oct 09, 2015 2:22 am UTC

Remember a time when people didn't complain about the comics? Yeah, me neither.

User avatar
Reecer6
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:59 am UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Reecer6 » Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:20 am UTC

Look, the welfare of the animal itself really isn't important. What is important is that we mandate that all those huge animal farming companies follow a number of laws to keep the welfare high so that their profits are heavily stifled and stop being huge partial monopolies. Ethical capitalism is the only true end goal.

And I'm totally fine with shrimp and squid, which have very arguable face shapes, but I am not okay with lobster, whose face is right there when you eat it. Probably because of that, actually.

Mikeski
Posts: 1096
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Mikeski » Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:38 am UTC

Waylah wrote:I know that the caption saying "have to google" -> "won't eat" doesn't imply "don't have to google" -> "okay to eat", but the figure kinda does (otherwise the vegetables and pork etc wouldn't need to be there with a tick)

So yeah, er, do you need to google if a baby has a face?

Because I applied the food rule to my roast the other night, and my guests weren't happy.

I'm hoping the checklister's "food rule" is of the "necessary but not sufficient" sort. Otherwise, yes, long pig, including the small ones, is on the menu. As are housecats, a large number of endangered species, death-cap mushrooms, gym socks, roofing nails...

That does raise a curious question, though. Since "pro-animal-welfare" and "pro-choice" are both positions held by the political left, and presumably sometimes by the same person, could that person consider some meat vegan?

If a baby isn't a human until it's born, the same must be true for a calf. One-week-old veal: we need to organize a protest! Negative-one-week-old veal: tasty snack if the mother is treated humanely?

xtifr
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby xtifr » Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:50 am UTC

Drakuun wrote:Totally forgot to add 'fungi' as a nono...
Fungi are scary to eat because mostly they aren't dead at all.
Who knows how they continue to grow inside you.
Fungi often prefer moist and dark places.
No mushrooms in my diet, ever.

Oh come on. They're our closest competitors. (And by "us", I mean the entire animal kingdom.) Some fungi have even begun to figure out the whole locomotion thing. (See: slime molds.) They deserve to be eaten, and I plan to eat as many as I can.

I SHALL FEAST ON THE HEARTS (well, technically, the genitals) OF MY ENEMIES, AND I SHALL TRIUMPH!

(The "moist" they prefer does not generally include "full of hydrochloric acid" either, so I think I'm probably ok in that respect. In any case, I usually sauté 'em or roast 'em, and I don't think they actually survive that. Of course, there's spores, but I don't think eating a few fungi increases the already gigantic number of fungus spores that regularly enter your body. Trust your immune system, dude. It's been coping with these beasts for a long, long time.)

Side note: does anyone actually have to use google to figure out if shrimps have faces? I've seen enough [strike]hentai[/strike] pictures of them to know exactly what their faces look like.
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

ijuin
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby ijuin » Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:53 am UTC

The main reason that the most inhumane practices in livestock-raising happen (debeaking, declawing, de-horning, crowded cages with wire floors) is because it costs less space and less human labor (and thus less money) to do it that way than to do it the merciful way. We the consumers need to show the food industry that we are willing to spend more money for meat that is produced in a humane way (in a similar sense to how we are willing to pay more for "organic" produce). If we are willing to pay for it, then they will produce it.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5394
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1587: "Food Rule"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Oct 09, 2015 5:56 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:If a baby isn't a human until it's born, the same must be true for a calf.

Calves aren't human either before or after they're born, and there's no argument about when a human becomes a human; being human is just a matter of genetics, and the earliest zygote is already human without any question. What's partly at question is when that human begins to qualify as a person, and (person or not) how that human's rights interact with the rights of others, mostly its mother.

Even the strictest vegan would probably say that nobody is obligated to allow their body to be used as life support for a developing animal, even if a consequence of that decision is that animal's premature death, which they would otherwise oppose; even if that animal might develop into a person; and quite possibly, even if that animal were already a person.

xtifr wrote:Some fungi have even begun to figure out the whole locomotion thing. (See: slime molds.)

Slime molds actually aren't technically fungi.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests