theres no causal mechanic that would result in less suffering. think of it this way: if i take a cup of water out of a bucket , then the bucket has less water. what is the mechanic by which less suffering exists?
edit:
after failing to meaningfully undermine my claim, this user decided to imply i have a mental illness, and lied about the nature of what i said and then tried to poison the well by editing their comment near the top of our subthread and has the gall to say i’m not participating in good faith. this accusation is, itself, bad faith. i encourage you to read what was said here, and decide for yourself whether being vegan reduces suffering.
Think of it this way. In a game of telephone, signal quality degrades. Remove the middle-men, you improve the signal-to-noise. In a similar manner, there is little point in raising livestock on land, only to greatly pollute said land, only to produce a substance in less quantity and quality than what you could’ve done in its absence. Less demand means less livestock raised or tortured.
In another way, if you are saying that whether these animals roam free and die by the nature versus being grown in confined cages to be harvested… Then I wager whether if aliens descended upon this planet and you could either live as you do or you and your offspring be raised like cattle in a dark cramped alien farm, hauled around by convey-belts for the slaughter — tell me, which would you prefer?
Edit: This peculiar user who lacks the capacity to respond with a single coherent comment in the thread (Schizophrenia? I don’t know…) espouses various logical fallacies and deflections. I am utterly unimpressed by their incoherent rebuttals and have no interest in discussing with bad-faith laziness. My points remain largely untouched.
Please, consolidate your comments into one. If you cannot manage this simple task, then I don’t know what point there is in discussing Thermodynamics with you.
this is poisoning the well, handwaving, and lying. nothing i said was fallacious. nothing i said was incoherent. in fact, you are the one who is gish-galloping in multi-paragraph comments while i keep mine focused.
In another way, if you are saying that whether these animals roam free and die by the nature versus being grown in confined cages to be harvested… Then I wager whether if aliens descended upon this planet and you could either live as you do or you and your offspring be raised like cattle in a dark cramped alien farm, hauled around by convey-belts for the slaughter — tell me, which would you prefer?
this is a nonsequitur. it has nothing to do with whether being vegan reduces sufffering, which it doesn’t.
Can you provide another example please? I’m not sure I follow the bucket analogy.
If I choose not to eat meat it lessens the demand for it (however minutely). On a larger scale with many vegans refusing to eat meat less animals are bred into existence to be slaughtered.
On a larger scale with many vegans refusing to eat meat less animals are bred into existence to be slaughtered.
that has never happened. if it had, if being vegan had caused production of meat to fall, then i think you could make a case. but it hasn’t so you can’t.
Not sure why he believes citing that graph is some great counterpoint. Less demand does factually translate to less supply and therefore less suffering. The problem is that populations still continue to grow and the number of vegetarians/vegans is neglible to overall growth.
Obviously if every vegan and vegetarian suddenly began eating meat again, then that graph would only increase in rate of change.
Change the minds of more people, and watch that change the rate of supply of course.
I don’t think I agree with this, as less people buy meat the demand for it falls. As the demand falls less is produced. Kind of a simple take I guess but I don’t think your comment makes sense.
theres no causal mechanic that would result in less suffering. think of it this way: if i take a cup of water out of a bucket , then the bucket has less water. what is the mechanic by which less suffering exists?
edit:
after failing to meaningfully undermine my claim, this user decided to imply i have a mental illness, and lied about the nature of what i said and then tried to poison the well by editing their comment near the top of our subthread and has the gall to say i’m not participating in good faith. this accusation is, itself, bad faith. i encourage you to read what was said here, and decide for yourself whether being vegan reduces suffering.
double edit:
i’m no tankie. baby, i’m an anarchist.
Inefficiency. Entropy. Laws of thermodynamics.
Think of it this way. In a game of telephone, signal quality degrades. Remove the middle-men, you improve the signal-to-noise. In a similar manner, there is little point in raising livestock on land, only to greatly pollute said land, only to produce a substance in less quantity and quality than what you could’ve done in its absence. Less demand means less livestock raised or tortured.
In another way, if you are saying that whether these animals roam free and die by the nature versus being grown in confined cages to be harvested… Then I wager whether if aliens descended upon this planet and you could either live as you do or you and your offspring be raised like cattle in a dark cramped alien farm, hauled around by convey-belts for the slaughter — tell me, which would you prefer?
Edit: This peculiar user who lacks the capacity to respond with a single coherent comment in the thread (Schizophrenia? I don’t know…) espouses various logical fallacies and deflections. I am utterly unimpressed by their incoherent rebuttals and have no interest in discussing with bad-faith laziness. My points remain largely untouched.
these are not magic words which take the place of a properly constructed argument.
Please, consolidate your comments into one. If you cannot manage this simple task, then I don’t know what point there is in discussing Thermodynamics with you.
no.
Then I don’t care for your incoherent ramblings full of deflections and fallacies. See ya, buddy.
this is poisoning the well, handwaving, and lying. nothing i said was fallacious. nothing i said was incoherent. in fact, you are the one who is gish-galloping in multi-paragraph comments while i keep mine focused.
everything i’ve said has been true. no discussion of thermodynamics would change that.
this is a nonsequitur. it has nothing to do with whether being vegan reduces sufffering, which it doesn’t.
what year did you go vegan?
how much has suffering been reduced?
that’s not causal
Can you provide another example please? I’m not sure I follow the bucket analogy.
If I choose not to eat meat it lessens the demand for it (however minutely). On a larger scale with many vegans refusing to eat meat less animals are bred into existence to be slaughtered.
What am I missing?
i didn’t like the bucket analogy when i wrote it. i don’t blame you.
i’m just looking for proof of causation between being vegan and suffering being reduced.
that has never happened. if it had, if being vegan had caused production of meat to fall, then i think you could make a case. but it hasn’t so you can’t.
Not sure why he believes citing that graph is some great counterpoint. Less demand does factually translate to less supply and therefore less suffering. The problem is that populations still continue to grow and the number of vegetarians/vegans is neglible to overall growth.
Obviously if every vegan and vegetarian suddenly began eating meat again, then that graph would only increase in rate of change.
Change the minds of more people, and watch that change the rate of supply of course.
any excuse you make doesn’t change whether more animals were killed this year than last, regardless of how many vegans there are.
I don’t think I agree with this, as less people buy meat the demand for it falls. As the demand falls less is produced. Kind of a simple take I guess but I don’t think your comment makes sense.
Is there an angle to this that I’ve missed?
as far as i can tell, that’s never happened. so, in practice, being vegan has never caused a reduction in suffering.
that’s not causal
how? how can you know whether a farm can even expand to accommodate more production?
this is not causal
Just double checked the definition of causal here and I’m pretty sure it is. As the demand for a product falls, less is produced.
that’s not always true. sometimes demand falls and production continues.