Agriculture refers to both animal and non-animal ag. Hence the prefix “animal” for “animal agriculture”.
“Huge negatives for animals involved” is the reality of industrial agriculture, which provides the vast majority of meat (animal products in general) for human consumption today. To your later point, “free range” is typically what’s referred to as “greenwashing”, where a company has to meet some bare-minimum criteria to get a stamp on their product. E.g., the USDA criteria for “free range” re: eggs:
Eggs packed in USDA grademarked consumer packages labeled as free range must be produced by hens that are able to roam vertically and horizontally in indoor houses, and have access to fresh food and water, and continuous access to the outdoors during their laying cycle.
Re: cigarettes - it should be clear I’m referring to net negative “utility”.
Just look at relative average stress levels of farm animals compared to humans.
Don’t know what your methodology is for determining this. Separation trauma at birth, confined spaces and health hazards from living in waste are not a formula for stress-free living.
Ecology is not a distinct topic from ethics. Ecological outcomes have pronounced effects on human and animal experience. I alluded to this already.
Care to provide that magic bullet that dairy and meat will destroy humanity and individuals cutting out dairy/meat will save humanity?
Estimates on greenhouse gas emissions seem to converge at roughly 20-25% for animal agriculture, with roughly a 10x increase over more efficient plant agriculture. A comparable increase holds for water usage, fertilizer usage, etc., due to the caloric loss intrinsic to producing feed for animals versus consuming plant agriculture products directly. Part of the problem with this interpretation is that, even if you’re only consuming actual “free range”, chickens-walking-around-outdoors-pecking-bugs, cows-roaming-grasslands-nondestructively animal agriculture, the actual vast majority of animal agriculture does not fit this profile. (Side note, it is remarkable how almost everyone you talk to about this only eats the “free range” “humanely produced” animal products, when the vast majority of the products are not). The negative effects of animal ag on animals are less pronounced in non-confined spaces, but still fit the profile of exploitation for human use at negative benefit for humans relative to plant consumption.
Your central point seems to be that the benefit derived from eating animals for humans outweighs negligible negative effects on animals in an isolated best-world case of free range, “humane slaughter” scenarios. I would dispute that it’s a net positive for humans in the first place, and you’re basically putting the actual vast majority of animal agriculture in a special category you get to ignore because, supposedly, there are negligible or no negative effects on the animals that you consume. Which, first off, I doubt, but second, hits the ethical question of killing, which bears mentioning the ethics we apply to humans on these grounds. We do not consider it ethically acceptable to kill a random human walking down the street, of your own volition. Why? Something like, the trauma that their family/friends/acquaintances would endure, and the cost of denying them the rest of their life. For some reason these same points are not held true of animals? You may deny that they experience such trauma, but that would be incorrect. And the cost of denying them the rest of their life is undeniable.
I’m calling it here tbh. I don’t think this is going anywhere beyond here.
I’m going to back him on this (crazy right?!?). If I am arguing that “having life” is utility (which I did, by directly confronting anti-natalism before he could bring it up), he has the right to include the utility of existing in his argument.
He did not, however, actually make an argument with it. He kinda shot that one out without any real direction.
EDIT: Well that, and I came forth with a quality-over-quantity metric for life, and he completely disregarded it.
Agriculture refers to both animal and non-animal ag. Hence the prefix “animal” for “animal agriculture”.
Are you really arguing definitions of words meaninglessly? “Animal agriculture” is an awkwardly long term for what they call “agriculture” in the industry.
“Huge negatives for animals involved” is the reality of industrial agriculture, which provides the vast majority of meat
Yet again, either address the argument directly or concede the argument and I’ll be happy to change topic.
To your later point, “free range"
Thank you for reminding me I know what “Free range” means. Did you have an argument?
Re: cigarettes - it should be clear I’m referring to net negative “utility”.
Well then, you didn’t provide an argument at all. Just an indefensible analogy. Care to provide an argument instead?
Just look at relative average stress levels of farm animals compared to humans.
Don’t know what your methodology is for determining this
Simplest answer is to look at stress-response. Humans and primates have more stress-related illnesses. There are those who think it’s because animals handle the stress better, but it at least prima facie demonstrates that animals don’t suffer from long-term stress like humans do. Further, just look at wildlife vs domestic animal stress. Farm animals show less stress factors than wild animals (who show less stress factors than humans). It’s a selfish thing, but animal meat tastes better if they are stressed less, therefore it is of value to farmers to keep the animal stress down.
Ecology is not a distinct topic from ethics. Ecological outcomes have pronounced effects on human and animal experience. I alluded to this already.
Do you know what gishgallop is, and why it’s intellectually dishonest? I’m not going to let you keep widening the net until it’s impossible to have a stance regardless of the real strength to my arguments and lack of strength to yours.
Estimates on greenhouse gas emissions seem to converge at roughly 20-25% for animal agriculture, with roughly a 10x increase over more efficient plant agriculture
This is why I’m trying to avoid the topic swap. This is NOT a magic bullet. Not only that, but it introduces a mountain of logical fallacies that’ll take hours to argue out. Again, I’m happy to address it when we have resolved ALL THE OTHER TOPICS that have already been brought up. If I am wrong in my direct utility arguments, you don’t need to bring up the environment. If you need to bring up the environment, concede those points and we can move on to that topic.
So in summary, do you concede that:
Meat-eating is net-positive for consumers?
Non-industrial farming is net-positive utility for animals?
Farm Animal life is ethically better than wildlife and anti-natalism?
If so, great. I’ll be happy to move on to the environmental impact challenges. If not, then let’s get back to the topic at hand shall we?
Thank you for the discussion, for whatever it was.
I’m assuming you thought I didn’t know what I was addressing, and instead realized I’m fairly well-acquainted with it. I did try to warn you of that fact.
Agriculture refers to both animal and non-animal ag. Hence the prefix “animal” for “animal agriculture”.
“Huge negatives for animals involved” is the reality of industrial agriculture, which provides the vast majority of meat (animal products in general) for human consumption today. To your later point, “free range” is typically what’s referred to as “greenwashing”, where a company has to meet some bare-minimum criteria to get a stamp on their product. E.g., the USDA criteria for “free range” re: eggs:
Re: cigarettes - it should be clear I’m referring to net negative “utility”.
Don’t know what your methodology is for determining this. Separation trauma at birth, confined spaces and health hazards from living in waste are not a formula for stress-free living.
Ecology is not a distinct topic from ethics. Ecological outcomes have pronounced effects on human and animal experience. I alluded to this already.
Estimates on greenhouse gas emissions seem to converge at roughly 20-25% for animal agriculture, with roughly a 10x increase over more efficient plant agriculture. A comparable increase holds for water usage, fertilizer usage, etc., due to the caloric loss intrinsic to producing feed for animals versus consuming plant agriculture products directly. Part of the problem with this interpretation is that, even if you’re only consuming actual “free range”, chickens-walking-around-outdoors-pecking-bugs, cows-roaming-grasslands-nondestructively animal agriculture, the actual vast majority of animal agriculture does not fit this profile. (Side note, it is remarkable how almost everyone you talk to about this only eats the “free range” “humanely produced” animal products, when the vast majority of the products are not). The negative effects of animal ag on animals are less pronounced in non-confined spaces, but still fit the profile of exploitation for human use at negative benefit for humans relative to plant consumption.
Your central point seems to be that the benefit derived from eating animals for humans outweighs negligible negative effects on animals in an isolated best-world case of free range, “humane slaughter” scenarios. I would dispute that it’s a net positive for humans in the first place, and you’re basically putting the actual vast majority of animal agriculture in a special category you get to ignore because, supposedly, there are negligible or no negative effects on the animals that you consume. Which, first off, I doubt, but second, hits the ethical question of killing, which bears mentioning the ethics we apply to humans on these grounds. We do not consider it ethically acceptable to kill a random human walking down the street, of your own volition. Why? Something like, the trauma that their family/friends/acquaintances would endure, and the cost of denying them the rest of their life. For some reason these same points are not held true of animals? You may deny that they experience such trauma, but that would be incorrect. And the cost of denying them the rest of their life is undeniable.
I’m calling it here tbh. I don’t think this is going anywhere beyond here.
they told you how they’re using the term. you can’t correct them about that.
Yeah, this was petty of him, showing he’s still really emotionally invested.
The agriculture/horticulture split is established terminology and he concedes nothing by accepting my use of it.
you assert this without evidence.
I’m going to back him on this (crazy right?!?). If I am arguing that “having life” is utility (which I did, by directly confronting anti-natalism before he could bring it up), he has the right to include the utility of existing in his argument.
He did not, however, actually make an argument with it. He kinda shot that one out without any real direction.
EDIT: Well that, and I came forth with a quality-over-quantity metric for life, and he completely disregarded it.
Are you really arguing definitions of words meaninglessly? “Animal agriculture” is an awkwardly long term for what they call “agriculture” in the industry.
Yet again, either address the argument directly or concede the argument and I’ll be happy to change topic.
Thank you for reminding me I know what “Free range” means. Did you have an argument?
Well then, you didn’t provide an argument at all. Just an indefensible analogy. Care to provide an argument instead?
Simplest answer is to look at stress-response. Humans and primates have more stress-related illnesses. There are those who think it’s because animals handle the stress better, but it at least prima facie demonstrates that animals don’t suffer from long-term stress like humans do. Further, just look at wildlife vs domestic animal stress. Farm animals show less stress factors than wild animals (who show less stress factors than humans). It’s a selfish thing, but animal meat tastes better if they are stressed less, therefore it is of value to farmers to keep the animal stress down.
None of the above is unquestionable fact (except the part where stressed animals have worse-tasting meat), but all of the above is consistent with experience. It is reasonable to believe it and (imo) less reasonable to reject it.
Do you know what gishgallop is, and why it’s intellectually dishonest? I’m not going to let you keep widening the net until it’s impossible to have a stance regardless of the real strength to my arguments and lack of strength to yours.
This is why I’m trying to avoid the topic swap. This is NOT a magic bullet. Not only that, but it introduces a mountain of logical fallacies that’ll take hours to argue out. Again, I’m happy to address it when we have resolved ALL THE OTHER TOPICS that have already been brought up. If I am wrong in my direct utility arguments, you don’t need to bring up the environment. If you need to bring up the environment, concede those points and we can move on to that topic.
So in summary, do you concede that:
If so, great. I’ll be happy to move on to the environmental impact challenges. If not, then let’s get back to the topic at hand shall we?
Removed by mod
Thank you for the discussion, for whatever it was.
I’m assuming you thought I didn’t know what I was addressing, and instead realized I’m fairly well-acquainted with it. I did try to warn you of that fact.
Removed by mod
I accept your concession.
Thank you for recognizing it and bowing out. You’re a better person for it.
Removed by mod
If that’s the case, I mean you could explain what it is. Because I do believe I’ve accepted it correctly (if more charitably than you intended it)