Also a subjective concept. I'll take a shot at defining it, though. I'll say that "harm to the environment" is "any activity which substantially diminishes the long-term viability of a given environment and does not allow it sufficient time to recover from such damage." I also roll undue cruelty to animals into that, because excessive cruelty impacts the overall quality of a herd and of any herd that goes through your system. Sound good?
It's a little harder than that, I think. For example, many would say that we have already done huge damage to the environment; indeed, the world is very different now than it was a couple of thousand years ago. However, who are we to judge the worth of one state of the Earth against another? I find it difficult to consider an action as "damaging" the environment when it merely consists of a transition from one environment to another. If viability is the only criterion, then we should always act to preserve the status quo, but it's self-evident that the status quo cannot be optimal in any sense. The least subjective criterion, and, I would think, the most important, is how adequately and for how long a given environment will sustain the human species. If, in this regard, two activities are essentially equal, then the next priority can be given to other concerns. This includes our very human impulse to preserve the environment as it is now, and reduction of animal suffering.
I find it difficult to consider an action as "damaging" the environment when it merely consists of a transition from one environment to another.
I concur. That's why I spoke of "long-term viability" without specifying the organisms for which viability must be maintained. It also needs to be able to recover from whatever "damage" occurs, meaning that if we kill all the life in an area, we have to give time for new life, of some form, to take over again. But I can agree about needing to maintain viability for humans. So something more to the effect of "long-term ability to sustain human life" or some such thing. Though, very technically, we don't even really need to care about that. Even if we wipe out our own ability to inhabit this planet, I'm almost certain that some form of life will persist, even if it's not us.
Though, very technically, we don't even really need to care about that. Even if we wipe out our own ability to inhabit this planet, I'm almost certain thatsomeform of life will persist, even if it's not us.
Well, sure, if you like people, we could go that route.
The one issue I see with that wording is that it would open quite a lot more debate as to what is required to sustain human life specifically. Simply requiring an ability to sustain life frees things up more but also places the onus on humans to make sure we don't fuck it up too badly.
Well, sure, if youlikepeople, we could go that route.
The one issue I see with that wording is that it would open quite a lot more debate as to what is required to sustain human life specifically. Simply requiring an ability to sustain life frees things up more but also places the onus on humans to make sure we don't fuck it up too badly.
However, since, as you said, it's almost certain that some form of life will persist, wouldn't that make almost all the actions we could take equal?
However, since, as you said, it's almost certain that some form of life will persist, wouldn't that make almost all the actions we could take equal?
Generally, yes. It would create a situation in which some people would learn from the examples of those who damaged too much, and we would figure out, the hard way, how to handle the environment. It would be a harsh lesson, but the lesson learned through hardship is often the one best remembered. Total natural selection.
Your wording would force more debate, but probably save more lives in the long run. That's probably the better way to go if you're not embittered at the world and the rampant idiocy around you.
However, since, as you said, it's almost certain that some form of life will persist, wouldn't that make almost all the actions we could take equal?
Generally, yes. It would create a situation in which some people would learn from the examples of those who damaged too much, and we would figure out, the hard way, how to handle the environment. It would be a harsh lesson, but the lesson learned through hardship is often the one best remembered. Total natural selection.
Your wording would force more debate, but probably save more lives in the long run. That's probably the better way to go if you're not embittered at the world and the rampant idiocy around you.
I wish I was 21, so I could go out drinking with you while I'm in the States (Unfortunately I turn 21 in July and will be back in Australia by then). I have a feeling it would be awesome.
I wish I was 21, so I could go out drinking with you while I'm in the States (Unfortunately I turn 21 in July and will be back in Australia by then). I have a feeling it would be awesome.
Turn 21 and get back here. I'll teach you about beer, metal, and science. It'll be fun.
EDIT: I have a friend Mike, and we've had a couple of man dates where we stay up for 8 hours or so, drinking beer, listening to metal, and discussing the deeper meanings of life. We basically disagree about the fundamental nature of life and morality - he's a staunch Ayn Rand objectivist and I'm a moral nihilist - but somehow we draw the same conclusions about many things. By all accounts, we should be arch-rivals. Funny how that works.
The cruelty argument does have merit, though. Just remember that most food production isn't necessarily "cruel;" it's a byproduct of large-scale production. There are plenty of instances of genuine cruelty towards animals, but they are not the typical occurrence.
We cannot be certain that that which we perceive as 'cruel' from a distance, or 'humane' from that distance is actually 'cruel' or 'humane' without seeing, or hearing the exact details instead of distorted noise. I should've checked this thread earlier...
e.g., electrically-powered cybernetic bodies.
You know... I'd rather have chlorophyll running through my veins. Or even better a superior version, 'phaeophyll'. Then I won't get strange looks for having a greenish skin, instead it'll be black! (In the far far Biopunk future, white man is no more)
I'm not saying we should cage up 20,000 chickens and hold them immobile for their entire lives, because it does seem cruel to me. However, that perception of cruelty is faulty. I know it's faulty. What I am [...]
I would rather see 20,000 chickens raised in inhumane conditions in order to feed humans than have food be less plentiful for humans because it makes some people feel better. Humans come first in my book. I think the people who place undue emphasis on the humane raising of animals are the real sociopaths. Humans are humans, animals are animals.
Bah! First you argue that everything is connected biologically so morally animal cruelty = plant cruelty. Then you put humans on a pedestal and deny their close connection to animals, physically and mentally. I guess I just believe that the line is fuzzier than you seem to be wanting to acknowledge. Humans>chimps>dogs>chickens>shrimp>plants>algae: It's all a sliding scale, and rather than being so species centric, we should all look at the big picture (just like you were doing in the beginning.)
Vegetarians are ending the life of organisms for sustenance just like Carnivores. I never said they weren't. It's just that by your initial reasoning it's just as "mean" to pluck a daisy as it is to stab a bonobo. However, since humans are "special" and are the only ones that deserve empathy, we can stab many bonobos if it makes the human race just a little better off.
You know what would solve this? Don't form so much babby!
EDIT: I have a friend Mike, and we've had a couple of man dates where we stay up for 8 hours or so, drinking beer, listening to metal, and discussing the deeper meanings of life. We basically disagree about the fundamental nature of life and morality - he's a staunch Ayn Rand objectivist and I'm a moral nihilist - but somehow we draw the same conclusions about many things. By all accounts, we should be arch-rivals. Funny how that works.
I like doing this with my friends too, who are generally much more liberal than myself. I'm certainly not on the right, I consider myself very moderate, but I still disagree with them on a lot of political things. Yet we do almost always come to a consensus by the end of the argument.
I wish I was 21, so I could go out drinking with you while I'm in the States (Unfortunately I turn 21 in July and will be back in Australia by then). I have a feeling it would be awesome.
Turn 21 and get back here. I'll teach you about beer, metal, and science. It'll be fun.
While I am rather uninformed about the first two, I won't be the only one learning about science (at least when it comes to areas of mathematics and engineering).
There is no meaningful difference between bacteria and sunflowers and people and crystals and viruses and prions and stars and planets and galaxies. That's because, simply put, there is no meaning to anythingbut what we choose to assign to things. The facts are the facts. Replicators replicate themselves within a closed system. I choose to personally decide that causing what I label as pain or suffering to certain lifeforms that I personally choose to view as "higher" functioning forms of life is wrong. That's the meaning I assign to the facts presented before me. Love and life and joy and pain and suffering are all meaningful solely because we exist and assign meaning. We mean something because we mean something to ourselves: there's no external force of meaning.
I value joy over pain, peace over suffering. This may be a largely biological imperative, but I at least have the perception that it is something over which I have conscious control. I made my own meaning.
It is both 100% correct and 100% wrong to say that plant pain is no different from animal pain.
Indeed, we have established that there cannot be an objective basis for judging the value of one lifeform against another, because there is absolutely no inherent value in life, whether it is human or otherwise. As such, the only way we value other beings is by analogy with ourselves - empathy. As such, it is inevitable that humans are at the top of a pedestal, and indeed that each individual human puts themselves at the top of another pedestal on the aforementioned pedestal.
So, if empathy is all we have to work with, what should we do? For a start, I guess we should expect each individual human to attempt to empathize with a variety of other beings; willful ignorance of the humanlike (or human) traits in others has caused many atrocities.
If you can't empathize with other humans, feel free to eat them - but they probably won't like it if you do.
You know what would solve this? Don't form so much babby!
I concur. I have a friend who has a little nugget of wisdom that I'd like to share: "They say that most people have dogs as a proxy to children. They've got it backwards. Most people have children when what they really want is a dog."
"Cows are vegetarians, so when you eat beef you're eating vegetables too."
Yeah, because men have nothing to do with it and women just go insane with "baby fever."
Actually, I remember reading a news article that talked about some new research showing that fertility drops off faster than previously thought. Your biological clock has been running slow all these years.
Yeah, because men have nothing to do with it and women just go insane with "baby fever."
Actually, I remember reading a news article that talked about some new research showing that fertility drops off faster than previously thought. Your biological clock has been running slow all these years.
Be careful if you are going to argue that a vegetarian diet is better for the environment, especially if you eat organic. Environmental matters are more complicated than most people think. And this is aside from the fact that, while much more expensive, organic foods might not be healthier.
Whether or not you eat organic, a bunch of grapes from Chile is going to have a more substantial environmental impact than beef raised locally. The packaging itself can make a big difference. Meat is often put in paper, whereas vegetables are often put into plastic bags.
As for organic vegetables and fruits, this article illustrates some interesting issues. I'm not vouching for the article, but it at least shows that there are arguments to be had on either side of the issue. Organic farming is also a method of agriculture that cannot sustain our global population. By eating organic, you are essentially saying "let others suffer" since we all can't eat organic food. And how many people would suffer from malnutrition because they could not afford the cost of organic food?
At a minimum, if we could support our entire population on organically grown food, the destruction of forests and other ecosystems would be immense. My state had about 20% forestation in 1870. It now has 75%. Look at old photos, and you will see that farms took up almost all of the land. Now we produce more food on much less land. The ecology has improved in many ways. We had no moose for decades. They have returned and are now thriving. This is just one example.
Is improved production worth increased phosphates, etc.? I don't claim to know the answer. I just know that the equation is more complicated than people want to admit.
Comments
I find it difficult to consider an action as "damaging" the environment when it merely consists of a transition from one environment to another. If viability is the only criterion, then we should always act to preserve the status quo, but it's self-evident that the status quo cannot be optimal in any sense.
The least subjective criterion, and, I would think, the most important, is how adequately and for how long a given environment will sustain the human species. If, in this regard, two activities are essentially equal, then the next priority can be given to other concerns. This includes our very human impulse to preserve the environment as it is now, and reduction of animal suffering.
The one issue I see with that wording is that it would open quite a lot more debate as to what is required to sustain human life specifically. Simply requiring an ability to sustain life frees things up more but also places the onus on humans to make sure we don't fuck it up too badly.
Your wording would force more debate, but probably save more lives in the long run. That's probably the better way to go if you're not embittered at the world and the rampant idiocy around you.
EDIT: I have a friend Mike, and we've had a couple of man dates where we stay up for 8 hours or so, drinking beer, listening to metal, and discussing the deeper meanings of life. We basically disagree about the fundamental nature of life and morality - he's a staunch Ayn Rand objectivist and I'm a moral nihilist - but somehow we draw the same conclusions about many things. By all accounts, we should be arch-rivals. Funny how that works.
We cannot be certain that that which we perceive as 'cruel' from a distance, or 'humane' from that distance is actually 'cruel' or 'humane' without seeing, or hearing the exact details instead of distorted noise. I should've checked this thread earlier... You know... I'd rather have chlorophyll running through my veins. Or even better a superior version, 'phaeophyll'. Then I won't get strange looks for having a greenish skin, instead it'll be black! (In the far far Biopunk future, white man is no more)
Vegetarians are ending the life of organisms for sustenance just like Carnivores. I never said they weren't. It's just that by your initial reasoning it's just as "mean" to pluck a daisy as it is to stab a bonobo. However, since humans are "special" and are the only ones that deserve empathy, we can stab many bonobos if it makes the human race just a little better off.
You know what would solve this? Don't form so much babby!
Cows should eat more bacon. Yeah, I said it. HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW?!!!1!??!
So, if empathy is all we have to work with, what should we do? For a start, I guess we should expect each individual human to attempt to empathize with a variety of other beings; willful ignorance of the humanlike (or human) traits in others has caused many atrocities.
If you can't empathize with other humans, feel free to eat them - but they probably won't like it if you do.
Whether or not you eat organic, a bunch of grapes from Chile is going to have a more substantial environmental impact than beef raised locally. The packaging itself can make a big difference. Meat is often put in paper, whereas vegetables are often put into plastic bags.
As for organic vegetables and fruits, this article illustrates some interesting issues. I'm not vouching for the article, but it at least shows that there are arguments to be had on either side of the issue. Organic farming is also a method of agriculture that cannot sustain our global population. By eating organic, you are essentially saying "let others suffer" since we all can't eat organic food. And how many people would suffer from malnutrition because they could not afford the cost of organic food?
At a minimum, if we could support our entire population on organically grown food, the destruction of forests and other ecosystems would be immense. My state had about 20% forestation in 1870. It now has 75%. Look at old photos, and you will see that farms took up almost all of the land. Now we produce more food on much less land. The ecology has improved in many ways. We had no moose for decades. They have returned and are now thriving. This is just one example.
Is improved production worth increased phosphates, etc.? I don't claim to know the answer. I just know that the equation is more complicated than people want to admit.