Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DryCoughski t1_jbldvdr wrote

Reply to comment by obscureferences in TIL that a 26-story skyscraper pig farm was built in China's Hubei province, and has the capacity to slaughter 1.2 million pigs a year. by DukeMaximum

Ok fair enough, same as me. I don't have a problem with eating meat as long as the animal has been treated well and killed humanely.

My only other question is; if lab-grown meat was indistinguishable from the meat of a slain animal, what reason would you have to pick the latter?

1

obscureferences t1_jbli3e6 wrote

If you could choose between drinking crystal clear glacial water, or water distilled from the piss of a public urinal, would you have a preference?

Even if the results are indistinguishable, the means still matter.

1

DryCoughski t1_jbljg8u wrote

Haha interesting comparison. Honestly, if I was unaware of the means and the results were indistinguishable, I wouldn't care. Even if I was aware, it feels like a pretty low psychological hurdle to get over. Even more so if extracting spring water was fucking the planet up.

Is there any benefit to distilling the public's piss though? In the same way that there's a benefit to removing the enormous amount greenhouse gas emission that livestock farming produces?

1

obscureferences t1_jblploy wrote

There doesn't have to be. This is what I mean, preference is what matters, since even the facts mattering is a matter of preference.

If vegans could be catered to simply because of their feelings, like they were for the longest time and will be until the great greenhouse benefit kicks in, I should be as well, no practical benefit required.

1

DryCoughski t1_jblqrjv wrote

This is where you and I part ways. I don't agree with everything vegans say/do, but I'm 100% behind making food consumption sustainable and as low-impact on the planet as possible.

If the end product of that method is indistinguishable from the method that is objectively bad for the planet, I can't understand or agree with choosing the worse one, simply because you feel your "preference" has been taken away.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but it sounds incredibly selfish and short-sighted when you're effectively losing nothing except the choice to choose the harmful method.

1

obscureferences t1_jbm12n1 wrote

I'm not choosing it because it's harmful, and if you keep objectivity you can see how it's unfair to judge so harshly on preference alone.

I could think up some selfless reasons but the fact remains I shouldn't have to. I shouldn't need to justify a freedom to have it. You should understand the ability to choose is worth defending in itself, even if you wouldn't make the same choice.

Selfish is dictating your preference is the only acceptable one.

1

DryCoughski t1_jbm2n7q wrote

If you choose to steal something rather than pay for it with your own money, even though you don't need to, is that choice something you'd be able to justify? Is that a freedom you should be allowed to exercise even though it harms greater society?

1