I heard something to do with Nitrogen and …cow farts(?) I am really unsure of this and would like to learn more.

Answer -

4 Parts

  • Ethical reason for consuming animals
  • Methane produced by cows are a harmful greenhouse gas which is contributing to our current climate crisis
  • Health Reasons - there is convincing evidence that processed meats cause cancer
  • it takes a lot more calories of plant food to produce the calories we would consume from the meat.

Details about the answers are in the comments

  • neuralnerd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The question was “why is eating meat bad?”, my answer is something like “because to have meat you must harm animals”, and someone answered that “we always harm something when we eat” and my answer is “no, there are foods that you can’t harm because they are not sentient”.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      first, you can’t prove plants aren’t sentient. second even if you could, why should sentience matter? what ethical system even accounts for sentience as a factor of right behavior?

      • neuralnerd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        you can’t prove plants aren’t sentient.

        And you can’t prove something is sentient. But scientists have criteria that help determine whether a species is sentient. See this review for example.

        even if you could, why should sentience matter?

        I already answered. If something can’t be harmed there no need to prevent harming it.

        what ethical system even accounts for sentience as a factor of right behavior?

        About all animal welfare:

        Respect for animal welfare is often based on the belief that nonhuman animals are sentient and that consideration should be given to their well-being or suffering, especially when they are under the care of humans.[4]

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If something can’t be harmed there no need to prevent harming it.

          i don’t really like your use of harm here to exclude everything but sentient beings, but as a term of art, for the purposes of this discussion, i will indulge you.

          why does it matter if something CAN be harmed? what creates a duty to NOT HARM something?

          • neuralnerd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            what creates a duty to NOT HARM something?

            About all ethics is about reducing harm. If you don’t know that harming is bad I don’t think we can have a discussion.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              deontological ethics are explicitly not about that. divine command theory is unconcerned with that. can you name an ethical system that does concern itself with that?

              • neuralnerd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                deontological ethics are explicitly not about that.

                I guess it depends on the philosopher, but at least one includes “doing no harm” in the obligations[1]:

                Ross [20] modified Kant’s deontology, allowing a plurality of duty-based ethical principles, such as doing no harm, promise keeping, etc.

                can you name an ethical system that does concern itself with that?

                Probably all consequentialism and at least utilitarianism (harm decreases the global well being). Negative consequentialism is more specifically focused on reducing suffering/harm.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not a consequentialist at all, and Ross is not using harm in the same sense as we are. even if he were, his is not a very common strain of ethics.

                  your ethical theory seems to be on dubious footing to me.

                  • neuralnerd@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So in your ethical theory, harm doesn’t matter at all?

                    You seem to follow some kind of deontology. There’s no obligation in your system to not cause unnecessary harm? I guess you have some obligation not to hurt your dog even if you like doing that. Isn’t that obligation related to the fact the dog would be harmed if you did?

                    Maybe it’s just a difference between consequentialism and deontologism, but I was convinced deontologists generally had some rules that prevent unnecessary harm. They don’t?

                    There’s at least Tom Regan who was a deontologist (at least in his book The Case for Animal Rights) and talks about harm:

                    In Regan’s view, not to be used as a means entails the right to be treated with respect, which includes the right not to be harmed.

      • max@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even if plants were sentient, and I’m not saying they are, but if. Would you rather “kill” orders of magnitude more plants to feed them to animals, then kill the animals and eat them, or would you kill the plants and eat them directly? One of them causes a lot less harm (if any at all), and it’s not eating the animals.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          well, first, animals are mostly fed plants or parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat, so the scale of the difference you described is orders of magnitude less than you are suggesting.

          but, more importantly, why should sentience matter?

          finally, whether i buy food from a shelf or not, the creature (flora or fauna) it came from is already harmed, and my purchase causes no more harm to it, so eating it has exactly no impact.

          • max@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Those plants still have to be cultivated. If there are no animals to feed those plants to (for instance, low quality corn or low quality soy), the lane can be used for cultivating food for humans or in the case of low quality soy, the rain forest doesn’t have to be mowed down for it. Sentience matters because ideally, one should strive to reduce harm as much as possible. Especially unnecessary harm. There is a reason why I don’t torture cats and dogs for fun, and it’s the same reason I don’t eat killed and tortured cows, pigs, chickens, etc. just because I like the flavour of them. And of course your purchasing behaviour has impact on the amount of harm caused. Maybe not instantaneously, because it is indeed on the shelves already, but just like with voting in elections, if you don’t buy products that cause harm, demand drops ever so slightly. Then when more people inevitably follow, demand drops further in a big enough quantity to matter. That’s why you see a lot more vegetarian or vegan options in your supermarket today: because people buy them.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              why should reducing harm be a goal? suggesting that eating meat is equivalent to torturing animals for fun is totally specious: almost everyone eats meat, almost no one tortures animals.

              • max@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Meat doesn’t grow on trees, let’s be honest here. There’s plenty of articles, videos, and other evidence online and offline that livestock aren’t exactly treated well. Maybe they’re nice at some farms, but they still get herded into cramped trucks, then disgracefully manhandled in slaughterhouses. Personally, I don’t like to cause people and other living things harm, simply because I feel like being nice is the better option. I believe that doesn’t have to stop at humans and pets.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              there are more vegetarian options and even more meat is produced now than ever before. the production hasn’t dropped.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              the soy fed to livestock is almost entirely the industrial waste from making soybean oil.

              • max@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Fair enough, it seems like it is waste from soybean oil most of the time. However, it does make me wonder why such an enormous amount of soy is cultivated. >75% is used for animal feed (and oil, indeed). (source). I wonder if it’s a similar situation as with corn in the US and the resulting use of HFCS.

              • max@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t. But I do know that the human body can survive, even thrive, perfectly fine without the consumption of animal products. That’s nutrients, not taste preferences, of course. I also like to think that the vast majority of people don’t like harming animals, at least not consciously. I hope I’m not wrong in thinking that.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  people need more than nutrients, and of course people don’t like harming animals, but eating meat doesn’t do that: the animal is already dead.

                  • max@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Sure, people need good tasting food, too. That’s no issue. As for the already dead animals not having been harmed: Wut? They don’t exactly ask a cow nicely if it could just die for a steak. It needs to be killed. Often in a not too humane manner. Before that, it’s likely that the cow has suffered during transport or when it was forced to birth calves year in, year out, so it could keep producing milk. All those things harm the animal in one way or another, so yes, eating meat does cause harm.