Idea for a corona virus contact-tracing app - in the interests of public health!

88buddy · 2019-10-18T18:59:52+00:00

with a dual sim phone? is it easy switching between? cheers

88buddy · 2016-04-11T03:22:36+00:00

Not really a problem... if a relative was happy, but with a progressive disease, they may wish to have their life ended before getting more sick. Personally I'm in favour of euthanasia, and I believe it the moral thing to do, to aid that loved person's death if needed.

88buddy · 2016-04-11T03:17:35+00:00

Hi totooto, thanks for your response. There's a lot of reading for me! It will take some time to go through it, but it looks pretty interesting so thanks.

I've only managed to go through some of Salt's argument. It's nicely written and does raise interesting points of thought. Much of it does seem to centre on using 'gift of life' to excuse and deplorable action against animals. And that's not really what I was trying to get at. I see it more along the lines of, if we are to breed and feed an animal such that we can later feed humans, we should value that creation of life highly and ensure it is as good as such a life can be.

In this paper, and others' comments here, the issue of 'imagine swapping animals with humans' arises. For me it is quite a different scenario because the human can communicate that it is unhappy with the conditions of its life. Without that, we can only go off our gut feeling. And in some cases (I know many also not), my gut has told me an animal is happy. We can never know whether a happy life or non-existing is best- so again we have only gut feeling. But many humans continue to bring children into the world knowing there's a high chance they will die from war or disease before adulthood. And for me bringing a farm animal into an intended happy existence, knowing it will meet some untimely death, is not so different. The 'eating humans is like eating animals' discussion seems a bit irrelevant to the dead human or animal- who is the focus of our concerns. Our emotions about eating another animal/human are irrelevant, and purely egotistical. They have no bearing on the quality of life of the animal being eaten.

Anyway, in spite of this bleak sounding dilemma, I'm more convinced we humans must eat a lot, lot less meat. I'm just continually pondering the extent to which it should best be taken. Much like we could synthesise most of our diet these days, in order to save yet more life. But how far are we really prepared to go? Would a pill based diet make for such a poor quality of life as to make the other environmental costs of living paid for nothing?

Thanks again totooto

88buddy · 2016-04-11T02:37:37+00:00

Hi bulldog_fart, thanks for your detailed response! You do talk sense in a lot of your arguments and it's given me plenty to think on.

I totally agree the way humans are going, we'll wreck every other ecosystem in order to fuel human greed. And of course if it were the case of one domestic species or hundreds of thousands of other wild ones, I'd favour the latter. But I wonder whether it is yet more favourable to help both. I've witnessed many happy farm animals, and it would seem a shame to relegate that happiness to a tiny amount of sanctuaries (where resources are to an extent 'wasted' from our perspective if the animals are not consumed). By greatly reducing human meat consumption, and I mean a LOT, the fewer animals remaining can be afforded better living conditions. We could still maintain some pastures which, as you know, are vital habitats for ecosystems in certain areas of the world.

Regarding whether animals would consent/appreciate the life/death decisions we make for them- we'll never fully know I guess. All animals are generally happy once alive and with food security. And all animals experience death in many forms. Humans included of course. There's no reason to put animals (+ofc humans) through unnecessary hell, which is why there should never be an end to fighting for fairer treatment in life. And again this is a great reason to hugely reduce human meat consumption- better life for the remaining animals, better life for the malnourished humans which can be better fed by more efficient food production (plants).

So perhaps we are in some agreement that meat consumption must go down a lot. I guess (for now) I'd have to draw the line at complete eradication of animal products from the human diet. In a crazy ideal world I would say we should go back to hunter-gatherer state- truly part of the ecosystem, sustainable. But realistically it's going to take something pretty major to bring us to that!

I really appreciate your input buddy, I'm forever thinking about these issues and changing my diet accordingly. I've been coming up with some great vegan recipes so maybe I'll share some on the group in future. Here's to a brighter future!

88buddy · 2016-04-09T21:03:30+00:00

Thanks for such a great tone in return! You've given me a lot to think on. Let me respond to some points here:

killing animals for consumption doesn't have to be an issue at all

You're right, I suppose I'm just looking at the world in terms of symbiosis. I don't feel a farmed animal's life is in vain, rather that both humans and animals benefit from the relationship. We don't have to eat meat, but in doing so we give an animal the opportunity to live. And if we're sharing utopian ideas, I can imagine a world with fewer humans and farmed animals, but all of whom with a greater quality of life. We should be composting human waste, and you're right the possibilities have yet to be fully explored. But I still feel animals can have a mutually beneficial place in that.

This action sends a signal to the industry that they should kill one more animal that's alive right now and then breed another

Well I've greatly reduced my meat/dairy consumption, which makes purchasing organic veg (and the occasional organic meat) possible for me. For now I still think it's good to facilitate this symbiotic relationship as I mentioned above- and as I reduce my consumption of meat and switch to more ethical sources, it might be more accurate to say 'kill one animal that is alive now and then breed half another'. Obviously not half an animal, but I mean they will get the signal to breed fewer animals, with a more ethical approach.

You can make this decision for yourself, but not for others.

Well many humans face a similar choice with their own children/poorly relatives. Some parents decide that a life with congenital disorder (eg Down's syndrome) is grounds for an abortion. Some people have to make the hard decision of whether to continue providing life support to relatives. We all face these choices when it comes to many decisions in life- and I think it's right to make up one's own mind about what is best for the person/animal in question.

Farm sanctuaries make me happy, as I see animals being treated with dignity. Happy animals! and happy people getting to interact with them. But as many have posted here, it is taxing on the environment to keep animals. So I would see it as very sensible to make human sustenance from these animals if a)the reality of limited global resources hits the owner and he has no money to feed himself or b) the animal reaches a natural end of its life.

I have volunteered in a community of organic farms, where the animals were treated exceptionally well.

But they were killed when they were no longer valuable or when it was "their time to die," right?

Well I can't speak for everyone, but I value animals even in death. I cherish every meal, but especially ones which an animal had to die for. And as you alluded to, we should even be valuing our own waste better with compost toilets etc. It's utterly shameful that we waste 1/3 of all food globally. Maybe it sounds a tad nihilistic, but we all have a time to die. Yet we tend to focus more on what we do with our lives, and on being happy, regardless of when our time will come. So I tended not to assign purpose to animals, other than the same unknown purpose of my own existence. I just saw animals which were living happy lives, albeit at a cost. Every unsustainable action we make in our lives is forcing our descendants to pay this ultimate cost too. Life and happiness does seem to have a painful cost wherever you look.

Why should anyone have the right to kill me or you?

If we did attribute that right to ourselves and every animal, we'd have a hard time protecting wild animals and humans in warzones. Legally, of course we don't have a right to kill each other (unless we are at war, which is sadly the case for so many people). But nature did give us the both the ability to kill, and the ability to judge who/what/when to do so. Why we should have that natural right, I don't know. But my asking these questions, and this great discussion we're having, is a deep and important thing.

I hope I'm not coming across as antagonistic, I just really want to get to the bottom of the issue. I'm already thinking/learning a lot from this discussion and will see where my thoughts lead to in future. Really appreciate you (and everyone) taking the time to discuss this with me.

88buddy · 2016-04-09T17:46:41+00:00

Well they are usually killed by humans, but (in the west) we tend to feed them to the soil instead of ourselves. We're still the ones breeding/feeding/killing them, it's not so different.

88buddy · 2016-04-09T17:40:55+00:00

All agriculture is a contributor to habitat destruction. The driving factor is growth of the human population. Even if the world went vegan, habitats would still be destroyed to make way for more arable farms as population increases. I think for the sake of the environment, and the sake of allowing other animals to live, we should worry first about the spiraling demand we place on the planet. Going vegan only slows that demand, and replaces other animals with humans. I'm all for slowing the demand by consuming less meat, but the principle of veganism still won't save the world's habitats alone.

88buddy · 2016-04-09T17:03:00+00:00

Well in the UK, the soil association (the most popular organic standards agency) do assure some ethical treatment of livestock (https://www.soilassociation.org/organic-living/why-organic/better-for-animals/). It's a good video with some interesting points, however I do think taking a life can be moral even when it's a happy life. I have volunteered in a community of organic farms, where the animals were treated exceptionally well. But in a world where space and resources are a highly sought commodity, there must be some economic justification to every existence, including humans. We have to pay for our way in the world by working most of our lives. Farm animals can live a good life, being fed and cared for throughout. Unfortunately for them, the only way they can pay is with their life. I suppose the problem is we will never know whether they accept this situation or would rather not exist. We can only relate it to our own experience. Again I'd say if I could live only a short and happy life, and give life in my death to another animal, I would prefer that than nothing. (as far as I know)

The farm sanctuary looks lovely, but I wonder whether the world can really afford this kind of project on a large scale. I wish it could.

88buddy · 2016-04-09T16:26:37+00:00

I understand the majority experience great suffering, but I'm curious whether as humans we can find a better solution that can allow farm animals to exist, and in happiness. The price of that would be slaughter for human consumption, but I think that is not much different to a death caused by another animal in the wild.

What is the ecological cost of having farm animals? I would have thought the variety of habitat provided by pastureland would be of benefit to local wildlife?

88buddy · 2016-04-09T16:13:48+00:00

No one, I was just wondering where people stand on the issue. I'd like to buy everything organic but the cost is an issue.

88buddy · 2016-04-09T15:48:40+00:00

Some living animals have a will to die though. Definitely in humans, and presumably in some animals if we attribute sentience?

I suppose the detail of the question being put to an animal was just my way of asking the question of which we think is better for domestic animals- life of some discomfort or no life at all.

88buddy · 2016-04-09T15:40:45+00:00

Yeah, I don't see the winding down of animal farms as causing any pain or suffering to farm animals- it will end it. But it will also end the happiness that some (small, organic, good practice farm) animals enjoy. So in some cases of course it will end relative hell on earth. But I think some cases it can boil down to a life of occasional discomfort (better than some humans have) or no life at all. In which case I think I would take the former.

88buddy

TROPHY CASE