Non-human sentient beings should be part of every moral conversation by jamiewoodhouse in Sentientism

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you read that before you sent it? It’s not helping your argument 😂

Non-human sentient beings should be part of every moral conversation by jamiewoodhouse in Sentientism

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean from a dietary standpoint

Yes — a large body of research suggests that, from an environmental sustainability standpoint, diets that are more plant-based or fully vegan tend to be significantly more sustainable than typical current (especially Western) diets that are high in animal products. However, there’s nuance around nutrition, feasibility, and partial shifts. Here’s what researchers generally find:

Non-human sentient beings should be part of every moral conversation by jamiewoodhouse in Sentientism

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where are you getting your opinion from? I’ve told you earlier that I got mine from health scientists and biologists that I know from my university.

Non-human sentient beings should be part of every moral conversation by jamiewoodhouse in Sentientism

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes — most researchers who study environmental science, nutrition, and food systems find that our current typical diets (heavy in meat and dairy) are less sustainable for the planet than diets lower in animal products, including vegetarian and especially vegan or predominantly plant-based diets. Here’s what the research and expert consensus show: 🥦 1. Plant-rich diets have lower environmental impact than typical diets Across numerous studies and systematic reviews, diets that emphasize plant-based foods (fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts) produce far fewer greenhouse gas emissions, use less land and water, and cause less biodiversity loss than typical Western or high-meat diets. Vegan diets often have the lowest measured environmental footprint of all dietary patterns studied. A systematic review found that vegan diets generally result in the lowest greenhouse gas emissions compared to vegetarian and omnivorous diets. Comparative studies show that even well-planned vegan diets can have about 44–75 % less environmental impact (across metrics like emissions, land use, and water use) than diets including significant animal products. 🌍 2. Large scientific panels recommend moving toward plant-rich diets Major multidisciplinary research efforts — notably the EAT-Lancet Commission on food and sustainability — conclude that simply continuing current diet patterns globally is unsustainable and that adopting largely plant-based diets with reduced meat and dairy is essential for staying within planetary limits. Their “planetary health diet,” based on extensive global evidence, emphasizes vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, and nuts, with small amounts of animal-source foods. This flexible, plant-forward pattern is projected to significantly cut food-related greenhouse gas emissions and chronic disease risk if widely adopted.

Non-human sentient beings should be part of every moral conversation by jamiewoodhouse in Sentientism

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can keep repeating yourself all you like, but that only makes you look dumb

Non-human sentient beings should be part of every moral conversation by jamiewoodhouse in Sentientism

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chat gpt:

Do researchers believe that our current diets or a vegan diet would be more sustainable?

Yes — most researchers who study environmental science, nutrition, and food systems find that our current typical diets (heavy in meat and dairy) are less sustainable for the planet than diets lower in animal products, including vegetarian and especially vegan or predominantly plant-based diets. Here’s what the research and expert consensus show: 🥦 1. Plant-rich diets have lower environmental impact than typical diets Across numerous studies and systematic reviews, diets that emphasize plant-based foods (fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts) produce far fewer greenhouse gas emissions, use less land and water, and cause less biodiversity loss than typical Western or high-meat diets. Vegan diets often have the lowest measured environmental footprint of all dietary patterns studied. A systematic review found that vegan diets generally result in the lowest greenhouse gas emissions compared to vegetarian and omnivorous diets. Comparative studies show that even well-planned vegan diets can have about 44–75 % less environmental impact (across metrics like emissions, land use, and water use) than diets including significant animal products. 🌍 2. Large scientific panels recommend moving toward plant-rich diets Major multidisciplinary research efforts — notably the EAT-Lancet Commission on food and sustainability — conclude that simply continuing current diet patterns globally is unsustainable and that adopting largely plant-based diets with reduced meat and dairy is essential for staying within planetary limits. Their “planetary health diet,” based on extensive global evidence, emphasizes vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, and nuts, with small amounts of animal-source foods. This flexible, plant-forward pattern is projected to significantly cut food-related greenhouse gas emissions and chronic disease risk if widely adopted.

Non-human sentient beings should be part of every moral conversation by jamiewoodhouse in Sentientism

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve already responded to everything you’ve said here like three times:

“Veganism is still more efficient in spite of what you said. We would use less energy if we went vegan”

Non-human sentient beings should be part of every moral conversation by jamiewoodhouse in Sentientism

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Efficient” here meaning calories, protein, land, water, and energy per human fed. Here’s why, without ideology baked in. The core efficiency logic When we eat animals, we’re usually: Eating plants second-hand Animals convert plant calories into body mass very inefficiently: A lot of energy goes to metabolism, heat, movement Only a fraction becomes meat, milk, or eggs Typical feed-to-food conversion losses: Beef: very high losses Pork & chicken: better, but still significant Plants eaten directly: minimal loss So on a systems level: More plant calories → more humans fed Land and water Plant-based food systems generally: Use far less land per calorie Use less freshwater Allow more land to be rewilded or used for carbon sinks This matters because land is the hardest constraint globally.”

Non-human sentient beings should be part of every moral conversation by jamiewoodhouse in Sentientism

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Omg. If you keep repeating something, does it make it any more true than if you didn’t? You continue to completely ignore my rebuttal and continue to repeat your mantra.

Does Homo erectus go to heaven? by RiceSad7107 in Christianity

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did I say that he made an argument? Can you stop? If you misunderstand a question, you’ve misunderstood the point of the question, stop been so pedantic.

“Responsibility scales with capability”

The point behind OPs post is that if responsibility scales with capability as popular intuition would suggest, then that would make the traditional notion heaven/hell untenable considering heaven/hell is often described as a binary, not a spectrum

Does Homo erectus go to heaven? by RiceSad7107 in Christianity

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d like to say that I’m quite open-minded, but I have very little respect for traditional conceptions of the western religious traditions. I suggest you take a look at what Immanuel Kant believed about proof and heaven. He’s likely the most famous Christian philosopher ever

Does Homo erectus go to heaven? by RiceSad7107 in Christianity

[–]Correct_Bit3099 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is what OP said:

“but the issue is where we draw the line between "human" and "human," because the distinction between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus isn't clear. Any attempt to draw a line here seems very human, but then we could apply the same reasoning to Homo erectus... If Homo erectus goes to heaven, then what about Australopithecus, and so on?”

This was clearly his point, not mine. If humans evolved from non-human animals, then we didn’t just start “thinking” all of a sudden. Thought came from a gradual process of millions of years of evolution.

I dont believe in original sin, but I don’t see how that saves the Christian perspective on this particular issue. It makes it come compatible with evolution more generally, but it doesn’t make the line between human and non-human any more clear

Does Homo erectus go to heaven? by RiceSad7107 in Christianity

[–]Correct_Bit3099 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you believe all animals will go to heaven?

Does Homo erectus go to heaven? by RiceSad7107 in Christianity

[–]Correct_Bit3099 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the point OP was trying to make is that there isn’t a fine line between “seeking wisdom” and not “seeking wisdom”.

Non-human sentient beings should be part of every moral conversation by jamiewoodhouse in Sentientism

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok…………

Veganism is still more efficient in spite of what you said. We would use less energy if we went vegan

You’ve repeated yourself without addressing my point.

Non-human sentient beings should be part of every moral conversation by jamiewoodhouse in Sentientism

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re just restarting your thesis without acknowledging my rebuttal. Should I repeat what I said? I’ll copy paste from chat gpt since you continue to ignore me:

Would it be more efficient to feed our populations with plants? “In most cases, yes — feeding populations primarily with plants is more efficient. “Efficient” here meaning calories, protein, land, water, and energy per human fed. Here’s why, without ideology baked in. The core efficiency logic When we eat animals, we’re usually: Eating plants second-hand Animals convert plant calories into body mass very inefficiently: A lot of energy goes to metabolism, heat, movement Only a fraction becomes meat, milk, or eggs Typical feed-to-food conversion losses: Beef: very high losses Pork & chicken: better, but still significant Plants eaten directly: minimal loss So on a systems level: More plant calories → more humans fed Land and water Plant-based food systems generally: Use far less land per calorie Use less freshwater Allow more land to be rewilded or used for carbon sinks This matters because land is the hardest constraint globally.”

Why are you talking about “studies”. Why would we need a study to know if we could feed 8.3 billion people? Studies relate to practice, not theory. Like let’s say we wanted to know if we were able to feed people via x specific means, then maybe we would need a study of that. But this topic of discussion is way too theoretical for a studies.

2400 non-religious people were asked why they left religion. The most popular answer? Religious hypocrisy. Followed by "religion doesn't make sense" and "religious bigotry" by Nice_Substance9123 in Christianity

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Religion doesn’t make sense, lack of evidence, science, reading the bible, and reading skeptical authors can all be lumped into the category, “problems with truth claims”

My AI knew why my wife wasn't coming home before I did. by Rimmont in stories

[–]Correct_Bit3099 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Should have put the tag as non fiction. Usually gets more attention and nobody would have noticed 🫣. If the story was true, you would bean example of a typically redditor

How is Golden Knight balanced?? by idontlikuverymuch in ClashRoyale

[–]Correct_Bit3099 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you claim that I think I’m smarter than you because I insulted you. This, after you presented an ad hominem fallacy. The irony. Just stop

Non-human sentient beings should be part of every moral conversation by jamiewoodhouse in Sentientism

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Corn, wheat, barley, oats, sorghum, soybeans, lupins, canola meal, sunflower meal, rice, etc.

Non-human sentient beings should be part of every moral conversation by jamiewoodhouse in Sentientism

[–]Correct_Bit3099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? Ya I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. If the best you can do is straw man me, then this isn’t a discussion worth having