Regrarianism could greatly benefit from promoting *real* ethical treatment of animals, that doesn't include full-scale exploitation, let alone slaughtering them needlessly. It's like promoting ethical genocide - an oxymoron that requires a dangerous level of cognitive dissonance to believe in. These half-measures are arguably worse than nothing at all, because they leave the public with the notion that the current industry's management practices are what's unethical, and not the practice of animal husbandry itself. In reality, these are sentient creatures that are being exploited and butchered on an unimaginable scale. Of course we must work with animals in some capacity for these concepts to function in the real world. But if you keep thinking of animals as commodities to be exploited and eaten, then this movement will never have a solid ethical foundation upon which to really flourish.
Ethics are only relative to your belief system. I believe humans have been practicing a form of animal husbandry for tens of thousands of years through firestick farming. Humans have been eating meat for two million years and we are apex predatory omnivores. Many vegetarians and vegans will debate that but I think they are simply wrong.
+Dave Drewett Not just vegetarians and vegans, but most of the scientific community. Surprising, to you maybe, within a functioning/natural ecosystem (ie. not the "civilized world" where we've completely ravished and collapsed the ecosystems) we line up somewhere close to an Anchovy. Not quite the super bad-a** predator that you imagined now, are we?
ArtKrishnamurti aboriginal men from northern Australia fifty years ago could throw a spear so accurate and far they were far from anything close to anchovies. Very much the apex predator. Who else was at the top of the food chain on the land in Australia ?
Dave Drewett No. The whole point of ethics is to find common ground among disparate perspectives. But the one universal quality that all men hold, is a form of the "golden rule". Every modern culture has a version of this. This is literally hardwired into us in a form called empathy. We cannot harm another without harming ourselves in a psychosomatic reflex. Besides clinical psychopaths that is. Every man alive knows that causing unnecessary suffering is *wrong*. This is fundamental instinct. And from that instinct arises our concept of "ethics" and "morality".
Daren, can we see in Vietnam again for another amazing lecture like 2007 in Dong Xoai, Binh Phuooc, Vietnam?
what the hell? you call that CC?? i can only see a blurry line please help and fix it
I am a carbon farmer and I need economical help.. Please contact me if you know any resources
yeah, thanks for your land, woohoo!
Regrarianism could greatly benefit from promoting *real* ethical treatment of animals, that doesn't include full-scale exploitation, let alone slaughtering them needlessly. It's like promoting ethical genocide - an oxymoron that requires a dangerous level of cognitive dissonance to believe in.
These half-measures are arguably worse than nothing at all, because they leave the public with the notion that the current industry's management practices are what's unethical, and not the practice of animal husbandry itself. In reality, these are sentient creatures that are being exploited and butchered on an unimaginable scale.
Of course we must work with animals in some capacity for these concepts to function in the real world. But if you keep thinking of animals as commodities to be exploited and eaten, then this movement will never have a solid ethical foundation upon which to really flourish.
Ethics are only relative to your belief system. I believe humans have been practicing a form of animal husbandry for tens of thousands of years through firestick farming. Humans have been eating meat for two million years and we are apex predatory omnivores. Many vegetarians and vegans will debate that but I think they are simply wrong.
+Dave Drewett Not just vegetarians and vegans, but most of the scientific community. Surprising, to you maybe, within a functioning/natural ecosystem (ie. not the "civilized world" where we've completely ravished and collapsed the ecosystems) we line up somewhere close to an Anchovy. Not quite the super bad-a** predator that you imagined now, are we?
ArtKrishnamurti aboriginal men from northern Australia fifty years ago could throw a spear so accurate and far they were far from anything close to anchovies. Very much the apex predator. Who else was at the top of the food chain on the land in Australia ?
Dave Drewett
No. The whole point of ethics is to find common ground among disparate perspectives. But the one universal quality that all men hold, is a form of the "golden rule". Every modern culture has a version of this. This is literally hardwired into us in a form called empathy. We cannot harm another without harming ourselves in a psychosomatic reflex. Besides clinical psychopaths that is.
Every man alive knows that causing unnecessary suffering is *wrong*. This is fundamental instinct. And from that instinct arises our concept of "ethics" and "morality".
Richard Wilson no that's your take on ethics. I stick by my take on it.