How smart would cows have to become for you to stop eating beef?
Obviously this question is only for people who eat beef regularly.
But I just was wondering, what IQ/ability would make you swear off beef? If they could speak like an 8 y.o, would that be enough to cut off beef? If they got an IQ of 80, would that do it?
I’ll go with the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy answer and say the cow likely will offer me in person which cuts of meat I prefer. It’s sole purpose in life is to be part of the food cycle. It knows that and it accepts it.
What I eat is already dead. I’ve never decided to eat something in such a way that it contributed to the harm of any lifeform. So it’s not a matter of intelligence, but if it was, it could be as intelligent as a snail and I still wouldn’t eat it.
It’s not demand and supply if you don’t “demand” the supply of anything. Sure, I buy meat, but it’s not something I look forward to the existence of.
If someone strikes an animal while driving, or a natural disaster takes its life, and someone decides it might as well be eaten, is that supply and demand? If I stop over at someone’s house, and they have hunted an animal they’re about to eat, but I neither hunted the animal nor knew they would eat the animal for dinner that night as I visited, is that supply and demand, or did I just happen to be somewhere where someone else’s guilt of having killed an animal is in my favor?
Meat doesn’t magically appear. It comes from animals who have just died. But the deaths do not necessarily come via a single means, nor does the consumer necessarily have any bearing on the suffering of the animal or future animals.
I am surprised that anyone would mention “supply and demand” at all given Lemmy has a largely (including myself, just not from a Marxist viewpoint) anti-capitalist demographic, which would mean supply and demand shouldn’t be seen as a necessary factor.
nor does the consumer necessarily have any bearing on the suffering of the animal or future animals.
That’s absurd. So if I hire an assassin to kill you, I have absolutely no responsibility if you’re killed by an assassin?
Companies won’t kill animals to produce meat unless there’s demand. If you buy meat, you’re creating demand. There is a causal link between your consumption and what happens to the animals. Therefore, you have at least a share of the responsibility.
I am surprised that anyone would mention “supply and demand” at all given Lemmy has a largely (including myself, just not from a Marxist viewpoint) anti-capitalist demographic
Being anti-capitalist doesn’t mean one is incapable of understanding how capitalism works. There are rules that govern it, and those exist whether you’re in favor of it as a system or not.
I would blame the assassin. They pulled the trigger. Anyone could do anything between “enjoy” the outcome to “want” it to ask for it, and that’s a spectrum, but then there’s the person who does the deed. And even then, there’s coordination between you and the assassin. There’s nothing saying there’s absolutely going to be any coordination between the meat being brought to the store and the meat being brought home.
I would blame the assassin. They pulled the trigger.
But that’s crazy! The assassin didn’t kill anyone, all they did was point the gun at the victim and pull the trigger. Maybe we should lay the blame on the gunpowder or the bullet. Actually, that doesn’t work either. We can’t blame the bullet, it wasn’t what killed the victim. The real problem was the massive blood loss. Or maybe the victim survives a bit and dies in the hospital due to an infection from their injury. Now we can’t blame the assassin, the bullet, the gunpowder, the gun or the injury caused by the bullet. Right? Those are not what actually caused the victim to die, it was the bacteria!
Thinking that way is obviously ridiculous. Of course, it’s easy to understand why you’d want to: it’s incredibly self-serving. The bar is set so high for you to be responsible for anything that you basically will never have to consider yourself responsible whatever you do.
The reality is if we can say “but for my actions this wouldn’t have happened”, then I’m responsible. But for consumers creating demand, there’d be no meat in the grocery store. Therefore the consumer has a share of the responsibility. You have a responsibility if you eat meat, hire an assassin, whatever. Refusing to recognize it doesn’t make it go away.
The assassin didn’t kill anyone, all they did was point the gun at the victim and pull the trigger.
That’s called a kill. That’s like saying if I hunt on someone’s behalf, even though I struck down the venison, I’m not the murderer, just the contractor is. Which brings us back here.
If someone is driving down a wildlife-heavy road thinking “ah well, if I hit anything, the vultures will clean it up”, and a day later, a vulture finds a dead squirrel in the road that was hit, is the vulture to blame for the squirrel’s death by virtue of being a beneficiary of the squirrel’s death? Because that’s analogous to the situation.
If someone is driving down a wildlife-heavy road thinking “ah well, if I hit anything, the vultures will clean it up”, and a day later, a vulture finds a dead squirrel in the road that was hit, is the vulture to blame for the squirrel’s death by virtue of being a beneficiary of the squirrel’s death? Because that’s analogous to the situation.
That’s not analogous to the situation of the vulture going to the store and buying squirrel meat.
The problem isn’t benefiting from the squirrels death, the problem is doing something that increases the probability that the squirrel gets killed. If the vulture finds and eats a dead squirrel at the side of the road, that has no effect on the how likely that squirrel (or future squirrels) are to die.
On the other hand, if the edit: vulture goes to the store and exchanges value for some squirrel meat, the vulture is giving others an incentive to kill squirrels to acquire their meat.
If you were the squirrel, would you rather live in an environment where no one benefits from killing you or one where there’s a massive bounty on squirrel meat?
And you’re saying it’s absolutely impossible to exchange meat in such a way as to not increase the incentive of meat being killed to be consumed in the future? I’m careful when it comes to that stuff, if my case-by-case circumstances knowingly put me in such a situation as is implied, I pull out, whether it be corporative or local (which should be treated differently anyways). My answer to the last question depends on if they’re a strict dichotomy or not; my point would be that it isn’t.
And you’re saying it’s absolutely impossible to exchange meat in such a way as to not increase the incentive of meat being killed to be consumed in the future?
What do you mean by “exchange meat”? I assume you mean exchange value (i.e. money) for meat?
No, it’s not impossible to do this without increasing the chance that an animal gets killed to provide the meat. For example, if someone promised they’re only selling roadkill and will never kill the animals or do anything to increase the chances the animals get killed then you could buy meat from that person without increasing the probability that animals get killed. Obviously it would have to be reasonable to trust that person to keep their word.
That’s a very unlikely exception though. If you go to the grocery store and buy some meat, there is no basis or evidence to believe they’re only collecting roadkill. When you buy meat from a grocery store, it’s virtually certain that this is increasing the chances of animals being killed (very often after being subjected to extreme suffering). And you will have a share in the responsibility for those effects, because there’s a causal link between your choice to buy the product and the things that are done to make it available.
The purchase of an item is treated as the demand of an item. This is how an economy works. They don’t mean that you’re barging into places yelling about how you want meat. Your money flowing to them is enough to justify further slaughter to provide more meat.
Sometimes the supply exceeds the demand though. Suppose there are a thousand pieces of meat in a store. Only eight hundred are bought. The other two hundred isn’t bought and spoils, yet with no bearing on the market. So then imagine someone standing in the store mulling this over, “I could buy the meat, as long as it’s there, or I could refuse it, and it has died in vain, but also if I buy it, who is to say I have a bearing on its death or if the money goes to the industry, when the store already paid for it and might have backup uses for it?”
They always prepare more than the allotted amount based on demand to meet unanticipated fluctuations. Your spent dollars on meat per month are calculated into their spreadsheets. No amount of pretend justification liberates you from the consequences of your actions. If you did not buy meat, there would be (your consumption*1.25) less meat in the store on average. You are not buying overflow meat. They are producing your meat plus overflow.
Until any exchange can be made, who is to say, as far as they’re concerned, I necessarily exist? As an individual, I’m an oddly specific expectation for them.
That’s completely untrue. At this point in your life you have an established set of purchasing locations and a purchase history. You’re discussing disingenuously for either the sake of arguing or because you don’t understand how the world works, either of which suggest pursuing this further is a waste of time and energy.
I eat meat, but this is a dumb fucking take. The meat industry exists because we eat meat. If people didn’t eat meat, then cows wouldn’t be slaughtered. Therefore, if we all didn’t eat meat, that cow that you ate wouldn’t be dead.
But not all meat-eating leads to the perpetuation of the meat industry. Not all exchanges involving meat are fuel for said industry.
The goal of pro-animal ethics is “do no harm”, not “do not eat them”. There are several workarounds to the former. I’m not pulling these out of my ass, there are century-old industries around these too.
I think people forget that nature is quite brutal. If humans stopped eating meat, millions of animals would still be killed by predators, illness, parasites, old age, accidents, etc.
If cows became intelligent enough to participate in society but we had lab grown beef, I'd eat it.
We’re also the only species who raises animals just to eat them later. I’m not a vegetarian, I’m just planning out that you’re logic isn’t exactly perfect there.
If I don’t murder people, people will still get murdered. Therefore it doesn’t make a difference if I choose not to murder people?
No. First of all the tenses are wrong, then the equivalence is wrong.
If people stopped getting murdered, they'd still be killed by illness, parasites, old age, accidents. Basically the loss of life will not stop simply because humans stop taking that life. Are you going to start telling lions not to kill gazelle? Or parasites, viruses, and bacteria not to infest hosts?
Why is it OK for other animals to prey on other living beings, but not humans? You think humans are cruel? Read about what happens in the animal world. Hyenas eating buffalo alive, snakes eating their prey whole (while alive), parasites of course needing live hosts: one eats a fishes tongue and takes its place, another eats a whale's eyes, yet another takes over the motor functions of ants and forces it clamp down on a plant where the ant dies of hungers and the fungus grows from the corps, the parasitic wasp that lays its eggs within tarantulas and the worms eat the tarantula alive, and so many more gruesome ways to die in the animal kingdom.
If people stopped getting murdered, they’d still be killed by illness, parasites, old age, accidents.
So it’s okay for me to murder, because those people would die anyway? If not, then there’s no point in bringing it up.
If humans stopped eating meat, millions of animals would still be killed by predators, illness, parasites, old age, accidents
Just like there’s no point in saying that, unless it’s intended as some kind of justification.
Why is it OK for other animals to prey on other living beings, but not humans?
In other words, why should we hold humans to a higher moral standard than lions? Are you really asking that?
If so, I can give you an answer but it seems like a ridiculous thing to ask and I’m just about positive you don’t actually believe that if the standard is good enough for lions and sharks it’s good enough for humans.
but not humans?
Think about it for 30 seconds and I bet you can come up with two really good reasons why there should be a different standard. If you give up, I can tell you the answer but it’s really obvious. I’m confident you can come up with them if you try.
to prey on other living beings
This is also reframing the problem in a weird way. Living isn’t the same as having interests, preferences, emotions, being able to suffer, etc. The majority of people who are against (unnecessarily) eating animal products don’t take that position just because animals are living, but because they’re sentient.
Well I don’t eat meat at all, and part of the reason is the video on YouTube of the little girl who snuck her pet cow onto her indoor porch and is holding it in her lap and scratching it while it sighs contentedly.
There’s no reason for a rational person to believe this. There’s just no evidence for plants feeling pain. They can react to some stimuli of course, but experiencing things is a different matter.
A pop science article using misleading language to drive traffic. They don’t literally scream.
Anyway, no one is saying that plants can’t react to stimuli. There’s a difference between nociception and experiencing pain, fear, or other emotions. There’s no evidence that plants (or any creature without a CNS) can do that.
Thanks for the link. It says nothing about making them unconscious before slaughter. They’re just saying that the slaughter should be quick and not subject the animals to additional suffering beforehand:
No method of slaughtering or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public policy of the United States unless it is humane. Either of the following two methods of slaughtering and handling are hereby found to be humane:
(a) in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or
(b) by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering.
The Act requires all meat companies selling to the US government to provide stunning by mechanical, electrical, or chemical means prior to the killing of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, except in the case of slaughter for religious or ritual purposes. Stunning must be accomplished in a manner that is rapid and effective before the animal is shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. (While the law refers to “other livestock,” poultry is not specifically included.)
So I went a little further by reading parts of the actual regulations, i.e., the implementation and enforcement of the act, because I’m genuinely curious to learn about this. It seems that they’re defining stunning as basically destroying the brain of the animal before killing the body. For instance: “Unconsciousness is produced immediately by physical brain destruction and a combination of changes in intracranial pressure and acceleration concussion.” It seems like a distinction without a difference, since they’re essentially killing the animal by “stunning” it or making it “unconscious”.
Stunning it doesn’t kill it, it renders it unable to feel pain. They sell the cow brain so no, it doesn’t destroy it. Midwesterners love some cow brain to eat, it’s sold in grocery stores.
It seems that we may both be partially correct: If a penetrating bolt is used the animal is killed instantly. If a non-penetrating bolt is used, the animal sometimes revives. What we don’t know is how prevalent each approach is. Either way, re-reading your initial post that I responded to I realized that this debate doesn’t matter. Your point seems to have been that they don’t feel pain as they’re killed, and I concede that you’re correct. I missed that this was the point you were making, and that you were not mainly arguing whether the animals were killed instantly or not.
Edit: Just to add that I concede the point that they don’t feel pain only in a general sense. Looking at that last link, it seems that this procedure would have a lot of room for error and I’m sure that as a consequence a lot of cows suffer unintentionally.
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Intelligence isn’t even well defined or measurable. Things like IQ are designed for humans, so they would not be applicable to other beings. They’re barely even useful for human applications.
It’s an interesting question though. First, I’ll ask myself why I eat beef in the first place.
It’s tasty
It’s relatively cheap
Very nutrient dense, so it’s easier to consume
Why do I not eat dogs or cats?
They are not socially acceptable to consume
They contribute positively to my life in other ways than being a food source
I’m pretty sure that a dog/cat could be dumb as a rock and I still wouldn’t eat them because I’d still enjoy their company.
Now I do try to reduce the amount of beef I consume, but it’s mainly for environmental reasons.
Smart enough for them to stop being eaten. But at this point they’d have to have similar intelligence to ours, which means we’d probably be at war with them anyway.
I know they don’t know this consciously because of their behaviour. If we suppose they were intelligent enough to understand their predicament, I would expect them to protest in some way. For example by breaking out of their captivitity, trying to kill their captors, or even commit suicide.
This is not the behaviour we observe from cows. They seem perfectly happy to bond with and follow along their captors (farmers) right up to the point where they get a bolt through their head.
This - to me - clearly indicates that they are far below an intelligence level where they can understand the living conditions we put them in.
Well, some people believe that pigs are as smart as toddlers. So a cow would, at a minimum, have to be smarter than a pig.
Kind of an interesting thought process. It seems like the assumption is “I’m doing it, so it has to be fine”.
The problem with thinking that way is people have flaws, and if you think like that you’ll just take it as a given whatever you’re doing is already correct and never fix any personal issues.
Add comment