No, dont declare victory, that’s rude.
We are just going back and forth over and over.
What you mean is, you would like the conversation to go back, to reset, because you can’t support your original assertions. Instead of that, how about we make progress?
There’s no shame in admitting that some factoid you once thought was true is actually not well-supported: I’m sure this happens to everyone from time to time, it certainly happens for me.
The shame would be continuing to cling to such beliefs. Or worse, continuing to espouse such a position on the Dope without ever critically evaluating it.
If, by that you mean the other side brought citations and you brought nothing, then yes, we’re just going back and forth over and over. If you’d like to break out of that cycle, bring some citations to discuss.
I suppose @DrDeth’s POV can be summarized as:
If you kill one bug, you’re a killer. So raising an additional hundred million cattle, pigs, chickens, etc. and killing them too makes you … a killer. Therefore the incremental killing is a moral nullity and can be ignored.
Like @kimstu, I’m a contented meat eater with moral qualms about what I do. Which is very different from refusing to admit there even is a moral issue here.
So, you dont believe me that zillions of birds, rodents, insects, worms etc are killed by pesticides and herbicides on AG land?
Yout table does not go to a actual cite, where is that table from?
Cite 1:When it Comes to Pesticides, Birds are Sitting Ducks | Smithsonian's National Zoo.
It is estimated that of the roughly 672 million birds exposed annually to pesticides on U.S. agricultural lands, 10%– or 67 million– are killed. This staggering number is a conservative estimate that takes into account only birds that inhabit farmlands, and only birds killed outright by ingestion of pesticides. The full extent of bird fatalities due to pesticides is extremely difficult to determine because most deaths go undetected.
1) The estimated pollination losses to food production from pesticides’
effects on honey bees and wild bees is $200 million per year;
2) Destruction by pesticides of the natural enemies of pests can cost an
estimated $520 million per year in the U.S.;
3) A conservative estimate of fish (6-14 million) killed per year by
pesticides ranges from $24 to $56 million; and
4) The total number of wild birds killed by pesticides is estimated at 67
million and the value of this bird loss to pesticides is $2.1 billion annually.
No, it is more like this “Hey, murdering people is wrong, you are evil!” “Well, i can see your point, but you have murdered over a dozen yourself!?!” “Yeah, but you killed more that twice as me, that makes me morally right and you wrong!”
Actually, that last sentence is more like “Yeah, but you murdered over a dozen additional people that you could have easily avoided murdering, just as an unnecessary luxury! At least I did my best not to murder any more people than I had to in order to stay alive, so although I’m a murderer too I’m not as morally wrong as you are!”
Sure, and if vegans can go to sleep at nite thinking that they killed a few less animals than omnivores, then that’s fine.
I know where my food comes from, I worked on a farm, I killed chickens, I harbor no illusions that my eating is more moral than others. I eat to live, and I eat to enjoy it.
Which is fine. But the whole point of this thread is that there is in fact a rational basis for the moral viewpoint that your eating is less moral than that of others who consciously try not to commit as much avoidable killing as you do.
Nobody’s calling you (or any of us other non-vegetarians) immoral, just acknowledging facts.
Also, let’s not purely frame this as an issue of killing. There’s a great deal of unnecessary suffering in the modern production of meat and dairy.
This suffering is not intrinsic to to farming, but the trend for the last few decades has been for increasing industrialization and the growth of superfarms. So more of this suffering, not less.
I think that if there is lab-grown meat indistinguishable from animal meat taste and price-wise, then there is no moral defense for eating animal meat or slaughtering animals.
I would switch completely to lab meat, given the chance. Conversely, that is probably the only way I will give up animal slaughter entirely.
Probably, but the question is whether there is any moral defense right now. If there is, what is it?
If I were to say: If there are sex-bots indistinguishable from real humans, then there is no moral defense for sexual assault
Would that mean I am morally justified in sexually assaulting people right now, since no such bots exist? No, because there is no moral defense for that action, period; it’s just even less defensible in a scenario where the desire is easily and safely met.