I mentioned tiny cows in another thread and that got me thinking…
I believe you’ll agree that, as a general rule, people feel more badly about killing large animals than they do about smaller animals. Maybe it’s because it’s easier to anthropomorphize and therefore relate to larger animals, or maybe we just think of them as having more highly developed consciousnesses—I don’t know. But, there does seem to be some irony in our choices of which animals to champion more with regard to supply of meat.
Obviously, the slaughter of a large animal (like a steer) will feed many more people than a small animal (like a chicken). Put another way, more small animals need to be killed than large animals to feed a set number of people. So, wouldn’t it, on some level, be more ethical to eat a greater proportion of large animals? Maybe we should farm sperm whales for food.
I don’t really think it’s size so much as intelligence and familiarity/empathy.
For example, boiling lobsters alive gets very little sympathy.
Chickens are still pretty far away from people and not something we can empathize with well.
Sheep and cattle are not real bright, but they are mammals and share a lot more in common with us. Pigs are actually pretty smart, but most people don’t realize that.
By the time we get to horses, dogs and cats, we start drawing the line on eating them altogether.
Isn’t that part of the plan of how to get enough protein for the ever-growing horde of ravenous humans? I’ve read some news articles how insect protein will be the next big thing.
I’d don’t quite get your appraisal of my logic in the OP. I wasn’t emphasizing the relative ethical scale of killing higher intelligence animals vs. lower intelligence one’s, I was emphasizing the difference in sheer number of animals needed to be killed only by factoring the relative size of the animal. By my OP logic, killing a zillion crickets (if we can call them animals) is the exact opposite of my point (unless that’s what you meant by “going in the other direction”?).
(btw, my daughter loves eating dried crickets, mainly I suppose because it grosses me out).
But, certainly, relative intelligence and levels of consciousness do factor into our feelings of empathy toward creatures. But, if we control for that, I still believe the larger animals fair better—but, maybe I’m wrong. It’s true for me, but maybe it’s not for you, or the general population.
Do this test (you in general): Imagine a good sampling of relatively large animals vs small animals with fairly equal values of cognition, and then think of which one you would have a harder time (psychologically) killing. (if you have no qualms about killing any animal, the test isn’t for you). For example, I consider rodents and small marsupials to be roughly equal to ruminants with regard to consciousness and intelligence (it doesn’t really matter if it’s true, just that I believe it to be so).
I can’t think of one pairing case where I would feel worse about killing a rodent or marsupial, than a ruminant (Maybe I’d choose a rabbit over a dik dik, but that’s only because I liked Thumper as a kid, and I once had an unfortunate experience with a horny dik dik). Furthermore, I tend to have more empathy toward the bigger ruminants than the smaller ones.
For some reason I can’t explain, I’d feel the same way about two different sized animals of the same species. Put a mini-raccoon next to a cow-sized raccoon and I’d feel worse about killing the big one.
But, maybe that’s just me. Do the imaginary comparison yourself and post your conclusions. All else being equal, do you empathize more with big animals, small animals, or have no preference?
The problem I see is that you’re comparing animals we in the West use as food, and animals that we don’t. A cow is larger than a cat, but I would kill a cow sooner than I would a cat. A cat is bigger than a kitten; but while I would kill neither, I would kill a cat sooner than a kitten.
The OP has a link that describes the process as it’s been demonstrated. We’re a long way from this being practical on a large scale, so you’d have to take it all with a grain of salt. Still, the idea has potential - clone the animal cells, “print” them down in a muscle-like format, condition the muscle to give it the expected texture, then send it to a grocery store.
On a tangent, there are also cloned organs being produced in a somewhat similar manner.
I’m still going with the “yuck” factor. Thank you very much. I have a hard enough time consuming veggies, let alone cloned “meat”.
I understand the concept well enough, but no. Hell. No.
If I am that hungry, I will pick me up some road-kill and roast it on a open fire like we humans were intended to do.
Hmmm. Okay, From your quote below, I got the impression you felt it was somehow less a moral faux-pas to kill something smaller and less sentient/sapient than something more the opposite:
Otherwise, like I said in my first post, if the animal will be eaten, it’s okay to kill it humanely. Though I admit some higher forms of life much closer to humans (like chimps) do squick me out—to kill and eat—on a very base level.
