this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
105 points (83.9% liked)

Asklemmy

54624 readers
453 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

If life is to continue on this planet simultaneously with ethics, there must be an exception for living beings to morally participate in the food chain as their bodies evolved. This does not excuse our modern industrial system or domesticating animals, it excuses carnivory as it evolved only.

Now you might say "but humans are meant to eat plants" or "humans are omnivores meant to eat a large variety". No, you're deluded. No animal on Earth has every evolved to eat a large variety of foods, plant toxins are too numerous and varied too allow this, that's why humans cook and process most (non-fruit) plants before eating them. Animals we call omnivores are really flexible carnivores that would die on an all plant diet that wasn't fortified or selected by humans from plants outside of the animal's habitat.

Most of the plants we eat today did not exist in our specie's early days, we've bred almost the entire produce section at the grocery store, taking toxic barely digestible plants and changing them into broccoli and such. The plants we eat that did exist only existed in their native habitat, which was not necessarily where humans were. A human in Africa was not eating oranges from China 300k years ago.

Animals that evolved to eat plants have digestive systems oriented around providing an environment for bacteria to break down cellulose, they have adaptations to withstand the specific toxins in the specific plants they evolved to eat. Rabbits have to eat their shit and re-digest it get enough nutrition from plants. Cows have a multi-chambered stomach without an acid barrier in front, horses have to eat constantly. Gorillas are "hind gut digesters" that fart constantly and have massive barrel torsos to fit a digestive system large enough to support the rest of their bodies. Human digestive systems are clearly oriented around digestion of meat and using high-energy density fat to provide the massive amount of energy our brain needs.

But why don't we have claws and fangs like other carnivores? Well, first, many carnivorous animals don't fit this mental image. Second, human ancestors were frugivores going back like 5+ million years that started eating meat via scavenging, this explains our stomach acid on par with buzzards and condors, an acidic stomach is an "acid barrier" bacteria cannot pass. Then we evolved to eat large prey with lots of fat that we hunted by group coordination, ability to throw, and ability to create weapons, ability to direct an animal to fall to it's death. Humans didn't evolve to directly chase and kill animals with our hands and teeth, we're tool masters.

Our bodies do poorly with chronic carb intake, this is the cause of most modern maladies. Our bodies evolved to fuel themselves with saturated fat we eat, small animals with little fat are inappropriate human food (e.g. "rabbit starvation"). In fact, almost all animals are "powered by fat", not by sugar as we're told. Cows are powered by short chain fatty acids produced by bacteria eating the plants the cow consumes.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 18 hours ago

This is really well written!

[–] when@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You are saying that humans killing animal for their benefits is right. Then you should also appreciate humans having sex with other animals. Because in both cases we are neglecting the Animal's consent in its entirely. As we are far more intelligent and strong, we should do whatever we please (Killing or Raping) with other animals. It's logically consistent.

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If by benefit you mean survival, then yes. Fucking animals is not what humans evolved to do for survival.

[–] when@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If Killing is considered right then Raping should be right because both persons are getting away with doing wrong to "innocent victims". Here, Killer should not be judgmental of Rapist's actions because Killing is a far bigger crime.

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was talking about food, not rape and murder. I never said killing is right in general. Stop with the straw men.

[–] when@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
  • We are gaining the meat by killing innocent animals.
  • We are gaining pleasure by raping innocent animals.

How are you not able to see the similar patterns within these systemic injustices against innocents?

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You're a crazy one, nobody is talking about raping animals.

Life eats life.

[–] when@lemmy.world 0 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
  • Interspecific sex is a common occurrence within nature and this behavior is also present in humans (zoophilia). As animals can't consent. So any sexual activity becomes a Rape.

Again the point was similarities in non-consensual killing and raping. Don't you think that killing and raping are both great injustices against innocent animals? If we think killing is ok then Raping also becomes ok as it's a smaller crime than killing.

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Killing an animal for food is nothing like rape. Rape is unnecessary and not required for sustenance or reproduction, it's not something our species evolved to do (the fact that something can be done doesn't mean we evolved to do it, ducks on the other hand...). Are you equivocating most of the world's population for all of history with rapists? Is your mom and dad a rapist then? Are lions rapists, just not smart enough to know they're raping gazelles and zebras?

If you think animals killing and eating other animals is rape, then I hope you're a blade of grass because even vegans would be unintentionally raping animals in pursuit of sustenance. Don't kid yourself that a vegan diet is free of suffering, you just care less about those species apparently.

[–] when@lemmy.world 0 points 20 hours ago
  • Clarifying; "Animals can't consent thus any sexual activity becomes rape" is related to Animal-Human copulation. As zoophilia was mentioned in previous sentence.

From animals' perspective, Non-consensual killing is worst than Non-consensual sex (Rape). Their similarities lies in the negation of consent by the humans and both actions are unjust. Humans are just giving out disingenuous arguments to hide their crime of killing innocent animals because they benefit from such injustices.

[–] nitroemdash@lemmy.wtf 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

An idea that species can β€œbe meant to do x” by y has roots in teleological philosophy. Aincent Greeks believed that gods designed and meant us to live a certain way, this approach was adapted by other religions. It cannot be applied to evolution as evolution is a sequence of random events, some more likely than other.

We have evolved to, under certain conditions, when it increases our or our relatives' chances of survival or recreation, kill others of our species or enact violence against them, including the type of violence that increases the number of expected children of the person enacting it, but nobody argues we should build ethics around it.

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

but nobody argues we should build ethics around it

I argue that we should build ethics around it.

An idea that species can β€œbe meant to do x” by y has roots in teleological philosophy.

People, even those that understand evolution often speak this way because it's easier, this is Lemmy, not a research paper.

I claim that what we call morality and ethics is human cultural interpretation of what we call game theory. My foundation for morality is respect for consent, except in cases of self/community defense and participation in the food chain as evolution has produced my body in this way due to natural selection to operate at a particular trophic level.

[–] nitroemdash@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If it were for pure game theory, slavery would still exist in some form (legally, because illegal slavery is still wide-spread IRL). Why would we care to liberate a useful caste of human servants if they would lose all means to rebel against a modern army? Granted, they could kill someone in an uprising, but so does cattle occasionally injure and kill farmers. Any great injustice is justified by game theory at the end.

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Morality, whether based on game theory or not, has little to do with law.

Any great injustice is justified by game theory at the end.

You should learn more about game theory.

[–] nitroemdash@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Game theory is about extracting personal good from cooperation. Game theory has nothing to say against boiling your cat alive as it has no leverage on you.

In societies where things like slavery existed for centuries or even millennias, owners had great evolutionary benefit from owning slaves. Their descendants hold some privileges to this day. Game theory was on their side.

Did you watch β€œ86”? In this show, San-Magnolia was a country populated exclusively with blonde people, referred as β€œalba”. People with non-white hair (referred as β€œcolorata”) were sent to internment camps outside the state walls and conscripted to fight in a war in a hope to regain at least some rights.

It was later revealed that over 10 million colorata and zero alba were killed in the later stage of the war, and if original prognosis on enemy forces ceasing to operate in a few years would be right, alba people would totally win the evolutionary race and no game theory would bring justice. Doesn't sound great if your hair happens to be brown or red.

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 0 points 23 hours ago

So far every response to be has been straw man args.

Nobody is talking about boiling cats alive, I'm not arguing for the morality of that.

alba people would totally win the evolutionary race and no game theory would bring justice. Doesn’t sound great if your hair happens to be brown or red.

I'm not saying game theory can be used to justify anything, I'm saying it's the basis for morality, it's how morality came to be in our species IMHO. I think agents (things with agency, which are subject to game theory) develop strategies, and morality is based on these strategies. Harming other beings unnecessarily often puts one at risk, therefore harming other beings without need is often bad strategy. I'm not saying that anything that can create benefit is morally OK, this is a straw man, know what that is?

You're speaking as if there's a global, cosmic morality in which harming others is wrong, this is a religious belief, I'm not talking about religion. There are many moralities with different foundations, I explained the basis for mine.