Are we evil?

[TheThan]

Yeah that’s a loaded question.
I’ll try to answer without straying into religion here:
Yes we’re all evil; it’s an innate trait we’re stuck with. Fortunately we have the power to see and understand the difference between good and evil. Therefore we can fight our nature and strive to not be evil.

On food:
Food of any kind is required for basic survival. Everything eats.
So in order for us to survive we need to kill things and eat them. Humans are amazing because we can eat a very large variety of plants and animals; that means we not only have tons of options but we can afford to be picky.

[Tyndmyr]

Probably. Maybe not all of us. There are probably humans more concerned about doing right than ruling the world with an iron fist. A lack of ambition, really.

But don't worry, you can be evil if you really want to be.

[Razade]

Yeah, as at least one other person has said, that makes no sense at all. That is poorly thought out science even for something like sci-fi. How did the parasyte ever live long enough to become capable of traveling space if they can only live off of one creature that doesn't even live in the same solar system.
There is also nothing at all unique about humans in terms of chemical/biological makeup that would make only humans work. Even while we're smarter than most creatures around it isn't even like our brain is really different, just more of it.

They don't address how the Parasytes get here, just that they're here. We don't explore their culture or why they come to Earth or anything like that. They're emotionless monsters until they start trying to adapt to human life. And that's really the crux of the story. The "Eating Humans" thing is just a vehicle for drama and conflict and not really the major story arc. The line in the OP is seriously the one time it's brought up and it's never talked about again. It's a throw away line, nothing more.

As for cannibalism, while I don't remember for sure, I think one of the main reasons it is taboo in so many different cultures and times around the world is because of medical reasons. I don't remember what happens, and it probably isn't the sort of thing that happens quickly, but it causes some problems. I could probably look it up fairly easily but I'm not in the mood to.
Maybe similar to mad cow disease?

There are quite a few, called Spongiform Encephalopathies or Prion Disease. Nature doesn't really look kindly on Cannibalism for sustenance. Prion Diseases are pretty nasty. You're thinking of Kuru however.

[warty goblin]

Understanding is the line between an entity being an amoral actor when it chooses to kill and eat a human, as in the case of a shark or tiger, and immoral as in the case of a human or other sophont.

If the slime beings are capable of communicating with us and understanding us to any extent then it is immoral for them to decide to try to kill and eat us because they think we'd taste delicious rather than merely amoral, even given their alien mindset. If they aren't, then, well, we're back to Ender's Game, and Orson Scott Card's homophobia, played straight without the subversion at the end.

Only under the assumption that there is a single morality for all creatures capable of understanding. Since I consider it extremely unlikely that human morality (again, insofar as there is *a* human morality) is independent of human evolution, I do not think this is a realistic premise.

That is, the slime-beings could well eat each other as a routine matter, and view doing so as entirely moral behavior. I posit for the sake of argument that the slime-beings would have no moral qualms about eating humans. Would I object strongly to being turned into slime-being chow, and fight against being eaten? Absolutely. Do I think that the slime-being trying to eat me is necessarily in the moral wrong? From my perspective perhaps. From the slime-being's point of view, under this hypothesis, it's acting entirely correctly. My judgement of it as wrong is as meaningless to it as it's possible judgement of me as contemptible for not killing and eating those weaker than me is to me. I'm certainly not going to go out and start eating people because it's a moral action for a slime-being, any more than the slime-being is going to stop eating people because it's a wrong choice for a person. I'm human, it's a slime-being, and ne'er the twain shall meet, although we may meat.

I'm not sure what your're trying to argue for with chimps, though. It's not immoral when chimps rape and kill one another because they're not quite sophonts? It's morally OK for chimps to rape and kill one another merely because they're not human if we accept that they are sophonts?

Chimps aren't humans. Moral codes devised for humans in human society don't apply to them. My point was that if something that close to us departs from a norm we find as central as not eating babies, there's precious little reason to think that our ideas would meaningfully apply to extra-terrestrial slime-beings.

[Themrys]

Now realize that thats humans. Is there any horror story that can compare to what humans do on a daily basis? Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a vegan lifestyle, meat tastes too good. Its just that this parasite thing kind of had a point, we justify doing what we do to animals because we're at the top of the food chain. If we found out there was something else above us, can we really complain if they do the same to us?

No, we can't.

However, at the moment humans do so horrible things to other humans on a daily basis that the treatment of animals is hardly the only reason why many humans are monsters.

[SiuiS]

Only under the assumption that there is a single morality for all creatures capable of understanding. Since I consider it extremely unlikely that human morality (again, insofar as there is *a* human morality) is independent of human evolution, I do not think this is a realistic premise.

That's not really a thing though. Either the broad moral strokes are objective, and life has value commensurate with it's sapience, in which case we can judge them; or it's subjective, life has value to us commensurate with it's sapience, and we can still judge them because it's our judgement criteria and they're still falling flat of it.

This is like people who insist on both freedom of expression and also no consequence for expression. Sorry, either A) you have to accept you can't say anything no matter how outlandish, or B) you have to accept that I can express my dislike with a fist just like you can.

Morality being non-objective doesn't mean that all moralities are equal and that anything anyone makes a good case for is okay.

[Findpathfencer]

So some background, I was watching this new fall anime Parasyte -the maxim- where these parasites come to earth, bond with existing lifeforms (usually humans), take over their bodies and then proceed to eat people. When the main character asks one of these parasites "You guys are monsters, why are you doing this?" the parasite responds with "We're not monsters, we're eating humans for food." At this point there have been about 80 of these strange murders caused by these things. The parasite then asks "Aren't humans really the monsters? How many millions of things do you kill each year and eat?" Its this statement that prompted this post.

Picture a world where these ravenous creatures existed that enslaved and consumed the other, less intelligent creatures of that world. So great was their hunger that entire species went extinct in an attempt to satiate them. They forced the ones that didn't die out to mate in order to produce more food. They ate creatures of every gender and age, young, old, the strong, the weak and even the unborn.

Now realize that thats humans. Is there any horror story that can compare to what humans do on a daily basis? Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a vegan lifestyle, meat tastes too good. Its just that this parasite thing kind of had a point, we justify doing what we do to animals because we're at the top of the food chain. If we found out there was something else above us, can we really complain if they do the same to us?

First lets answer the question in the name of this thread.
Evil, in a general context, is taken as the absence or complete opposite of that which is ascribed as being good. Evil is a word that is used to denote profound immorality. This means that question is about one's morals. Also meaning that we can't answer this question for other people. But for most people's morals the answer is no, we are not evil.

Now is enslaving and eating animals evil? Well a good way of answering this question, like a lot of questions, is looking to the past. Around the time early humans learned how to make weapons and how to create fire, we learn that cows produce milk and their skin can be really tuff, and that sheep are soft and their fur can keep is warm, early humans decided to start protecting them to gain supplies from them. Meaning not just because they have meat on them, that's just a bonus, a vary yummy bonus. Then after a while early humans learned that they where too successful because there where too many humans running around and that they where killing of whole species of animals and started running out of food. This is one of the reasons we started farming in the first place, so that we will not run out of food. What does this mean? It means that humans where all about conquering nature so that we could thrive with out wiping out all the specials of animals and to not starve to death because of lack of food.
We farm to not die.

If aliens think we are tasty and to try and eat us then it becomes a matter of self preservation. It don't matter if we farm, it don't give the right for aliens to eat our brains. I don't want my brain eaten.

This is like people who insist on both freedom of expression and also no consequence for expression. Sorry, either A) you have to accept you can't say anything no matter how outlandish, or B) you have to accept that I can express my dislike with a fist just like you can.

This i believe is madness.
I am some one who insists on both freedom of expression and also no consequence for expression. Why? Because that is how a society is run.

A) that's how North Korea is run. North Korea, the hermit state that hasn't changed in decades.
You need to be able to speak up to be able to change things for the better

B) expressing your dislike with a fist!?! That is barbarism, uncivil, and against order and hurts society.
If the world was like that then everything would be discussed by war. And that is bad. That is oppression.
Punching someone is assault and not just a simple gesture. It becomes a matter of a attacking someone, and that is bad.
Assaulting someone because you disagree with them is evil.

You should never express your self with attacks because if your discussing opinions, and your opinions don't match, then your trying to convince them that you are right, not insult them or hurt them or even think less of them. Deferent opinions is a good thing. Because everyone is not always right. Part of gaining wisdom and being wise is being able to change your opinions and having a open mind and a clear head.

Your a) and b) are both extremes. You need to have balance, because everything is about balance.

[Forum Explorer]

This is madness.
I am some one who insists on both freedom of expression and also no consequence for expression. Why? Because that is how a society is run.

A) that's how North Korea is run. North Korea, the hermit state that hasn't changed in decades.
You need to be able to speak up to be able to change things for the better

B) expressing your dislike with a fist!?! That is barbarism, uncivil, and against order and hurts society.
If the world was like that then everything would be discussed by war. And that is bad. That is oppression.
Punching someone is assault and not just a simple gesture. It becomes a matter of a attacking someone, and that is bad.
Assaulting someone because you disagree with them is evil.

You should never express your self with attacks because if your discussing opinions, and your opinions don't match, then your trying to convince them that you are right, not insult them or hurt them or even think less of them. Deferent opinions is a good thing. Because everyone is not always right. Part of being a adult is being able to change your opinions and having a open mind and a clear head.

Your a) and b) are both extremes. You need to have balance, because everything is about balance.

He used a bad example for B, here's three better ones:

You get banned from a forum, kicked out of a public location, or even simply just losing a friend.

There are consequences for your words and you can't have both unlimited expression and unlimited protection from how you express yourself. Because giving someone B prevents another person from having A.

[Findpathfencer]

He used a bad example for B, here's three better ones:

You get banned from a forum, kicked out of a public location, or even simply just losing a friend.

There are consequences for your words and you can't have both unlimited expression and unlimited protection from how you express yourself. Because giving someone B prevents another person from having A.

I should hire you as my editor.

[Grinner]

We farm to not die.

Except at this point we really don't even need to farm animals. We just like the way they taste.

This i believe is madness.
I am some one who insists on both freedom of expression and also no consequence for expression. Why? Because that is how a society is run.

A) that's how North Korea is run. North Korea, the hermit state that hasn't changed in decades.
You need to be able to speak up to be able to change things for the better

B) expressing your dislike with a fist!?! That is barbarism, uncivil, and against order and hurts society.
If the world was like that then everything would be discussed by war. And that is bad. That is oppression.
Punching someone is assault and not just a simple gesture. It becomes a matter of a attacking someone, and that is bad.
Assaulting someone because you disagree with them is evil.

You should never express your self with attacks because if your discussing opinions, and your opinions don't match, then your trying to convince them that you are right, not insult them or hurt them or even think less of them. Deferent opinions is a good thing. Because everyone is not always right. Part of gaining wisdom and being wise is being able to change your opinions and having a open mind and a clear head.

Your a) and b) are both extremes. You need to have balance, because everything is about balance.

Words can cut as deep as any knife.

[Findpathfencer]

Except at this point we really don't even need to farm animals. We just like the way they taste.

Words can cut as deep as any knife.

That's why I keep my knife collection next to my pen collection.

We do need to farm animals because we make things out of them like fur, and they make milk and eggs and honey and many other things. Though you are right that we eat too much meat and should eat more veggies.

[SiuiS]

Woah there, sport. Hie away from anything resembling real political entities, would you kindly?

[warty goblin]

Except at this point we really don't even need to farm animals. We just like the way they taste.

Personally I eat meat because I like animals. A pig is a fine creature if you give it space to be a proper pig, and makes for both good eating and a pleasant addition to a homestead. I figure my pigs have a good life, and if I get to die half so well as getting unexpectedly annihilated by a bullet mushrooming its way through my brain in the middle of a good breakfast on a fine November morning, I'll count myself lucky.

Chickens are marvelous to have about, providing eggs, meat, and do a good job of keeping the bugs down. Plus a hen who eats mostly bugs and grass lays the best eggs you'll ever eat. Again, given space and a bit of freedom, chickens are very pleasant animals with an interesting and complex social structure that only occasionally results in fatal violence. They're smarter than they're given credit for too. My life would certainly be the poorer for not having ever had chickens in it. Which also means that it includes the slaughter of chickens.


So I eat meat because it tastes good, yes. But that's not the only reason.

[noparlpf]

Eating other life-forms for energy isn't evil, it's nature.

On the other hand, modern agricultural practices are inefficient, unsustainable, highly inhumane, and pretty evil.

[Erloas]

On the other hand, modern agricultural practices are inefficient, unsustainable, highly inhumane, and pretty evil.

While you could say they are inhumane, and with that evil, it is very hard to put any credible backing to it being inefficient.

We're creating a whole lot more food now with less land and fewer people then ever before, so I don't see how that could be inefficient.
Unsustainable is a bit harder to quantify, but I don't see any indication of what we're doing now failing in the foreseeable future. Given in developing nations they are still expanding the land used for agriculture, but in most cases that is because they have less efficient agriculture compared to developed countries.

[noparlpf]

While you could say they are inhumane, and with that evil, it is very hard to put any credible backing to it being inefficient.

We're creating a whole lot more food now with less land and fewer people then ever before, so I don't see how that could be inefficient.
Unsustainable is a bit harder to quantify, but I don't see any indication of what we're doing now failing in the foreseeable future. Given in developing nations they are still expanding the land used for agriculture, but in most cases that is because they have less efficient agriculture compared to developed countries.

Check out a documentary called "King Corn"; I think it's on YouTube, or was when I took that food anthropology class a couple of years ago.

At least in the US, we put a huge amount of money and resources into growing corn. Not even edible corn; corn that has to be processed to even be semi-edible to livestock, or that can be processed into ethanol or sugar. It would be hugely unprofitable if the US government didn't subsidise it, it's not a crop that humans can eat, and it's not even a crop that our livestock can eat, yet we force them to eat it until they develop bleeding ulcers and have to be kept alive with drugs. If we used that land for actual edible crops, we'd have way more food, and if we used the land we use for livestock for other edible crops, we'd have even more food. And anyway, meat, especially cows, is energetically inefficient to produce.

[SiuiS]

Eating other life-forms for energy isn't evil, it's nature.

On the other hand, modern agricultural practices are inefficient, unsustainable, highly inhumane, and pretty evil.

I was going to ask if you meant husbandry and animal food processing, because agriculture is plants and I couldn't envision evil wheat and wheat by-productsI'msosorryCecil

[Aedilred]

I was going to ask if you meant husbandry and animal food processing, because agriculture is plants and I couldn't envision evil wheat and wheat by-productsI'msosorryCecil

Not so sure about that.

agriculture
[ag-ri-kuhl-cher]

noun
1.
the science, art, or occupation concerned with cultivating land, raising crops, and feeding, breeding, and raising livestock; farming.
2.
the production of crops, livestock, or poultry.

What is evil anyway? Is there reason to the rhyme? Without evil there can be no good so it must be good to be evil sometimes.

[pendell]

Yeah that’s a loaded question.
I’ll try to answer without straying into religion here:
Yes we’re all evil; it’s an innate trait we’re stuck with. Fortunately we have the power to see and understand the difference between good and evil. Therefore we can fight our nature and strive to not be evil.

On food:
Food of any kind is required for basic survival. Everything eats.
So in order for us to survive we need to kill things and eat them. Humans are amazing because we can eat a very large variety of plants and animals; that means we not only have tons of options but we can afford to be picky.

Pretty much this. The question of whether humans are capable of overcoming evil without supernatural assistance is religious and not board-appropriate. But the fact that the battle against the evil in ourselves is worth fighting, even if it's a losing battle, is not in doubt. Odin will have his Ragnarok, even knowing in advance that Fenris Wulf will win.



As towards humans eating animals -- for your consideration . Hunter-Gatherer societies as a rule consume much of their energy in the form of animal protein. Consider the binocular vision of humans, the pointed teeth -- we are not herbivores.

There's nothing inherently evil about that. Herbivore populations need to be controlled by carnivores, and as the apex predator we have driven off most natural competitors. So if you don't want herbivore overpopulation , humans are going to have to do the job of the predators we have displaced -- we must kill the surplus.

And because IMO it's rude to kill an animal and leave it to rot, we should strive if at all possible to eat every bit of it. That's the circle of life.

I define evil as 'out of balance' with the world and nature, causing harm to oneself and others and nature. So I dispute the idea that good and evil must both exist ; if everything was as it should be , there would be no place for evil at all.

To me, evil is not the opposite of good. Evil is what happens when good is taken too far, or too little. To me, good is the golden mean , and of course there is no need for any unnecessary deviation therefrom. So good can exist quite comfortably without evil.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Heliomance]

Personally, I see nothing inherently morally wrong with cannibalism, in itself. With killing a sapient being for food, yes, but if they're dead already, I don't see cannibalism as evil any more than any other method of dealing with the corpse. Squicky, yeah. Not for me. But not evil.

[pendell]

Arguing from nature, I'm not so sure that's a good idea. Predator animals eat prey animals -- lions eat gazelle, for example -- but predators rarely eat other predators. In fact, predators rarely actually KILL other predators of the same species. Instead, they either drive each other out of their territories [solitary hunters] or they establish a dominance hierarchy [wolves, dogs]. There is a surrender reflex .

This is why a seemingly peaceful dog can 'savage' a young child. Pet dogs seem to believe that humans are part of their 'pack'. Thus they submit to the pack elders but feel it is right to discipline pack 'juniors' with their teeth. A baby is not exactly alpha material. And a baby doesn't know how to signal submission to a dog -- by going limp -- so the dog keeps hitting harder.

At any rate, so far as I know it's only humans who wage wars of extermination or genocide against others of their own species. As I understand it, most other creatures do not even kill other members of their species, normally, and they definitely do not hunt them.

One of the few exceptions I can think of is in the area of mating -- a male lion will kill the cubs of another lion when taking over a pride. animal infanticide also occurs when there is great privation, and there may be other stressors as well. But I think the principle in the natural world is that, as a rule of thumb, predators do not eat their own. I invite comment from any biology major why this is so, 'cause I'm not exactly sure.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Aedilred]

At any rate, so far as I know it's only humans who wage wars of extermination or genocide against others of their own species. As I understand it, most other creatures do not even kill other members of their species, normally, and they definitely do not hunt them.

Although I cannot cite any evidence, I believe other primates, specifically chimps, have been documented fairly unambiguously waging war against rival groups within the same species.

One of the few exceptions I can think of is in the area of mating -- a male lion will kill the cubs of another lion when taking over a pride. animal infanticide also occurs when there is great privation, and there may be other stressors as well. But I think the principle in the natural world is that, as a rule of thumb, predators do not eat their own. I invite comment from any biology major why this is so, 'cause I'm not exactly sure.

Again - not a zoologist, so going mainly off memory and loose generalisations here - predators will often kill rival predators in the same environment when they can, without discrimination by species. Lions will make an apparent point of killing cheetahs and leopards they encounter, although they don't usually eat them. The main reason it doesn't happen too often is probably risk of injury: two predators of similar stature fighting often stand a good chance of crippling each other, which is bad for everyone.

From what I understand, cannibalism is just not generally very good for you. Various forms of spongiform encephalopathy seem to be caused by it in a number of species: most famously BSE in cattle and kuru in humans. And there are very few conditions you really want less than spongiform encephalopathy.

[warty goblin]

Although I cannot cite any evidence, I believe other primates, specifically chimps, have been documented fairly unambiguously waging war against rival groups within the same species.

There's also ants, various species of which fight wars of extermination, and also enslave each other. Apparently people have recently observed formerly hostile colonies of different species cooperating to fight off slaver ants as well.

Again - not a zoologist, so going mainly off memory and loose generalisations here - predators will often kill rival predators in the same environment when they can, without discrimination by species. Lions will make an apparent point of killing cheetahs and leopards they encounter, although they don't usually eat them. The main reason it doesn't happen too often is probably risk of injury: two predators of similar stature fighting often stand a good chance of crippling each other, which is bad for everyone.

It's fairly well documented that wolves kill a lot of wolves.

[Erloas]

A lot of fish will eat any other fish if they can, same species or not. They don't try to kill them off though. Though since most fish work independently it isn't like one species would be able to target another to thoroughly.

And yes, one of the main reasons predators don't go after each other is because the chance of being hurt is too great. It doesn't take too bad of a wound to kill you in nature, so the benefit of having another species killed off isn't great enough to justify the very high risk in doing so.

[The Vagabond]

My personal opinion is "No."
Oh, you're asking if we're monsters? No more than a bear. Or an ape.
What? You're saying we default to good? F*** no.
My personal ethos is this:
People are animals. They aren't good, or evil, they just ARE. They do. Most of the time, what they do is make themselves content through various different means.
We are not evil, but neither are they, really. We eat. We kill to eat, and sometimes do things to animals that most people wouldn't accept happening to people. But we do it because we want to make our own lives better. Sometimes we make roads, buildings, and help. We do that to make our own lives better.

[SiuiS]

Arguing from nature, I'm not so sure that's a good idea. Predator animals eat prey animals -- lions eat gazelle, for example -- but predators rarely eat other predators. In fact, predators rarely actually KILL other predators of the same species. Instead, they either drive each other out of their territories [solitary hunters] or they establish a dominance hierarchy [wolves, dogs]. There is a surrender reflex .

Wolves actually do not take the alpha pair beta pair etc., pack format we are accustomed to in the wild. It's a stress reflex noted in wolves who were in captivity and perpetuated by scientific bias, as there were "enough" markers of this behavior in wild wolf packs to make broad claims. Similar stress reactions include nice, who all go homosexual, cannibalistic and refuse to procreate or socialize. So that isn't a good indicator of much.

That article is also... Eh. It's a man using outdated sexual psychology to justify dominating his women, specifically in the context of owning a slave girl. So whatever reflexes and instincts there are there have been cherry picked.

This is why a seemingly peaceful dog can 'savage' a young child.

I don't think bad parenting should be used for discussions of innate nature

You're right about babies though. Human kids are infamously stupid around animals. A human grub's default expression upon seeing a dog or cat is (in the language of that dog or cat) "I am going to ****ing kill you and eat your young". Eyes flared, mouth open, teeth bared, making hideous screams. We call that "smiling" and "laughing wih joy", but the animals, they don't know that.

It's fairly well documented that wolves kill a lot of wolves.

Ooh. Source?

A lot of fish will eat any other fish if they can, same species or not. They don't try to kill them off though. Though since most fish work independently it isn't like one species would be able to target another to thoroughly.

And yes, one of the main reasons predators don't go after each other is because the chance of being hurt is too great. It doesn't take too bad of a wound to kill you in nature, so the benefit of having another species killed off isn't great enough to justify the very high risk in doing so.

We as humans actually have a skewed understanding if harm. Remember the first time you heard that if a horse breaks it's leg, they just kill it? That's not a horse thing. That's an animal thing. Small cuts in humans scar over quickly, in animals they scab and fester. Breaks in bones are lethal. We eat toxins to add variety to our food, or sometimes to hide that we are eating spoiled food.

Humans are bad ass, and you all should stop to acknowledge how amazing you are as a species sometimes. :3

[ghost_warlock]

Assume, for the sake of argument, that humans are evil. Then what? What does that even mean? What conclusions can we draw from this information? What would be the consequences?

To me, this isn't really useful information in any way. "Evil" is too general a term and "evilness" is likely more a gradient than binary, anyway. At most, I know I can expect an evil person to act in self-interest, but how's that any different than what every living creature does on a daily basis?

Personally, I see nothing inherently morally wrong with cannibalism, in itself. With killing a sapient being for food, yes, but if they're dead already, I don't see cannibalism as evil any more than any other method of dealing with the corpse. Squicky, yeah. Not for me. But not evil.

Squick nothing, I'm far more concerned about prions.

[SiuiS]

Evil creates it's own purpose by existing. If evil exists, then it is indeed, evil, and we have an obligation to strive away from evil and toward good in all ways in all things.

Evil, by nature, days 'the naturalistic fallacy is not a fallacy'. Any discussion of evil must buy into that or it's a failure of the basic tennets of dialogue.

[Frozen_Feet]

While you could say they are inhumane, and with that evil, it is very hard to put any credible backing to it being inefficient.

We're creating a whole lot more food now with less land and fewer people then ever before, so I don't see how that could be inefficient.

Efficient and sustainable agriculture is a local thing, NOT a global thing. A significant portion of arable land is farmed with basically medieval tools and techniques. Minority of all land is arable, and minority of arable land produces majority of food.

The discourse on ethicality of meat-eating and agriculture is as old as those two practices are. A consensus was also reached a long time ago as to how to do them: you do them efficiently, while treating things you eat with utmost respect, and if you have to kill something, you kill it with minimum pain and suffering caused. The "sapient versus non-sapient" argument only served as a sidetrack from these premises, as it made people disregard suffering of other beings and leads to lower overall productivity, efficiency and sustainability more often than not. This is true of all hierarchical world-views, where some class of things is considered arbitrarily higher or holier than some other class.

For a really basic example, giving pigs pieces of rope to toy with and chew, one significantly reduces the stress they suffer, making them less violent, less likely to catch disease, more likely to eat well and even demonstrably tastier when eaten! But when a pig farmer goes "oh they're just animals, they don't really feel stuff", they will disregard things like this and hurt their own business without even realizing it.

In the end, life cannot exists without suffering. Even plants, which on the face of it only need sunlight, water and minerals, compete of living space and smother each other. The benefit of one is detriment of another; all ethics systems are based on the notion that at least sometimes, the benefit can be greater than the detriment, but due to laws of thermodynamics, even this can only be achieved locally and temporarily, never eternally and universally. So if you feel like it, you can deem meat-eating unethical, but the logical conclusion is that life, itself, is unethical.

[SiuiS]

Efficient and sustainable agriculture is a local thing, NOT a global thing. A significant portion of arable land is farmed with basically medieval tools and techniques. Minority of all land is arable, and minority of arable land produces majority of food.

Is that relevant? If this minority of a minority produces enough to, quantitatively, feed the world three times over, then it doesn't matter if it's a local thing. Everywhere has that sort of locality. Those locations are global.

Give those medieval farmers better tools, better practices, a bit of subsidy. Help them help themselves. Focus on the concept of agriculture across the world. Help them maintain their land. If our tiny sliver of land can produce such abundance, help them improve their slivers of land.

For a really basic example, giving pigs pieces of rope to toy with and chew, one significantly reduces the stress they suffer, making them less violent, less likely to catch disease, more likely to eat well and even demonstrably tastier when eaten! But when a pig farmer goes "oh they're just animals, they don't really feel stuff", they will disregard things like this and hurt their own business without even realizing it.

Interesting.