pull down to refresh
2577 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined 1 Nov 2023 \ on: Talking to a vegan meta
Since I am both a vegan and a bitcoiner, I can confirm the similarity in mindset.
Both are radical departures from the status quo based on deeply held principles that require major sacrifices of convenience and come off as crazy and vaguely threatening.
What are the deeply-held principles behind your veganism?
reply
In short, I believe plausibly sentient beings deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to moral consideration.
reply
Another vegan bitcoiner checking in, and I have also thought about how similar it is in terms of discussions. Getting the same old arguments, debunking myths et.c.
reply
Where do you fall on venison? Not a troll question. Deer populations in Scotland have to be managed for their wellbeing (ask Brian May). Any reason not to not waste the carcasses?
reply
No harm. It might've read so, however I enjoy a discussion on the topic, it's just that its mostly the same conversation every time and almost never civilized, just emotions on opposite sides.
The carcass should be left to the ecosystem and not brought out of it and imbalance it further. There's animals/insects/fungi/et.c. dependent on it.
What most believe is helping the system is us humans trying to control what we already disturbed too much, and should in a controlled fashion step out of as much as possible.
For me the issue really begins earlier, why do humans think it's for the well being of a deer to kill it? Isn't that simply a contradiction. If there really is a need for population control, killing is not the answer. We can't allow ourselves to fall to these low standards.
reply
Thanks for the response. Nothing better than a civilised discussion! And nothing wrong with choosing to be vegan of course. The beauty of this whole thing is you get to choose.
On deer management I have heard first hand about mass-starvings durning bad winters, so in our arrogant human fashion we think we are doing these poor creatures “a favour” by reducing the numbers artificially so as to mitigate nature’s own cruel balancing mechanisms. However, I can’t help but think it might be the right way to go about it.
A low standard for me would be allowing an animal to suffer when I know I can do something about it.
I suppose this now circles back to whether before all this human action is ultimately responsible for artificially elevated deer populations. I don’t know the answer to that.
reply
My take is slightly different, but unsurprisingly it's closer to @Bullen's. What I think constitutes the "low standard" is that hunting is fun and meat is tasty, so the incentive to rationalize this behavior is very high and the incentive to look for alternatives is very low.
In principle though, I'm not opposed to particular animal products, but rather to the conventional means of producing them. If you found a dead deer and turned it into venison, I don't have any objection to that.
On the specific situation of overpopulation, I'm not a utilitarian, so I'm probably opposed. If it were extremely well targeted to eliminating only the animals in extreme states of distress with no hope of recovery, I'd feel differently. However, killing perfectly healthy animals for the good of the many is too close to moral reasoning that has justified many human atrocities for me to buy in.
reply
Howdy partner! I think that makes at least three of us on SN.
reply