|
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
While I understand the logic of the Four points you've put forth I am confident that 3 words defeat all 4 of them.
'Quality of Life'
I think the easiest way to visualize it is to think of Zoos.
If a Polar bear lived in the same conditions at a zoo as an industrial animal then the viewing public would be horrified. Its only a fallacy of human nature that allows it to persist in industrial food production. And that's an attribute of humanity that exists in the same constelation as was touched upon by Milgram.
When we are insulated from something (whether it be the suffering of animals or people or nature) then its very easy for us to avoid considering it. In large part because we are pseudo-innocent in that if we followed the thought through to its logical conclusion our lives would be derailed.
So instead of derailing our lives we simply get off a stop before then which allows us to maintain our status quo. |
Oh, so you're talking about Stanley Milgram, I didn't recognise it when you capitalised "RAM". That makes things easier, as this analogy seems to make your example even less consistent.
First of all, you're assuming that the conditions we'd see a polar bear in an industrial context would be horrible. However, given the facts that:
- Polar bears are extremely sensitive to heat: Both in Singapore and Chicago, algae grew in their fur, turning it green, as the temperature was too hot. Such infestetion would decrease the monetary value of the coat.
- Polar bears are extremely carnivorous: They'd require great amounts of food (i.e. other animals) and, if you give them a limited diet, not only their meat wouldn't be suitable for consumption (in fact, I know that their liver is poisonous to humans, so I would even wonder whether their meat could be used that way), it would lead to their death. Now, they don't reproduce that much, and the gestation takes quite long. What do you think would happen if they were not given proper care? Even the owner would have a lot to lose from it.
Now, let's get back to reality and focus on Milgram's experiment:
- Authority: Milgram's experiment was a test on authority, and giving the shocks was a key factor to the experiment.
When you eat meat, it's not a test on authority because it's deeply connected to hunger: no one tells you to eat, that's a human necessity. It's a strive for survival, rather than a random act. Therefore, all the following factors can't be compared as if they represented the same phenomenom.
- Direct vs. indirect responsability: The learner was there supposedly because he wanted to, and and the participants were told that they wouldn't have to hold any responsability if the learner eventually died from the injuries. There was a direct link between pressing the button and the belief that the learner was being injured.
When you eat meat, unless you kill the animal yourself, there's an indirect responsability - once again, differing from Milgram's experiment. In fact, the limit of perception you mentioned (as in "pseudo-innocence") is also what led participants to believe they were harming the learner with the shocks, when they weren't (at all). Therefore, as you have absolutely no guarantees that the farm the vegetables you eat come from is not harming the environment, the argument ends up being valid for both sides. There's absolutely no reasons why vegetarianism is freed of unintended consequences, specially when it seems to have such emotional background.
In fact, it reminds me of a documentary about students fighting sweatshops when they've clearly never seen one in their lives. They ended up doing more harm than good, even though their intention was honourable.
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
Every location where culture exists has 3 primary windows from which it can be seen. One says "better to move forward". One says "better to move backward" and one says "better to stay here". One is more true than the others, and on this issue you are at the wrong window. |
That's interesting - where have you seen about this theory, and how exactly do you know what's the most appropriate in this case?
I could do some reading on this, provided the material 
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
I will assume you've sacrificed your perspective on animals in order to have a more accurate perspective on that topic. I'll check back in there with greater frequency looking for your reply. |
I'll try to write today
___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]
|
)
