[ExI] Fame meat

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Thu Apr 24 03:43:29 UTC 2008

Spike writes

> ...Its a shame it will probably ensure the extinction of cattle.

Yes, that's a point I've made for years. Namely, what would
a true "cattle advocate" say for his clients?  I claim that he'd
be completely in favor of the present system, only with 
stronger guarantees against unpleasant conditions for cows.

> This points out a curious tension in the logic of PETA.  If we encourage a
> manufactured meat substitute, what happens if we invent something that is
> far better than any animal-based meat: tastier, healthier, more vitamins,
> far cheaper, etc.  Then it would decrease greenhouse gas emissions if we
> slay all the superfluous beasts, all the large ruminants for instance, to
> stop their incessant farting.

Quite right.

> ...I am not sure PETA would be [should be] happy about that,
> even if it would theoretically help stop global warming.

Evidently, as James posted, PETA is in favor of genocide in the
case of cattle and other animals raised for meat. (Naturally, they
would prefer that presently existing such animals be allowed to
die from old age.)

The tension you speak of runs all the way through debates on
euthanasia to debates on population control. Me, I'm in favor
of our genocide of inferior animals who compete with humans
for resources.  (Wow! Am I inviting attack. But note that if
I had said *exactly the same thing* in other words, my views
would actually be fully supported by practically everyone.)

Watch:  "Me, I'm in favor of replacing our raising and breeding
of animal livestocks by artificial products."  Quite the same thing.

The common answer to all sorts of these questions is to embrace
principles such as the following:

* so long as a life is worth living (experiencing) it is better
   to be alive than dead
* the more entities that get to live, the better, in proportion
   to how sentient or sensitive or advanced are the entities
   in question
* those who believe that we would be better off with sixty
   millions of humans instead of six billions of humans, should
   recognize that their own chance at life would have been
   proportionally diminished, and they should consider the
   unacceptable ethical consequence of so depriving billions
   in the future
* terminally ill persons who have no prospects for further
   life worth living (according to their own values) ought to
   be encouraged to either die or to be frozen


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list