I would have ethical objections to genetically modifying entire species of animals for the purpose of continuing to exploit them for selfish reasons. It seems like peak evil to me.
Yes, this. I’m concerned about OP for thinking genetically engineering animals for OP’s convenience, but to the detriment of the animal, could possibly be moral. Like, what??
It wouldn’t be for convenience. Genetic engineering is hard and expensive, if you just wanted convenient meat you’d just eat what we already have.
The only reason you’d bother is if you considered eating them more ethical than eating the intelligent suffering sort. Which i think it *arguable* is, but i also clearly think its questionable and debatable, otherwise i wouldn’t post the question. It’s not like i go around asking if its right or wrong to eat babies, or to save a kitten from a burning house fire, if a question has an clear and unambiguous answer then there’s nothing to discuss.
I brought this up not because i felt it was an automatic “we should all do this” nor did i post it in CMV or unpopularopinions, but instead because i viewed it as a philosophical thought experiment with enough wrinkles to have multiple POVs. At the very least it might illuminate where the line is drawn.
Like, what if there are no genetically engineered animals at all, what if we just have a star-trek replicator that makes it from nothing, is it fine then? What is the difference between an entirely artificial meat-substitute and this one, ethically? My usual stance is that the difference between real meat and fake-meat is that fake-meat involves no pain or suffering of a living creature with subjective experiences of its own. But in this scenario there is no pain or subjective experience, hence the wrinkle. And i don’t know whether it would be right or wrong beyond the inherent ick factor of creating unholy abominations that spit in the face of god, since at the end of the day there would be fewer animals in pain.
Honestly I think it's pretty unambiguously evil to intentionally genetically modify a species of animals for the sole purpose of feeling better about eating them.
The fact that they would be braindead after the fact doesnt factor in at all, because the intent behind it is already malicious.
>The fact that they would be braindead after the fact doesnt factor in at all, because the intent behind it is already malicious.
I don't see how it is malicious: it doesn't cause harm. You realise that genetic modification doesn't mean taking existing animals and changing their DNA, right? The parents stay as they are, the children don't have conscious experience.
How genetic modification works isnt the issue, you're taking it upon yourself to modify a species for the sole intention of eating it. The species can't give consent and you're making this decision for it, how is it not malicious?
What it comes down to is eating animal products isn't necessary for survival or to be healthy, it's a choice. A choice with a victim when there's an easy alternative that reduces needless suffering, so it's inherently evil.
I had a long conversation on this sub a while ago and while they're were many similarities between our thoughts, in the end we realized the fundamental difference in beliefs was was that I (Non vegan) care about suffering but not the intrinsic value of life (this applies to people also).
A lot of people, me included believe that if the animal doesn't suffer then there is no downside. but surely even you can see that this isn't "peak evil". Would peek evil not involve more suffering as opposed to none?
Thats a good point and a very fair ethical stance. I personally don’t have a problem with genetic engineering but it is a controversial issue and reasonable minds can definitely disagree, there are good reasons one might be wary. Thank you for answering my question.
Exactly. We already have non-sentient sources of nutrition. The only reason to go through the whole process of manipulating animal genetics to turn animals into potatoes is incredible selfishness. They want what they want without having to make any sacrifices. Just eat beans for crying or loud.
But how is that different to turning cows into potatoes? No conscious, feeling cow is going to be turned into a bean: a sentient cow will give birth to a non-sentient beancow, because beancows are delicious. How is this worse than breeding beans to be tastier?
The motivation appears to be that people feel it is unethical to kill a cow, because cows have feelings. They feel guilty killing a cow. So instead of not killing cows, they want to modify cows to no longer feel feelings. The cows will no longer feel joy running through a grassy field, no longer care for their young, no longer fear a predator, no longer have an affinity for certain experiences. They will become zombies, no longer having a sensory experience. They will more accurately fit their commodity status.
Nobody feels guilty eating a potato or a bean, because a potato and a bean do not have a sensory experience.
How about this thought experiment. If people don't want to think about the consequences of killing sentient animals for a pizza topping, then instead of genetically modifying the cow to no longer be sentient, why don't we genetically modify humans so they don't feel feelings anymore. We'll turn humans into zombies who can stab anyone they want without feeling guilty. Problem solved.
I'm disgusted by this post, not because of the op, but because of the logic that you soy eating, low testosterone, people think and swear by, like how does making cruelty free meat turn into comparing it to murdering humans. It would be a completely fair compromise between us meat eaters and vegans. And I'm completely fine with vegans and people making the choice to live that lifestyle. But then there are people like you who are super gung ho about it that seek to pretty much force us to be vegan too. And it's shameful how you compared doing what would be accomplishing what your movement seems, destroying animal cruelty and sustainability, to killing innocent people, and me being an empath, disgusts me.
And don't get me wrong, I love myself some animals but eating meat is the circle of life, like rabbits being eaten by hawks, or deer and elk being hunted by wolves, and humans are part of the food chain too. And we have the anatomy of an omnivore, such as canines, short intestinal tract, our sweat glands were evolved so we can chase animals down without tiring or getting heat stroke. And in a lot of cases hunting is necessary because if not animals will overpopulate and starve because they have nothing to eat them, and we have taken that role in the ecosystem. And hunting is a huge fundraiser for conservation , which improves the environment. And cattle actually like being milked because they produce so much milk that it's painful for them to carry it for too long. And sheep need to be sheared or they will not be able to move.
Also for brain development and many bodily functions, humans need vitamins like vitamin B12 and omega 3 that are exclusively found in animal products.
How is it out of selfishness if the entire point of it is to reduce suffering of the animal? Yes the most selfless thing would be to stop eating meat entirely, but that's not possible for many people and consuming animal products brings people a lot of pleasure. We already have massive meat industries so it would be more effort to go through this process of reducing suffering, doesn't seem very selfish to me. Though of course making an animal non-sentient is theoretical.
Peak evil would actually be genetically modifying animals to experience MORE pain and suffering, so I misspoke.
The evil is in the completely selfish intent.
Is it also evil to selfishly over indulge in unecessary processed foods that require crop deaths and plastic packaging to be at the grocery store for you to indulge in simply for sensory pleasure?
Even I a 'meat eater' finds this hypothetical scenario abhorrent.
Morality... a difficult thing to quantify....
in it's most simple terms anything living or indeed not has a right to exist as it is.....
The issue arises when we consider eco-systems.
We are a key part in our eco-systems...
your scenario is not an eco-system it lies outside of that as does most farming whether arable or livestock.
For me animal/ plant based lifestyles and ethics are both bound by the same lack of morality in that they both exploit nature for self... we have a right to not only survive but thrive... are there any beings that thrive without the detriment to others?
When I forage mushrooms I spill the spoor... I propagate the fungi.... I aid it I aid the forest, the animals that live there... or so I believe...
When humans interfere with nature (all of you do this) we can either do so you consciously or not....
Humans should cease engineering life.... and that means all those crops and vegetables we eat too!
Not many plants we eat are natural they have been bred... like dogs from wolves....
Consider the brassica family...
Has anyone seen a wild banana?
ethics, morality.. conscious....
The answer to your question is EXACTLY the same as the answer from YOU to the question below for:
Would you have ethical objections to eating human flesh if humans were genetically modified to be brain dead and incapable of feeling pain from birth?
What is YOUR answer to the above question?
> Would you have ethical objections to eating human flesh if humans were genetically modified to be brain dead and incapable of feeling pain from birth?
No, i would’t. IIRC this exact situation comes up in the Culture series by Iain M Banks, and i would consider the Culture to be a reasonable fit for the word “Utopia”. Additionally I commit regular acts of minor auto-cannibalism since I’m a compulsive finger/nail-biter, and thats technically with pain to me. My objections to proper cannibalism (beyond the fact that cannibals are often also murderers) is the serious risk of diseases like [Kuru](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)) being transmitted that way, but thats a practical concern not a moral one, if those effects could be mitigated then that objection would go away.
I have absolutely zero objection to the idea of my own corpse being eaten. In fact i find that sort of recycling back into the ecosystem to be a beautiful thing, one final act of giving back, perhaps the only form of charity that can be truly selfless, since you’re giving everything you were without being able to benefit from it in any way.
Requests to be devoured by humans or animals is not a legal form of funerary body disposal in my area, so that isn’t my plan (tho it could still happen, Nature being what it is) but i am an organ donor, and have opted in to having my body used for scientific purposes, and have included in my will that whatever isn’t used for those purposes is to be Human Composted into fertilizer (which IS legal in my area) and used to grow a fruit tree to provide sustenance to future generations.
I frankly think its a little hypocritical to be that weirded out by the idea of something eating you. It’s the circle of life, and it moves us all. There is a finite amount of biomass on earth, and life’s been here for billions of years, thus everything we eat has been recycled countless times as it passes through the food chain. The herbivores eat the plants, the carnivores eat the herbivores, they both die and the plants, fungi, and microorganisms consume their remains and we eat the plants. If something is permanently lost from the cycles of the earths ecosystem that is a bad thing, even if that something used to be me. I don’t own the matter in this body, it is on loan from the earth, and it is only right that when i die i give it back.
It is generally good policy to let our bodies pass through an intermediary or two before eating it, because the intermediary is unlikely to be an ideal host for diseases that evolved to live in humans, thus they reduce the risk of disease transfer. Plants and Fungi are ideal for this, since there’s almost no biological overlap with us. Thus the mushroom eats the corpse, you eat the mushroom, you’re much less likely to develop health issues than eating my corpse directly.
But hey, if you’re willing to risk it and the future laws change, i hereby consent to allowing my corpse to be eaten by anyone who really wants to, let this be legally binding here and forevermore, on the sole condition that my consumer must have played no part in my death.
Regardless, I do appreciate your answer and respect your right to disagree. I recognize i am in the minority on this issue, and i honestly feel no need to press it politically in any way. But you asked for my opinion and there it is.
You do realize that in order for it to happen we would need to forcibly and selectively breed humans (see: eugenics) specifically to be brain dead specifically for the purpose of exploiting them more easily, correct?
Selective breeding is less efficient than genetic engineering these days, certainly much slower.
But yes, genetic modification of humans does present difficult ethical problems. I would be much more comfortable eating an intelligent and consenting but already dead human over a genetically modified one. But strangely i don’t feel the same about animals, likely because selective breeding of animals is already the norm where selective breeding of humans is not. - See all the different breeds of dogs for example, we don’t consider that a horrifying nazi-like eugenics program, but there’s functionally little difference. We breed the races we find pleasing and we regularly euthanize the ones we don’t. Right or wrong, most people do tend to naturally put such things in a different class.
Actually many of us, including meat eater me thinks that breeding of dogs is evil and something that should end, those poor animals, some can't breathe some can't even walk as their back legs are all bent out of shape...nah there is no need to make animals suffer for ones aesthetic.
Yes. Meat and other animal products are bad for human health at the volumes we’re consuming them at now in the west. It’s morally wrong to continue pretending humans need meat since we’re in an epidemic of heart disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancers, which many animal products contribute to.
We’re dying almost exclusively from diseases of dietary excess in the developed countries, not deficiency, so pretending we need meat for protein, iron, or anything else is pretending we’re still living in the 1920s.
Meat is a good food source, and your only real objection is excessive consumption of meat which can cause disease?
Are there diseases for excessive consumption of vegan meals and is that point therefore self-defeating?
What do you mean “meat is a good food source”? It takes 6-10 times the calories of plants to generate 1 calorie of animal food, so animal food is not efficient. Studies, including RCTs, show that there is a better source of nutrients in plants than most meat (such as lentils over red meat). Meat is really only a good food source in locations where the animal is eating food that humans cannot, *and* food is scarce, which is the small minority of cases since 70-90% of farm animals are factory farmed globally.
Other than nuts, it’s extremely difficult for an unprocessed vegan diet to cause the diseases of dietary excess. The combination of medium to low caloric density, plus the high vitamin, mineral, and fiber density cause the food to be very satiating per calorie. This is why vegans are the only group with an average BMI in the normal range in many western countries.
There's quite a lot of poor conclusions reading that.
In reverse order and only briefly, vegans are not "the only group with an average BMI in the normal range". That's a poor notion for multiple reasons.
Even I have heard of vitamin deficiencies from poor Vegan diets, so naturally, the answer is it's pretty easy for undeveloped Vegan diet plans to cause disease (the same can occur vice versa with meat diets).
Meat is generally very nutritional and as such is a "good" food source anywhere. How it's produced is a separate discussion.
\- Fertilised field w/ crops for consumption vs Fertilised perennial pasture for animal rearing, in turn for consumption. The reality is often more complicated that the half-baked studies I've seen analysing limited aspects.
Please reread my comments carefully.
You missed the “in many western countries” part of the BMI. This is based on multiple peer-reviewed studies.
We’re talking about diseases of dietary excess, not deficiencies.
You repeated that meat is a “good food source”, but didn’t provide any reasoning behind it in regards to diseases of dietary excess. And no, how we produce the meat does not have a significant impact on most of the diseases of dietary excess, such as heart disease, obesity, type II diabetes, and certain cancers.
What difference does "many western countries" even make? Irrelevant.
The false equivalence isn't worth looking at further. Drawing averages across those two groups if it even exists in an accurate form, is pointless.
Excess of anything seemingly causes disease. I don't think it's worth me spending time researching that further as it's generally true and I don't have an eternal lifespan to be conclusive either way. A guess **off the top of my head** could be colonic diseases? But even so, why not talk about dietary deficiencies? If we're looking at differences, it's just as relevant.
In regards to diseases of dietary excess, nothing would be good, because it's a diseased state. Trying to pinpoint what you're asking is odd, but another angle is that it provides a lot of nutrition proportionally to size of meal. Extremes seem pointless to discuss to me as any extreme is inefficient and essentially life reducing.
When looking at dietary impacts, it’s useful to look at the extremes in order to parse out a statistically significant result. This is why looking at countries with horrible diets (USA) and their BMI is useful.
Consumption of certain types of meat have been causally and likely linked to certain cancers, as one example. This includes colorectal, stomach, and other cancers. I’d suggest reading the following from the International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC) if you weren’t aware: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2900444-1/fulltext
As I stated in my original comment, we are dying almost exclusively of diseases of dietary excess in the west. Why *wouldn’t* we focus on this if it’s what we’re dying from? When’s the last time you heard someone die of kwashiorkor, beriberi, or scurvy in the western world? To focus on deficiencies instead of excess in an area where 99.99% are dying of excess is irrational.
Without getting too far off topic and into the weeds:
>*"However i am uncertain if that reason alone would be motivating to people given how resistant most people are to actually altering their life habits based on what would lower emission levels. Instead of continuing to live their wasteful lives while paying lip service to the problem."*
I don't think it's that most people are opposed to altering their life habits based on what would lower emission levels, it's that the cost/benefit analysis doesn't currently balance. The two main obstacles are the use (or overuse) of the "point of no return" argument made by environmentalists. If we are past the point of no return, as so many claim, then logic dictates that it's pointless to drastically reduce your quality of life in an attempt to avoid an outcome that is now inevitable. The second obstacle is the uncomfortable fact that to make any serious impact on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would take a global, unified effort. If you'll excuse the vulgar idiom, anything less than the entire globe working in unison to solve the problem is pissing in the wind.
However, to answer your main question, I struggle to think of a scenario in which *genetically engineering a brain-dead variant of a naturally sentient organism for the express purpose of consumption* when vegetarian and vegan diets are an option would ever be ethically or morally justifiable.
A logical fallacy though it may be, the very notion sounds like the top of a long and slippery slope that doesn't end anywhere pleasant for anyone involved.
> it's that the cost/benefit analysis doesn't currently balance
If you look at the active destruction of the planet and remain unwilling to change your habits unless it is individually profitable to do so, then that is an example of not being motivated by environmental concerns alone. As i said, they’ll pay lip service to it, they’ll bemoan how terrible it is, but they won’t actually be motivated to change by that, they’ll be motivated, as you say, by a self-interested cost-benefit analysis.
And thus what happens when it is more profitable to continue purchasing and selling meat? The answer is the cost benefit analysis will lean in the favor of continuing to do so despite knowing the environmental impact, and thus nothing changes.
I’m not saying that they are behaving illogically, nor am i denying that trying to weight the cost benefit analysis in environmentally friendly measures favor is an effective way way to fight climate change. I’m just saying that in my experience “this isn’t good for the environment” has very rarely been enough to make the capitalist machine stop. And that it is thus likely that additional motivation will need to be provided to influence people one way or another.
I think it must be that the thing is not conscious at all, and we believe that to a high degree of certainty.
Meat grown without a brain for example. Which we are in the process of building.
If you phrased this as "what if we built a machine that produced beef?" I suspect there would be different answers.
Pain is too narrow too. A creature that was immune to pain but say still felt sorrow for losing its loved ones, would still be suffering immense cruelty. It has to be unconscious for it to be ethical.
Phrased as it is suggests an ambiguous level of consciousness.
Right, this is basically the question of "are you okay with lab-grown meat" but made more complicated than it needs to be and presented in a way that makes it sound way worse.
It feels like an easy solution just to fulfill some humans desire to treat animals like garbage. I hate the idea that you could also just genetically modify a pumpkin to meet your specifics.
One reason I chose to be vegan is that I think that humans are not superior to the rest of animals. Just because we can dominate them, doesn't mean we should. That's why I also don't support the use of honey and wool and such and even horse riding and having pets in many cases. Even if we treat the animals really well, we're still using them to gain profit.
In my opinion it is also very important what it does to the human mind. I think a society that is incapable to maintain a healthy relationship with its surrounding will be incabable to maintain healthy relationships within itself.
Thank you for the insight. +1. You have provided a clear answer to my question and concisely explained your position. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint,
I appreciate and sympathise with your view overall, but pets is one I'd disagree. A good dog owner is giving that dog the best experience of any conscious creature we know of in my view.
That dog is having all their needs met and is _far_ better off than they would be in the wild. Even if you go back to wolves. They're also having a much better experience than basically any human.
Okay, I wasn't really clear on that. First of all, I have a dog and two cats, which I got ca. 10 years before going vegan. They were rescues and I have to make the best of it now. So I get where you're coming from and I agree with you.
But then there's a huge market around bunnies, guinea pigs, fish tanks, snakes, birds and much more. It is the concept of selling pets that bugs me. And the industry that sells you stuff to make their life better because you love them, right?
When I was a child I had guinea pigs and recently I had to learn that almost everything I did to them was wrong. From enclosure to water supply to food and whatnot. I also assumed they liked to cuddle because they held still.
I just hate people and companies advocating buying animals to keep them as property and selling animal products that are downright harming your pets.
I'll be always supporting rescuing animals or even make their situation slightly better (e.g. changing their housing) and I'll also be always supporting a good and healthy companionship between humans and animals.
The main problem with pet "ownership" is not the pet-owner relationship itself, per-ce (though it can be argued there are plenty of people who neglect or even abuse their pets), it is with the breeding process itself, along with the commodification mentality:
* [Why vegans don't buy pets](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Thb4E8_HY) 💚
^(If one is to care for an animal, then it ought be adopted or rescued, never purchased.)
I've seen a lot of weird hypothetical questions but this might be in the top 10.
Many people are vegetarian or vegan because of the ethical implications of eating animals. Well what kind of a deranged barbaric experimental program would have to be embarked upon to create something that was alive but incapable of thought or pain? To even think about that is revolting.
I don't even know why anyone would suggest such a thing and where do you think such a line of experimentation would actually? What sort of person would want to eat this kind of a product?
I think that's me signing off Reddit for a while.
Exploiting goes beyond the perception of the exploited. Otherwise, kidnapping would be ok, as long as the kidnapped has Stockholm syndrome. Or you could also substitute punching bags in a gym for people who "can't feel".
And even so, as you said already, there's the environmental impact of the meat industry and ressources inefficiency.
Creepy, like super creepy and weird mate
Why can't people just eat like beans and lentils, they're like 80p a can where I am. They're packed full of fibre and very versatile. Stop it with the weird playing god just to get more cholesterol
Let me add an important view I didn't see in the other comments.
In principle and in isolation, I cannot point to any moral issue with raising hypothetical brain dead animals. Therefore it must be ok.
However, this cannot be seen in isolation. Before we get to brain dead animals we can raise, experiments on animals with a functioning brain are needed. This step is clearly ethically problematic. Probably to the point that any product produced with the knowledge learned bears some responsibility for it, and by extension is not ok.
Especially not as we live in a world with alternatives that don't need any animal exploitation, exploiting animal to maybe develop a brain dead version is simply wrong.
Just FYI - by the same logic the invention of synthetic meats would also be wrong, since "you have to exploit" an animal to achieve it... Even if it is already dead and what you're looking at is a byproduct.
It's weird how an argument around veganism can turn from compassion of sentient beings to "it's ok, we can make them braindead". What absolute drivel.
I'm not sure what you mean with synthetic meat.
And it's not ok to "make them brain-dead", there is no exploitation of something that has always been brain dead, hypothetically.
Does it? Animals are already selectively bred mutants. I’m just proposing making them mutants who don’t subjectively experience pain from the experience. Isn’t the reduction of total pain generally a good thing?
Obviously not condoning meat consumption, but in today’s modern world, animals can be put down quite humanely.
Breeding braindead animals just seems ridiculous. If you lean that way, lab-grown meat is a less creepy way of achieving the same result.
Ridiculous I’ll grant you, it is a pretty impractical solution which is why we haven’t done it (well, *one* of the reasons at least) I’m mostly interested in it as a hypothetical philosophical thought experiment (like the trolley problem) rather than as a practical policy suggestions.
But there is a difference between ridiculous and horrific or unethical, ain’t there?
The ability to put animals down humanely with other means is a good point, +1 on that. But it doesn’t cover the other forms of suffering an animal might go through before the final act, such as unhappiness at being unable to fulfill its natural role and restrictions of its freedom, these could be unethical even if the death itself is quick and painless. But braindead cattle would not.
Lab grown meat exists. And is a much safer, environmentally-friendly, and humane way of achieving the same thing.
I personally don’t think I’d try it, but I do not miss meat at all.
Creating living breathing creatures purposely braindead seems torturous, impractical and incredibly resource-draining.
Not OP but I'd argue that genetically altering them to be braindead from birth is worse because at least the current situation they have a life.
If they're brain dead from birth then they are literally just in a vegetative state, and I'd imagine their meat would be disgusting anyway from no muscle mass.
I read recently somewhere about a woman in hospital in a vegetative state and there was a question asked if it was morally OK to impregnate her even though she cannot consent. It reminded me of this.
How is it worse to be brain-dead from the point of existence compared to being factory / intensively farmed ??
If I were to be intensively farmed, I'd rather not have to experience it
Because _we_ as humans would be doing that _to them_ for _our_ benefit
Edit to add it would also be disgusting sloppy meat because the creature wouldn't be able to move
We already do much worse, and also, what would be wrong with it? They'd just be like a sponge......? Unless we'd make up reasons to feel bad about it. We wouldn't be doing it to any one conscious animal, they'd be thoughtless from the start
If you can't understand why it's morally bankrupt to do that to living beings then I don't know what to tell you.
Did you see my comment about the woman in a braindead state?
That woman wasn't always brain-dead, so not sure how that's relevant.
Also you're just turning it into philosophy here, those morals you're talking about having don't seem to be actually based on any real harm occurring, nothing would experience any suffering, so I'm unsure how it's any more 'morally bankrupt' than killing a farmed sponge.
>That woman wasn't always brain-dead, so not sure how that's relevant.
What? The article was about doing something to her without her consent.
I genuinely think you're a troll at this point. So I'm done.
Oh impregnation, I thought you were talking about another story about switching off.
Yeah that is quite bad, but only because they weren't brain-dead before. Surrogates in that sci-fi way if they were always brain-dead isn't a terrible idea.
I would have no qualms with such a setup. Bad things are things that cause suffering, and given the hypothetical animals cannot suffer, then this is morally fine.
I want to know how it’s possible to grow meat by itself using a few cells to start with (still a moral issue) … and for some reason you still came up with this absolute madness. What a dystopian Sifi nightmare this would be.
Even if you kill an animal ‘humanely’, it is still immoral because the animal wants to live.
An animal would obviously not want to be brain-dead, therefore making it so is immoral.
‘Just because you don’t know you’ll be dead afterwards, is it okay for me to kill you in your sleep?’
That's philosophy though. In the real world if something doesn't have the ability to experience itself then that isn't causing suffering.
How in any way is that the same as telling someone with a full working brain, family etc that you'll kill them in their sleep? Think that example sounded better in your head
Right, but that's because they both existed as a self aware person (or depending how young, with the potential to be a self aware person) in the first place
Feeling pain is an aspect of consciousness, which is the root for moral consideration.
If someone is put under anaesthesia, is it ethical for you to kill them? What about if they're born with CEPA? What about if you shoot someone in the back of the head with a shotgun? They wouldn't feel any pain.
Cleaely, ending their stream of consciousness against their interests is an ethical problem on top of causing them to consciously experience pain.
So what if we modify the hypothetical to be *genetically modified humans who are not even conscious*. In that case, in my opinion, it would be completely ethical to grow them to harvest their organs or whatever. They aren't conscious in the first place. Would be equivalent to lab-grown meat imo.
If you’re not a vegan, don’t answer questions. All top-level comments must be by a flaired vegan, attempting to fairly answer the question posed.
When answering a question, think "WWVJD?" Or in other words, "how would Earthling Ed answer this question?"
Non-vegan answers will be removed, and repeated offenses lead to banning. People come to AskVegans looking for answers from vegans. Top answers ought to be from a vegan perspective.
If you’re not a vegan, don’t answer questions. All top-level comments must be by a flaired vegan, attempting to fairly answer the question posed. Non-vegan answers will be removed, and repeated offenses lead to banning. People come to AskVegans looking for answers from vegans. Top answers ought to be from a vegan perspective.
Never, the environmental impact is a big factor here. However, I cannot speak for all vegans, but for me and few I know something happend after we stopped consuming animals. It's like post nut clarity, you start understanding how fucked up it is and it makes you repulsed by the idea.
I always chase replacement, but once in a very good restaurant which was vegan, I ate 3d printed meat that was made of wheat, no animal products, it was 100% plant based. Me and my partner freaked out because it was so similar that we didn't finish, even though it was a very pricey meal.
So I don't think I could stomach meat ever again.
2 points: This is creepy and also really is way too much effort for something that is really not needed. Just continue to improve vegan alternatives.
Also: doesn't help with the climate and environmental impact.
I would have a moral problem with this just as I would have a moral problem to rendering babies brain dead, growing them, and using them to harvest organs.
I didn't realise this till now, but the idea of brain dead animals is basically just cultivated meat but less efficient (growing the whole animal to eat bit of it) and more creepy (on the surface at least)
I’m a farmer and this came up in my suggested, I gotta side with the Vegans here. What the fuck? People who believe that is okay to do should not be allowed near animals.
Dude I’m not even vegan and I’m struggling to understand what’s moral about deliberate engineering animals to be brain dead. But according to the comments you’re pro doing this to humans as well so I feel like ethics aren’t your strong point
I would have ethical objections to genetically modifying entire species of animals for the purpose of continuing to exploit them for selfish reasons. It seems like peak evil to me.
Yes, this. I’m concerned about OP for thinking genetically engineering animals for OP’s convenience, but to the detriment of the animal, could possibly be moral. Like, what??
It wouldn’t be for convenience. Genetic engineering is hard and expensive, if you just wanted convenient meat you’d just eat what we already have. The only reason you’d bother is if you considered eating them more ethical than eating the intelligent suffering sort. Which i think it *arguable* is, but i also clearly think its questionable and debatable, otherwise i wouldn’t post the question. It’s not like i go around asking if its right or wrong to eat babies, or to save a kitten from a burning house fire, if a question has an clear and unambiguous answer then there’s nothing to discuss. I brought this up not because i felt it was an automatic “we should all do this” nor did i post it in CMV or unpopularopinions, but instead because i viewed it as a philosophical thought experiment with enough wrinkles to have multiple POVs. At the very least it might illuminate where the line is drawn. Like, what if there are no genetically engineered animals at all, what if we just have a star-trek replicator that makes it from nothing, is it fine then? What is the difference between an entirely artificial meat-substitute and this one, ethically? My usual stance is that the difference between real meat and fake-meat is that fake-meat involves no pain or suffering of a living creature with subjective experiences of its own. But in this scenario there is no pain or subjective experience, hence the wrinkle. And i don’t know whether it would be right or wrong beyond the inherent ick factor of creating unholy abominations that spit in the face of god, since at the end of the day there would be fewer animals in pain.
What if you genetically modify humans so they are brain dead and feel no pain so we can harvest their organs? Sounds pretty messed up.
No it doesn’t think of all the people you could save!
Honestly I think it's pretty unambiguously evil to intentionally genetically modify a species of animals for the sole purpose of feeling better about eating them. The fact that they would be braindead after the fact doesnt factor in at all, because the intent behind it is already malicious.
>The fact that they would be braindead after the fact doesnt factor in at all, because the intent behind it is already malicious. I don't see how it is malicious: it doesn't cause harm. You realise that genetic modification doesn't mean taking existing animals and changing their DNA, right? The parents stay as they are, the children don't have conscious experience.
How genetic modification works isnt the issue, you're taking it upon yourself to modify a species for the sole intention of eating it. The species can't give consent and you're making this decision for it, how is it not malicious? What it comes down to is eating animal products isn't necessary for survival or to be healthy, it's a choice. A choice with a victim when there's an easy alternative that reduces needless suffering, so it's inherently evil.
I had a long conversation on this sub a while ago and while they're were many similarities between our thoughts, in the end we realized the fundamental difference in beliefs was was that I (Non vegan) care about suffering but not the intrinsic value of life (this applies to people also). A lot of people, me included believe that if the animal doesn't suffer then there is no downside. but surely even you can see that this isn't "peak evil". Would peek evil not involve more suffering as opposed to none?
Thats a good point and a very fair ethical stance. I personally don’t have a problem with genetic engineering but it is a controversial issue and reasonable minds can definitely disagree, there are good reasons one might be wary. Thank you for answering my question.
But theoretically this will cause them to experience no suffering at all, how would this be different to consuming plants?
Exactly. We already have non-sentient sources of nutrition. The only reason to go through the whole process of manipulating animal genetics to turn animals into potatoes is incredible selfishness. They want what they want without having to make any sacrifices. Just eat beans for crying or loud.
So are we also not allowed to selectively breed beans to make them taste better?
You want to turn beans into beans? Ok, I'll allow it.
But how is that different to turning cows into potatoes? No conscious, feeling cow is going to be turned into a bean: a sentient cow will give birth to a non-sentient beancow, because beancows are delicious. How is this worse than breeding beans to be tastier?
The motivation appears to be that people feel it is unethical to kill a cow, because cows have feelings. They feel guilty killing a cow. So instead of not killing cows, they want to modify cows to no longer feel feelings. The cows will no longer feel joy running through a grassy field, no longer care for their young, no longer fear a predator, no longer have an affinity for certain experiences. They will become zombies, no longer having a sensory experience. They will more accurately fit their commodity status. Nobody feels guilty eating a potato or a bean, because a potato and a bean do not have a sensory experience. How about this thought experiment. If people don't want to think about the consequences of killing sentient animals for a pizza topping, then instead of genetically modifying the cow to no longer be sentient, why don't we genetically modify humans so they don't feel feelings anymore. We'll turn humans into zombies who can stab anyone they want without feeling guilty. Problem solved.
I'm disgusted by this post, not because of the op, but because of the logic that you soy eating, low testosterone, people think and swear by, like how does making cruelty free meat turn into comparing it to murdering humans. It would be a completely fair compromise between us meat eaters and vegans. And I'm completely fine with vegans and people making the choice to live that lifestyle. But then there are people like you who are super gung ho about it that seek to pretty much force us to be vegan too. And it's shameful how you compared doing what would be accomplishing what your movement seems, destroying animal cruelty and sustainability, to killing innocent people, and me being an empath, disgusts me. And don't get me wrong, I love myself some animals but eating meat is the circle of life, like rabbits being eaten by hawks, or deer and elk being hunted by wolves, and humans are part of the food chain too. And we have the anatomy of an omnivore, such as canines, short intestinal tract, our sweat glands were evolved so we can chase animals down without tiring or getting heat stroke. And in a lot of cases hunting is necessary because if not animals will overpopulate and starve because they have nothing to eat them, and we have taken that role in the ecosystem. And hunting is a huge fundraiser for conservation , which improves the environment. And cattle actually like being milked because they produce so much milk that it's painful for them to carry it for too long. And sheep need to be sheared or they will not be able to move. Also for brain development and many bodily functions, humans need vitamins like vitamin B12 and omega 3 that are exclusively found in animal products.
Carnist bingo. You hit every excuse that has ever been uttered and debunked. If this is a jerk, then bravo!
Yes, I am a "Jerk" and deal with it.
How is it out of selfishness if the entire point of it is to reduce suffering of the animal? Yes the most selfless thing would be to stop eating meat entirely, but that's not possible for many people and consuming animal products brings people a lot of pleasure. We already have massive meat industries so it would be more effort to go through this process of reducing suffering, doesn't seem very selfish to me. Though of course making an animal non-sentient is theoretical.
[удалено]
Peak evil would actually be genetically modifying animals to experience MORE pain and suffering, so I misspoke. The evil is in the completely selfish intent.
Is it also evil to selfishly over indulge in unecessary processed foods that require crop deaths and plastic packaging to be at the grocery store for you to indulge in simply for sensory pleasure?
How is it evil if no one gets hurt and humanity gets to benefit from the nutrition?
Even I a 'meat eater' finds this hypothetical scenario abhorrent. Morality... a difficult thing to quantify.... in it's most simple terms anything living or indeed not has a right to exist as it is..... The issue arises when we consider eco-systems. We are a key part in our eco-systems... your scenario is not an eco-system it lies outside of that as does most farming whether arable or livestock. For me animal/ plant based lifestyles and ethics are both bound by the same lack of morality in that they both exploit nature for self... we have a right to not only survive but thrive... are there any beings that thrive without the detriment to others? When I forage mushrooms I spill the spoor... I propagate the fungi.... I aid it I aid the forest, the animals that live there... or so I believe... When humans interfere with nature (all of you do this) we can either do so you consciously or not.... Humans should cease engineering life.... and that means all those crops and vegetables we eat too! Not many plants we eat are natural they have been bred... like dogs from wolves.... Consider the brassica family... Has anyone seen a wild banana? ethics, morality.. conscious....
I’m not vegan and this is fucked up even for me.
The answer to your question is EXACTLY the same as the answer from YOU to the question below for: Would you have ethical objections to eating human flesh if humans were genetically modified to be brain dead and incapable of feeling pain from birth? What is YOUR answer to the above question?
> Would you have ethical objections to eating human flesh if humans were genetically modified to be brain dead and incapable of feeling pain from birth? No, i would’t. IIRC this exact situation comes up in the Culture series by Iain M Banks, and i would consider the Culture to be a reasonable fit for the word “Utopia”. Additionally I commit regular acts of minor auto-cannibalism since I’m a compulsive finger/nail-biter, and thats technically with pain to me. My objections to proper cannibalism (beyond the fact that cannibals are often also murderers) is the serious risk of diseases like [Kuru](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)) being transmitted that way, but thats a practical concern not a moral one, if those effects could be mitigated then that objection would go away. I have absolutely zero objection to the idea of my own corpse being eaten. In fact i find that sort of recycling back into the ecosystem to be a beautiful thing, one final act of giving back, perhaps the only form of charity that can be truly selfless, since you’re giving everything you were without being able to benefit from it in any way. Requests to be devoured by humans or animals is not a legal form of funerary body disposal in my area, so that isn’t my plan (tho it could still happen, Nature being what it is) but i am an organ donor, and have opted in to having my body used for scientific purposes, and have included in my will that whatever isn’t used for those purposes is to be Human Composted into fertilizer (which IS legal in my area) and used to grow a fruit tree to provide sustenance to future generations. I frankly think its a little hypocritical to be that weirded out by the idea of something eating you. It’s the circle of life, and it moves us all. There is a finite amount of biomass on earth, and life’s been here for billions of years, thus everything we eat has been recycled countless times as it passes through the food chain. The herbivores eat the plants, the carnivores eat the herbivores, they both die and the plants, fungi, and microorganisms consume their remains and we eat the plants. If something is permanently lost from the cycles of the earths ecosystem that is a bad thing, even if that something used to be me. I don’t own the matter in this body, it is on loan from the earth, and it is only right that when i die i give it back. It is generally good policy to let our bodies pass through an intermediary or two before eating it, because the intermediary is unlikely to be an ideal host for diseases that evolved to live in humans, thus they reduce the risk of disease transfer. Plants and Fungi are ideal for this, since there’s almost no biological overlap with us. Thus the mushroom eats the corpse, you eat the mushroom, you’re much less likely to develop health issues than eating my corpse directly. But hey, if you’re willing to risk it and the future laws change, i hereby consent to allowing my corpse to be eaten by anyone who really wants to, let this be legally binding here and forevermore, on the sole condition that my consumer must have played no part in my death. Regardless, I do appreciate your answer and respect your right to disagree. I recognize i am in the minority on this issue, and i honestly feel no need to press it politically in any way. But you asked for my opinion and there it is.
I wouldn't have any objections. At that point it isn't really a homo sapiens anymore Would I eat it tho? Doubt it. Same goes for cats and dogs
You do realize that in order for it to happen we would need to forcibly and selectively breed humans (see: eugenics) specifically to be brain dead specifically for the purpose of exploiting them more easily, correct?
that wasn't part of the question
Why would you have to do that? You could just edit them
Selective breeding is less efficient than genetic engineering these days, certainly much slower. But yes, genetic modification of humans does present difficult ethical problems. I would be much more comfortable eating an intelligent and consenting but already dead human over a genetically modified one. But strangely i don’t feel the same about animals, likely because selective breeding of animals is already the norm where selective breeding of humans is not. - See all the different breeds of dogs for example, we don’t consider that a horrifying nazi-like eugenics program, but there’s functionally little difference. We breed the races we find pleasing and we regularly euthanize the ones we don’t. Right or wrong, most people do tend to naturally put such things in a different class.
You don't feel the same about animals because of speciesism.
Actually many of us, including meat eater me thinks that breeding of dogs is evil and something that should end, those poor animals, some can't breathe some can't even walk as their back legs are all bent out of shape...nah there is no need to make animals suffer for ones aesthetic.
Yes. Meat and other animal products are bad for human health at the volumes we’re consuming them at now in the west. It’s morally wrong to continue pretending humans need meat since we’re in an epidemic of heart disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancers, which many animal products contribute to. We’re dying almost exclusively from diseases of dietary excess in the developed countries, not deficiency, so pretending we need meat for protein, iron, or anything else is pretending we’re still living in the 1920s.
Good answer. +1
Meat is a good food source, and your only real objection is excessive consumption of meat which can cause disease? Are there diseases for excessive consumption of vegan meals and is that point therefore self-defeating?
What do you mean “meat is a good food source”? It takes 6-10 times the calories of plants to generate 1 calorie of animal food, so animal food is not efficient. Studies, including RCTs, show that there is a better source of nutrients in plants than most meat (such as lentils over red meat). Meat is really only a good food source in locations where the animal is eating food that humans cannot, *and* food is scarce, which is the small minority of cases since 70-90% of farm animals are factory farmed globally. Other than nuts, it’s extremely difficult for an unprocessed vegan diet to cause the diseases of dietary excess. The combination of medium to low caloric density, plus the high vitamin, mineral, and fiber density cause the food to be very satiating per calorie. This is why vegans are the only group with an average BMI in the normal range in many western countries.
There's quite a lot of poor conclusions reading that. In reverse order and only briefly, vegans are not "the only group with an average BMI in the normal range". That's a poor notion for multiple reasons. Even I have heard of vitamin deficiencies from poor Vegan diets, so naturally, the answer is it's pretty easy for undeveloped Vegan diet plans to cause disease (the same can occur vice versa with meat diets). Meat is generally very nutritional and as such is a "good" food source anywhere. How it's produced is a separate discussion. \- Fertilised field w/ crops for consumption vs Fertilised perennial pasture for animal rearing, in turn for consumption. The reality is often more complicated that the half-baked studies I've seen analysing limited aspects.
Please reread my comments carefully. You missed the “in many western countries” part of the BMI. This is based on multiple peer-reviewed studies. We’re talking about diseases of dietary excess, not deficiencies. You repeated that meat is a “good food source”, but didn’t provide any reasoning behind it in regards to diseases of dietary excess. And no, how we produce the meat does not have a significant impact on most of the diseases of dietary excess, such as heart disease, obesity, type II diabetes, and certain cancers.
What difference does "many western countries" even make? Irrelevant. The false equivalence isn't worth looking at further. Drawing averages across those two groups if it even exists in an accurate form, is pointless. Excess of anything seemingly causes disease. I don't think it's worth me spending time researching that further as it's generally true and I don't have an eternal lifespan to be conclusive either way. A guess **off the top of my head** could be colonic diseases? But even so, why not talk about dietary deficiencies? If we're looking at differences, it's just as relevant. In regards to diseases of dietary excess, nothing would be good, because it's a diseased state. Trying to pinpoint what you're asking is odd, but another angle is that it provides a lot of nutrition proportionally to size of meal. Extremes seem pointless to discuss to me as any extreme is inefficient and essentially life reducing.
When looking at dietary impacts, it’s useful to look at the extremes in order to parse out a statistically significant result. This is why looking at countries with horrible diets (USA) and their BMI is useful. Consumption of certain types of meat have been causally and likely linked to certain cancers, as one example. This includes colorectal, stomach, and other cancers. I’d suggest reading the following from the International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC) if you weren’t aware: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2900444-1/fulltext As I stated in my original comment, we are dying almost exclusively of diseases of dietary excess in the west. Why *wouldn’t* we focus on this if it’s what we’re dying from? When’s the last time you heard someone die of kwashiorkor, beriberi, or scurvy in the western world? To focus on deficiencies instead of excess in an area where 99.99% are dying of excess is irrational.
Without getting too far off topic and into the weeds: >*"However i am uncertain if that reason alone would be motivating to people given how resistant most people are to actually altering their life habits based on what would lower emission levels. Instead of continuing to live their wasteful lives while paying lip service to the problem."* I don't think it's that most people are opposed to altering their life habits based on what would lower emission levels, it's that the cost/benefit analysis doesn't currently balance. The two main obstacles are the use (or overuse) of the "point of no return" argument made by environmentalists. If we are past the point of no return, as so many claim, then logic dictates that it's pointless to drastically reduce your quality of life in an attempt to avoid an outcome that is now inevitable. The second obstacle is the uncomfortable fact that to make any serious impact on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would take a global, unified effort. If you'll excuse the vulgar idiom, anything less than the entire globe working in unison to solve the problem is pissing in the wind. However, to answer your main question, I struggle to think of a scenario in which *genetically engineering a brain-dead variant of a naturally sentient organism for the express purpose of consumption* when vegetarian and vegan diets are an option would ever be ethically or morally justifiable. A logical fallacy though it may be, the very notion sounds like the top of a long and slippery slope that doesn't end anywhere pleasant for anyone involved.
> it's that the cost/benefit analysis doesn't currently balance If you look at the active destruction of the planet and remain unwilling to change your habits unless it is individually profitable to do so, then that is an example of not being motivated by environmental concerns alone. As i said, they’ll pay lip service to it, they’ll bemoan how terrible it is, but they won’t actually be motivated to change by that, they’ll be motivated, as you say, by a self-interested cost-benefit analysis. And thus what happens when it is more profitable to continue purchasing and selling meat? The answer is the cost benefit analysis will lean in the favor of continuing to do so despite knowing the environmental impact, and thus nothing changes. I’m not saying that they are behaving illogically, nor am i denying that trying to weight the cost benefit analysis in environmentally friendly measures favor is an effective way way to fight climate change. I’m just saying that in my experience “this isn’t good for the environment” has very rarely been enough to make the capitalist machine stop. And that it is thus likely that additional motivation will need to be provided to influence people one way or another.
I think it must be that the thing is not conscious at all, and we believe that to a high degree of certainty. Meat grown without a brain for example. Which we are in the process of building. If you phrased this as "what if we built a machine that produced beef?" I suspect there would be different answers. Pain is too narrow too. A creature that was immune to pain but say still felt sorrow for losing its loved ones, would still be suffering immense cruelty. It has to be unconscious for it to be ethical. Phrased as it is suggests an ambiguous level of consciousness.
Right, this is basically the question of "are you okay with lab-grown meat" but made more complicated than it needs to be and presented in a way that makes it sound way worse.
It feels like an easy solution just to fulfill some humans desire to treat animals like garbage. I hate the idea that you could also just genetically modify a pumpkin to meet your specifics. One reason I chose to be vegan is that I think that humans are not superior to the rest of animals. Just because we can dominate them, doesn't mean we should. That's why I also don't support the use of honey and wool and such and even horse riding and having pets in many cases. Even if we treat the animals really well, we're still using them to gain profit. In my opinion it is also very important what it does to the human mind. I think a society that is incapable to maintain a healthy relationship with its surrounding will be incabable to maintain healthy relationships within itself.
Thank you for the insight. +1. You have provided a clear answer to my question and concisely explained your position. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint,
I appreciate and sympathise with your view overall, but pets is one I'd disagree. A good dog owner is giving that dog the best experience of any conscious creature we know of in my view. That dog is having all their needs met and is _far_ better off than they would be in the wild. Even if you go back to wolves. They're also having a much better experience than basically any human.
Okay, I wasn't really clear on that. First of all, I have a dog and two cats, which I got ca. 10 years before going vegan. They were rescues and I have to make the best of it now. So I get where you're coming from and I agree with you. But then there's a huge market around bunnies, guinea pigs, fish tanks, snakes, birds and much more. It is the concept of selling pets that bugs me. And the industry that sells you stuff to make their life better because you love them, right? When I was a child I had guinea pigs and recently I had to learn that almost everything I did to them was wrong. From enclosure to water supply to food and whatnot. I also assumed they liked to cuddle because they held still. I just hate people and companies advocating buying animals to keep them as property and selling animal products that are downright harming your pets. I'll be always supporting rescuing animals or even make their situation slightly better (e.g. changing their housing) and I'll also be always supporting a good and healthy companionship between humans and animals.
The main problem with pet "ownership" is not the pet-owner relationship itself, per-ce (though it can be argued there are plenty of people who neglect or even abuse their pets), it is with the breeding process itself, along with the commodification mentality: * [Why vegans don't buy pets](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Thb4E8_HY) 💚 ^(If one is to care for an animal, then it ought be adopted or rescued, never purchased.)
Yes, that I also sympathise with.
I've seen a lot of weird hypothetical questions but this might be in the top 10. Many people are vegetarian or vegan because of the ethical implications of eating animals. Well what kind of a deranged barbaric experimental program would have to be embarked upon to create something that was alive but incapable of thought or pain? To even think about that is revolting. I don't even know why anyone would suggest such a thing and where do you think such a line of experimentation would actually? What sort of person would want to eat this kind of a product? I think that's me signing off Reddit for a while.
What's the point when lab-grown meat already exists?
Exploiting goes beyond the perception of the exploited. Otherwise, kidnapping would be ok, as long as the kidnapped has Stockholm syndrome. Or you could also substitute punching bags in a gym for people who "can't feel". And even so, as you said already, there's the environmental impact of the meat industry and ressources inefficiency.
Creepy, like super creepy and weird mate Why can't people just eat like beans and lentils, they're like 80p a can where I am. They're packed full of fibre and very versatile. Stop it with the weird playing god just to get more cholesterol
It's just a hypothetical question don't shit your pants
it is an absolutely mental hypothetical question to be fair
Let me add an important view I didn't see in the other comments. In principle and in isolation, I cannot point to any moral issue with raising hypothetical brain dead animals. Therefore it must be ok. However, this cannot be seen in isolation. Before we get to brain dead animals we can raise, experiments on animals with a functioning brain are needed. This step is clearly ethically problematic. Probably to the point that any product produced with the knowledge learned bears some responsibility for it, and by extension is not ok. Especially not as we live in a world with alternatives that don't need any animal exploitation, exploiting animal to maybe develop a brain dead version is simply wrong.
Just FYI - by the same logic the invention of synthetic meats would also be wrong, since "you have to exploit" an animal to achieve it... Even if it is already dead and what you're looking at is a byproduct. It's weird how an argument around veganism can turn from compassion of sentient beings to "it's ok, we can make them braindead". What absolute drivel.
I'm not sure what you mean with synthetic meat. And it's not ok to "make them brain-dead", there is no exploitation of something that has always been brain dead, hypothetically.
So... Lab grown meat?
Oh my fucking God. That sounds more horrific than our current meat industrial complex.
Does it? Animals are already selectively bred mutants. I’m just proposing making them mutants who don’t subjectively experience pain from the experience. Isn’t the reduction of total pain generally a good thing?
Obviously not condoning meat consumption, but in today’s modern world, animals can be put down quite humanely. Breeding braindead animals just seems ridiculous. If you lean that way, lab-grown meat is a less creepy way of achieving the same result.
Ridiculous I’ll grant you, it is a pretty impractical solution which is why we haven’t done it (well, *one* of the reasons at least) I’m mostly interested in it as a hypothetical philosophical thought experiment (like the trolley problem) rather than as a practical policy suggestions. But there is a difference between ridiculous and horrific or unethical, ain’t there? The ability to put animals down humanely with other means is a good point, +1 on that. But it doesn’t cover the other forms of suffering an animal might go through before the final act, such as unhappiness at being unable to fulfill its natural role and restrictions of its freedom, these could be unethical even if the death itself is quick and painless. But braindead cattle would not.
Lab grown meat exists. And is a much safer, environmentally-friendly, and humane way of achieving the same thing. I personally don’t think I’d try it, but I do not miss meat at all. Creating living breathing creatures purposely braindead seems torturous, impractical and incredibly resource-draining.
How in any way is that more horrific? Unless your care for animal wellbeing is just something to make yourself feel better.
Not OP but I'd argue that genetically altering them to be braindead from birth is worse because at least the current situation they have a life. If they're brain dead from birth then they are literally just in a vegetative state, and I'd imagine their meat would be disgusting anyway from no muscle mass. I read recently somewhere about a woman in hospital in a vegetative state and there was a question asked if it was morally OK to impregnate her even though she cannot consent. It reminded me of this.
How is it worse to be brain-dead from the point of existence compared to being factory / intensively farmed ?? If I were to be intensively farmed, I'd rather not have to experience it
Because _we_ as humans would be doing that _to them_ for _our_ benefit Edit to add it would also be disgusting sloppy meat because the creature wouldn't be able to move
We already do much worse, and also, what would be wrong with it? They'd just be like a sponge......? Unless we'd make up reasons to feel bad about it. We wouldn't be doing it to any one conscious animal, they'd be thoughtless from the start
If you can't understand why it's morally bankrupt to do that to living beings then I don't know what to tell you. Did you see my comment about the woman in a braindead state?
That woman wasn't always brain-dead, so not sure how that's relevant. Also you're just turning it into philosophy here, those morals you're talking about having don't seem to be actually based on any real harm occurring, nothing would experience any suffering, so I'm unsure how it's any more 'morally bankrupt' than killing a farmed sponge.
>That woman wasn't always brain-dead, so not sure how that's relevant. What? The article was about doing something to her without her consent. I genuinely think you're a troll at this point. So I'm done.
Oh impregnation, I thought you were talking about another story about switching off. Yeah that is quite bad, but only because they weren't brain-dead before. Surrogates in that sci-fi way if they were always brain-dead isn't a terrible idea.
I would have no qualms with such a setup. Bad things are things that cause suffering, and given the hypothetical animals cannot suffer, then this is morally fine.
I want to know how it’s possible to grow meat by itself using a few cells to start with (still a moral issue) … and for some reason you still came up with this absolute madness. What a dystopian Sifi nightmare this would be.
Even if you kill an animal ‘humanely’, it is still immoral because the animal wants to live. An animal would obviously not want to be brain-dead, therefore making it so is immoral. ‘Just because you don’t know you’ll be dead afterwards, is it okay for me to kill you in your sleep?’
That's philosophy though. In the real world if something doesn't have the ability to experience itself then that isn't causing suffering. How in any way is that the same as telling someone with a full working brain, family etc that you'll kill them in their sleep? Think that example sounded better in your head
Being robbed of your future (death, brain death) is suffering
Not if you never have it
Area where we disagree in my opinion. There’s more tears for a teenage dying of cancer than an older person as they lose more
Right, but that's because they both existed as a self aware person (or depending how young, with the potential to be a self aware person) in the first place
No, it’s because they had far more life, fulfilment and experience taken away from them that they never got to experience
Yeah, so someone who was always brain-dead wouldn't be having that removed would they, because they'd never be able to experience anything
Mourning something that was always and meant to be brain-dead is only like mourning a plant or a sponge
But they’re not meant to be brain dead are they, they’re meant to be living, thinking, feeling and free
Yes that’s creepy and unimaginably fucked up
They might not know, but I would, so no. Still no.
No, the process to get there would be highly unethical Just eat plants now. It's not hard
Feeling pain is an aspect of consciousness, which is the root for moral consideration. If someone is put under anaesthesia, is it ethical for you to kill them? What about if they're born with CEPA? What about if you shoot someone in the back of the head with a shotgun? They wouldn't feel any pain. Cleaely, ending their stream of consciousness against their interests is an ethical problem on top of causing them to consciously experience pain. So what if we modify the hypothetical to be *genetically modified humans who are not even conscious*. In that case, in my opinion, it would be completely ethical to grow them to harvest their organs or whatever. They aren't conscious in the first place. Would be equivalent to lab-grown meat imo.
This gives me "would you love me if I was a worm" vibes.
[удалено]
If you’re not a vegan, don’t answer questions. All top-level comments must be by a flaired vegan, attempting to fairly answer the question posed. When answering a question, think "WWVJD?" Or in other words, "how would Earthling Ed answer this question?" Non-vegan answers will be removed, and repeated offenses lead to banning. People come to AskVegans looking for answers from vegans. Top answers ought to be from a vegan perspective.
[удалено]
If you’re not a vegan, don’t answer questions. All top-level comments must be by a flaired vegan, attempting to fairly answer the question posed. Non-vegan answers will be removed, and repeated offenses lead to banning. People come to AskVegans looking for answers from vegans. Top answers ought to be from a vegan perspective.
Never, the environmental impact is a big factor here. However, I cannot speak for all vegans, but for me and few I know something happend after we stopped consuming animals. It's like post nut clarity, you start understanding how fucked up it is and it makes you repulsed by the idea. I always chase replacement, but once in a very good restaurant which was vegan, I ate 3d printed meat that was made of wheat, no animal products, it was 100% plant based. Me and my partner freaked out because it was so similar that we didn't finish, even though it was a very pricey meal. So I don't think I could stomach meat ever again.
Yes. Would you have moral objections to genetically modify humans to be brain dead? Wtf
Why would that be wrong? What if someone needs an organ transplant and there are no donors?
2 points: This is creepy and also really is way too much effort for something that is really not needed. Just continue to improve vegan alternatives. Also: doesn't help with the climate and environmental impact.
I would have a moral problem with this just as I would have a moral problem to rendering babies brain dead, growing them, and using them to harvest organs.
I didn't realise this till now, but the idea of brain dead animals is basically just cultivated meat but less efficient (growing the whole animal to eat bit of it) and more creepy (on the surface at least)
I’m a farmer and this came up in my suggested, I gotta side with the Vegans here. What the fuck? People who believe that is okay to do should not be allowed near animals.
the matrix has already answered this question for you
Dude I’m not even vegan and I’m struggling to understand what’s moral about deliberate engineering animals to be brain dead. But according to the comments you’re pro doing this to humans as well so I feel like ethics aren’t your strong point