Advertising done right, Stop one, stop them all

... could afford the security to prevent and prosecute poaching, they’d likely have the means to seriously diminish poachers to begin.

i would have say "let's build drones with cameras and let them fly around to detect people who try to kill wildlife"..but that would be a little bit TO scifi.. :x

Yeah they would win on making the pyramid inverted. Mate I never said it was easy to stop people selling but that's just what WWF is trying to do. I'm not offering a solution, they are and they obviously have a plan.

^by which I mean that I don't care about this argument, only the advertisement so go argue in the other reply chain. >:-<

We eat meat just like all the other omnivores on earth, just because some humans can choose to live on a plant based diet doesn't mean everyone else is uncivilized for not choosing it.
Plus, not everyone can survive healthily on a plant based diet and most who don't eat meat or animal based products tend to need to take extra supplements for what they're refusing to get through eating which can get expensive or even difficult depending on other medications needed by the individual.

i remember hearing once about a predatorial invasive fish species that causes quite a bit of problems, eats many other prey fish to the point of causing others to die out, and whose main natural predator is (wait for it) humans.

1) i speak for us as a whole race / species, not just some. and most countrys who have a higher technology, can live well without eating meat. and there is something called morality. we humans have the ability to think about what we do. we have higher cognitive functions in our brain to have stuff like technology, morality and stuff. and if you ask me, killing innocent lifeforms is bad. if animals kill other animals, thats a different thing. most animals don't think the same way like humans do. they don't think "killing someone is bad". they are hungry, and because that.. kill to stay alive. humans don't do the same. humans killing without really have the need for it. the stuff which goes into meat production is stuff humans could eat. you put more into meat production than you get from the meat. you can feed more humans from the food the animals getting you then kill for meat.

2) i said "killing without the need" , if someone really NEED flesh for stay alife, thats imho a little different. but most people on this planet DON'T "need".. they just want because "it's tasty" and "why not?".

3) i live since my 14 lifeyear without meat & don't take any supplements or other "special food" to stay alife. i eat normal without any medication or other stuff. people who tell you that people who don't eat meat need to take medication and supplements just don't know a lot about it. i'm healthy and have no health problems.. and i'm 24 years old now. your argument is wrong.

" humans killing without really have the need for it "
But there is a need. A need to eat meat. I've read that there's not enough room to grow plants if the entire world decided to go vegan. It's not sustainable.
And like I said, not everyone can safely give up meat from their diet or eat the meat alternatives offered. Peoples health isn't something to play with because you feel morally superior for not killing animals to live.

As an added note - most rhinos and endangered species are hunted and killed in inexplicably cruel manners. Ever watched someone cut the shell off of a tortoise while it's still alive? Chase a tiger to exhaustion and gore it. Remove it's skin while it's still breathing?. when all is said and done, take nothing but the valuable part of the animal. The horn, in rhinos case, which could, actually, be removed without the death of the creature. The horn is often taken for medicinal purposes (among other reasons) despite being composed of keratin. Basically people are slaughtering rhinos horribly for the same substance that composes their own hair and fingernails, and then leaving the corpses to rot-- not unlike the bison that were slaughtered by the Europeans settling north America.

@diyrogue the animals getting food to eat which humans could eat. the amount of food you put into this animals could feed more humans than the flesh you get from the animals. there is no need because if you don't eat meat, you can eat the food you would have put into the production of flesh. + there is a overproduction of meat. a huge mass of flesh gets thrown away every day. so a huge mass of animals who died just to get thrown into the trashbin.

+ kill animals for their flesh is TOO cruel. people who work there have often psychological problems because they see every day dieing animals. often the "they don't feel it" don't works so they are being consciousness while they bleed out. do you call this okay / not cruel..? did you EVER informed yourself about what goes on in meat producing? because the companys often don't even let camerateams film because they know wtf is going on in there. it's often far away from not cruel. workers who work in such places have be interviewed and what they tell about whats going on there is FAR away from not being cruel.

"i speak for us as a whole race / species"
Well you don't speak for me
I eat meat and that's my choice. Idk if my body gonna do well without meat or not but you know what? Even if it can, I won't give up meat cause I don't want to and I don't need to.
You know what else you don't "need"? The internet but you're using it rn cause you want to
You're the reason why people make fun of vegans

Animals bred for meat are often treated cruelly, this can be true, but it certainly does not have to be, nor is it always the case. When they are killed, a lot of of their parts can or should be used for other purposes. And they are not being driven to extinction by it in most cases. There are creatures that have exceptions. Sharks, as most of us know by now, are treated horrifically, and, much like poached animals, hunted down and tortured to death for nothing but their fins. That is far from the way it should be done or the way it has to be done, however.
Many species rely on predators for population control. This is something humans have learned (or failed to learn) by removing wolves from areas and then finding out the deer were getting out of control. Pretending that all humans ceasing to eat meat is a positive thing or even a sustainable solution is naive. How many animals will die out when we remove their entire habitats to try and plant enough food to sustain humanity?

Balance is necessary. Cruelty is not.

@rosalinas i did mean "about" not "for", sorry. i don't want to force people to stop eating meat. but maybe let they think about what they do.they eat flesh from lifeforms who got killed just so you can eat out of entertainment. you know that & still seem to think it's okay to kill something just to eat it. even if you don't would need it to survive. morality and stuff.

@xvarnah i don't say "all humans..STOP EAT MEAT" but want that people think about what they do every day by eating flesh. most people wouldn't even be able to kill an animal by themself.. but eating flesh every day. if people would be in need to kill animals by themself to eat meat.. how much people would still eat meat? think about it. would YOU kill an animal just so you can eat meat? most people wouldn't be able to look into the eye of a animal and then kill it. it's emotional not a good thing.. every human feels this (well, most). most people don't want to think about the fact that the flesh they eat is..

coming from a animal which was alife in the past. if you want to talk with them about it.. they dodge the topic because they often know that it's not okay. but they still eat the meat. but don't want to think about where it's coming from. if a civilication which don't have the technology to survive without eating meat is hunting wildlife.. that's not 100% okay but still understandable. but if a civilication which have the technology to survive without still "produce" meat in a huge amount of mass no one ever gonna eat and killing 10000s of animals.. even if they could live without.. that's based on morality not okay if you ask me.

Look- we built a system where someone gets the shaft. It’s thay simple. When the “enlightened” industrial world moved out “dirty” industries like ore processing and unpleasant realities like sweat labor, those who had less stability and less opportunity took up the mantle. We just kept enjoying the benefits while patting ourselves on the back for being so righteous. The demand for horn comes from countries that can afford $100k per kilo, the international smugglers come from places like this, and at the bottom are poachers risking death and jail for a $5k max cut per horn. It’s a symptom. Go to Magude in Mozambique and see how many happy, healthy, internet savvy vegans are there, where despite rich resources per capita gdp is about $1200 a year. Decide if you want to live there like a local. Someone will get the short end, someone won’t. You can change who but you can’t change the fact until you change human nature.

and because someone said he is not sure if he could life without meat.. there a people & cultures who life without meat for a realllllllyyy long time (more than 500 years) without any problems. and they don't eat artifical supplements or other weird stuff. they eat normal. so saying you could not life without meat is imho a excuse.

I never claimed where meat came from was cruelty free. Of course there are shady and inhumane practices but there are also ethical ones.
And you're saying you " don't want to force people to stop eating meat " but you're really trying to guilt people with an emotionally charged argument that's sums up to " don't kill innocent animals for fun " when it's been said it's for eating. And of course no one wants to think of where it's coming from. I don't want to think of animals being killed but it keeps me alive. I bet you don't want to think of all the underpaid and overworked farmers getting your food though.
Also, meat tends to be far cheaper. If my family decided to go vegan our grocery bill would skyrocket so if we couldn't afford it we would go hungry because we can't afford vegan for everyone every day.

Please be calm.

the problem with the prices is a articifcal problem, not a real one. other example is milk which is really cheap.. so cheap that people who sell it to the supermarkets etc. don't even can life with selling it alone. but the problem is underpaid jobs, and to less prices for food. we get food thrown at us.. more than you would need. and while we have tons of food which get thrown away every day, other humans die because they don't have enough. it's a logistic problem.. we are a dumb species who is not even be able to manage our food distribution. but that's not a real problem.. this stuff could easy be changed if we humans would want. but we don't because it's more easy to don't. and because money. it's just shitty.

To the cocoa farmer or poacher, they’re paying bills and taking the one shot they see available to have something more than nothing. A hungry belly or simple dreams despite hopeless chances stacked against the abstract concept of global well being. Do you think in a world where men kill Men for less, if you had no other way to make much more than $1200 a year that you would suddenly feel so righteous to the sanctity of the rhino, or do you think weighing that rhinos life against sending your own child to school for a chance at something better that you might decide it was No longer all about morals? Poaching is bad. Animal cruelty, human cruelty, all bad. It’s great we can all do our “lottle bit to help,” but eating Brussels sprouts thatvwere humanely slaughtered on some princes first world farm doesn’t pay a poachers wife’s medical bills or buy him a house. So the point is somewhat moot. A desperate human will eat another human. It’s easy enough to evangelize from afar.

and if i read your answer, all i see is "it's okay to kill animals to have cheap food instead get the problem solved by adjusting the too high prices on non-meat food". that's imho a excue.. prices are just numbers. they could be changed and adjusted. it's a human made structure we have, not a natural. if people would stop eating food, the place where the flesh would be produced could be used to grow even MORE food than we have. we have already ENOUGH food (even non-meat food!).. but people throw it away. every day. because it's too much to eat & buy. look at supermarkets.. they throw really much stuff away.. a lot of non-meat products. there is a huge waste of food.. which people could eat. there is not really a need for more food. just a better management of structures.

@guest_ by the way. i said already i speak about humans who have the technolgy. countrys who are poor often don't have this technology. but countrys like germany, usa etc. do have the technology.

" prices are just numbers " do you not know how an economy works ? Prices aren't always the way they are because people are greedy. Farmers need to make money for the labor of growing food.
And I've read that we don't have enough room to grow all the plants needed for every human to survive on only plants. If we don't have the room for it it's not sustainable which means we need animals for survival.

Most people, given the right circumstances, will seriously consider killing and eating EACH OTHER. We don't kill animals currently because we do not have to, but do not mistake that for a genuine inability to do so when survival is at stake.
I love animals to death, but if it came down to it, I'd likely find it in myself to kill. And I can't even bring myself to kill spiders for fucks sake. If you were in a survival situation and couldn't find the plants you know to be safe, I guarantee you would likely find yourself at the very least considering it.
As I said, for me, it's about cruelty, not killing. Some sciences believe they're starting to find levels of sentience in plants previously not believed possible. Either way, a plant is living. I don't put plants on the same level as animals, but it's still life at the end of the day

@cycy- if countries like the USA and Germany have the technology and the giant hearts to care about the noble chickens suffering away, and the global impact of such actions, but they can’t spare the time to care about human beings in countries that don’t have it as well- do you see something wrong there? If we care more that a pig is happy and has clean water and freedom to live life than a human being? The whole reason for this thread, a huge enabler of poaching is that these people don’t have a better way. That’s the point. So we are arguing over wether it’s ok to eat a cow while there are people literally eating dirt in plves like Haiti? You want to convert western agriculture to a plant based system, when we already import a great deal of produce and so much is wasted, and as you say- the farmers can’t make a living wage in their own countries selling goods- but then you talk about artificial prove inflation as if sustainable “green” “fair trade” produce would pay a living wage...

If you truly believe that there is a way for the over 7 billion people on this planet to sustainably grow the proper food sources without wiping out several species in the process and largely worsening the livelihoods of a myriad others as well, you are likely the first person to have ever done so.
I have no problem with vegans or vegetarians-- it's admirable that you feel strongly enough about something to change your lifestyle for it. But using poaching to stand on a largely unrelated soapbox seems unreasonable. Poaching is entirely needless death and cruelty, usually of an at risk species, for profit. Meat is for survival at it's core.

... and somehow cost less than mass produced crops? If people are already starving, and we reduce food production to increase fair market value and sustainability, what do they eat? If we reduce production and keep prices down, how do the farmers eat? If we keep production the same while expanding land use- where does that land come from? Likely virgin rainforest like most new agricultural land no? If we use habitable and desirable real estate for farming, where do people live? There’s so much waste in the system already as is, and so many with so much more than they need while far more do with far less. You’re focus on the “wealthy world” is convenient to your stance, but completely contrary to the discussion on poachin in economically disadvantaged countries. How does bein vegan solve any of this?

@xvarnah @cycy- I gotta largely agree with X. I have no qualms with people doing what they think is right. As cycy was kind enough to point out in their last post to me, this level of morality is a luxury afforded by living amongst the worlds afluent elite. It’s nice to have the money to spend with your beliefs. Not all have that luxury nor do they wish to employ it. My problem is with trying to pass off personal morality as a universal default of decency or intelligence, or in the self centered thinking of framing the worlds problems in context to how the minority of the world live. Perhaps one day we will all be vegan. Perhaps it truly is best. We are a long way away though and in the mean time there are bigger problems. Rhinos aren’t being primarily killed for their meat, and I doubt these poachers have the luxury to go vegan- it kinda puts them out of work. So unless there is a way to tie veganism to a viable economic opportunity for these poachers... I don’t see much point here.

please don't write TOO much till i'm answered the answers from you, otherwise it get out of hand for me the respond to all^^ thanks. okay let's start.. (i say stop if i'm done^^)

@diyrogue [part1]
"do you not know how an economy works" - yes. it don't. if it would, people would not get under-paid etc.
and it's not the farmers who are greedy. it's the structures which coming AFTER the farmers.
p.s: just because you did read that we don't have enough room, this don't need to be true.
let's calculate how much an animal eats vs the amount of food you get. an animal is alive years. so you need to feed it for years.
that's a huge amount of food humans could eat. we have enough room.. we just don't use it for US. we use it to grow food which we then feed to the animals we then kill.

@xvarnah [part 1/?]
for gods sake. are you in a survival situation? do you live in the woods? no. you are not in a survival situation.
you are at home, have internet and other stuff. thats not a survival situation. i already told that what i wrote only counts if
you don't NEED it to survive. if you are in a survival situation, that's a whole different story. but most people are don't.
so please.. stay at the topic (humans which have great technology without being in a survival situation)
and it's not about "be alife". it's about a higher level of consciousness & the ability to suffer. plant's can't really suffer. they have the ability to count etc.. but don't have the higher consicousnes functions like animals have.

The entire world going vegan would be the end of civilization unless you could utilize vertical farming, preferably going below ground. If we just grew crops like we do now, every forest on Earth would be gone, which would lead to dry winds, little rain and a dust bowl that would suffocate us... while at the same time the lack of biodiversity would mean huge swaths of plague forming among species... and eventually one of those will become transmittable to humans.

@guest_
we should care EQUAL for every lifeform. not just about humans, not just about animals.
that's the point i try to make. i don't say we should only care about the pig. we too should care about other humans.
but most time we don't. we are often really big a***oles to our own species / race. that's the reason why stuff like war exist.

@xvarnah
we are able to send a remote controlled robot to mars and communicate with it. we have send humans to the moon & let they come back. we have a own space station. we have stuff like the internet etc.. don't you think we are smart enough to solve this problem? because we would be. i'm sure.

@guest_ part 3
well, we could just SHARE stuff with each other? look at scenarios like in startrek. a humanity where we share what we need, don't fight over stuff etc.
all stuff like market value, sustainability etc. are all human made structures. they are artifical. and because that we can change them.
if something is not working the way it is now, change it. not saying "thats not gonna work..no no no".. because that's what most people etc. do this days.
nothing is possible.. till someone does it.

@guest_ i just want to show people "hey look what we / you do every day without thinking about it". face it.. if you would need to kill animals yourself to be able to eat meat.. you would likely not do that. if we would replace cows etc with animals like cats, dogs etc.. people would run amok and would likely stop eating meat. the irony is that we kill animals and eat them.. but at the same time we build big relationsships with other animals and have them as a part of your family.. i know it's "bad" from me to shove emotional stuff into the conversation, but killing innocent animals (or humans) is emotional. and i bet your morality too tell you that it's bad. or don't?

*laughs in Asian*

so, i'm done with my answers^^ you can now answer again^^ thanks for waiting.

You'd also have to solve the freshwater problem with vertical farming. You have to find a way to pump that water around through the system against gravity while losing as little of it as possible. That requires energy. This all gets really expensive, really fast.

well, we already have a lot of non-meat food we feed to animals who then get killed. a lot of humans could eat from this food source. if we stop killing & grow animals for meat, this food sources are free for humans to eat. so we don't really would need to produce a huge amount more than this days. there are even places on earth where people don't eat meat & they don't have any problems (health aspect etc).

@cycy- my father was a hunter, a trapper, and a gunsmith. I’ve eaten and killed my fair share of animals. He was not a nice man and made me eat my pet bunny I raised from when it was weened. I’ve skinned, cleaned, and dried carcasses, pulled quills and claws, it’s not pleasant. But if I couldn’t go to the store and get meat, and I didn’t live in one of the worlds major metro areas, I’d kill and butcher my own meat. Between my father and the native parts of my upbringing, I was taught that life is sacred. My own philosophical exploration led me to more beliefs of that nature. You should never kill wantonly or lightly. You should always be thankful a living creature- plant or animal- have its life so you could eat. That’s how life works. We all eat or are eaten in turn by something. I don’t agree with how commercial farming is ran, but I also don’t agree with how governments are ran. That doesn’t mean the best answer is to throw it all away and deal with the consequences....

... it means slow change. It means doing more with what we have. To embrace the reality of bei Alice you must reconcile the sacred nature of life with the fact that everything dies, and life requires death to go on. You must reconcile that the provelage of life comes with the price of unpleasant things. I am aware of the choices I make every day. You are right that people should be. But there is a difference between feeling being guilt because someone yanks at your emotions to provoke a response, and in being conscious that every choice has a cost, and being mindful to make the choices who’s costs you feel balance out.

Not every animal guzzles up space and resources like a cow. Crickets don't. I could feed 100 people with the amount of space it would take for you to feed 10 with vegetables, fruits or grains. Also, no. Most humans can't survive on grass (cows), seeds with whatever bugs they find (chickens), or frosted flakes/fruit loops/whatever else edible they can find to feed them (pigs).
You'd be wiping out the land we created for them (and in the case of cows, their food source), destroying their use for us, and ironically, since they are so domesticated and can't survive that well in their wild, either turning them into an endangered species or making them go extinct. Except the pig. The pig would thrive... and make piglets and they'd eat all your crops lol.

@guest_ well, if you experienced it as a child & grown up with it.. it is different than when you grow up in a city without ever killing something. i find it good that you have respect for animals etc.. thats a good thing. but most humans don't have this. most people i know as an example don't care about how animals feel or how their meat get on their table. humans even put chicken into a blender to make chicken mc nuggets.. so yeah.. :/

@guest_ part 2.. to think about something & feel something about a topic, you need to be consciousness about that topic. if you always dodge the topic and don't think about it, you can't. i try to show people just what is there.

@cycy2: as for sharing- of course. We can and should. But as you say- certain things are luxuries. The more we share, the less we have for ourselves. The world is a closed ecosystem for all intents save a few minerals that drop from space once in awhile. You can’t create new resources, you can transmute one thing to others and shuffle things around. Star Trek is a far off fantasy that hinges entirely on a world where clean, cheap, abundant energy exists and people can make infinite food appear from thin air. There is peace on earth in Star Trek not because people are so advanced- every star trek shows people acting in in enlightened ways like we do now often. There is no war because there’s nothing to fight over. Everyone has food and energy, we went to space so people can go to other planets and live and aren’t limited by the land on earth. All the main things we fight over are magically gone.....

@funkmasterrex crickets are insects. and crickets are not on the same consciousness level as animals like cows. you can't really compare that. you can kill crickets really quick and without suffering. cows often die suffering even when companys say "they don't feel it".. often (more than that) they do. and cows / pigs don't only get feed with grass alone. they get feed with a lot of other stuff often.

.... if we ever can do those things then maybe that argument will make sense. But if the enterprise ran on gas, most of star trek would be wars over petroleum deposits because starships take a lot of fuel. Every other episode would be about the planets full of poor people living like it was the 21st century instead of the 23rd because the federation needs scores of laborers to maintain an intergalactic food supply line. So we should try to be more enlightened yes. We should aspire to a world without want and need, but 1% of the world uses 99% percent of the resources to live as we do. That requires people to suffer. Unless a lot of people are willing to give up a lot of things not everyone can live that way. So we need to find a better way that we can achieve without waiting 300 years and without turning the poor into a morlok style labor force for our benefit.

well, most people wanting more than they can use / eat. people buy a s*it ton of food which they then often throw away because it's not good anymore after a while. people are "using" more than they can. that's the problem.. not the amount of stuff we have. it's the thinking we have often. if someone offers someone free apples.. he take all he can. not just as much he can eat / use.. no. as much as he can. just because it's free / there. he don't think about "hey maybe someone else too want's / needs an apple.. i should just take as much i need".. thats & other stuff is often the problem.

Plants emit chemicals when in distress as to warn others of their species, and actively try to repel some insects while attracting others. Plants can also move with the day/night cycle. Hell, what's funny is there is a whole group of them that are carnivorous! Which you're wailing against! Just because a plant's neuro-network is nothing like our own doesn't mean they can't feel either. Same thing with jellyfish, but you'd consider that an animal right? Is it really conscious? It doesn't have a brain.

p.s: it's now 06:00am in the morning in germany, so i gonna sleep now^^ i will respond to answers when i'm on the computer again (20:00-21:00pm, german time)

Morloks XD

@funkmasterrex i know that. they even can count. see my above answers to that topic pls^^ to make it short - you can "kill" an plant quickly without the plant suffering. same with crickets. but with animals like cows and pigs you can't. and imho you cant really compare plants and animals even if they have similiar functions. gn8 :)

I'm just saying your trading one mass slaughter you do understand for one you don't, one that just exacerbates the problem.
I'll wrap it up with one last point. Let's say it's all successful. Vertical farming exists, there is plenty of food for everyone, meat is basically outlawed for so long the idea is becoming taboo like rhino horns for medicine simply because most people haven't tried it. Nature is back in balance... except for human. Do you really think that is going to change human nature overall? It's human nature and evolution to be omnivorous. Rhino poaching is illegal, guess what? Still happens. All you've really done is create a black market for meat.. and a few meat cartels on every continent to go along with it.
What's funny is that the kind of altruism you express and think would be good inevitably leads to a species' extinction. The overpopulation of mice experiment is a good example. The "altruistic mice" went into a corner and basically cozied up into a cave while

the rest fought each other to death. Once all the other were dead, the mice that stayed in the cave had forgotten their instinct to fuck, leading to extinction.
Our aggression is tied fundamentally to our hunting... our consuming of meat. I bet if you took it away, even if the dust bowl and the plagues didn't get us.. and we decided to not go back to meat (since we're all pacifists now) within 5 generations we'd forget how to fuck
Reverse Mad Max...

@funkmasterrex i don't think that forbid the eating of meat would solve the problem. it's not working that way. people need to understand for themself that it is wrong (from the morality standpoint etc.) to kill other lifeforms (not just animals, ALL lifeforms like humans, aliens etc. too).. not be forced to stop eating meat. trying to force someone to do something never worked and never will. change does not come from the outside, it's coming from within people. but you can give them little hints and pokes in the right direction.

@cycy- but you’re still killing something. You’re killing plants. If all life matters, not just human life, but life that isn’t like us, of animal and human and alien life is equally valuable- why are plants less valuable just because they are different? If the moral foundation is based on a respect and equality of life, but you yourself would say that the lives of plants are “less” than the lives of humans, How can you say another is wrong for ranking the lives of animals against humans? Is that not hypocritical? Wouldn’t one then need to at least balance survival against necessary evil, just as you say that one should give up meat, shouldn’t the “moral eater” eat as little as absolutely necessary to survive, since each meal comes at the cost of plants lives or expense? Is that the only requirement for being morally sound in diet, that one stop eating meat? There’s no additional concerns, no other criteria for being a human withba food conscious?

plant's are more like a robot. you trigger a "function", and it then do a specific thing. it will always respond the same way to the same input / trigger. it's just a biological system which you trigger. an animal or an human as an example have a way more complex system & have a consciousness, a free will, the ability to think about stuff, change their behavior. that's the difference between plants and animals / humans for me. if i would destroy as an example your computer.. would you say i kill it? it too can do stuff. it too can calculate stuff etc. just like an plant. but does your computer have a consciousness? not yet because the AI research is not far enough. if plants would have the ability to think about stuff, change their behavioir etc.. it would be a little different. but they are just biological robots.

i know, normaly you could say "animals and humans are too just biological robots".. yes (maybe). but like i said.. they are way more complex & can suffer really hard. they have higher consciousness functions than a plant. if you kill a plant, you have in some cases just a trigger which then sends out some stuff to alert other plants / tree's. but it's always the same response if the input is the same. it's not like an animal or a human. the complexity of the conscious system is important for me as an example. and stuff like the ability for emotions etc.

But that assumes that to revere life it must meet a standard of complexity which you deem worthy of respect. So then it is not about a reverence of life, but the idea that certain creatures meet your functional requirements to be considered worthy of being treated with empathy. That is less about the actual organism than it is about your personal ability to empathize with a lifeform. It’s a more proper sounding version of only eating things that you don’t think are cute. By that logic there is nothing wrong with eating many fish, reptiles, or various other animals like shrimp or lobsters that are shown to have a rudimentary mental complexity and no or little recognizable or relatable sensations of pain. That isn’t an argument to not eat meat, it’s an argument to not eat things that you feel some similarity or connection to.

animals like fish etc. DO feel stuff. fishes and other animals are ABLE to think & change their behavior. my point is, that i don't feel okay with other lifeforms feeling bad (because someone does harm them). but you don't really did respond to my main argument so.. what should i say? it's not really a proper answer to my answer if you ask me.. you don't go into what i said (plants=robots, animals=not etc).. so.. what i should respond to that? i said to you that animals have the ability to think, change their behavior, feel emotions etc.. and that i differ because that.. and you bring as an example stuff like fishes etc. who are can do that... :/ ?????

Are you saying animals in slaughter houses feel pain? Because they dont. Their death is swift

there are interviews with people who work at factories where animals get killed on mass.. they all say that in a big amount of times animals are still alive when they get cutted in half etc.. people who work there often don't work there for long because the emotions they have while see all this stuff. people who work there often said that the procedures which should let the animals don't feel anything often don't working & the animals get cutted in half while still alive and consciousness. in germany whistleblowers (workers from such factorys) got interviewed and said that the animals in this factorys have a huge amount of pain and that the procedures who should prevent that the animals feel anything don't work right. this people working there and killing this animals.. they know what they see every day. so please :/

+ chickens as an example get just thrown into a blender alive in the production of chicken mcnuggets.. don't you think thats a huge amount of pain? imagine someone is throwing YOU into a blender. don't you think thats a really huge mass of pain? because it is. there is a huge sh*t ton going on while meat production.. a huge amount of pain. saying animals who get killed don't feel it is just ignorant. please.. inform yourself about that topic more.

@cycy- I think I did answer your question, and @fell_equinox post should show you why. Many people do not believe animals can feel pain, or that certain animals can. Many animals, especially equator animals and things like mollusks have nerve and brain systems so vastly different than our own that a 1=1 equivalence can’t be proven. You say that plants don’t count because you see their behavior as robotic, but I’ve never seen a fish paint a mural. As far as we can tell fish respond to basic stimulus and response, you train fish with treats and repetition of simple motor functions no? Wether I BELIEVE fish can feel and think doesn’t matter because I ant prove it. How can I expect someone else to follow my feelings when I have no proof? How can you speak as though you have moral authority when you’re exactly the same as the comment from fell_eq that you reject? Claiming another liform doesn’t feel pain because it is different or you can’t telate to it?

@cycy 2You say that plants don’t feel pain because they aren’t capable. Fell says animals do not feel pain because they aren’t capable. Both your comments are the same. Your philosophies are the same. And you speak for the plants to say they dont feel pain or think like a fish. You speak for the fish to say that they do think and feel like a cow. You speak for the cows and say they think and feel as a human. Yet you have never been a cow, or a fish, or a plant. You have only been a man. You have never talked to a fish. You have no scientific proof of any of your claims and yet- you say that your moral stance is the one that will bring a bright future for all. I believe animals think and feel. But if animals think and feel, if a lobster can think and feel, how is it more conscious than a plant? And could there be conciiusness beyond your idea of being able to perform tricks in command? For all we know plants are so much more intelligent we can’t even see how intelligent they are.

@cycy 3/3- But you don’t care because they are different. You don’t relate to them and don’t respect them as equals. Just as others don’t relate and respect animals as equal. So what position are you in to tell others to respect living creatures even if they don’t understand those lives, if you readily admit that you are plants as little more than robots to do with as you please without guilt? Hitler and Stalin can argue with Mao in the afterlife forever over who thinks they aren’t as bad as the others because they killed less, or feel their killings were more righteous- at the end of the day hey are all murderes though, each has substantial loss of life on their hands regardless of what kind of life or why. So I did answer your question but I do t think you wanted to read the answer. The question is on you now- how do you justify telling others to hold all life equal even if they don’t see it as equal in value or intelligence, but then yourself devalue life when it doesn’t fit you?

@guest_ i gonna answer when i'm back from sleep tomorrow :) it's 04:00am here in germany so i go to sleep now. see you in a few hours & then answer you :)

No worries. Sleep well.

When I said they dont feel pain I meant that the companies are legally obligated to give them quick, non torturous deaths.
Of course they feel pain. Any creature with a nervous system can

@fell_equinox the problem with that is, that these companys use methods which are not working to 100%. like i said, in germany there are whistleblowers which got interviewed and the all said that it's not rly working good. i would assume that it don't works at like 1 from 3 animals they kill. but the problem is not just the methods, but too the workers who work there who can make errors which then result in not 100% working methods. so animals have really often pain. the whistleblowers even said that most workers don't work more than 2-3 months there because after a while they need psychological help because all the animals who get harmed by them. they see every day animals die & get harmed..that's really sick and emotional. if there would be really methods which would result in 100% safe no-pain & no-consciousess.. okay. but there are no methods who have that.

@guest_ 1; it's not about fishes painting pictures or if they show creativity or not. it's about their consciousness & the ability to change their behavioir.
if you give 10 animals a puzzle..some will solve it, some not, some will do a complete different thing as you think they will do. they all act different.
you give an animal something, and it will always change their behavior. they will never act always the same. they are thinking and feeling stuff.
plant's don't do that. plan't are more like a computer programm with sensors. if you trigger a sensor in a specific way, something get triggered.
example: if you trigger 3-4 sensors in the mouth of a venus fly trap, it will close it's mouth automatic. that's a pre-programmed function which get
triggered. nothing more. the venus fly trap don't think "there is a fly..let's close my mouth" or something like that.

@guest_ 2; if you hurt a human, he reacts to it by jumping up and scream (or else). if you hurt a animal, it reacts too in a similiar way. if you hurt an animal, it does just trigger pre-programmed functions (spit out chemicals to scare animals away etc).
if you look at the reactions of lifeforms,you can assume that they are able to feel pain.
we can't look into the brain of animals an 100% say they feel pain from the outside.. but the
brains of animals working similiar to our brain. they even have stuff like dopamine etc.
plant's don't have a "brain", they just have a system of sensors and triggersystems which then start pre-programmed stuff.
if you compare a animal / human with a plant, that's like you would compare a computer programm with an AI which can have emotions and having free will.
it's not rly a good compare-able thing.

@guest_ 3; "how do you justify telling others to hold all life equal even if they don’t see it as equal in value or intelligence, but then yourself devalue life when it doesn’t fit you?"
it's not about "value" or "intelligence", it's about the complexity of consciousness / brains. if a lifeform is not be able to think, change his behavior, don't makes own choices, don't really have a idea of "i am", then it is like a robot / computer programm.
consicousness have a scientific description of what it is.. and plant's don't have a free will or "thinking about stuff" as far science know. but animals DO have that ability's.
it's a science question, not a "i think it is like that or that" if you ask me. animals have a consciousness like humans have, plant's don't. that's scientific proofen.
so what do you want to hear from me? let's think about it.. would you say a computer programm is the same like a high developed AI which get build based on a human brain? an ai which can think, have free w

...will, having emotions etc?
do you think that's on the same level? do you think it is good to remove a computer programm? normaly you don't care about that computer programm.. do you? but if you would need to remove an AI which have emotions (basicly an ai which is "alife") etc.. you would have a morality issue.. or don't?

Plants can absolutely change their behavior. Where did you ever get that idea? They'd be doomed to extinction if they couldn't.

I still want to know your thoughts on jellyfish. Since that is an animal without a brain. Is a jellyfish more like a plant then?

@cycy- as funkmasterrex has pointed out, plants may not be as robotic as you think, or at least no more robotic than most other life. The fact that they adapt slower to a situation, or react in ways we don’t recognize as reacting, doesn’t mean they lack intelligence. You’re applying your personal criteria for interelligence, not a universal standard. The way you believe that plants are robots is the same way others believe animals are simple as well. If you study research closely for koko the gorilla or Alex the parrot, or other animal language studies- you’ll find among all the sound bites and excitement there is a wide spread skepticism that the ideas vein. Expressed were anything but programmed responses of a creature that didn’t understand but knew through cues that a certain behavior would get it treats. In that light, we could simple say they are more sophisticated robots and would you value a self driving car as much as a human life just because it is more complex than a watch?

@cycy 2, so again, mirroring funkmasterrex- what about a human or animal with mental disability? One which does not exhibit a response or reaction to stimulus, that does not adapt? That is in essence, a complex mass of cells that exist to eat and multiply, and may not even be able to eat on their own? Are they less worthy of your definition of a living organism? They fall short of your definition. As I said early, your line on what life is or is not sacred is convenient to your beliefs. It’s a very nice way to not feel guilty about having to kill to survive, but you nor science can define or identify sentience, intelligence, or even what life is. We only know that we recognize those things that remind us of ourselves as being alive and possibly intelligent. It’s sheer arrogant assumption by which humans proclaim ourselves to be the species by which all intelligence and conscious be measured, and that because we can kill, it is in our power to cast judgment on what even counts as a life

@cycy 3- that is my whole point. You think that you or any other human has the intelligence to determine out of all the creatures in the universe, which ones have lives that are worth “counting” and which are insignificant or meaningless in comparison. This entire time you have literally been arguing against your own point. Your whole point is that we shouldn’t view animals lives as less than human lives, you even said that alien lives should be held to the same regard. And yet somewhere out there may be plant based aliens, who see all plants the way you see animals and would think you barbaric to regard the less able of their kind as robots without feelings. See- many scientists believe that we may have even encountered aliens already and simply not recognized them because they were like no life we had ever seen so we didn’t recognize them as lifeforms. Who knows what a chicken or a plant feel? Until the 1980’s modern medicine said that infant humans didn’t feel pain.

@cycy 4- all life is life. It isn’t for you, or me, or anyone to determine the value of a life or weigh one species against another. If it were life or death and you had to choose between eating a gorilla or a dolphin, a dog or a similar size monkey, a human or a pig, in that moment which life in which pair would you decide was the one that was the less important and less worthy which would it be? We will always justify our decision to kill or it will drive us mad. Self justification is not the same as being right though. Any morality only holds the weight our convictions give it. In the end, something is going to die and very few of us species are alive because we would volunteer to be the one. So if you feel better about the “survivors guilt” by telling yourself they were “just robots” that you killed- who am I to ruin that coping mechanism? Just I ask you don’t stand on a soapbox and declare others to be inferior for not following your convenient moral narrative.

urks again so much text x_x i think i make it quick. my english is not very good to say 100% what i would like to, i did try it but it seems that the exact thing i want to say don't really gets "over" if i use english. i didn't say that plant's don't adapt to stuff.. i said that if you trigger a trigger, the response is always the same on a specific plant. i didn't talked about changes if the plant is multiply / breed by changes in their dna or something like that. because that's just like "code changes". i talk about changes in behavior of a single individum plant. if you have a plant in your room, it will always act the same if you do the same. as an example a venus fly trap. if you trigger 3-4 sensors in it's mouth, the mouth closes because their "sourcecode" say "after 3-4 hairs get triggered, close the mouth". that's something which is "coded" into the plant, and this don't change from one day to the other suddenly. it could change if the plant is breeding / multiply over years

but that was not the point. the same goes for animals and humans who can get changes in their dna by having childs. thats a different thing. that's not something which is done by free will / consciousness.. it's just automatic / random adapting to the surrounding. anyway.. i don't think we get anywhere by talking further for days and days about that topic. we seem to have different opinions on that topic and i don't seem one of us is changing his opinion soon.. so i would say.. it's okay to have our own opinion on that topic & i want to say thanks for the discusion about that topic. but i think we should maybe stop it here to don't get it even more confusing^^ the text-size limit etc. makes it really weird to answer to long answers and it gets confusing. on mobile i can't even open this post anymore (i click and nothing happens).. glitchy..don't know why. anyway.. thanks for the stimulations & ideas you opened up here in the comments. greetings :)

I jest made @guest_ go fucking ham. Id doesn't matter. I've won.

@cycy I think even in broken engwish your idea is clear.

@funkmasterrex i just don't know how much of what i want to say really comes through because i often "mix" german language stuff into my english because i just don't know it better etc.. i often seem to have the problem that my text's are looking "stronger" for english people than i mean them to be etc..^^ so i don't know^^