• 11 Posts
  • 659 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: March 16th, 2024

help-circle




  • I’m trying to understand it because for example I, if faced with something like the Trolley problem, would pull the lever so that whatever ends up being less deaths in the long term is the rail selected.

    But based off the second paragraph you wrote, it sounds like you’d either never pull the lever or would choose the rail that kills the least even if more die in the long run.

    For example, you mention infanticide would be bad. But if you don’t use vaccines because it uses chicken eggs, you could hypothetically still lead to dead infants via the spread of disease.

    And then there’s the insects part - wouldn’t this omit farming that uses pesticides then? How do you know which did or didn’t? It would also include I’d imagine farms that say release ladybugs to control other insects since it required the exploitation of ladybugs.


  • But virtually all medicine was tested on animals. It’s not about if the medication itself is made with/without animal products, it’s that animals were harmed or killed in testing to make sure they were safe for humans. Or used animal cell lines.

    Or what about vaccines that save animals, but used animals to create, like the rabies packets?

    Likewise, if you’re using plastic, you’re using something made of oil, which the extraction and use of is causing catastrophic environmental damage and harming untold amounts of animals. You could then easily argue that the wanton exploitation of nature is very much the exploitation of animals, even to a far greater degree than certain animal husbandry techniques or raising styles.

    Lastly, where do insects fall? Some insects have a decent level of intelligence, if that’s a criteria. And there’s also things like hives which are unique intelligences.

    If we go by the first published definition of veganism, it would seem to me the only way to truly abide by it would be to live without any modern technology, in the wild, with only materials made without pesticides or machinery.

    That’s why I’m wondering where the line is drawn.














  • I feel like the majority of people’s default response to abuse is fear and/or submission. My much older brother was like that too.

    I on the other hand always had anger and survival instinct instead, and remember even as a kid planning on how to use a knife in case it was needed, and going for the neck, or how to maybe escape a machete. Even being beaten nearly to death didn’t stop me from doing what I wanted, and if anything only make my anger stronger then.

    I wonder what determines how one will be? At least in my anecdotal data, it seems to be genetic. But then, why is most people’s reaction to abuse fear and/or submission? Could it be thousands of years of human history, where conquering, enslavement, and pillaging led to an increased survival rate of the quiet ones passing down this trait? I’d imagine in much more ancient times, aggression against aggressors would have been more likely to have led to death after all than complacency.

    And is this why we see less and less revolutions now as well, in part? Why society has become more tolerable against oppressors and injustices?

    Idk. Just random thoughts had while sleepy on a really late night.