I think we do need more sustainable farming in all forms.
I think we do need more sustainable farming in all forms.
I agree but if killing animals is a reason some are vegan they are pissing in the wind
I agree but if killing animals is a reason some are vegan they are pissing in the wind
well the tires used on tractors contain animal products.
well the tires used on tractors contain animal products.
I think this boils down to the whole "Fuck I step on an ant" problem. The maximum expected utility of me stepping on an ant to go to work so I can produce more so that other people can reach their maximum expected utilities with their actions outweighs the maximum expected utility of the one ant.
Sure take every precaution you can to not harm animals but you can't win them all. We do the same to people too. Some of our actions can fuck over a small portion of society without causing harm to them, but those actions will also at the same will be the maximum expected utility of the majority of people.
We haven't discovered a process in which we can take multiple parties considerations into the sense-making process which create our decisions. This is a bigger problem than veganism. For example if someone wants a bridge over a river and some environmentalists don't, currently our solution is to build up more resources and influence until the other party is defeated through contracts.
Ideally we could have sense making processes in which we consider all aspects, including long term effects and we make compromises that benefit both parties.
Until this happen it's hard to say for sure this question can be answered.
I've got some podcasts saved that talk more about society building in terms like this. Most of our decisions create generator functions of existential risk because of our short term decision processes.
I think this boils down to the whole "Fuck I step on an ant" problem. The maximum expected utility of me stepping on an ant to go to work so I can produce more so that other people can reach their maximum expected utilities with their actions outweighs the maximum expected utility of the one ant.
Sure take every precaution you can to not harm animals but you can't win them all. We do the same to people too. Some of our actions can fuck over a small portion of society without causing harm to them, but those actions will also at the same will be the maximum expected utility of the majority of people.
We haven't discovered a process in which we can take multiple parties considerations into the sense-making process which create our decisions. This is a bigger problem than veganism. For example if someone wants a bridge over a river and some environmentalists don't, currently our solution is to build up more resources and influence until the other party is defeated through contracts.
Ideally we could have sense making processes in which we consider all aspects, including long term effects and we make compromises that benefit both parties.
Until this happen it's hard to say for sure this question can be answered.
I've got some podcasts saved that talk more about society building in terms like this. Most of our decisions create generator functions of existential risk because of our short term decision processes.
You're referring to the combine harvesters. They actually don't kill very many, if any, animals. Animals aren't dumb, they'll move out of the way of a huge, loud machine
You're referring to the combine harvesters. They actually don't kill very many, if any, animals. Animals aren't dumb, they'll move out of the way of a huge, loud machine
No I'm talking about all the equiptment. I watched a tractor run over 2 rabbits today. No way the operator could see them. I didn't even think about the combines. We don't use them for suger cane
No I'm talking about all the equiptment. I watched a tractor run over 2 rabbits today. No way the operator could see them. I didn't even think about the combines. We don't use them for suger cane
(post is archived)