This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Don't know why I'm stumbling on this post from /u/satirizedoor now a year later and nearly two years after the original post that I made. I still call myself vegan, but I do eat oysters now. I have come to find most vegans, including my past self, as annoying as you: there is a lack of real reflection as to what the goals of the movement are, and if the individual actions that vegans advocate are actually effective at accomplishing those goals. Total cessation of animal suffering is as impossible as it would be totalitarian (some vegans advocate for GMOing away all predators). Some amount of meat eating will always be part of human culture, and is frankly, indistinguishable and perhaps better than what goes on in the wild. My problem in reality is with industrial factory farming. It would be far better for these animals and the planet if we merely advocated for reduction in meat consumption, but that position isn't really justifiable outside of utilitarianism. Most people are not utilitarian I think, which makes it difficult to advocate for a position that fails on consequentialist/deontological grounds. The fact is that some people don't think animals have moral worth, while others do. There's very little ability to reason across that line, despite pretty good scientific evidence that most farm animals do have some rudimentary reasoning and emotional abilities equivalent to that of a small child. To vegans like myself, this evidence is helpful but rather superfluous. My beliefs about animal consciousness come from personal interactions I've had with animals. For those who aren't vegan, evidence of reasoning and/emotional reactions isn't sufficient evidence of consciousness or moral worth. Being able to solve puzzles or display emotions isn't very good evidence that there's something going on inside of another creature.
I'm still convinced that veganism isn't harmful for performance, at least in endurance sports. Plenty of endurance athletes at the highest levels are at least mostly vegan. However, I think that performance enhancement is a different question that I don't think has really been settled scientifically. There are without a doubt certain plant-based substances that are performance enhancers (beet juice), but I don't think this says anything about the efficacy of the diet as a whole. A cycling YouTuber that I vaguely follow, Dylan Johnson is vegan for recovery reasons, as plant-based diets are apparently much less pro-inflammatory than meat-based diets. I can't say I'm fully convinced by this: I think the real culprit in inflammation may be macronutrient ratios. Diets high in fat, which many vegans also have, seem to be particularly pro-inflammatory, at least in animal models. There's also good evidence that high protein consumption is linked to decreases in lifespan, but again this isn't exclusive to meat-eating populations.
I am more shocked by how skewed most user's idea of a healthy body weight is. I'm closer to 160 now, but a 150 with a height of 6' put me at a very normal BMI of 20. I recognize that this weight makes it very difficult to be a strongman, but that's not my goal, nor the goal of most Americans. It is an absurd position to tell me that I am a twig or emaciated at that weight when I am well within the bounds of a healthy BMI.
I'm going to take this as an invitation to go off on a tangent, I think.
I have run into reflections on the idea of using genetic engineering to eliminate predation in the past. Predation plausibly causes suffering, at least for prey animals. If you could modify all carnivores to become herbivores, should you do it?
There's an interesting tension I see sometimes around what the goal of environmental conservation should be. In many cases we seem to instinctively idealise 'the wild' or natural conditions. The goal of conservation is to minimise human impact on the environment and return animals to something as much like their natural environment as possible. But as with vegans, or some EA types, we sometimes see a different idea - that the most ethical goal is rather to minimise suffering, including animal suffering.
These two goals seem in tension. The wild includes quite a lot of suffering. Which goal should win out?
I was recently watching a documentary about a wildlife rescue in Tasmania. The hosts visited a man who runs a sanctuary that rescues, raises, and breeds injured or endangered animals. He releases some of those animals back into the wild, while some stay in the sanctuary for all their lives. It occurs to me to wonder what some of those animals would have preferred. It seems plausible that, if a Tasmanian devil could talk, it might prefer to stay in the sanctuary, where it has safe and clean places to sleep, has food provided at regular intervals for minimal effort on its part, and even has breeding opportunities orchestrated for it. If it makes sense to talk about a Tasmanian devil's quality of life, this devil's quality of life seemed to go down as a result of being released into the wild. So, having built animal-utopia, should we push animals out of it? Why?
Well, we might cite lots of instrumental reasons, like wanting these animals as part of the wild ecosystem long-term, or even practical ones, like not having the resources to look after all animals all the time and wanting instead to rotate animals through care on the basis of need. However, in practice I think we have some sort of teleological belief. It is right for Tasmanian devils to hunt on their own and make their lives independently in the wild. It is, for lack of a better term, their nature. It is thus in many circumstances morally better that a creature be exposed to risk and suffering than that it not be.
And if we embrace that conclusion, does that tell us anything about what we think about morality for human beings? You may, if you wish, insert some science-fictional speculation here about whether it would be good for humans to be pampered by more powerful beings, perhaps artificial intelligence, in the way that we have the capacity to pamper rescued animals. Is our own case different from that of the animals?
Do humans want to stay in prison, even "Club Med" type prison? Or institutions like mental hospitals and detox clinics? A wild animal might prefer a life in the wild, the same way that even the nicest prison would not suit a lot of people. Heck, we even have homeless people refusing to go into shelters not just because of the dangers and restrictions, but because they prefer living their own lives even on the streets.
Prison sucks though. The Tasmanian Devils are getting expert and attentive care with the goals of meeting their needs as best as we can.
They even get laid! And not sexually or violently assaulted.
The lack of freedom and movement is analogous to prison, but basically nothing else is.
Homeless people is a better analogy, although shelters dedicate WAY less effort/money to making the homeless happy than sanctuaries do for their animals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link