On Feb 22, 3:22 pm, Charlie Pendejo > wrote:
>
>
> I see some merit in this view based on empathy, but if there's no
> distinction made between an animal whose entire life is spent immobile
> and force-fed in a small pen vs. one which lives its life in the wild
> or grazing in a pasture, nor between species (say, primate vs.
> ruminant vs. poultry vs. insects), well, that'd be so lacking in
> nuance as to be more a turn-off than a foundation upon which I'd be
> inclined to base much of my behavior.

Sure I'd "feel better" if the animal had a nice free-ranged kind of
life and felt absolutely no pain at all upon death -- even lived to
the last year of its species' life span (unlikely, even in a very
humane industry).

But I think such "distinctions" are simply lawyers' games. It's like
the kid who really doesn't want to do his homework and will have every
imaginable excuse, some of them rather plausible in the abstract,
without context (said context being that he simply just doesn't want
any homework).

The ultimate question is, is it moral to use another life to further
or enhance your own? Which is simply to say, how would you like it
done to you?

> Oh come on.

No, really; I do think it's some kind of autism of the moral faculty
whereby some people (very few, I think, no matter what they would
claim) just can't comprehend any injustice less than the totally
obvious.

> By similar token:
>
> - all people who don't smoke are just fortunate to have different
> brain chemistry and thereby lack the urge

Actually, yeah, haven't you heard that some people are more
susceptible to chemical dependency than others?

> - people who save money and live within their means have some
> biochemical disposition to be nervous about the future, so they've
> adjusted by becoming saps who are just easily with less of "the good
> stuff"

Indeed, there's also a genetic basis (the so-called "thrill-seeking
gene") to risk-inclined behavior.

> - people who don't smoke pot, sniff coke, shoot junk are just over-
> cautious nervous nellies who don't know what they're missing
>
> - et cetera ad nauseum

The more scientists find out about our genes, the more we see how
genetically determined our tastes and capabilities are.

> Here in the real world, millions of us were never particularly fidgety
> and driven to bouts of huffing and puffing, until for some reason
> (e.g. quitting smoking, losing weight, whatever) we were motivated to
> give it a try, fought through weeks and months of discomfort, inertia,
> various setbacks, and eventually found that vigorous movement is a
> deep and vital part of being fully human. Even for those of us
> without the quirky biochemistry which reliably compels one to hop up
> out of the La-Z-Boy mid-commercial for a quick eight miler.

That your environment encouraged behavior in you which genetics
encouraged in others is neither here nor there.

> Woo-hoo, welcome to The Matrix!

Laugh all you want; it's inevitable. Read whywork.org for a primer.
Make sure to sit down and breathe deeply first.

No one wants to spend all this time doing stuff they really don't give
a flying **** about.

The fact that presently people can't imagine any other way of going
about their lives isn't the same as the possiblity that one day people
will. And the historical trajectory has been to an ever more
meaningful life for ever increasing numbers of individuals through the
technological advancements that different social organizational
strategies make possible.

> What a joy it'll be to rid ourselves of these pesky artifacts like
> bodies, action, thought... oh my, I can't hardly wait.

Hey, try explaining Nintendo to a Neanderthal.