• Opafi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sentience is hard to measure though. Also I had a weird discussion with my neighbour once who argued that in order to kill fewer sentient beings, we should eat the bigger ones as the ratio of meat per sentience was better, so we should really eat whales. Which made it pretty obvious to me that a) he was nuts and b) sentience might not be the best indicator for ethic food consumption.

    /edit That doesn’t mean that I oppose the idea that eating plants is better. I’m just arguing against sentience as a good indicator.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except his argument is flawed on its own grounds, because the bigger the animal the more food it takes to support it before you come along and kill it. Assuming we had an objective measure of sentience, it’s pretty likely most non-herbivores are costing more sentience than your save by eating them.

      • Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        At which point we should just cause the extinction of all animals except humans and the few plants needed to support humans. See how that’s a horrible metric?