Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

Shit, I don't even trust whole foods. I was talking about going to farmers markets, farms, and food co-ops.
It's funny that people say it's too expensive but it's not just ethics we're talking here, it's your health. You get what you pay for.

http://eatkind.net/
 
The Boston Globe complemented my recent blog post. Interesting article:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/20...obots-trial/IjynaQk7bARI4fAnENLELO/story.html

With most robot-like machines that exist today, any serious problems can be easily traced back to a human somewhere, whether because the machine was used carelessly or because it was intentionally programmed to do harm. But experts in artificial intelligence and the emerging field of robot ethics say that is likely to change. With the advent of technological marvels like the self-driving car and increasingly sophisticated drones, they say we’ll soon be seeing the emergence of machines that are essentially autonomous. And when these machines behave in ways unpredictable to their makers, it will be unclear who should be held legally responsible for their actions.
 
It's funny that people say it's too expensive but it's not just ethics we're talking here, it's your health. You get what you pay for.

http://eatkind.net/

Oh I agree. I still buy meat from the store, but there's already a huge health difference from buying "Raw ingredients" vs buying processed food. I regularly notice the difference in the contents of my cart vs the carts around me. Meat/eggs + veggies + fruits + bread + coffee +juice vs Donuts/soda/microwave dinners/chips/etc.

When I was in AZ I was able to get fresh local eggs for a while. Man I miss those.
 
An interesting argument about the insufficiency of veganism as it concerns animal rights:

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/nature-and-cosmos/rhys-southan-vegan-invasion/

Veganism, as a whole, requires us to stop using animals for entertainment, food, pharmaceutical testing, and clothing. If it were to become universal, factory farming and animal testing would end, which would be excellent news for all the animals that we capture or raise for these purposes. But it would accomplish next to nothing for free-roaming wild animals except to stop hunting, which is the least of their problems.

...

Purely arable farmers accidentally kill insects, snails, small mammals, and other animals with farm machinery, and they intentionally kill these animals with pesticides that often unintentionally go on to harm wildlife through drift and secondary poisonings. Farmers also allow hunters onto their land to reduce the populations of deer and other ‘pest’ species that might eat their crops. Redirecting water for irrigation kills fish, as does spill-off from fertiliser and pesticides. We run over animals with our cars. We destroy animal habitats to build our cities, and we extract resources from areas that then become either uninhabitable or dangerous. The ‘wild land’ that we do leave untouched is often fragmented into little bits that don’t give animals the space they need to make homes and roam for food, and so cannot sustain them.
 
So I hope the author has opened himself as a host to HIV, Flukes, Tapeworms, Trichinella, etc. while refusing to eat anything because it might deprive an animal of sustenance.

The train of thought in that article must necessarily not see humans as animals btw.
 
So I hope the author has opened himself as a host to HIV, Flukes, Tapeworms, Trichinella, etc. while refusing to eat anything because it might deprive an animal of sustenance.

The train of thought in that article must necessarily not see humans as animals btw.

You're making the same hopeless straw man that the conservatives make when confronted with Marxist opposition: "Well, I hope they're giving away all they're possessions!"

The author isn't arguing that we shouldn't treat sick people or that we should all stop eating. He's criticizing the logic of the vegan argument: that is, if it's sincere, then it doesn't go far enough.
 
I read the quote vs the whole article as I was in a rush and missed where it was a critique from the outside. I don't think it's a straw man in this case. It is not illegal to not eat, nor to contract disease. So someone who wants to make such a case from personal beliefs should lead by example.

This is quite different from advocating for a different economic or political structure. Giving things away doesn't equate to Marxism anymore than vandalism equates to anarchy (or "moving to Somalia").
 
The straw man applies to the argument; you were accusing the argument of being something that it isn't, which allowed you to criticize the author for not presenting his body for disease contraction.

And I agree with your second comment, about Marxism not equating dispossession; but you made a similar equivocation, which is why I compared the arguments.
 
I agree that Veganism is probably impractical but making an effort to treat these animals with respect and the least pain and suffering as possible is imperative and really not hard at all.

Bottom line is nobody gives a shit and/or people are lazy.
 
My point was that the logic of the argument leads to certain death for humans, and almost no one is going to pursue that personally. It's like all the overpopulation scaremongerers, you don't see them helping out in the most personal possible way.
 
While that's true, I don't see how it has any bearing on the argument that vegan logic/ethics doesn't go far enough, if it is sincere. He's not proposing human annihilation, he's merely pointing out that how we treat animals/organisms is, first and foremost, entirely contingent upon our own technological development. Beyond that, the parameters that we draw up are entirely arbitrary. He's critiquing the logic of veganism; no more, no less.
 
That's a good article. I don't really have any further comments, but I thought the entire article was summed up very well in suggesting that online stores shouldn't ask how they can make people pay money, but how they can let people pay money.

EDIT: article from Aeon about cosmopolitanism and our responsibilities to others. I'm not usually a reader of the branches of philosophy discussed here, but this is a short, accessible (albeit simplistic) exposition of modern cosmopolitan thought. The author's conclusion is a bit hokey, but no matter:

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/nigel-warburton-cosmopolitanism/
 
Not a bad article, and I agree as far as trying to see outside of these arbitrary distinctions of nation states and trying to see things from the other side, like what it's like to be worried about US drone strikes (although we may have to worry about that internally soon enough).

Where the article breaks down is when it mentions Sunstein, and then Singer. Sunstein is a tyrannical hack, and Peter Singer makes grossly understated analogies for his arguments and apparently peppers them with useless phrases like "fair share", and even worse suggests giving it to aid agencies. It's pretty disgusting to me how many people pull a six figure salary selling guilt over starving children. Of course, just "giving a man a fish" only does so much. Some of the sentiment is like only sending bottled water to people when what they really need is a community well/pump etc.

On another, more contentious note, not everyone is equally worthy of help imo. I don't know about "God helps those who help themselves", but I do believe in helping those helping themselves over someone just sitting and sponging. When you just send 10$ to some agency you have no idea where it goes, and you can pat yourself on the back as a "cosmopolitan". It's got to be deeper than that.

Tying this in with the article I linked, did you watched the video? You get an artist that crowdsources and couchsurfs, and merely asks people to participate with her in the work via donations. Before she was making enough playing, she acted as a human statue while "panhandling". Is donating to a panhandler or to a Kickstart project not just as generous as giving money to some "starvin children's fund"?

I could go on further about this lol
 
Good articles fellas

I also just read the Vegan article Ein posted, the text is a massive rationalization on part of the author. What does the author propose? That we all commit suicide to help the other animals? Seems very unreasonable... we're not talking about the end goal, it's the baseline. If you think it's wrong to exploit sentient beings, then the least you should do is to try to avoid needlessly contributing to their exploitation when it is practical to do so.



Video that has been circulating the net. The biggest problem with the facts in this video and how today's system differs from the video is that it is not void of Keynesian bullshit.



 
Last edited by a moderator: