I saw a post on lemmy about how we could prevent 133 holocausts by promoting animal rights and veganism. The article opened by doing some math about how many dogs you could torture and kill in order to be equivalent to taking a human life, and then how many animals humans kill, and concluded that we’re committing holocaust equivalents many times over.

I have respect for people who question the status quo and think seriously about morality. Thinking about slavery, it used to be argued “this is the natural order,” “this is actually the moral thing to do” and so on. It wasn’t easy then to stand up for what we now see as the obvious moral position. So I have some receptivity to this type of argument.

That said, I think back to when I was a Christian (atheist now), and was fully bought into the anti abortion movement. They argued that fetuses were human, that we were committing fetus holocausts all the time. Taking that view to its logical conclusion, one could justify things like killing a few (abortion doctors, judges) to save many (fetuses).

The author of the vegan piece was not advocating for such things. But one could ask why not. I think the fact the conclusion (133 holocausts) is so far outside accepted views should prompt some examination of the starting premises. (Is any killing of an animal for food the same as torturous factory farming, should we do something about animals that eat other animals etc)

I’m glad I read the piece because there’s value in hearing other perspectives. We can’t see ourselves and our own blind spots. I would have responded in-thread but that community description said “not a place for debate”, so tossing out this thought here.

  • dotslashme@infosec.pubEnglish
    42·
    3 days ago

    I think its pretty healthy to always check your assumptions. Some things that are mainstream are actually pretty crazy, but taken as normal because we’re used to them. For instance, GDP is a pretty crazy way to measure economic health.

    • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      3 days ago

      For instance, GDP is a pretty crazy way to measure economic health.

      I know a lot of economists who agree with you, it’s just everything else we try to use to measure economic health on a macro scale seems to be worse. When your best tool is only 40% accurate, it sucks.

    • alcedine@discuss.tchncs.de
      3·
      3 days ago

      Yeah, GDP really measures size rather than quality, people just end up ignoring the nuance.

      GDP is also significant in that it directly influences how much revenue a government can raise by taxes, and so by proxy how much of public services it can provide. GDP growth also influences what amount of deficit it can sustain (though for various reasons that is not a straightforward relationship as with tax revenue).