Humans are animals. We are also part of the environment. I think humans are a normal and natural part of life on this planet. Simply for the reason that we can’t say what is a “normal natural life” and what is not. How would we decide?
This is called naturalistic fallacy and it sucks. As a vegetarian I hear it almost every time I’m unfortunate enough to be involved in dietary discussions: “bUt HUmaNs eVolVEd tO eAt MEaT”
There’s no such thing as “natural” as everything is “natural”.
that is not at all what they are trying to say. i think their point is that human beings (the species) is a part and product of nature and not a phenomenon detached from nature, even though we process a disproportionate capacity to mold and many times hard nature. (for this part keep in mind I am vegan myself) some animals dying for humans is not a solid ground for anti-natalism unless you have hold a mutated form of malthusian hatred for the human population.
I’m not sure what you’re implying here - we seem to be in an agreement. I was agreeing with Stoned_ape and naming the fallacy original poster used to argue in favor of anti-natalism
I would argue that it doesn’t matter what’s natural or not - killing is wrong, and unless you’re vegan, having children is killing since the greater the human population the greater the number of animals that need to die to feed it.
Vegans are also killing natural life. They only exclude some animals from the killing. Jainists go further, but they also can not live without disturbing and possibly killing other life. Source: I grow crops in my garden, and I can’t do any simple thing there without wrecking havoc on small and tiny animals.
It is just how it is. I understand why vegans do it. But the reason can’t be “to not harm any animal”. It’s just not possible. Literally not possible. You’d have to live on the ISS to pull that off… and we wouldn’t have that station without disturbing and killing a great deal of life on planet earth.
Humans are animals. We are also part of the environment. I think humans are a normal and natural part of life on this planet. Simply for the reason that we can’t say what is a “normal natural life” and what is not. How would we decide?
This is called naturalistic fallacy and it sucks. As a vegetarian I hear it almost every time I’m unfortunate enough to be involved in dietary discussions: “bUt HUmaNs eVolVEd tO eAt MEaT”
There’s no such thing as “natural” as everything is “natural”.
that is not at all what they are trying to say. i think their point is that human beings (the species) is a part and product of nature and not a phenomenon detached from nature, even though we process a disproportionate capacity to mold and many times hard nature. (for this part keep in mind I am vegan myself) some animals dying for humans is not a solid ground for anti-natalism unless you have hold a mutated form of malthusian hatred for the human population.
I’m not sure what you’re implying here - we seem to be in an agreement. I was agreeing with Stoned_ape and naming the fallacy original poster used to argue in favor of anti-natalism
Alright my bad then
deleted by creator
I would argue that it doesn’t matter what’s natural or not - killing is wrong, and unless you’re vegan, having children is killing since the greater the human population the greater the number of animals that need to die to feed it.
Vegans are also killing natural life. They only exclude some animals from the killing. Jainists go further, but they also can not live without disturbing and possibly killing other life. Source: I grow crops in my garden, and I can’t do any simple thing there without wrecking havoc on small and tiny animals.
It is just how it is. I understand why vegans do it. But the reason can’t be “to not harm any animal”. It’s just not possible. Literally not possible. You’d have to live on the ISS to pull that off… and we wouldn’t have that station without disturbing and killing a great deal of life on planet earth.