AnimalsDream

In western civilization everything is low risk until we've come too far to avert calamity. Before the 2008 financial crisis, every institution that played a role would have you believe everything was great, right up until everything was falling apart.

With global warming we always had, and still struggle against entirely too many people, and lying institutional vested interests, downplaying or disbelieving how serious of a global catastrophe climate change is forming into.

The only reason h5n1 is "low risk" at the current time is because it's not yet a human-to-human calamity that is already too far underway to put a stop to. We all saw how badly we all collectively handled covid.

We are now at mammal to mammal transmission, and humans are also mammals. The only actual difference between low risk, and full on pandemic, at this point, is patient zero.

You should really go back to the article and read the whole thing, as well as others that are linked to in it. Because in this one the WHO describes it as an enormous concern, because it is.

https://www.sciencealert.com/who-warns-growing-spread-of-bird-flu-to-humans-is-enormous-concern

Right, the difference in immune benefit is so crystal clear for everyone who makes the switch, not even considering the other myriad benefits like heart health, diabetes reversal/mitigation, weight loss, and mental health benefits.

Eating the flesh of an animal is not good for anyone. It's not good for the animal who was abused their whole life and murdered. It's not good for the environment. It's not good for all the beings who get sick from pathogens because of it. And it's not even good for the human animal who consumes the other animal's flesh.

You keep comparing animals to inanimate objects. What exactly makes a chicken more like your car, and less like a person?

No, no it would not be beneficial. That would be the opposite of beneficial (unless it's plant-based steak).

I would say that in their own way most animals can communicate their desires, and to at least some degree we can infer consent or non-consent from that. Chickens tend to be protective of their eggs, so it's reasonable to conclude that they wouldn't consent to us taking them. Same with bees and honey. And certainly the same with cows and the entire process of producing dairy. In addition to the sexual assault that people do to get cows pregnant, it's well known that when baby cows are separated from their mothers, the mothers cry out loudly for their children for several days.

But again, I do agree that consent is not the only criteria. We should seek a point where our societies no longer see sentient living beings as products or commodities full stop. And I think that this commodification of thinking, living beings bleeds out and serves as the archetype of our commodification of each other, like in the way that the capitalist sees their "workers" as a form of "capital".

I wouldn't say that consent is the premise of my opposition, just one important component of it. I don't remember this discussion so well anymore, but earlier you had pointed out that exploited workers often do consent to their exploitation - and I would agree that exploitation can occur even with consent.

No that was a good call, I do also refer back to the Vegan Society's definition.

If anyone wants help going vegan, I'd be happy to help. Even if it's infeasible to get enough people in the world to stop eating animals fast enough to avert the next pandemic, there is evidence that people who eat plant-based have better outcomes from getting sick, as well as just getting sick less in general. Not to mention getting animal products out of your homes reduces one of the vectors through which pathogens can spread. So at the very least you'd be giving yourself your own best chance (just keep in mind it's no replacement for vaccinations!)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=047C-mMQpSE

I'm nearly as far from an expert on infectious diseases as it gets, but - and if anyone who knows about influenza reproduction can chime in - I remember reading that influenza has incredible abilities to mutate wildly and recombine. The analogy was like, if human reproduction is like taking two decks of cards and randomly shuffling half of each deck together, then influenza is like taking any number of decks, randomly chopping up and re-splicing portions of random individual cards together, as well as resorting all of them back together without any regard for whether the results are going to even produce anything that can live or not. But the reproductions and randomizations are so voluminous that it doesn't matter - at least some of it will stick.

In other words, in addition to the wildly rapid mutation capabilities these viruses have - if you have animals that are carrying more than one strain of influenza simultaneously, those two or more strains can produce hybrids.

But again: citation needed.

Some Buddhists are okay with meat, but clearly Siddhartha Gautama himself was absolutely not.

That article quotes Marion Nestle, someone who has been interviewed on Plant Chompers before. Sorry, but you really just sound like a conspiracy theorist - the bottom line is that the full volume of evidence in nutritional science leans way more in favor of plant-dominant diets than anything else.

If you vote red, you are voting for cruelty. If you consume animals and their products, you are still voting red with your money, in addition to your own cruelty.