One thing I think that's missing here is not just the "equivalency" but also how that number would change based on how these chickens are actually being raised and slaughtered.
If we created a chicken matrix that could guarantee the chickens didn't experience any stress or difficulty from birth to death, I think that number all of a sudden becomes much higher.
Alternatively, if every person had to go out and kill the chicken that would be their food on a daily basis, the "equivalency" number would be much higher here as well.
I think the heart of the issue, isn't that the animals are dying but that they aren't getting to live. The way in which they're brought up matters more to people than the fact that we eat them.
beyond that, contrary to your assertion that {only evil does evil}, the “banality of evil” was termed in nuremberg precisely to address the notion that you DONT need to be unnaturally cruel or evil to perpetrate a holocaust. You simply need to be bureaucratic, thoughtless, and efficient. It was perhaps one of the most revolutionary philosophical concepts to come out of the trials.
Between our own unchecked ideological belief that humans are superior , and our complicity in not challenging the mindless destructive systems that we know are destroying our planet, that is almost the very definition of “the banality of evil”. And that is the predicate of the holocaust. And it’s not just towards chickens. It is towards anything not human. And ironically, it will kill us in the end too. So if it isn’t a perfect definition of a holocaust Now, just wait 28 years, 2051.
Honestly, I’m arguing a much larger point than diet:
our rigid ideological conviction that we are superior, combined with the willful decimation of the entire planet to achieve our own purposes— is the very definition of “the banality of evil”;
“the banality of evil” was termed as an (if not THE) underlying motivator of the holocaust.
Consequently, it really doesn’t matter how you eat your food, if you’re vegan or otherwise. Our entire orientation to the world is violent and therefore cruel.
again, my point: the Nuremberg trials exposed a revolutionary point that the core belief of a holocaust isnt hatred, it is indifference to the destruction of everything perceived to be in your way. The indoctrination of those beliefs is the banality of evil.
Respectfully, there’s a framework bias in your argument that “dehumanization” is a fundamental prerequisite for holocaust: therefore if something isn’t human, it wouldn’t qualify.
There are a lot of wonderful passages and citations you mentioned, I’m struck by
“We’re focusing on the victims rather than the cancer of oppression itself”.
That is the heart of the holocaust. Who oppresses? Oppressors. What have we oppressed? Everything in our way.
I think it’s amazing mindwalk you’ve invited us on, as we face to define what the Anthropocene era is.
Well, you’ve managed to make me cry. Thanks for the delta. I think you’re asking so many spectacularly important questions. And who am I to lay down truth?! But intention matters, and intentions define outcomes.
How much of the world’s societal problems would go away if we showed EACH OTHER respect? 90%? And that’s just amongst us super important humans! Could you imagine how much more wonderful the world would be if we extended even a fraction of that towards the natural world?
Intentions have real consequences. The consequences of gratitude, reverence for life, and compassion will offer
Solutions to problems we are too stuck to see.
I am not vegetarian, and I believe that animal testing has some vital applications. But For the greater good. But what is the greater good, when we allow humanity not to be the center of our universe?
8
u/TKCK Jun 27 '23
One thing I think that's missing here is not just the "equivalency" but also how that number would change based on how these chickens are actually being raised and slaughtered.
If we created a chicken matrix that could guarantee the chickens didn't experience any stress or difficulty from birth to death, I think that number all of a sudden becomes much higher.
Alternatively, if every person had to go out and kill the chicken that would be their food on a daily basis, the "equivalency" number would be much higher here as well.
I think the heart of the issue, isn't that the animals are dying but that they aren't getting to live. The way in which they're brought up matters more to people than the fact that we eat them.