Okay, back to topic.
New Mysterianism;62046 wrote:
Okay, let's regroup our thoughts. We all acknowledge that there are moral complexities and unintended consequences deeply rooted in oil consumption and the like. We know this to be the case, but we do not intend for this to be the case. This distinction zicogja made is important.
The point I am trying to make is that, in addition to knowing what is involved in meat production--the harming of animals--we also intend for the animal to be harmed. Why? As I stated earlier, your dietary preference for meat is nothing less than the desire for dead bodily tissue. Bodily tissue comes from living things. You would not go to the market, order fried chicken, and accept being handed a living chicken. You'd want that chicken dead, because you want to eat its bodily tissue, plain and simple.
We know that the animals are harmed, and we desire dead bodily tissue. But we do not intend for the animal to be harmed. The same with using oil products, we know that it will harm others and we desire a product that implies causing harm, but we do not intend this harm. Maybe if your criteria is, that the "product" itself must be harmed, that might be a way to differentiate from oil products. (Actually that might be a point, if you want to explore that possibility, tell me.)
By wanting transportation, you know you have to keep others in poverty. You know that it is inevitable. The desire for transportation is nothing else than, to put it frankly, the desire for the oppression of a large part of the world population.
Maybe this clears it up, I wrote it before I saw this response of yours:
I agree, this is the same for using oil products. Which is your entire lifestyle.
In order to understand why oil is so important to our economy and our daily lives, we have to understand something about what it does for us. We value any source of energy because we can harness it to do work for us. For example, every time you turn on a 100-watt light bulb, it is the same as if you had a fit human being in the basement, pedaling as hard as they could to keep that bulb lit. That is how much energy a single light bulb uses. In the background, while you run water, take hot showers, and vacuum the floor, it is as if your house is employing the services of 50 such extremely fit bike riders. This "slave count," if you will, exceeds that of kings in times past. It can truly be said that we are all living like kings. Although we may not appreciate that, because it all seems so ordinary that we take it for granted.
And how much 'work' is embodied in a gallon of gasoline, our most favorite substance of them all? Well, if you put a single gallon in a car, drove it until it ran out, and then turned around and pushed the car home, you'd find out. It turns out that a gallon of gas has the equivalent energy of 500 hours of hard human labor, or 12-1/2 forty-hour work weeks.
So how much is a gallon of gas worth? $4? $10? If you wanted to pay this poor man $15 an hour to push your car home, then we might value a gallon of gas at $7,500.
Here's another example. It has been calculated that the amount of food that average North America citizen consumes in year requires the equivalent of 400 gallons of petroleum to produce and ship.
At $4/gallon, that works out to $1600 of your yearly food bill spent on fuel, which doesn't sound too extreme. However, when we consider that those 400 gallons represent the energy equivalent of 100 humans working year round at 40 hours a week, then it takes on an entirely different meaning. This puts your diet well out of the reach of most kings of times past.
Added: When we first came to this country, we were finding some pretty spectacular things just lying around, like this copper nugget. Soon those were all gone, and then we were onto smaller nuggets, and then onto copper ores that had the highest concentrations. Now?
Now we have things like the Bingham canyon mine in Utah. It is two and a half miles across and three-fourths of a mile deep, and it started out as a mountain. It sports a final ore concentration of 0.2%. Do you think we'd have gone to this effort if there were still massive copper nuggets lying around in stream beds? No way.
Let's take a closer look. See that truckway down there? It's fueled by petroleum; diesel, specifically. If we couldn't spare the fuel to run that truck, what do you suppose we'd carry the ore out with? Donkeys? These trucks carry 255 tons/ per load. Suppose a donkey could carry 150 lbs. This means this truck carries the same in a single load as 3,400 donkeys. That's quite a lot of donkeys.
Copper. What is the computer you are typing on right now made of? The wiring in the walls to bring you electricity, the wiring of the factory that produced the clothes you have on?
All you eat, have, are, can and do depends on oil. If oil were distributed equally on earth, you could not drive a car, you could not have the leisure time to post this and you would have a very limited diet. Supporting immorality is a necessary component for almost everything you do. It is a 100% certainty that without harm to others, you could not have it.
And since roughly 80% of the world population are excluded from having those "oil slaves", you are in a way stealing their slaves, or someone else is to sell the slaves to you, hence you are causing it in the same way you are causing the animal to be slaughtered.
You can only have the life you have, because someone or something (a political system etc.) is restricting others from having it. So you have to support immorality for everything you do. Eating a sandwich is immoral, driving your kids to soccer practice is immoral, studying is immoral, and spending leisure time debating ethics on your computer is the height of immoral behavior. I don't even want to get into the moral implications of producing that computer.
I am suggesting adjust that moral deduction from the OP somewhat. I am not telling you that eating meat is moral, just that your reasons for not doing so are too broad.
In an analogy, if we were debating whether a Jewish murderer should receive death penalty, the argument, that all Jews should be killed would not be very strong. I think you know why. Because you could not stand up for what this argument also implies, the implications of that argument. And saying that, it would be utterly pointless to carry out the full implication of your argument does not really save it.