this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
683 points (97.8% liked)

Science Memes

11111 readers
2217 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 24 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I've always found it interesting that using animals is a bad thing, but using plants in similar ways is fine. I guess there has to be a line somewhere, otherwise such a person would simply starve to death.

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Animals aren't just used, they are tortured on a industrial scale. That's mainly why vegans oppose animal products.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 14 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Are bees tortured to get honey?

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

yea of course, never heard of the bee grinder? bee grinder

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We’ve been keeping them improperly in the winter since the mid 20th century, leading to unnecessary bee mortality within hives. Whether that’s torture or not is up to you, but it’s definitely unnecessary harm.

[–] LyD@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is suggesting that we should be using hive covers. What exactly changed in the mid 20th century?

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

We stopped using hive covers because they’re more expensive than the increased mortality. They naturally nest in tree hollows in winter, whose thicker walls (and living material) allow the hive to maintain a higher internal temperature than uncovered hives (or covered hives).

[–] flora_explora@beehaw.org 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well bees are definitely objectified and seen as industrialized honey producing machines. They're starved of their own resources and are given mostly sugar water in return. Bee keepers are not concerned with their well-being other than for production yields. It is a form of factory farming. Isn't this reason enough?

[–] beek@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

As a local beekeeper, I take offense to your sentiment.

[–] flora_explora@beehaw.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Maybe time to think about life choices then?

[–] beek@beehaw.org 1 points 1 month ago

Quite happy with my life, thank you. And the bees.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

your offense has been duly noted and taped to the refrigerator for all to see

[–] millie@beehaw.org 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They're certainly exposed to a very different living situation than would be typical for them in most cases, to their detriment. For example, bees that make their combs in frames lose substantial heat from their hives, which usually helps protect against disease and even predation. They're also often given a sugar water substitute to eat when their honey is drained off for human consumption, which is nowhere near as nutritious. They're also moved around on the bee keeper's schedule, which may be a substantial stressor compared with a hive that stays in one place. Never mind that they may be exposed to climates that substantially differ from where that particular variety of honey be evolved.

Given issues like colony collapse disorder, it's pretty clear that many forms of bee keeping aren't really great for bees. Does that constitute torture? That's hard to tell, but it certainly does put pressures on them in multiple aspects of their lives and the lives of their hives as a whole that they wouldn't be dealing with otherwise, and which probably aren't pleasant.

Would you consider it torture, or at least cruel, to forcibly relocate the population of a city to an area that's freezing cold, force them to live in poorly insulated homes, make them eat food that isn't healthy for them, and steal the product of their labor in exchange for their efforts?

[–] Mrs_deWinter 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

One good argument for this: A vegan diet not only minimizes animal deaths but plant deaths as well, since livestock obviously has to be fed on many, many individual plants before they can get slaughtered. So even if we for some reason prioritized saving the lives of plants going vegan would still be the way to go.

[–] within_epsilon@beehaw.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I respect this argument. I would like to know how Humans fit into the ecosystem.

Humans tend to remove predators from population centers to prevent Humans from becoming prey. The culling of predators allow more prey animals to survive. Humans find themselves competing with prey animals for fruits and vegetables. Humans hunt prey animals to increase yields of fruits and vegetables.

How do we reconcile that our population centers are built on the culling of predator and prey species?

How do Humans balance protection and food production with the morality of minimizing animal and plant death?

What should Humans do with the bodies of culled predators and prey?

[–] Mrs_deWinter 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I think if you ask 10 people this questions you will get 11 opinions, at least.

I personally would prefer the reintroduction of predators into their native habitats because the human tendency to squeeze economic profit out of every square centimeter of the planet we inhabit reads absolutely bizarre to me. This kind of instrumental world view where everything has to have a purpose for us is in my opinion an epoch in the development of humans we should strive to leave behind, because although for a time it shaped our progression as a species like nothing else, it's also about to destroy the world we live in and come crushing down on us if we find no better way forward. I believe that in the long term we will have to withdraw from at least some parts of the ecosystem and let the predators do their thing. Our population centers can be (and for a good part already are) so sealed off to them that it should very well be possible to do our thing without being mauled by wolves.

...All this does go a bit beyond the question of honey though. Sorry for the rant there.

[–] within_epsilon@beehaw.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Bees and other insects are pollinators allowing food to grow. Say humans succeed at sealing themselves off in such a way that we can grow the food we need without impacting outside ecosystems.

Would humans still need pollinators? Would human pollinator populations be separated from outside populations?

The idea could inspire some entertaining science fiction. The best writer would probably have a background in Entomology and Horticulture.

[–] Mrs_deWinter 3 points 1 month ago

Being sealed off wouldn't have to mean having zero contact with the surrounding nature. I think we can coexist with predators while still using some land for agriculture - just not all of it.

[–] flora_explora@beehaw.org 8 points 1 month ago

It is really tricky to genuinely discuss this topic. Many omnivores use this as a straw man argument to discredit vegans for not being fully consequential. On top of that, reasons for being vegan and where people draw the line also vary hugely.

Anyways, I would argue that eating plants and also fungi is very different to eating animal products. First of all, if you are vegan for ethical reasons (as I am) then usually the argument is that one can infer from one's own feelings onto other animals. Sure, this isn't always that easy and we will never know how other animals really feel. This includes fellow humans btw. But it is certainly very definitive that many animals feel pain, discomfort and many other emotions not unlike we feel them.

Plants and fungi on the other hand have completely different body plans. Plants are modular organisms and you simply cannot relate cutting your arm off with cutting a branch. We may deepen our understanding on plants and maybe we will find some form of conscience one day. But this is still far off and for now we can only speculate. Fungi are very different as well and we usually just eat their fruiting bodies anyways.

Secondly, as someone else pointed out, for ecological reasons and for the sheer quantity that is necessary to sustain humans, going vegan is always the better choice. Animals live on plants, too, and just use a lot of the plants' energy on their own metabolism.

[–] v_krishna@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There are varieties of Jainism that won't pluck fruits (will only eat what has naturally fallen) and many mainstream varieties of Jainism that won't eat any root vegetables (because digging them up would harm insects), or seeded vegetables (eating it harms the plants ability to reproduce).

[–] within_epsilon@beehaw.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Naturally fallen fruit has ground bugs enjoying them like slugs. If a slug is already enjoying the fruit, that would violate Jainism?

[–] v_krishna@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

I'm not a Jain so take this with a grain of salt. Their philosophy of nonviolence believes in two sets of rules - one for ascetics and one for "householders". The former renounce everything in service of nonviolence (they often wear masks to prevent breathing in any organisms, carry canes that they use to tap the ground when they walk, etc). The latter have more "reasonable" restrictions (but are still pure vegetarians, etc). So maybe for the former group?