will the moral signal address veganism

jf asked people to help make a list of moral signals to cover in the book, and veganism was definitely a big one on there. whether it actually makes the book is yet to be seen

are contrarianism and skepticism in the list?

a list of moral signals

what does that mean exactly?

like virtue signaling

i can come up with some if i knew what that meant precisely

From 2015, but the climate activists don't want to talk about it...
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535

Replacement migration theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptg5I6smyIw

Good idea, I'll talk of veganism. By the way, who's the guy who had purchased rights to determine the Letter to The Reader content? I need him to tell me what to talk about now!

My big issue with vegans is they think a moral system is like a mathematical system such that it needs to be internally consistent at all times and all propositions must follow the laws of logic

Our morality never evolved to satisfy the laws of logic it evolved to facilitate group competition under scarce resources with certain winners and many losers

They want to create an artificial morality and use legislation to impose it on every one

Under their moral system using the law to impose your morality on other people is completely justified

Ask Yourself has stated on numerous occasions he wants to get enough ppl on board with veganism so he can ban meat consumption

This makes vegans no different than religious zealots

They are too stupid or willingly ignorant to recognise there is no universally applicable moral system since everyone prefers their own morality that enables them to thrive and reproduce rather than spend life pursuing an abstract goal

An abstract moral system that’s consistent in many hypotheticals is not what most people are interested in. They want a moral system that conforms to their lived experience and helps them navigate complex social dynamics

@The-Free-Monk I wonder if their attempt to create an artificial morality actually stems from a more primordial morality that involved not causing unnecessary harm to animals?

We evolved to hunt and eat meat

Our ancestors were hunter gatherers

They lived off whatever they could catch and domesticate

Human progress and evolution necessarily entails destruction of other species

Construction, mining, logging, fishing , agriculture, power plants, textile mills etc

All of these involve killing numerous species by destroying their natural habitat and ecosystem

We are way past unnecessary harm

We have probably caused millions to go extinct without even realising

Like you said, our morality never evolved to satisfy the laws of logic.

They are not mathematical systems that are internally consistent at all times.

We could have a moral system where people say they don't want to eat meat to minimize harm to animals while turning a blind eye to other forms of harm to animals.

In that sense you could say the vegans have an excellent example of an internally inconsistent morality.

I think we could even imagine a genetic reason behind this. Maybe people who are genetically predisposed to not want to harm animals are more likely to engage in animal husbandry which has been a huge asset for human society for thousands of years. Maybe the logic behind this morality is not consistent but that's ok right?

one can also argue that any moral system that arbitrarily discrminates between animals and plants, is bankrupt.

Vegans must ignore the reality of plant life, whilst hypocritically upholding the sanctity of animal life. It is retarded.

aren't you presupposing that a moral system has to be logical then? That would contradict Super Monk's position @oojimaflip

No, I don't think so.... A moral system only has to be internally consistent to be valid, internal consistency does not *have to* derive from logic. Morality can be bat-shit insane but still internally consistent. @Boniface

I suppose you disagree with monk and I then, I don't think morality has to be internally consistent. @oojimaflip

Not really, I think most people's attempts at morality fail to be internally consistent. It doesn't mean it ceases to be a moral system, it just is one that I disagree with.

to be fair though, the only internally consistent moral system I do agree with is moral nihilism.

@Boniface

Livestock farming was an essential survival tool