What animal is the least unethical to consume the meat from?In terms of its experienced suffering as well as the conditions of how it's farmed or captured and slaughtered. like a theoretical animal with no brain or nervous system wouldn't be particularly unethical to eat compared to an animal as smart as a human being that you have to torture to death in order to get a gram of viable product from or whatever
>>5141208Mushroom
>>5141219mushrooms are animals but they are NOT meat they're like a bacteria or something
>>5141208Probably Mahi Mahi.
>>5141220Ok, then convicts
>>5141208Clams, oysters, muscles.
>>5141222why?
>>5141227Its a notoriously racist fish.
>>5141227Dumb/fast growing/shortlived.>>5141208Cornish rock crosses done by someone who isn’t a multinational conglomerate would probably be a good choice. Obviously not chicken from JFC or similar (JustBare is tainted by regular worker deaths at their facilities), but smaller regional chicken growers who focus on being premium are great. If you want an example with a strong internet presence, Blackbird Coop/Farming While Beige is a high profile example, but there are similar operations in most regions of the US, Blackbird Co-op is just internet famous.Small producers of beef and hogs can be very ethical too, and surprisingly affordable, but exist basically only on word of mouth.
>>5141208Sponges and jellyfish.
>>5141257are sponges edible?jellyfish can be turned into a soup but it's not great
>>5141208Bivalves.
>>5141276why?
>>5141277Clams have a really simple nervous system. They don't experience any suffering particularly, just stand there filter-feeding
>>5141208Cats because they are invasive pests that spread disease and hurt wild bird populations. Capturing and executing a cat helps the eco system and eases the suffering of the cat who has to live every day as a cat.
>>5141225fuck you
>>5141208Mussels are easy to farm and don't even have brains.
>>5141208The ugly, pitiable ones. Disgusting animals you will never feel bad for once you turn off the dodo and meet them for real. Assuming you are normal, and not lacking empathy or overly (delusionally) empathetic to the point of feeling bad if someone kicks your pet rock. Chickens, sheep, cows, etc. if you had to raise your own you would never give a shit when they die. Chickens are voracious cannibals. Cattle and sheep are the insults they are for a reason. Farmers with well treated, non-stressed stock can slaughter animals among their kin and they never learn to care as long as the deaths are without struggle and for somewhat higher animals, not too bloody (they have no comprehension of death but can smell adrenaline in blood). This is actually unusual for animals. All wild animals, plus dogs, cats, and pigs actually make some effort to live. Lesser livestock are like this because we bred them to be. Because humans do not have a symbiotic relationship with any one species, animals have no innate ethical value. The only actual issue is some of them like cute dogs and cats coincidentally (or due to selective breeding) trigger our empathy instincts and cruelty done to them can dull your capacity to treat other humans properly. This is called moral hygiene. It affects morality but is NOT morality. Thus because wild animals have a more relatable spirit to us, hunting wild, willful animals is actually worse moral hygiene than farming some chickens in a pen and snapping their necks when you get hungry. What DOES have ethical value is NATURE in a broad sense. Humans require nature to survive and thrive. Buying from large scale farming operations that feed livestock grain instead of waste and throw away 1/5 corpses is much much worse than growing your own meat or buying locally raised grass fed beef.
people base their concepts of morality and ethics on extremely arbitrary things and then get REALLY mad about it
>>5141670The decision to think your life should continue is itself arbitrary. What’s more arbitrary?>Humans get moral priority because I am human, you are human, and everything on this planet that can comprehend morality is human. We are the only species that can strive for better. >All suffering is bad, so bad that if I think suffering might be possible, it’s bad. All life is life. All death is death. I’m personally going with what the aliens think (individual lives are objectively irrelevant and only value themselves, suffering is subjective, irreconcilable destruction is concerning). The best way to strive towards this is to go with human priority on the surface, with a mechanism for deprioritizing some humans and refuting the idea of reproduction being a right to strive towards the ultimate goal of perpetually inhabiting this planet without destroying it.Earth can not support more than 2.5 billion humans without being destroyed. In this scenario humans can live naturally and reach their full potential. 10-12.5 bil can be supported if the entire ecosystem is destroyed and all humans are forced into a vegan diet, which will assuredly result in a caste system enforced by developmental deficits. This would be a planet free of animal suffering, and with an efficient narcotics industry and powerful enough AI, human suffering as well. AI would quickly create animal-humans without self awareness. It is the necessary end to holding OPs beliefs to be truth. If suffering is wrong it must end.
>>5141208Jellyfish, bivalves, echinoderms, barnacles, most worms and maybe some fish.
>>5141227Oyster farming is actually kind of good for the environment because they filter the water. They're also dumb and won't mind being raised in tight farm conditions.
>>5141220>mushrooms are animals
>>5142323Mushrooms are animals
>>5141643take my (You) fine gentleman
is suffering really what you want as the sole criterion for morality?why is suffering less desirable than not suffering?is suffering without any kind of value?why are literal bots weighing in on this thread posting walls of garbage?
>>5141208>What animal is the least unethical to consume the meat from?a dead one
>>5142350Fungis aren't animals nor plants
>>5141208Eat the bugs
>>5141208>What animal is the least unethical to consume the meat from?Human orphans.
>>5141643OP said specifically "consume" and you wouldn't want to eat cat meat unless you were starving an even then. Typically the more meat in an animal's diet, the skunkier and nastier the meat is, and cat's are hyper carnivores. Since there are amino acids and vitamins they can't produce naturally they get it from their food directly, which makes it not nutritionally rich food either. Also I imagine it would be stringy and lean as fuck since their muscle fiber and fat content isn't like most other animals.
>>5141208All of them
>>5141208Mussels and other bivalves>Most sustainable source of protein. No need to alter the environment to farm them, just plop them on hanging ropes>Require little space and help the environment rather than detract from it (they filter feed, don't even have to feed them)>Still controversial on whether they can feel pain. They lack a central nervous system but still have neurons and react to external stimuli
>>5142580>He doesn't know
>>5141208Beefhttps://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-caused-by-various-animal-foods/
