Hacker News Reader

Comment by red75prime | Hacker News Reader

All kinds of creatures will suffer and die even without us eating them. The fields, which were used to grow food for cattle, will became populated with wildlife.

The choice is between suffering for predators survival or for our pleasure. Note that predators don't always listen to humane treatment of animals proposals, so the amount of suffering could increase. But it will not be our fault, so it's OK, right?

View on HN

The very brief suffering of an animal in the wild at the hands of a predator is nothing compared to the entire lifetime of unrelenting cruelty, suffering and unnatural confinement we offer them. There just really is no comparison at all. If you think there is then go educate yourself about what really goes on in factory farms.

This is a good place to start: https://vimeo.com/209647801

This is why it is far more ethical to eat animals who have been raised in conditions that allow them to thrive happily and wholesomely.

Factory farms are more-or-less a result of corporate capitalism and the greed for money.

Agreed but about 99% of the meat we eat in the US comes from factory farms. So unless you only ever eat meat that you are sure comes from humanely treated animals, which pretty much means never ever eating in restaurants, you won't be eating much meat.

Producing meat in this way also can't come close to supporting even current global demands for meat so it's not really a solution.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nil-zacharias/its-time-to-end...

I'm certain a system could be devised to allow enough pasture-raised cattle, chickens and pigs to be raised in happy, healthy conditions until slaughtered for food. It would take more resources, but it would be worth it. It might also support the plant ecosystems more, because soyabean and grain monocultures won't be needed.

However, the current Capitalist system's greed will ensure that this doesn't happen, because of the junk/fast food industry and their advertizing.

Without junk/fast food's demands, the amount of meat required to sate the global population may actually shrink, because with proper education, food addiction may vanish, meaning we'll only need to eat what we actually need for nutrition and not for addiction's sake.

There is no way we can feed the entire population the amount of meat that Americans eat every day even with industrial farming practices, so there's no chance at all we can do it with sustainable, humane practices. The only way it would work is if people ate WAY less meat per person than Americans currently do:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-indus...

Problem with the US is the fast food industry. Eliminate that, educate people properly, and you need far less meat to sate the ridiculous demand.

How do you feel about hunting? For pretty much my entire life I've lived off venison that I (or someone in my family) has harvested.

I think hunting out of necessity to survive is justified. Hunting for sport or pleasure seems cruel to me but I will say I have a lot more respect for people that kill & butcher their own meat than people that buy it in a pretty shrink wrapped container in the supermarket and do their best to not think about what it really is.

>This is why it is far more ethical to eat animals who have been raised in conditions that allow them to thrive happily and wholesomely.

I used to think that, but it's not a defensible point of view if you examine it a little more critically. Animals like pigs (or rather, their very very recent wild ancestors) have needs and behaviours that simply aren't useful to agriculture, and they can't possibly life fulfilling lives (not to mention that they should also be living for about 15 years rather than under a year).

The least we can do is to not eat them. It took me a long time to accept that, but that's how it is.

> Animals like pigs (or rather, their very very recent wild ancestors) have needs and behaviours that simply aren't useful to agriculture, and they can't possibly life fulfilling lives (not to mention that they should also be living for about 15 years rather than under a year).

Why does it have to be about usefulness? They can live happy lives close enough to how they might live in the wild, at least until they're killed, if for food, no?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com