Time to End Factory Farming?
quillette.com
quillette.com
The biggest reason, by far, is access to information. Roughly, I would like to purchase only meat from animals that lived a "happy" life and had a relatively short death. Animals that lived outdoors, basically. But there are no credible labels or certifications for this, which means buying meat at the grocery store is pretty much impossible.
So I have to buy meat from a farmer. Recently I've been using crowdcow.com, but even there, the messaging seems to be all around _flavor_ and not _welfare_. Farmers will tell you what they feed the livestock, not how they treat them. So the best you can do is research the farm and hope their website isn't lying.
Another difficulty has been flavor and texture--pasture raised meat tastes more gamey and is much tougher than "normal" grocery store meat. I've actually found that I prefer the flavor of "humane" pork and chicken but not beef.
Lastly there's price. It's about 2/3x more expensive. This isn't that big of a problem, because we simply spend the same amount as a household and just eat less, substituting for vegetables. It does mean that I buy a lot more of the "cheaper" cuts, which require more skill in preparation. I haven't yet bought a pasture-raised ribeye--it's simply too expensive.
As for eating out, it's basically impossible. No restaurant I know where I live (Chicago) credibly serves only ethically sourced meat, as far as I know. To be honest I still eat "normal" meat when I eat out, although I have reduced my consumption somewhat. There are, unfortunately, some products of dubious ethical provenance that simply have no substitute, like fine cheeses and cured meats.
It seems to me like a huge opportunity. I would gladly pay 2/3 times for meat if I knew it was raised more ethically. In fact, that's what I think meat _should_ cost (and _all_ meat be ethically raised).
As for eating out, the best you could do is ask or just avoid it (meat) all together (including fish) when eating.
I've traveled to both the American farmland and Spanish countryside. The difference is night and day. In America's factory farm areas, the animals are crowed in mud/feces, whose stench can be smelled for miles away. In Spain, the animals were happily grazing in lush pasture land.
I believe this is a consumer demand issue. America is a rich nation. The question my mind is why do European countries like Span and Netherlands have such difference values?
Another harm-reduction approach like this which might be easier or preferable for some people is to just replace eating chicken with beef (bonus if the beef is ethically-sourced, but still worthwhile if not). Here's the core of the reasoning (quoted from http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/23/vegetarianism-for-meat-...):
The average cow is very big and makes 405,000 calories of beef; the average chicken is very small and makes 3000 calories worth of chicken. So each year, I kill about 0.3 cows and about 42 chickens, for a total of 42.3 animals killed.
Suppose that I stop eating chicken and switch entirely to beef. Now I am killing about 0.6 cows and 0 chickens, for a total of 0.6 animals killed. By this step alone, I have decreased the number of animals I am killing from 42.3/year to 0.6/year, a 98% improvement.
The difference becomes even bigger once you compare levels of suffering. Chickens are probably the most miserable farm animals; they are mutilated, packed into tiny cages to the point of immobility, left to fester in their own waste, and bred so intensively for size that their bodies cannot support them and they likely experience severe musculoskeletal pain. Although cows’ lives are also pretty terrible too, Brian Tomasik estimates that chickens’ suffering is about twice as bad.
The problem is I don't like cooking enough(especially raw meat). If I receive pounds of meat every week it's just going to go to waste. I just want some organic soy-free, corn-free poultry that is precooked... I think the only option for something like that is to signup to a CSA and hire a personal chef.
I’ve never seen a breakdown on whether hunting is cost effective though.
It doesn’t fix the price issue, although luckily we have enough income and prioritize food quality over other things, but it does help with some of the moral qualms you might have.
“1. The scale of animal suffering is in the hundreds of billions killed every year. Most of that is unnecessary, which further adds to the tragedy. However, horror on this sort of scale just doesn’t motivate some people. For them, we need to talk about other things — or the message simply won’t stick.”
But science is on our side here (I'm talking to you, intelligent, rational HN readers). Technology can solve the problems with efficiency and taste by making alternatives accessible and cheaper. And then you have the scientist/public figures in this article. These are the folks who should be bringing awareness to the masses. I think we need to slowly legislate away this cruelty and destruction of the environment. Much like the gay rights bills and tobacco legislation that has come and gone over the years. We need to take baby steps to make animal production impossibly difficult.
Generally agree, although I think this is slightly the wrong way 'round. Meat was definitely a luxury, as recently as a century ago. (Speaking of the U.S. here.) Then we had an explosion of a (relatively) wealthy middle-class, who could afford lots of things that were formerly luxuries. And those things became expected, they became part of the culture, and they became commodified. I don't think there's any nefarious conspiracy, it's classic tragedy of the commons: everybody individually wants steak for dinner; the social price doesn't become clear until much later.
I can feel “full” with with beans, lentils, rice, etc, but it’s not nearly as satisfying. It’s a kind of “empty” fullness that quells the hunger but doesn’t leave me with the sense of having eaten a good meal. I’m never left particularly happy with the conclusion of these meals, they’re just OK, even if they’ve been fantastically well prepared and seasoned. It’s hard to explain, does anybody else experience this?
I think if I had to I could go vegetarian, but I absolutely cannot imagine going vegan. At minimum I need eggs and dairy.
Keep in mind that you need to give your taste buds/gut time to adapt to a healthier, meat-free diet. It is similar to when people give up sodium food then tastes really bland. However, after a few weeks, people's taste buds change and they begin to enjoy sodium-free meals.
Try giving a whole foods plant-based diet a shot for just a few weeks. There's a million whole foods you can eat. Whole grains, nuts, seeds, legumes, thousands of veggies and fruits, spices, etc. This website is quite helpful for new vegans: https://www.challenge22.com/challenge22/
And yet, you "really love to eat meat." Either you're too lazy to give good plant-based meals a shot (and time for your taste buds/gut to change), or it's just a discipline issue to stay away because meat is so conveniently engrained in our culture
Meat consumption is just as if not more detrimental to your health than smoking cigarettes. Sounds like a discipline issue to me.
Very funny. Calm down man, I don't give a shit about vegan beliefs.
Yes, using animals in this was in unethical and yes animals have emotions. But I love meat so much I just can't seem to care. I mean I feel evolution made us humans evolve into beings that _can_ take advantage of all the tools and so why shouldn't we. Yes, this means I am ignoring the fact that the animals are being tortured. Putting it that way sounds bad but too bad, we step on ants every day as well. It's just where nature has gotten us.
In fact, if you mention the greenhouse effect and all, I think we're destroying our own habitat. In a few hundred years, might make humans extinct. But that's about it. The "Planet" is not being destroyed. It's us who are in danger. We brought it on us, we'll have to face it.
That was my rant and trust me, if you meet me you won't think I have such harsh views. But I wonder if anyone else thinks the same way or would like to discuss this.
The same reason people choose not to eat meat is the same reason some people choose not to rob someone or to treat someone kindly, etc - they see it as a good thing and they do it. And if I am aware and can avoid stepping on ants I will do it.
So maybe it's ok to make animals suffer, but at least have consistent ethics and agree it's ok to make people suffer.
Anyone have any good recommendations for approved non-dead-animals dog food?
Exactly, and further proof of your point is that the exact same process has happened to vegetables: they're bred to be transportable and sale-able for a long period of time; not to be excellent. Tomatoes are the perfect example. Most tomatoes that you can buy from a grocery store are really not worth eating. Compare them to a actually ripe summer tomato from a neighbor's garden, and they may as well be different substances.
Commodification turns things mediocre almost by definition.
A preacher who actually targeted moral atrocities would be seen as radical, and would most likely lose the church members and money. And so church will continue to be large ornate buildings with large parking lots filled with luxury cars where people hear about their salvation, while wearing sweatshop clothing and then eat barbeque afterwords, instead of a place that actually makes a difference.
(Incidentally, this is why Ethiopian food is so vegan-friendly!)
Maybe people will enjoy farming more, and doing things more because what we used to avoid to pursue ~higher jobs is now seen as both healthy and joyful activities that aren't so stupid when compared to the mass of idiotic ~jobs we're seeing these days.
A few years ago, I got pretty worked up about my state killing an entire wolf pack, just to protect some cows. So I got involved. I learned a lot.
Ranchers are people too. I really loved these people. It was just one bad apple, deliberate repeat offender, causing all the problems. Everyone else was totally onboard towards creating a better future.
Ranching is unsustainable. And they (the families) know it.
Skipping to the end... My predictions:
#1 Laboratory meat will largely eliminate factory farming. It will completely upend our (Western) agricultural economy. Huge reduction in feed grains, pesticides, fertilizers, etc. Massive improvement in waste management. It can't happen soon enough. My uneducated guess is 10-20 year transition. All us tree huggers should work to expedite.
#2 To continue, ranchers will need to go up market. Artisan, bespoke meat.
#3 We will pay ranchers to restore habitat. This will make up for their loss of income from selling meat. And hopefully keep families working the land.
"How to fight desertification and reverse climate change" https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl...
#4 Trend towards direct micromanagement of animals (wild and domesticated) and habitat will continue. GPS tags, drones, IoT for soil monitoring & management, satellite imagery, adapt to weather predictions, etc. Even more so than my grandfather's day, future farmers and ranchers will be high tech entrepreneurs, knowledgable in tech, business, accounting / finance.
In conclusion: I know our current situation is bleak. There is a way forward, out of this mess. Keep the faith.
Any suggestion about how to help here? For instance, is there any organization where we can send money for pushing for this outcome?
The environmental reasons alone should be enough to invest in this.
They are a non-profit that are advocating and researching clean meat and plant-based alternatives. I recommend this 75 minute interview with it's director if you want to understand why is it such an important and effective cause:
https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/bruce-friedrich-good...
My 1/2 baked notion is to meet with family ranchers, start talking about active management, build alliances with some tree huggers, enlist the help of their (likely conservative) legislators (state and federal). Maybe start in Wyoming. The messaging would be terrific. Maybe enough to blunt the counter attacks from Big Ag.
My other 1/2 baked notion is to enlist the Tim Ferriss types (health nuts, earliest adopters), pitch vat meat as a veganism meets paleo paradox buster, better than current protein sources (eg whey), create demand from the top-down.
And about meat, some cultures enjoy eating way less meat, surely we could reduce the quantity, so that farmers can go back to simpler ways, and probably enjoy a lot more quality too.
The opposition feels like concern trolling. I've been in Allan Savory's position a few times. For instance, a local newspaper called me "a sweaty paranoid kook" in the late 2000s. Today, all we can talk about is election integrity.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Gandhi
I promise you that if Savory is debunked, I'll update my position accordingly.
With automatic cars and factory meat, that will do a huge number on non coastal areas of the US. We need to take that into account for the planning process as well.
It seems to me that at least certain aspects of consumerism work. Labor saving appliances like washing machines, slow cookers, microwaves, and vacuums make life much easier and less stressful. Media like TV, movies, and video games seem to provide legitimate entertainment.
I'm not trying to setup a straw man that anti-consumerist are saying we need to go back to the stone age. I'm just not sure where a society/philosophical movement should draw the line.
What makes the most sense to me would be to return to quality goods over mass production (e.g. emphasis on permaculture, the ability to repair goods, opposition to planned obsolescence, etc.) combined with emphasis of gratitude and a balanced approach to minimalism. However, I'm not sure if this approach is available to people who are not well of financially.
One idea frequently suggested is that people as individuals ought to reduce the amount of consumption, but does this address the fundamental qualitative issues in the system of production? Even if the scale can be achieved, what will be the meaningful permanent change?
Another response is that reducing the amount of consumption is wrong headed: it's targeting an effect rather than the cause. But in my opinion, the worst solution to this problem is the one which insists on a form of government action. Laws can be changed, but they can also be changed back, and in every country the laws are decided by capital (the structure and abstraction, not "big business"). So this also raises the issue of whether what is profitable is good, but that question has an easy answer: it's not.
My ideas are fairly radical (and very radical by HN standards), in the sense that I think there is a fundamental factor in this mode of production, abstract labour to be specific (which Peter Hudis makes a convincing argument for, rather than property, money, "greed" etc. for instance), which is a cause of overproduction, the qualitative aspects of work in industrial capitalism and much misallocation (judged in human standards rather than economic standards).
By abstract labour you mean like overly specific high rate tasks instead of craftmanship ?
By abstract labour I mean the property of labour as valuable in an economy rather than as the concrete action of producing useful items. A related term is commodification, which transforms purely useful items into commodities by making them comparable (i.e bestowing the property of abstract labour). Abstract labour is what makes a coat and 20 yards of linen comparable and tradeable, and as a consequence of this, money is the general equivalent form for trading.
The focus on high rate tasks instead of craftsmanship ties into the (again related) concept of alienation of labour, which is more obvious in late capitalism.
This question I ask sincerely.
There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause.
This chain of thought also doesn't go anywhere, unless you want to end up a hermit of some sort, because pretty much every logistic chain is contaminated.
> There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause.
Hmm. I'd say global warming et. al. is not even in the same universe ethics-wise compared to animal farming.
Arguing that consumers aren't responsible for the method of production seems bizarre to me. Would you knowingly take cartel money as payment without any moral qualms?
It seems more bizarre to hold specifically consumers responsible to me. They're generally many levels removed from the source, and, in addition to that, a lot of consumers have very low power. Nor have I heard of many successful boycotts. I didn't get the impression that consumers are terribly influential on the logistics chains they use, they're just a convenient scapegoat so we don't have to actually blame the actual creators of those chains.
There are plenty of ranges of products I've never used. They still exist. Not using certain products would have a negative influence on me, which is OK, if I felt like this also had a negative influence on the logistic chain. But it didn't, and won't. The scale is just all wrong. Politicians and businessmen are who actually have influence, or sometimes sociological effects, and one can't trivially choose to be a part of a sociological effect, and most of them are not ethics driven.
The thing that will make a difference is things like regulations.
> Would you knowingly take cartel money as payment without any moral qualms?
I'm not familiar with situations where one would take cartel money in the first place, and I'm not comfortable saying that something I bought at some point didn't, somehow, involve cartel money.
But I imagine there are groups of people who buy something of the sort, drugs, maybe, and the logistical chain is, again, not caused by them, and they should worry about other things. Like not being addicted to drugs.
Immediacy is an interesting beast. I can see some lamb chops in the freezer and not really connect them to the fluffy bundle of cuteness gamboling across the pasture that I might see out on a walk that same day.
On the other hand, I'll tear up at the idea that anyone might ever, in even a minor capacity, be cruel to creatures that I hold close to my heart. I would straight up murder anyone that wished ill on my family, and all manner of beast falls under that umbrella.
I know, rationally, that this simply isn't consistent. But from the human perspective... I guess the distinctly human perspective, it's entirely ... not consistent... comfortable.
Work in progress, at least for me.
If you want to operate a permaculture, which seems to be one of the most environmentally friendly and ethical ways of producing food, animals are often a part of that system, and sustainably too.
Factory farming and industrialised monoculture agriculture is another matter entirely that can't be legislated out of existence fast enough.
In my case, I simply recognize that I do not have sufficient self-discipline to remain fully healthy on a vegetarian (let alone vegan) diet. And that I'd rather be a hypocrite than sick or dead.
And even acknowledging that, one can take measures to minimize one's impact. I consume a lot of eggs for protein and vitamins, and almost never prepare meat at home, though I'll eat it at other people's homes, restaurants, etc. I pay a little extra for pasture-raised eggs in the hope that those chickens have slightly less awful lives than the ones packed head to toe in barns. I eat dairy substitutes instead of actual dairy for many purposes (though not almond milk, which I dislike and is absolutely terrible for the environment).
As soon as lab-grown meat becomes a viable substitute (within, say, double the price), I'll gladly switch to that.
If you ask millions or billions of people to completely change their lives and eliminate something that they find pleasurable, all but a tiny percentage will either reject the idea outright or find they don't have the willpower to change. Willpower is hard; everyone has a finite amount of it in a given day; and we have to apply it constantly to a thousand other temptations of modern life.
If you ask people to cut back a bit on things and make some compromises, you're more likely to get cooperation. And 50% of the population cutting their meat consumption even by 20% gets you a lot further than 5% eliminating it from their diet entirely.
The thing is, we became somehow gross/decadent in how we live, too many animals living in dark tiny space only to be butchered en masse to be wasted by unhappy consumers (30% waste was often quoted for the last years). This is where we cross a line between ~moral animal eating and "cruelty".
If you don't eat meat because of ethical & environmental reasons, but still consume fish I ask you to take a good long look into the impact we've had on global fisheries.
The moral problem, though, is it takes more chicken deaths to get an equal amount of meat as almost any other farm animal. One cow gives you as much meat as a few hundred chickens, so you're killing hundreds more chickens each year to feed a family than if you fed them beef.
So if you are eating meat (I do) and you want to try being ethical about it, total environmental harm and total death numbers are generally on polar opposite sides. Justifying regular animal consumption in any environmental or ethical sense is pretty much impossible, unless people start eating exclusively overpopulated invasive species--but cannibalism generally isn't socially acceptable. :)
My issue is most people overlook the impact we've had on fisheries. It's much harder for fish populations to get back to where they need to be without massive regulation. Which is extremely hard on a global scale considering the economical impact it can have on some areas. The PBS documentary "Fish on my Plate" (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-fish-on-my-plate...) goes over this a bit in various ways, but one story they highlight is how Peru fixed their anchovy problem.
Never mind the issue of byproduct waste when it comes to line & trolling boats. Raising chickens & cows have an impact, but byproduct kill has an entire ecosystem impact.
>How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat?
How can you be against slave labor of children and still regularly wear clothing made in sweatshops?
It's easy, it's a cost-benefit trade-off. It is simply too expensive. People understand that animals are treated horribly and every time I see such a video I immediately stop eating meat for a week or so and then it slowly creeps back. The biological alternatives are just too expensive right now. IF there is lab grown meat that tastes the same and costs the same I'll happily stop eating the other type of meat.
The point is, people are fully aware that clothing by HM/Nike/Primark is made by slave labor but there is so much working against us.
First of all, ads. Ads work, that's a fact. Second, the fact that there is a market (we buy and sell clothing in stores) further occupies our attention and leads to min/maxing of cost/benefit in the store (making us forget that the clothing is created by slave labor by children). Third, there is the whole substitution bias "if I won't buy it, someone else will!" which is a bullshit argument.
The fact is that humans are really kind of stupid and every time we walk in a store so much shit is thrown at us that we completely forget about 99% of the important things in life and just shop for bargains ... everytime I'm in the Primark I have to remind myself that there are children suffering for this, yet I still bought two shorts for $8 each and have worn them quite often.
Sorry for the long rant. Just my two cents.
I'm curious what your source is for saying a vegetarian diet isn't optimal. Most studies I've seen (including large and long studies) claim the opposite. Here's a list: [1]
I agree it's like sweatshops. I didn't want to draw the comparison to slavery because I think the ethical question stands on its own, but maybe you're right to point out that it's the same driving impulse.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition#Health_ef...
I haven't seen many (any?) studies that effectively isolate vegetarian diet in humans from confounding factors as mentioned in the first paragraph of the wikipedia link you provided.
I've yet to meet a vegetarian who sits on the couch all day, smoking, eating fries, chips and candy, drinking beer and watching TV. I've met plenty of others who fall fairly close to that stereotype and I'll readily admit that if I looked only at "vegetarian vs not", I'd conclude that vegetarian was more optimal. By the same token, I'd probably conclude that merely owning hiking boots or a kayak or soccer cleats was a life quality and quantity extender.
It's very sad that people are still selling these diets without disclosing the very important health risks they pose or the care that must be taken when on them.
[1]https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-ge...
I understand your sentiment but there's a reason people enjoy eating meat, it feels pleasureable in our mouth because it is rich in nutrients and rare in nature. In nature you don't eat meat every day like we do in our current society.
Just like donuts and candy tastes nice is because there's a lot of sugar and fat in them, things that are scarce in nature.
>I'm curious what your source is for saying a vegetarian diet isn't optimal. Most studies I've seen (including large and long studies) claim the opposite. Here's a list: [1]
If you actually read through the Wikipedia I am not really convinced
> (...) although this is at least partly due to lifestyle factors beyond diet, such as a low prevalence of smoking, and the generally high socioeconomic status
>(...) and other lifestyle factors associated with a vegetarian diet may contribute to the positive health outcomes that have been identified among vegetarians.[11]
The point Wikipedia tries to make is clear.
What I'm trying to argue is that there are nutrients in meat that you are unable to get anywhere else than from meat. Yes, I fully realize that we can synthesize these things artificially but you still need them. As with most things in life, the optimum is somewhere in between. One could eat no meat at all, one end of the scale, one could eat only meat, the other end of the scale with the optimum probably somewhere in between.
>How can you be against cruelty to animals and still regularly consume meat?
Sincere answer: I don't see how this is the slightest bit different from "how can you be against rampant pollution but still use a computer" or "how can you be against torture but still support a police force" or "how can you be against war crimes but still support going to war" or any of an endless number of scenarios where unpleasant choices must be made but harm reduction can still be practiced. I think you've either set up a false dichotomy and argument from perfection, or you're engaging in circular definitions by saying "cruelty" is literally "any consumption of meat" as opposed to most people seeing a line between wanton cruelty and merely raising something to kill it in a more humane way.
>There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause.
I don't consider a single one of those ethical considerations inherent to meat, they're market failures that we should working on correcting themselves (and preferably as part of a larger framework addressing the same issues everywhere). Global warming could have been entirely prevented with a proper carbon pricing scheme and could still be heavily reduced with one (though some sort of tax is now needed as well to deal with previous externalities). The "value" of land use and resource use is highly subjective, so long as we're pricing in the costs properly it should be up to individuals how they want to spend their extra income. Meat could well be a luxury, but we have lots of luxuries and I strongly dislike the game of "my luxury is more moral then yours!" which is inevitably an argument on a foundation of sand and makes everyone rightly angry to no purpose.
Maybe you honestly don't mean it that way, and I don't wish to attack your character and would certainly be interested in reading your replies as well. But over the years I've found lines of questioning like yours to often be weak self-justification to come up with "rational arguments" about something where really the person just feels it's yucky and doesn't like it themselves. But "ban this because I think it's yucky" doesn't generally work except for dictators, so they post hoc find something else, but rather then simply trying to deal with the actual objective problems they find as reasons they loop that back to arguing against what they find yucky. I'm not saying that makes someone a bad person either! Humans do that sort of reasoning a lot, finding justifications for how they really wanted to act anyway, I know I fall into that trap with some regularity and possibly always will. But I still think it's worth trying to step back and consider what problem you're really trying to solve and being honest about that.
Oppose "cruelty"? This will probably be the hardest because it gets into highly subjective arguments, but there is some level here that basically everyone can agree on even at cost so find that and require it. Oppose carbon (or equivalent) release? Support putting a price on that equivalent to the cost of removing it industrially plus margin. Worried about pollution? Require water leaving farms to have equivalent levels of contaminants as water entering (including rain). Etc.
But if you take all that and then come up with "all of you should stop eating meat" people, formally or not, will have a sense you're talking BS and hear "I don't like what you like conform to me" because there are other solutions to the stated goals.
Are you implying all meat consumption equates cruelty to animals? Or are you referring specifically to consumption of meat produced cruelly, e.g. by factory farms?
I don't really know how to answer you. If all animals were free ranging and we only ate the ones that died of old age, we'd probably need so many more animals / land / energy to satisfy current demand that we'd all be dead for an absolute lack of trees.
If you have some chickens in your backyard that you treat well (you may say that's subjective, but I say the bar is so low, let's not quibble here) and you take their eggs? I'm ok with that.
*This includes both the meat industry and the farming industry producing food for the animals.
There are various ways to obtain meat for consumption, people hunt wild game, people raise livestock on their land, is this cruel according to you?
Because those are two separate questions. I eat meat from animals I raised and killed. I know there was no cruelty involved. I do not eat meat from stores or restaurants since they will almost certainly have involved cruelty.
>There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause.
None of those considerations actually are arguments in favor of veganism. They are red herrings vegans use to try to get support from people who care about the environment. All of the environmental arguments put forth for veganism are deliberately misleading and dishonest.
This is all covered in The Matrix.
What does one have to do with the other? Most livestock live rather comfortable lives compared to their wild counterparts. Less disease, less parasites and of course less predators.
> This question I ask sincerely.
I doubt it. Your question is as absurd as a plant lover asking how you can be against cruelty and eat vegetation? Vegetation is life. The fruit you eat is actually a plant's ovaries and uterus. How disgusting and cruel is that? Or ask a vegan why they have cats and dogs as pets. They are carnivores that eat meat. How can you be against cruelty and own pets?
> There are other equally ethical considerations: global warming, land use, energy/water use, etc. I feel that any one of these should give most people pause.
Then why are you using a computer or smartphone? Do you wear clothes? It's made from cheap labor on the other side of the world? Do you drive a car or use public transportion? What about heat or the AC? Is your home cooled or heated? Why aren't so considerate?
Other than to feel superior and virtue signal, there is no good reason not to eat meat. It's true that we eat too much meat, but we are omnivores. That's the diet we are meant to eat. Veganism is a poor and unnatural diet for humans. I was a vegan for a few months. I know the scam.
Humans are part of nature. It is natural for humans to consume meat. That's why prey animals and livestock exist.
I understand that killing animals for their meat strikes some people as morally wrong but you're not going to change my mind by making me feel bad about how a cow, pig or chicken is raised and killed. This is not a moral problem for most people. We don't really care enough. We eat them because they taste good, are easily available and are satiating. Vegan and vegetarian foods are usually less so for all three categories.
No matter how many articles or appeals you make trying to instill some amount of empathy for animals or guilt for their situation it's not going to stop people from craving a steak. Most people can't control their cravings for a cookie. This is not a moral problem, this is a taste and option problem.
I'm honestly going to Texas Roadhouse tonight because you made me think about having a ribeye. Way to go.
Sure, you want to eat steak, I get that. Go eat a steak. But lets at the very least treat the animals with respect and give them some semblance of a decent life and kill them quickly and humanely.
5 years from now, you will be killed.
Would you rather spend those 5 years jammed into a concrete cell with thousands of other inmates, unable to move, standing in your own feces, never to see the sun and only eating corn?
Or would you rather have a bed, running water, proper meals, be allowed outside in the sunshine for some hours a day and even get some exercise?
I think it's pretty clear which one you prefer, and we should treat non-human animals the same way. They're alive, lets treat them with some respect. (That applies to death row inmates, regular citizens and animals equally)
>You want to treat something with respect and then kill it to eat it? What exactly is the point?
I don't see how your values have any relevance on the answer to that question.
I'd understand if it were making fun of the animal for getting killed so long as it was humane, and people who worry too much about them. I'd understand the idea of "yeah I know it's bad, what am I going to do. It tastes good". I could understand making fun of an exaggerated claim of suffering. I could understand making fun of trying to avoid killing in the world which is probably literally impossible. But I can't understand making fun of real suffering, and furthermore making fun of people who care about it. I don't think they're actually sociopaths but I don't understand how else to interpret what they're expressing here.
If the answer is "hey don't take it seriously, you were a jackass in college too" - fair enough, but you brought this up as an example of the general population just not caring enough. Maybe your friends actually made these jokes to deal with their discomfort with those videos?
And yes for disclosure, I'm a vegetarian myself.
Even if they say something like "the cow was stupid anyway om nom nom" _that's different_ because at least they're not necessarily in favor of torturing the thing, and they give a reason why killing it humanely is different from killing a human humanely.
> you're not going to change my mind by making me feel bad about how a cow, pig or chicken is raised and killed
Why not? If you're feeling bad about it, presumably you have some empathy with the animal. Or do you mean that it's not possible to make you feel bad about it?
Probably similar arguments to yours were made in favor of slavery not so long ago. “It’s convenient and makes my life better, and the morality of it is irrelevant.” Now slavery is repulsive, and in the future we will look back at how we treated farm animals in a similar way. For me it was worth considering which side of the moral history I wanted to be on.
This might be true for some people in some places, but is far from an objective fact. I'm not a vegetarian, but I frequently prefer to eat vegan or vegetarian food because it offers more interesting flavours, is easily available and easy to cook, and leaves me with a more pleasant fullness.
Regarding your 3 points: 'Availability' is a problem with non-meat? I would think in most neighbourhoods that have a butcher, you should find a supermarket.
'Satiability', really? You don't feel full after baked potatos with sour cream? Mac and Cheese? A pizza quattro formaghi? Noodle soup? Indian curry? All of the above and an apple pie? You need that patty, right?
As a life-long meateater, I can very well understand your last point on taste. Hard to argue with taste. Since I don't want to miss it either, I will have meat from time to time as a special treat. Usually when eating out fancy. So about 1-2 times a month. Makes me looking forward to those dinners even more and I don't have to go the hardest 10% of the meat-free way.
Obviously I don't know you, and have no idea if any of that might apply to you. But I get the sense that unless a person is a sociopath, it's almost unavoidable to slowly wake up to the fact that other beings are sentient, and deserve our compassion. This happened with skin color and gender, and it seems to now extend to other species.
Cheers.
To me, your comment reads as someone saying that reading an article about lung cancer didn't deter them from smoking and actually reminded them to go and buy a pack of smokes. Or how an article about global warming reminded them they had to buy a gas guzzler today. Or reading an article about how cars should share the road with bicycles and saying it reminds you you didn't drive today and you're off to doing punishing passes and coal rolling cyclists.
Good for you, people can't tell you what to do and you know exactly what buttons to push to show how smart you are.
You might not agree with the article, but your reaction is ridiculous.
I'm not going to pick a food because it has a label for "vegetarian" or "vegan". I don't care. I pick what tastes good and is mostly healthy. Many other people have that line of thought besides me. Those kinds of people won't be attracted by those two terms and the moral implications behind them alone. If the food was good enough and marketed enough you wouldn't even need mostly useless articles like this.
That was what I was trying to point out. Hopefully you understand now.
edit: Finished. I'm still going to eat that steak but some of those scenes will probably pop into my head while I'm eating. A bit annoying tbh.
Sadly you are just like most people throughout human history. We're ashamed of some of the things people have done in the past, and in the future people will be ashamed of this.
Your assumptions about me are mistaken, don't be a jerk.
Meat consumption is the reason heart disease is our number one killer.
Will that convince you? Eating a plant-based diet is simply logic: for your health, for the environment, for ethics, for the health of society, etc, etc.
Read How Not To Die by Michael Gregor. Read Pubmed. Get educated on what meat is doing to your body.