Is it that much worse than farming hogs? Most of that is done in cages too small to turn around or stand. Live transport and slaughter is also amazingly horrific.
Putting aside the harms to animals for a moment, we might consider both mink farms and hog farms to be part of a larger problem, which is monoculture agriculture. Minks weren’t meant to live in tiny cages all cramped together, and neither were hogs, and weird ‘Koyaanisqatsi’ (life out of balance) things are going to happen when we do that — just like raising nothing but corn and killing everything else on farmland will eventually deplete the soil.
This isn’t some subtle act of interpretation; the evidence is all around us that industrial-style practices applied to living things have negative externalities that plausibly outweigh their benefits.
https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2020/01/17/americas-most-widel...
Seed oils did not exist in the food supply before the late 1800s, so the idea that they are this amazing health food, while also being incredibly cheap/profitable to produce and really useful in creating junk food really stretches credulity.
Bacon isn't advertised as "better than plants" or "tastes like plants". It doesn't need to.
BMW doesn't run commercials during NFL games where members of the public think their cars are Chevys.
When you pitch "plant meat" you are implying plants are inferior to meat in some way.
Then again, the main non-water ingredient in Just Eggs is Mung Bean Protein Isolate, so...maybe ‘plants-based’ is an improvement
> Of domesticated land animals used and killed by humans in the United States, over 99.6% are farmed land animals, about 0.2% are animals used in laboratories, 0.07% are used for clothing, and 0.03% are killed in companion animal shelters.
I am assuming they are grouping animals farmed for fur in the ‘raised for clothing’ category.
[0] https://animalcharityevaluators.org/donation-advice/why-farm...
Animals are killed to provide for your vegan diet too, though you can argue they are indirectly killed. And then there is the moral issue of murdering plants and consuming them.
> Minks weren’t meant to live in tiny cages all cramped together
The same goes for plants/vegetation used to feed vegans. Unless you are grazing the great plains like wild buffalo.
> just like raising nothing but corn and killing everything else on farmland will eventually deplete the soil.
What about clearing the land for avocado, almond, etc? Also, do you know what helps replenish the soil? Animals...
> the evidence is all around us that industrial-style
Except that the only way vegan diet works is through industrialized farming/transporting/etc. There are no such things as a vegan homestead. You cannot live harmoniously in nature via a vegan diet. Whereas an omnivore diet can be supported by a homestead.
You can argue industrialized farming is bad. But that's the only kind of farming that can support vegans. An inuit in alaska or a homesteader in vermont cannot survive on locally produced vegan diet.
As a matter of fact, no human can survive in nature on a vegan diet. All humans on a vegan diet would die of starvation/disease in nature. It's why no vegan human society has ever existed.
You can't be against industrialized farming and be for veganism. You have to be one or the other because they are necessarily contradictory of each other. Omnivore can be against industrialized farming because we can survive without it, unlike vegans.
To the point that veganism requires industrialized farming: this may be true, I don't know. I think we do know that widespread veganism would reduce some of environmental harms associated with industrialized farming, because:
* A lot of currently cultivated farmland produces feed for livestock (Vox estimates 36% [0]);
* This paper [1] estimates that switching land currently used for animals to plants would lead to a manifold increase in nutrient output per acre;
* The BBC [2] estimates that "A meat-eater’s diet requires 17 times more land, 14 times more water and 10 times more energy than a vegetarian’s;"
And so on [3] [4].
I don't think we know for sure what would happen if the world stopped eating meat, but I think overall, environmentally and ethically, it would be an improvement.
(To a point about worse nutritional profiles of vegan vs. omnivore diets (raised in [4]), I think the answer is to eat oysters, clams and mussels, which are high in iron, protein, and fish oil, but don't have capacity for pain/experience, as far as we know. This is called ostroveganism and I picked up the idea from Michael Huemer [5].)
[0] https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel...
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/15/3804
[2] https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/what-would-world-loo...
[3] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/what-would-happen-if...
[4] https://www.pnas.org/content/114/48/E10301
[5] https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
It's a fact. You can't even be a vegan on a family farm. Try it and find out. How is an innuit in siberia or alaska going to survive on veganism when native tribes in the amazon or lush jungles can't even survive on veganism?
> A lot of currently cultivated farmland produces feed for livestock (Vox estimates 36% [0]);
Don't link to vox garbage. They know as much about farming as they do about [fill in the blank]. A lot more farmland would need to be created for human consumption.
> This paper [1] estimates that switching land currently used for animals to plants would lead to a manifold increase in nutrient output per acre;
But it's not 1 to 1. Most of that nutrient output won't be any good for humans. And secondly, most of those nutrients can't be grown in the places you grow grain to feed animals. Meaning you can't grow avocado's, almonds and all the other virtue signaling vegan products in nebraska or iowa. Okay?
> * The BBC [2] estimates that "A meat-eater’s diet requires 17 times more land, 14 times more water and 10 times more energy than a vegetarian’s;"
Don't link to BBC garbage. Also,we were talking about vegans, not vegetarians. Nice try. That's another debate altogether.
> but I think overall, environmentally and ethically, it would be an improvement.
Nope. The most immoral ( both to humans and animals and plants ) is the vegan diet. Veganism is environmental catastrophe. It's mostly naive children who think a perfect utopia is possible. The kind of lunatics that try to force veganism on their infants/pets and starve them to death. Go ask any farmer or any person who has experience with life. It's like as a child wondering why we don't just send out garbage to the sun.
> I think the answer is to eat oysters, clams and mussels, which are high in iron, protein, and fish oil, but don't have capacity for pain/experience, as far as we know.
So, eat meat? I'm glad you finally came around.
> This is called ostroveganism and I picked up the idea from Michael Huemer
It's called pathetic rationalization.
1. If eating meat is wrong because of "pain/experience", then we shouldn't eat plants either.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-...
Plants actually scream.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-record-...
Plants actually communicate and warn their neighbors about danger.
https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/
I'll make it simple for you.
1. Science shows that plants can experience/feel pain/communicate, then should virtue signalers abstain from eating plants?
2. If it is immoral to kill an animal for meat, then is it okay to eat roadkill?
3. If it is immoral for animals to be killed, then is it immoral to own pets ( dogs, cats, snakes, etc ) that eat meat?
4. If it is immoral for animals to be killed for meat, then must we protect animals from other animals? Should we stop wolves, bears, etc from killing other animals?
Or have the privileged pathetic few gotten so rich and lazy that their want to feel superior over nonsense?
Like I said, we can end industrialized farming and go back to an omnivore diet like our ancestors. But we can't end industrialized farming and go to a vegan diet because everyone would starve to death. I wish all the self-righteous and hypocritical vegans in the world would get together and buy a large farm and practice what they preach. Veganism would disappear within a season.
I just keep being surprised that there is consensus forming around mink but the hog issue, which is very similar and actually a bigger problem by numbers, is not really part of the mainstream debate. For some reason being against mink farming is much more acceptable than being against hog farming and this is reflected in policy.
It could be because the interests of hog farmers and consumers of hog are a much bigger part of society. But the harm is also that much bigger.
It's easy to not care about people not getting mink coats. Much harder to care about people having food taken out of their mouths by people who think they have a right to dictate that sort of thing. If you think eating pork should be forbidden, I've got a part of the world to introduce you to.
If your goal was to make food more accessible to the poor then one way to go would be to stop this inefficient food production method and just consume the corn/soy protein directly. That would be healthier also. Consuming corn/soy directly would drive down the price of food because we would need less of it.
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-corn-french-hamsters-deranged-...
Do not discount the value add of multiple digestive and organ systems worth of energy work, even if the numbers otherwise look attractive. The entire planet is interrelated.
"A diet of corn is turning wild hamsters in northeastern France into deranged cannibals that devour their offspring, alarmed researchers have reported."
Are you saying I might be a wild hamster from northeastern France? And I should not just be eating corn?
Every creature in the logistical food chain is performing different nutrient accumulations for the next one in the chain. If you think about bioaccumulation as a mechanism, that research should have you realizimg that "You are what you eat" has a terrifyingly poignant meaning, in the sense that if we end up seeing a smaller creature fed on a single having potential in the wild population management problems, the same thing could happen to us. By the time we realized what was going on, the damage to the ecosystem could realistically already be done.
I mean, scoff if you like. Me? I'm trying to figure out how to companion farm. Better for the ecosystem as a whole, and I like the plethora of wildlife that end up benefitting as result too.
On another note, I don't remember making this posting twice? Did I pocket post somehow? Hrrm.
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-corn-french-hamsters-deranged-...
Do not discount the value add of multiple digestive and organ systems worth of energy work, even if the numbers otherwise seem unintuitive the entire planet is interrelated in ways we have not even scratched the surface of.
(numbers from quick, non-exhaustive googling)
Dogs, pigs, cows, are good examples with varying cultural responses.
So... “depends on who you ask”.
...source?
Farming doesn't have to be intensive. We get milk from a nearby farm. Given we mostly walk there the "food miles" would be precisely zero.
And for shit and giggles, check what’s the proportion of industrially farmed meat vs non intensive that’s sold every day.
Sure, that is nice but in no way representative.
More than 99% of produced hogs do live in horrific conditions. The fact that you know of a happy hog doesn't relate to the vast majority of hogs.
I guess I'll say it's less morally acceptable to slaughter a dog for food that's kept in terrible conditions than one that's kept in good conditions.
Hopefully, it's a side effect of diseases that we will be starting to think this all over though.
Technologically, I don't think there's much to be done here. Fake fur is pretty good.
Meat is a disaster for the environment, in terms of the resources that grazing animals take, and the total energy needed for the same caloric amount of food from animals.
Meat needs to slowly be eventually banned. Plant-based meat is getting better and better. Initially, we should start with a limit on meat sales, and then gradually reduce the limit until it reaches zero.
And then impose sanctions, tariffs or embargoes on countries that refuse to reduce/stop meat consumption.
Besides, pigs have been domesticat for a lot longer than foxes and minks.
They aren't people. Their "feelings" do not matter - what matters is ensuring that we have reliable, self-reproducing, adaptable sources of protein for the population. Your lab-grown burgers that depend on thousands of years of technological development and piles of infrastructure are not the solution. Forcing everyone to become vegetarians is not even an option at all; the market demands meat and factory farms have stepped up to fill that niche at scale, reliably delivering meat to everyone in the first world even in extenuating circumstances. It's quite phenomenal, what we have accomplished in terms of livestock agriculture, and to call it "horrific" is a massive insult to the hundreds of thousands of people who work in that industry keeping humans fed while keeping costs to a minimum.
I don't care if the animals I eat were happy, because no matter what happens they are going to be killed and I am going to cook and eat their bodies. Accepting that is simply part of being the omnivorous animal that millions of years of evolution has produced.
As for your statement that animals' feelings "don't matter", well, why not? Not too long ago humans of one skin color said that the feelings of other humans of another skin color don't matter. Then we made some progress, and now to say that is considered barbaric. And many humans today are beginning to think it's time to make some more progress and realize that non-human animals' feelings also do matter.
They aren't. No-one is saying that a pig has the same moral standing as a human.
> They aren't people. Their "feelings" do not matter
So you believe that animals are just automata with no consciousness? That animal cruelty cannot exist even in principle, any more than cruelty to sand?
Descartes believed this. Today, we know better.
> to call it "horrific" is a massive insult to the hundreds of thousands of people who work in that industry
This doesn't address the matter of whether or not it's cruel.
> I don't care if the animals I eat were happy, because no matter what happens they are going to be killed and I am going to cook and eat their bodies.
Do you believe animals are conscious and capable of suffering, or not? Either way, it doesn't matter that they die in the end. If animals are conscious, it doesn't inform our morality that they are destined to die. People are also destined to die, but this doesn't impact our moral obligation to care about their suffering. If animals are not conscious, it doesn't matter whether they are destined to die.
I don't think their consciousness matters. Obviously they're conscious and sentient to some extent; but that does not make them human, and I will not draw false equivalency here so as to be put in the position of having to have the same moral standards for how we treat animals as we treat people. Obviously, if I was going to do that, I wouldn't accept killing and eating them, either.
Herds of domesticated pigs exist because _we created them_, by domesticating and farming them over thousands of years. Evolutionarily, they owe their existence to mankind. We're certainly not going to let them die out.
> That animal cruelty cannot exist even in principle, any more than cruelty to sand?
There is a distinct difference between animal cruelty (hurting an animal for your own personal amusement) versus farming an animal in a cost effective way (which it may not enjoy). It's a slippery slope, for sure, and I'm fine with improvements to their standard of living as long as meat remains affordable to everyone.
As I said, no-one is suggesting it does.
> I will not draw false equivalency here so as to be put in the position of having to have the same moral standards for how we treat animals as we treat people
Again, no-one is suggesting this. Animals need only have some capacity for suffering (and pleasure), to have some moral standing.
> Herds of domesticated pigs exist because _we created them_, by domesticating and farming them over thousands of years. Evolutionarily, they owe their existence to mankind. We're certainly not going to let them die out.
This has no connection to the moral question, much like your earlier point about how the animals are destined to ultimately die.
When we reason about whether an action constitutes animal cruelty, it is of no concern where the animal came from, or whether its species will continue to survive, or whether mankind is the reason for the continuing survival of its species.
> There is a distinct difference between animal cruelty (hurting an animal for your own personal amusement) versus farming an animal in a cost effective way (which it may not enjoy)
In terms of the suffering imposed on the animal, there's no difference whether the action was done out of a sadistic motive, or a profit motive. Either way, the animal is made to suffer for the benefit of the person.
That said, I agree that intent is an important factor in moral (as well as legal) reasoning. Like anyone, I'd judge someone far more harshly for torturing a pig just for the hell of it, than someone who mistreats animals in their professional capacity as a farm worker. If someone harmed an animal in an act of self defence, we wouldn't call that an act of cruelty. Still though, I see no reason to dismiss the question of whether the meat industry is a form of industrialised cruelty. I can see plenty of reasons to conclude that it is, and little reason to conclude that it's not.
> I'm fine with improvements to their standard of living as long as meat remains affordable to everyone.
I don't see that we should necessarily make a goal of maintaining meat availability and low pricepoint. (All of this applies just as well to other animal products, but let's stick with meat.) Meat is currently cheaply available, but this hasn't always been the case, and it doesn't in itself mean it should continue to be so.
There are also other issues with animal farming. Animal farming is a major source of (human) infectious diseases. [0]