Why do we have to compare it? Multiple things can be terrible and require changes.
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.