The amount of torture we subject these sentient creatures to is absurd. Selective breeding causes chickens to grow faster than their limbs can handle. Confining pigs to pens where they can't turn around for the duration of their lives.
If anyone did this to a dog, they would be in jail.
Except for the whole bad day at the end. Either Salatin or Shepard, I forget which, feeds his animals treats inside of his animal trailer so they don't even get stressed out getting on the truck, the way you'd put treats in a cat carrier or dog crate.
If we want intact ecosystems in farm country, you're going to be using farm animals for their similarity to wildlife. That's a lot fewer animals, with a lot longer lives, but in the end you still have maybe a 10th of the volume of animal products. Not many grade A, thick-cut T-bone steaks in that supply chain, but plenty of soups and stews. And really, selling that animal may be most of your profit margin. They've eaten marginal and surplus foods all year.
Most of these fad diet folks have this stuff all wrong. We didn't eat all fruits and nuts. We didn't eat all meat. We ate a steady diet of opportunistic foods, and meat was a supplement to our nutrition, one that was critical in us developing the mental faculties and ecological range to have this argument in the first place.
To be a vegan requires you to use a global supply system for your food, which has its own carbon footprint problems. Meat is a seasonal food that got us through winter and early spring.
It has been asserted, sometimes as a throwaway line, in a number of historical documentaries I've seen, that part of structural classism in the middle ages was denying meat to the working class, leading to developmental delays. Malnutrition made them dumber. Easier to control. 'Course, they gave themselves gout in the process...
> Except for the whole bad day at the end.
It's about animal exploitation as a whole. Any commoditization of sentient beings is a bad thing. We don't need to, when it comes to a choice (especially in this forum), we can choose to not be a part of that system.
> Most of these fad diet folks have this stuff all wrong. We didn't eat all fruits and nuts. We didn't eat all meat. We ate a steady diet of opportunistic foods, and meat was a supplement to our nutrition.
Stopping exploitation isn't a diet fad. Some people might confuse it though. We don't need to be opportunistic now.
> To be a vegan requires you to use a global supply system for your food, which has its own carbon footprint problems.
Sure, and we can do better on many fronts. But animal exploitation is one of the main contributors to climate change. We're already using a global supply chain for animals, which includes all the growth of food in other countries to ship to them.
> It has been asserted, sometimes as a throwaway line, in a number of historical documentaries I've seen, that part of structural classism in the middle ages was denying meat to the working class, leading to developmental delays. Malnutrition made them dumber. Easier to control. 'Course, they gave themselves gout in the process...
Historically what we have done should not impact our current ability of choices. We can live on a healthy vegan diet. Structural classism also includes the current worker in the meat industry. https://www.livekindly.co/slaughterhouse-workers-victims-mea...
In terms of malnutrition people can live on a healthy diet while vegan.
https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/british-dietetic-association...
There's a lot of information here https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts
There are plenty of videos explaining stuff about exploitation. Dominion is free on youtube. In terms of youtubers Earthling Ed is a good watch.
Most importantly, it's easy and one of the single most impactful decisions we can individually make on a daily basis
We remove the entire food web and then essentially grow crops hydroponically (all nutrients provided externally, the main value of the substrate is in supporting the plant structurally and not being particularly biologically active). Losing the biodiversity is a crime, but the biggest waste is in losing all of the services that food web provides, from aeration to pest control to fertilizer, then burning fossil fuels by the supertanker-full to emulate them.
Currently we are the only apex predator we will tolerate, so whatever we put back together underneath us needs to be something we know how to work with (you don't have to eat herd animals to get them to behave like a herd, but they need to believe you will).
> We don't need to be opportunistic now.
I struggled with which parts of your reply to call out directly. Thought about not doing it at all, but this statement is, after a fashion, the fulcrum of an extremely important disagreement. We need to do this most of all. We've become intellectually, emotionally, and thus ethically divorced from the source of our food. It's a big part of why people are so cavalier about all of the sins you've stated and most you've inferred. Eating locally and seasonally is unequivocally 'opportunistic' eating, and one of the few ways we know of getting people to think about the food they eat. Properly think, not merely react to being lectured at by the same people you're parroting. Shame never works, but it very much isn't going to work here, and the stakes are far too high to waste time on people who don't understand this.
Those Chilean strawberries aren't just a carbon footprint problem. They are poster children to a system of magic, detached thinking about food, and a complete disregard for nature and our place - no, membership - in it. If you have kids, get them excited about foods in the season that Nature usually makes them available. For me, I started with mandarin oranges. "Oh November is almost here. You know what that means? SATSUMAS!" Build from there. Teaching is a great opportunity to learn things yourself.
Not that being hypocritical is always bad but in this case there's zero introspection.
However, it does seem like this is a thing, in particular there was a Swedish study in 2009 that was referenced several times in media coverage and I can find no follow-up or rebuttal to:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090114200003.h...
And then in 2014, an industry-focused article on how to mitigate some of these effects, in particular rodents:
https://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/range-management-for...
We may be on the cusp of a massive crisis.
Free ranging birds are in less proximity and healthier conditions. There is less contact between them, more sanitary conditions, and healthier birds. But yes, they could have more contact with outside pathogens.
Whereas many poultry barns have thousands of chickens standing in their own excrement, shoulder to shoulder. There are even decaying corpses strewn about and being pecked. Whatever pathogens in there with them could spread and mutate readily, and the birds are likely less healthy and more vulnerable to it.
I'm not sure if there is solid evidence to claim one is more risky than the other, but I think it would be the former.
Excess of drama always decreases the strength of the message (in my opinion). I understand that some people has invested so much in building their own identity around a bias bubble that can be really hard to break it and go out, but not all animals are raised as you claim (and living in a bubble is not healthy).
Those were pasture raised, with restricted supplemental feed, and just the ordinary breeds you can get at Tractor Supply. I wouldn't be shocked if you let a "real" production hybrid go past butchering age and feed them grains the whole time, you'd probably get some birds unable to move under their own weight.
After two rounds, I gave up on them and now run less aggressive weight gainers that forage better, like freedom rangers.
Obviously just anecdotal, but don't dismiss it outright.
> conventional breeds of chicken raised for meat, termed “rapid growth” breeds due to selective breeding that causes the animals to reach market weight unnaturally fast, suffer muscle myopathies, deformities, poor foot health, and have trouble standing or walking.
https://thehumaneleague.org/article/study-reveals-the-chicke...
The view I propose is rather sensible: causing pain and suffering to sentient beings is morally problematic. If we are in a position to not do that with no significant loss on our side, we ought to do it.
I am unsure what "bias bubble" I am in. For perspective, consider the millions of dollars corporations funding factory farms spend on hiding what happens ("Ag-Gag laws"). Consider the immense lobbying power they have exercised over the decades (advocating for milk and meat consumption in schools). If anything, the status quo may very well be in a "bias bubble".
Given that the incentives are massively aligned with cutting corners to save money, even farms that aim to offer better treatment of animals, will be pushed to cut corners to compete. They will have more incentive to appear to treat animals well, not to actually treat animals well.
Given that there are sensible alternatives to meat, the question for a meat eater isn't between meat and not eating food, but instead eating a slighly-differently-tasting dish.
In what planet?
You could be surprised to know that the real number is much lower. After FAO for example, percentage of pigs being breed in intensive in 2010 ranged from 6% to 60%. In Europe it was a 30% for example. The current 2020 values can differ a little of course, but definitely would not support such bold claim as "99% of animals come from a factory farm... so we should we all turn crazy, or start eating pills, or whatever". This is a myth.
As the IF(statement) part is False, the THEN{we should...!} part does not apply.
Here's a reference: https://faunalytics.org/fundamentals-farmed-animals/
Intensive productions makes up the majority percentage of production:
97% Chicken
96% Pig
66% Cow
Here's another source just in case: https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estima...
70.4% of cows
98.3% of pigs
99.8% of turkeys
98.2% of egg-laying hens, and
over 99.9% of chickens raised for meat
"animals are tortured"-> then{people should stop eating animals}
But what you really mean to say is
"animals are tortured in US" -> then{people should stop eating animals}
See the bubble here?
We could say something like this also for example:
"animals are tortured in US" -> then{We should start importing all our meat from Argentina}
And that would be a real solution for your angst. Much more simple plan that trying to feed humanity with pills, or drawing veins in a chunk of soy.
Some people has in mind a fixed, immutable THEN part and -after that- they look for an IF random part that would support the narrative. A part that would typically involve cute things crying in danger and emotional distress.
Who cares if it tags people with real names as "torturers"? (is my opinion, so it must be reality because opinion = true facts, right?). Who cares if the facts were faked, distorted of shown in a questionable way to fit into the replaceable part of the slot?
This is not an honest way to do things. Is the digital modern equivalent to "lets come to the castle with torches and pitchforks because... who needs a reason, this people is evil", and this is garbage.
The argument I am making is towards the largest audience on this website: people living in the US. The argument is to encourage them to eat less meat.
Just because you have come up with some plan to fix the problem does not fix the problem. Until your plan is implemented, buying meat in the US causes a tremendous amount of animal suffering. Your choice to purchase the meat results in funding further animal suffering.
[1] https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.p...
I am open to the possibility that it may be acceptable, under some conditions, to consume animal flesh. As you are trying to point out, I think, it's not the act of consumption that is problematic, but the process of getting the animal flesh to your mouth. My biggest problem with the current system is the welfare of animals, not the fact that someone is chewing this bit of matter rather than that piece of matter.
I am trying to point out that the scenario of treating animals well while desiring to consume them is counter to maintaining a system of care. There is also something problematic with ending a life that is full of enjoyment short, just so that some other individuals have a meal that is slightly different than another (similarly-tasty) meal.
I hope all these discussions will become obsolete / moot when meat alternatives become more-available and cheaper.
We on HN likely have more resources to choose; I hope that more of us choose less meat.
Since you asked, no, but if animals stop being so darn delicious, I may consider it.
No, it's not.
> Are you explicitly claiming that regardless of how much an animal is tortured, you will give over your money to the institution that performs the torture?
I merely gave a concise, honest answer to your question, "Could we all stop eating animals please?" Anything else you infer from that is on you.
Consider how worrying it would be to see an analogous interaction:
"Could we all stop having slaves?"
"Since you asked, no, but if slaves stop being so profitable to force to work, I may consider it."
0: Confusingly called "human" rights, both as if there were any other kind of rights and as if the fact that all known currently existing people are humans were in any way ontologically fundamental, rather than a contingent result of Earth's natural history.
Do not focus on rights; I am not arguing for "rights" for animals. Ask yourself about whether pain matters to sentient beings. Whether animals are sentient. And reflect on whether you are able to decrease your financial contribution to a system that abuses animals.
The analogy was meant to show that the format of the response is problematic when stated about something we now agree is morally problematic (slavery). I am nudging readers of my comment to reflect whether in 50 years we will consider abusing animals as morally problematic as well (note: I am not arguing about degree of wrongness here).
I'm not dignifying this with a rebuttal; go back and read the second paragraph.
> And reflect on whether you are able to decrease your financial contribution to a system that abuses animals.
Of cource I'm able to. I'm also able to feed lead to toddlers. The relevant question is whether one should, not whether one can.
> the format of the response is problematic
The format of the response is irrelevant:
"Could we all stop infringing copyright?"
"Since you asked, no, but if people stop creating things that are worth watching/reading/etc, I may consider it."
"Could we all stop donating to charity?"
"Since you asked, no, but if they stop doing good deeds, I may consider it."
And so on.
> whether in 50 years we will consider abusing animals as morally problematic as well
Popularity doesn't make something right, and speculations of future popularity definitely don't.
This is best understood (not as "popularity" or "fad", but) as moral growth. And it's good.
You are fighting over semantics "able" vs "should". I am trying to use language that is not confrontational. I am not calling you a bad person, I do not think you are. I am asking you politely, in the privacy of your own mind, to reflect on some practices we take for granted. And to realize that the parallel is that in the past we've made moral mistakes, and that we are likely making a moral mistake now.
I proclaim that it's good to mature and grow up. I hope we as a civilization grow out of this phase where we abuse the shit out of billions of sentient creatures for a the unimportant goal of having food taste slightly different.
Right, but it's the one we meat eaters believe in. You're asking people to substitute your preferred moral framework for theirs. This is the same thing as asking people to forego the right to abortion just because your religion, which they don't share, says it's murder.
1) Reflect that "commonly done" != "unproblematic".
2) Think for yourself: reflect on whether causing pain to sentient creatures is something you want to be doing in your life.
I am not recommending people reject the "rights" framework of morality; I am asking them to pause and consider something that virtually everyone agrees with: "hurting sentient creatures is morally problematic". If after reflection you do not share this sentiment, there isn't much I can do (at least with a short comment).
Re: religion - it's much easier to dismiss a religious appeal if you do not share the religion. It's harder in my example, as the appeal is to a (what I claim) is a sentiment that the reader already has.
Moral uncertainty is an interesting argument too. If theory A claims act X is unproblematic, but theory B claims act X is very problematic, even if you only believe in A, you should be cautious that you may be wrong and theory B is correct. If act X is of no great importance to you, it is a prudent decision to avoid doing X.
I do recommend everyone read Animal Liberation (1975) by Peter Singer - it's the classic text on animal welfare.
I agree, but I'm sure you also agree that "commonly done" != "problematic". Morality and common practice have nothing to do with each other, so I don't think that line of argument helps or hurts either side here. And I don't think I ever implied that eating animals is unproblematic simply because most people do it.
> Think for yourself: reflect on whether causing pain to sentient creatures is something you want to be doing in your life.
The morality of hurting sentient creatures depends entirely on context. If I were torturing animals for my own sick pleasure, that would certainly be immoral. If I shoot a bear that's attacking me, I think we would both agree that that's justified. That's an extreme example, but it proves the general point that there exist conditions where hurting a sentient being is morally acceptable.
In my opinion, getting adequate nutrition is also an acceptable reason. I assume you either disagree that that's a good enough reason, or you simply believe that plant-based diets provide adequate nutrition. If the former, then we're back to the moral disagreement: I think the pain caused to farm animals is an acceptable trade off for my health, and you don't. If the latter, well... I really don't want to get into the health side of this argument. I doubt we'd change each others' minds and the moral issue is much more interesting.
I do agree that morality dictates we cause minimal possible suffering to the animals we eat, and I agree that modern farming practices leave a lot to be desired in that regard. But I'm trying to stick to the core question of whether eating animals is morally justifiable in its own right, regardless of the messy realities of the particular world in which we live.
I think for anyone who feels like the trade off between getting good nutrition and hurting animals in the process is acceptable, must learn what the current treatment of animals is, and not turn a blind eye, thinking it's "decent enough" for the tradeoff to work.
I strongly recommend everyone watch Earthlings.
The moral discussion you are trying to have at some point becomes uninteresting to me. It begins to sound akin to "what if, hypothetically, slaves enjoyed being enslaved?". It's not a bad question to ponder, it really probes deep at some of our hidden assumptions, and we can learn something about morality while thinking about it. But I'm currently more interested in the absolute moral catastrophe that is happening now: billions of animals are being tortured every day, and so many people are unwilling to decrease the amount of money they give to the corporations that do the abuse.
This is much better explanation of what's wrong with that part of their 'argument' than I was able to come up with; thank you.
https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/whatsnew/whatsnew_fst/whatsne...