I've processed chickens and ducks that I have raised. Much smaller scale, and actually when it comes to duck I'm much more about the eggs than the meat 8^)
There are videos of farmers who gave up farming animals because they realized 'there is someone in there'. In the BBC docu series 'dark side of dairy' a farmer starts crying when he's asked to explain what happens to the baby cow.
Chickens are deeply social animals and can create deep bonds with humans. You might have seen the video of a hen waiting for her human friend coming back from school and running towards him.
Or how about Monique - the hen that traveled around the world and 'kind of saved my life' [0] of her human friend.
Cows are these gentle and curious giant creatures and yet we betray their trust by killing them in the end. [1]
Also, why are we not using the actual words like killing and butchering vs processing. The meat industry comes up with all these words to soften what is actually happening to animals.
Humanity will eventually give up killing & consuming animals for pleasure and future humans will see what we are doing now to other sentient beings as barbaric [2]
[0]https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/apr/21/why-did-the-c...
I've had my hands in a carcass, pulling out organs. I have tried to make sure I made death and quick and painless as I could for chickens. I have not butchered anything bigger than that. I don't do that for all my meat.
I think we differ more about how much death and life are intertwined and inseperable, than we differ on how sacred and considerate that relationship should be.
In what way?
Humanity has agreed that human slavery is bad, so why would future humans not apply this same principle to other sentient beings - since the need to exploit and kill other animals becomes ever more redundant.
Most of us here in the West eat animals either because of culture or tradition and because we enjoy the taste, not because we need it to survive.
Will there be small pockets of humans in the future that still eat animals? Yes, tribal folks living with nature or people who choose to live in areas where there are no other food sources.
But I believe most future humans will reject the idea that exploiting and killing animals is necessary for our survival, when there are so many other food sources available. In the future we'll probably have meat substitutes that are healthier and with a smaller carbon and cruelty footprint than animal meat.
> Tibetan Buddhist perspective
I don't know what this perspective really means. I read some time ago the Dalai Lama was advised to eat animals, because his health depended on it. And maybe other Buddhists and people in Tibet have to eat animals because their survival depends on it.
Also my understanding of Buddha's teachings is to end suffering. A core principle of Buddhism is non-violence, kindness and compassion. Killing an animal when it's not necessary is neither of those.
I also understand that it's ok for Buddhists to eat animals if they weren't killed specifically for them. But buying animal meat from shops does not qualify that criteria. Eating roadkill does.
We can choose between causing suffering or not causing suffering. A tiger for example can't.
So when we can avoid the exploitation and killing of animals - why don't we?
This ex special forces guy perfectly sums it up. https://youtu.be/BUMGBwgGYWw?t=100