The best way to co-exist with them is to leave them alone.
There, repaired it for you.
Surely you don't think the masses buying big macs give half a crap? Meat just needs to be cheap and edible, and apparently animals raised in horrible conditions are the best candidates on both counts. ~99% of U.S. meat comes from factory farms.[0]
[0] https://www.humanesociety.org/news/facts-about-factory-farms
You should really watch https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
Your statement seems to imply that the concept of livestock experiencing suffering or deserving ethical treatment is based on 'absurd premises'. This seems to stem from a viewpoint that animals are fundamentally different from humans in terms of consciousness, emotions or the capacity to suffer. However, numerous scientific studies have shown that many animals, including those we commonly categorize as livestock, do indeed exhibit complex behaviors, show signs of consciousness, and display clear responses to pain and stress, indicating a capacity for suffering. This is particularly true for mammals like cows, pigs, and chickens.
The concept of treating livestock ethically is not about equating animals to humans, but about acknowledging these capacities and adjusting our behaviors and systems accordingly. It's about understanding that, while they may not experience the world exactly as we do, they do have experiences that matter to them. It's not an 'absurd premise' but a logical conclusion based on observed evidence.
> This seems to stem from a viewpoint that animals are fundamentally different from humans
There is a fundamental difference. Humans are humans, and non-humans aren't. And being the practical organism I am, I (along with most others for the last few ten thousand years) have decided that it is socially and politically convenient for me to treat other humans well. When I do, you all agree to chase down my murderer, for instance, to the best of your ability and punish him. That deterrence effect is valuable to me. You agree that there are some basic inviolable rights. Etc. The reciprocity required on my part is a bargain for the value I get in exchange.
Non-humans are incapable of the reciprocity. I get nothing for extending any of these courtesies to a chicken. I (and most others) have therefor not extended these courtesies to chickens. Or cows, or hogs. Or, for that matter, any other non-human species. You don't get to re-negotiate these things unilaterally either, it would require the some super-majority of humanity, of human cultures, to extend this to a non-human species. Maybe you should start a petition.
Do you even know why you believe the absurd things you do? Can you trace the meme back to whom and whence it originated from? Do you even know why you accept it as true? Do you understand its implications, really?
> show signs of consciousness,
What's that, exactly? There is no such thing as consciousness. Not even in humans. It's the secular word for "soul", I think. At least "soul" is more honest. There is no such thing though, no matter what word you use.
> The concept of treating livestock ethically is not about equating animals to humans
Funny. You just spent your entire comment doing that. You told me they weren't different when it came to consciousness, emotions, or suffering. You claimed "numerous scientific studies" that they have complex behaviors similar to humans, that they experience pain and stress as we do. I mean, it's like just 1 or 2 sentences above this claim. Did you lose track?
> but about acknowledging these
I can't acknowledge that which isn't real. If at some point in the future you manage to prove empirically that these invisible, imaginary qualities are real, I can acknowledge them then... but I won't hold my breath. Or pretend with you in the meantime.
> It's not an 'absurd premise' but a logical conclusion
Nothing you've said indicates you are familiar with logic.
Please note that if torture pigs made the bacon even 3% tastier, I'd be calling my senator right this minute to demand that he allow farm workers to tasering them for shits and giggles. Their pain has no moral weight whatsoever. You should rejoice that you live in a universe where it actually ruins the flavor.
Hypothetically, if someone would put you into a small box, too small to get up and you may sleep where you shit, do you think, you would suffer a little bit in it?
What if you put a slab of granite in that box? Or a helium balloon that yearns to be free? Can they suffer as well?
(Just in case you edit/delete your comment later... my current favorite quote is "Please note that if torture pigs made the bacon even 3% tastier, I'd be calling my senator right this minute to demand that he allow farm workers to tasering them for shits and giggles.")
> allow farm workers to tasering them for shits and giggles
That's happening anyway (just watch Dominion).
The practice of beating dogs to death, believed by some to make the meat more tender, is carried out in parts of China and Vietnam.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/community/article/211370...
10 million dogs and four million cats are slaughtered for their meat on the mainland each year. Many are beaten to death because the promoters believe this method makes the meat more tender and tastier
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/inside-horrors-yuli...
Inside horror of Yulin dog festival where animals are tortured and boiled alive
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/yulin-dog-meat...
Yulin Dog Meat Festival: Dogs blow-torched alive in footage from China
https://www.animalsasia.org/au/media/news/news-archive/china...
"Typically they suffer a death that is far from efficient. They are snared around the neck with metal hooks and dragged from their cages. Then they are either bludgeoned or stabbed in the neck or groin to be “bled out”. Other methods of killing including being hanged or electrocuted. This happens dog by dog so other dogs are likely to witness multiple deaths ahead of their own. This further spreads panic."
https://www.quora.com/Do-Chinese-people-really-raise-dogs-fo...
"Even if they do, who gives a fuck bruh? You eat pigs which are filthy to Muslims and Jews, and cows which are sacred to Hindus, and eggs from female chickens whose male siblings are crushed to death by grinders because they're commercially useless, and venison from deer that display empathy and mourn and bury their dead, and lobsters that you know have been boiled alive because they taste better that way than when they're killed outright, and sushi in authentic Japanese restaurants which for all you know could be sourced from super-intelligent whales and dolphins that are going extinct, and fish which are extracted by modern fishing vessels dragging huge nets across the bottom of the ocean for a monstrous catch. The vessels then throw out the least valuable fish, which are already dead and just rot in the water."
Yes, it's difficult.
The Psychopathy of Eating Meat | Interview with Philosopher John Sanbonmatsu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUmmN3lnUhY
You're the one that is dangerous, the one people should be worried to share a planet with. When your only principle is whether you feel something is a person or not, then nothing stops you from just suddenly no longer feeling the rest of us to be people.
Theoretically, even if I gave up on the entire project of ethics, there would still be self-interested reasons to be kind to humans. That's what your previous comment was pointing out, right? If I stopped caring about my current ethics, you'd only have to get along with another person with similar thoughts.
Also, as a side note, I don't particularly care whether something is a person or not. I only care whether it's capable of feeling pain. Even if we somehow "discovered" that plants were people, I have zero moral feelings about plants since (as far as I'm aware) they are incapable of pain. I don't think mice are people, but I care about them because I think there's a reasonable chance they can experience pain.
It seems to be rather a cultural taboo. Cannibalistic tribes did disagree.
See https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/10/2/6875031/chickens-breedi...
Farming catfish is an example of successful aquaculture, and even it isn't as simple as one would think. There was a point in the 90s (IIRC) where tiny farm ponds (1-2 acres or less) in the US were producing some huge percentage of all farmed catfish, 60-70% or thereabouts. When ethanol subsidies really kicked off, all the corn went to make faux gasoline, which meant it wasn't as available for fish feed, and the price of the feed closed the farm ponds, which were filled in and planted. (Probably with corn.)
The Romans used to eat a lot of mullet, as this fish lived in their canals and waterways, and are easy to catch with nets. But the mullet is a terroir fish--it tastes like where it lives--and as the canals and waterways got gross, so did the fish. Mullet is thought of as poor people food now, there's a reason why on the Gulf Coast they're called "Biloxi bacon." But it would be a much simpler fish to farm, as long as you can keep the water clean.
I had seen fry of tuna breed on captivity in a tank. Will not happen soon.
Breeding of Salmon is fully developed at a very sophisticated level.
Would you be as accepting to a wife-beater, child abuser, slaver, homophobe, etc ?
> The meat eating culture is so ingrained some people literally don't see this option, when it is the easiest and most obvious solution.
How is this shaming?
The production of meat and dairy is correlated with acts of violence such as forced impregnation, separation of mothers and calves, dehorning, castration, debeaking, (not-really-humane) slaughter, and violent mishandling. If you don't believe me, see https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
If we acknowledge that animals are sentient beings, capable of cognition, fear, and suffering, even able to play computer games and browse social media, and that they are subjected to conditions akin to enslavement, it's not a stretch to draw parallels between this and other forms of oppression such as slavery, sexual exploitation, and domestic abuse. All of these were, at some point, also considered normal and socially acceptable.
That's such an absurd flamebait that if you bother to think about it for a second, you'd realize how untenable your position is. If we accept your assertion, then then we would have to protect a deer from a bear, snake from a hawk and all kinds of fish from bluefin tuna. Do you suggest we arrest every bear, hawk and bluefin tuna that eats another sentient being? Would we have to arrest all dog and cat owners that feed their pets a healthy meat diet?
No, obviously vegans think arresting bears is dumb. This same "lions tho" argument has been made enough times to become a meme.
So you don't believe that animals are sentient and deserving of the same rights as humans. And yet vegans always push that angle. That's the argument that I was responding to. So you are on my side against the vegan I responded to.
I love that a yourveganfallacyis is full of logical fallacies. I know I'll regret this because educating cultish vegans mired in nutrient deficient brain-fog is a no win situation but here goes...
> Non-human animals do many things we find unethical; they steal, rape, eat their children and engage in other activities...
No. We don't find that unethical at all. Nobody finds an animals stealing, raping, cannibalizing their young, etc unethical because animals are animals. Ethics doesn't apply to animals. Basics of logic, if your premise is flawed then so is your conclusion.
> This means it is illogical to claim that we should eat the same diet certain non-human animals do.
Animals eat plants. So it's illogical to claim we should eat plants. So silly.
> And while we are capable of killing and eating them, it isn't necessary for our survival.
It's necessary for our optimal living. Driving cars isn't necessary for our survival. Millions of sentient animals are killed by cars. Why not ban cars? Planes? Etc.
> We aren't lions, and we know that we cannot justify taking the life of a sentient being for no better reason than our personal dietary preferences.
If their being sentient is important then it is up to us to protect sentient animals from lions. We'd have to arrest all lions and give them meat supplements for the rest of their lives.
So here we are, back to sentience because that's the crux of the matter even though you denied it in the beginning. Without sentience, what argument is there? Without sentience, eating an animal is no different than eating plants. But wait. What if plants have sentience?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34558231/
https://gizmodo.com/is-plant-intelligence-just-a-human-fanta...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/biocentrism/201703/a...
How will you vegans live with yourselves for destroying sentient plants?
Whatever you need to feel good about your choices ...
> Non-human animals do many things we find unethical; they steal, rape, eat their children and engage in other activities
... things we find unethical (in people); they steal ...
>> This means it is illogical to claim that we should eat the same diet certain non-human animals do.
> Animals eat plants. So it's illogical to claim we should eat plants. So silly.
The point is not about the type of food, but rather, not using animal behavior as a basis for human dietary choices. After all, many animals also eat things that are harmful to humans. It's important to make diet decisions based on nutritional science and their environmental impact, not solely on what animals do.
>> And while we are capable of killing and eating them, it isn't necessary for our survival.
> It's necessary for our optimal living.
The only reasons are habit, tradition, convenience, taste. Necessity it isn't.
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes." (American Dietetic Association)
"A vegetarian or vegan diet can be suitable for everyone, regardless of their age." (NHS UK)
"It is possible to follow a well-planned, plant-based, vegan friendly diet that supports healthy living in people of all ages, and during pregnancy and breastfeeding." (British Dietetic Association.)
"For adults, protein from two or more plant groups daily is like to be adequate." (WHO)
> We'd have to arrest all lions and give them meat supplements for the rest of their lives.
Nature is guided by survival, but as humans, we have the capacity to make ethical choices about our food. The point is that, given the alternatives available, we don't need to cause harm to sentient beings for our nutrition. It's less about controlling natural predatory behaviors and more about considering our own actions and their implications.
> Without sentience, eating an animal is no different than eating plants
The core principle of veganism is to minimize harm as much as possible. Given that all life forms consume other life forms to survive, the goal becomes reducing the harm caused by our choices.
Even if we were to assume plant sentience, it's still less harmful to consume plants directly rather than raising animals for food, which requires significantly more plant life to sustain itself.
And few quotes from your favourite web:
https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-kill-animals-too
Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many more plants are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food (often as high as 12:1) than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food (which is obviously 1:1). Because of this, a plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals.
https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/plants-are-alive
Vegans draw the line at hurting sentient individuals. Plants lack nerves, let alone a central nervous system, and cannot feel pain or respond to circumstances in any deliberate way (not to be confused with the non-conscious reactions they do have). Unlike animals, plants lack the ability or potential to experience pain or have sentient thoughts, so there isn't an ethical issue with eating them.
Regardless, each pound of animal flesh requires between four and thirteen pounds of plant matter to produce, depending upon species and conditions. Given that amount of plant death, a belief in the sentience of plants makes a strong pro-vegan argument.
The crux isn't interfering with natural predation but acknowledging our role in unnecessary, large scale animal suffering, which differs from the survival driven ecological balance in nature.
As people who can make ethical choices, we should choose to act to reduce unnecessary animal suffering and environmental destruction.
Btw, dogs are omnivores and can thrive on plant-based diets tailored to their needs, while cats are obligate carnivores and require meat to avoid suffering and live healthily. Our carnivorous pets consume 25% of our meat production, so if someone is really concerned about meat consumption, they should consider another companion, such as a rabbit or a guinea pig.
Alternatively you can try to convince individuals to become vegetarians, which is a leass easy solution within that easiest solution. ;)