6 ms·

Funny, looking at the associated picture tells me a different story. Look at how uncrowded the chicks are and how much free space to move they have, and compare

• enraged_camel 9y ago
  It seems strange to point out how well you are treating an animal when you are slaughtering it for consumption in the end. In fact that is the animal's only purpose of existence.
  • 21 9y ago
    I think you look for purpose where there is little. What's the purpose of an animal living in the wild? Ecologists would say eat or be eaten, thrive, multiply. From an evolutionary point of view you could say that cows, chickens, pigs (and cats, dogs, horses) are one of the most successful animals, exactly because we eat (or pet) them.
  • spiderfarmer 9y ago
    Maybe I, like all my predecessors, am not yet 'evolved' enough to give up on eating meat. In the meantime I like the fact that the animals are growing up disease free in relatively humane conditions.
    • enraged_camel 9y ago
      It's not about being evolved enough, whatever that means. Eating meat is a conscious choice. Humans can do without meat. We are omnivores, not carnivores. I mean yes, in the grand scheme of things, treating animals well before slaughtering them is better than treating them poorly, but it misses the forest for the trees.
      • spiderfarmer 9y ago
        If you, by choice, never killed an animal, I absolutely respect that, but society is not ready to draw the line at the same height as you.
      • 21 9y ago
        I would be highly surprised if in 100 years we'll still do this. It's only a matter of time until lab-grown meat is as good and cheap as the original, and then society will turn. Eating real animals will be something like hunting is now, a tiny thing and with huge image costs.
        • YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
          Hunting has huge image costs where you live? Are you sure it's not just inside your specific bubble?
          • riffraff 9y ago
            I'm fairly sure hunting is declining in all of the western world. As anecdata, consider the outlawing of fox hunting in UK, declining hunting love in France[0], and a similar decline in the US[1]. The more hunting becomes unusual, the higher the number of people who will consider it in negative light compared to those who view it favourably. [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37865215 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37865215 [1] http://deerfarmer.com/wiki/hunting-decline http://deerfarmer.com/wiki/hunting-decline
            • YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
              You should've spent more time sourcing that last claim, considering it was by and large the most bold one. Furthermore, whilst it may not be obvious in activist circles, seeing the topic was about eating animal produce, the obvious counterpart in hunting would be game animals, and not a sport (which fox hunting is, more or less). My (unsourced) guess would be that most non-vegetarians do not condemn hunting, and it would also be a somewhat hypocritical stance. Furthermore, meat consumption isn't exactly on declining in the world, but you can make your own conclusions about that. (I'm a city dweller, and haven't hunted anything in my life. I'm not saying that to validate my opinion, but regardless I know quite a bit about the realities of hunting that probably apply to most places, and the reason it is in decline may well not be because of a shift in the moral landscape. It is a consuming hobby, but that doesn't in itself imply that all non-hunters would automatically start to disapprove it more and more.)
    • an27 9y ago
      I'm hoping to some day keep my own animals, to find out how the sausage gets made. I want to face the reality behind the sterile, bloodless chicken fillet I eat, and my apathy to animals. Perhaps that will convince me to stop eating meat. Meanwhile I have bigger worries.
  • bostik 9y ago
    Flesh of an unstressed animal tastes better. I can dig the exact page from On Food and Cooking for reference if needed.
    • spiderfarmer 9y ago
      Although I always believed that was true, I started having doubts when I saw "Topchef" candidates having trouble distinguishing cow and pig meat when blindfolded. Stress should be avoided, don't get me wrong, but I don't think our tastebuds are this advanced.
  • Paradigma11 9y ago
    "In fact that is the animal's only purpose of existence." From the farmers point of view.
• Fnoord 9y ago
  There are two types of chickens: the ones grown for their meat, and the ones grown for their eggs (I'm not aware of the English terminology on either). There have been campaigns for both types of chicken to improve their quality of life. Here in NL they were conducted by an NGO called Wakker Dier. There's the campaign against the 'plofkip' (huge chicks who are unable to move, and are force fed) so that grocery stores quit selling these. Then for the sale of eggs (itself harmless for chickens, if unfertilized eggs, and if chickens are treated without abuse) there's a star system ranging from 1 ('kooi') [1], 2 ('scharrelei') till 3 ('vrije uitloop'). Note that this system says nothing about their diet. Now, if you'd translate 2 and 3, you'd both end up with 'free range'. This Wikipedia article on free range [2] explains the EU has strict rules on that term, while the US does not. Its worth noting that due to campaigns of Wakker Dier eggs of type 1 are almost never sold anymore directly, but they are still being widely used within products! If not, they will mention the name of type 2 and 3 ('scharrel-ei' usually or more uncommon in the case of products 'vrije uitloop ei' otherwise). Regarding the picture you linked if that is from NL, that might very well either be accurate due to fipronil scandal [3] (millions of chickens were killed due to that hence near empty cages), or otherwise a propaganda picture. Its very important to be critical of farmers. They're treating thousands upon thousands of animals with various degrees of treatment (from loving/caring to downright abuse), as well as affecting our soil (as in, "the inhabitants of Earth's" which also makes sense since our soil is deeply connected with the rest of Earth's ecosystem as well as literally your neighbors's soil). [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Eisen_kooi-ei.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Eisen_ko... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range_eggs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range_eggs [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Fipronil_eggs_contamination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Fipronil_eggs_contaminati...
  • edwinjm 9y ago
    Ah, so farmers never can do good. And when they do good, it's an "propaganda picture".
    • Fnoord 9y ago
      I gave two plausible options each explaining the picture. I find both of those explanations more plausible than tons of empty cages. YMMV. I never said farmers are 'evil' people. Farmers can do good (and if you read my post well you'd have seen my examples), but we live in a capitalist world where profit is an important factor, if not the most important factor. So we need others to force the farmers to keep checks and balances: consumers, NGOs, and the government. Case in point: the fipronil scandal, where ChickFriend was a cheap solution to a problem, and where the government (NVWA) failed to look into an anonymous tip in november 2016. If they did, we'd have a lot less economic damage as well as less potential health damage. Another example is as I explained how Wakker Dier's campaign stimulated the sales of free range eggs of type 2 and 3 (although first and foremost in fresh eggs; not products containing eggs), and how they managed to reduce the amount of 'plofkip' in grocery store.
• mverwijs 9y ago
  Just because one solution is slightly less ghastly does not make it friendly.