7 ms·

As someone who hates large corporations (I think I spend most of my HN time nowadays railing against big tech) and a vegan this hits me at a weird spot. CAFO’s

As someone who hates large corporations (I think I spend most of my HN time nowadays railing against big tech) and a vegan this hits me at a weird spot. CAFO’s are horrible to the land and the poor cows trapped in them. Greater volume equals greater profit and less concern on an individual… Small dairy farms are better in a few ways, but cows still live there for a fraction of their natural life spans, calves are taken from their mom’s while way too young because we use their milk for our own consumption. Say all you want about “they’re bred that way” but that all seems to be a guise for getting what we want out of them. I’m sure small farmers care about their cows, but I’m also sure their perspective is shaped by the need to make a living from them. Where this all comes to head now, with falling demand in milk and rising big companies, is rough. We’ll have more mistreated cows and larger businesses taking over. Society will change over time and should, we’re on the verge of environmental apocalypse it seems and meat and dairy are a part of it[1], finding a way to support those who need to change industries humanely is key. [1] http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

jmull 8y ago
I think it's probably fair to change this: > but I’m also sure their perspective is warped by the need to make profit out of them. to something like this: > but I'm also sure their perspective is based on their need to subsist on them. I think your heart is in the right place, but characterizing family dairy farmers as "warped" and profiting is not going to end up connecting or being helpful.
- Djvacto 8y ago
  I mean, I'm not super well versed in small-scale agriculture or anything, but a) Is there that big of a difference between subsist and profit in this case? It's not like the family is just consuming the milk/etc themselves, they're selling it (in the case described above) and b)is there even a such thing as subsist in our society today? Especially in America, capitalism makes it impossible to just subsist, as you always need to be earning more. However, both of these are just as subjective as your suggested substitution, and I would like to express that I think Small-scale or Family Dairy Farmers are way better than any size factory farming.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- marricks 8y ago
  I removed profit shortly after posting, it is just an awful place to use that word. I think shaped is better than the implications of warped, thanks for the thought. Warped is true to how I feel but shaped I agree is more generally correct.
- justin66 8y ago
  > but characterizing family dairy farmers as "warped" He characterized their perspective as warped: but I’m also sure their perspective is warped This is an entirely different thing.
- fnovd 8y ago
  At the end of the day, a cow to a dairy farmer is just a machine. Whatever airs people may put on when describing how they treat their animals, the reality is they would (and do) sell them off to the highest bidder once the the juice stops being worth the squeeze. We don't do this to other animals we claim to care for: an old dog that loses his youthful energy is still given a spot in the home and, if the time comes, will be put down in a more-or-less humane way. An old cow that loses her ability to produce milk is sold to whoever can make use of what's left of her body and promptly forgotten. If economic demands are the reason for this practice, then we can confirm that the amount of profit one can derive from a cow is the primary driver of interactions with her. Words like "warp" and "profit" are a symbol of a fundamentally different way of thinking about what a "reasonable" relationship with an animal should be. However, I don't think you can accurately describe what the relationship between a dairy farmer and a cow is without such language, as owning a dairy farm is a business and making a profit is of course a primary concern. We see companies large and small externalize costs in pursuit of profit. What's so sacred about the dairy farmer that we have to tiptoe around describing the nature of their business?
  - a1369209993 8y ago
    "Warped" falsely implies that their relationship with a nonsapient meat-machine that exists for the purpose of turning grass and agricultural waste into good-tasting food is in some way unreasonable. What's so sacred about cows that we have to tiptoe around describing what they're for?
    - fnovd 8y ago
      That's exactly what I said: >Words like "warp" and "profit" are a symbol of a fundamentally different way of thinking about what a "reasonable" relationship with an animal should be. It's not a "false" implication as there is no true and objective measure of "reasonable". I substituted "fundamentally different" because I think it's more accurate than "false" or "wrong". Cows aren't "for" meat or dairy any more than Africans were "for" enslavement. It is a purpose bestowed upon them by an outside influence, for sure, but it is not an intrinsic property of the being him or herself.
moosey 8y ago
I view veganism as an attempt to escape, in part, an exploitative system. I find it incredibly clear that nearly every aspect of our lives and way of living are exploitative in various ways: we exploit people economically and through warfare, we exploit the natural world around us with little concern, we exploit animals. We are going to have to turn around and start a process of restoration soon, which is going to be far harder and will require much more organization. Exploitation is easy. Restoration is work. As you mention, there are huge sectors of our society that work in exploitative industries, and "their perspective is shaped by the need to make a living from them", but given the difficulties that we will face in fighting our current ecological disasters, they shouldn't fear. Work will be in high demand on the other side, it will simply be different.
- MisterOctober 8y ago
  Vegan here; first part of the above comment hits nail on head. When people ask me about the [apparent] contradictions associated with being vegan and also participating in industrial society, I mention something about my view of veganism being, at its most fundamental level, a personal stance intended to minimize exploitation.
  - sharkmerry 8y ago
    As a counterpoint, similar to the user above, what about the exploitation of farm labor to harvest everything you eat?
    - fnovd 8y ago
      As far back as 1997, over half of all grain grown in the US goes to livestock [1]. So, going from animal protein to plant protein is a net reduction of farm labor and therefore requires less exploitation. [1] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-m...
      - MisterOctober 8y ago
gabbygab 8y ago
As a vegan, you depend on large corporations and the modern industrial society to exist. So it's strange to say you hate large corporations. A vegan lifestyle isn't one that you could maintain without international trade and industrialized life. Without global trade, oil, lab research, pharma companies, etc, you couldn't survive as a vegan. So I don't understand why you hate large corporations.
- kiliantics 8y ago
  > A vegan lifestyle isn't one that you could maintain without international trade and industrialized life I don't know how that follows. I think it is perfectly conceivable that one could be vegan without this, just as many vegans have been for millennia.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    I find it a lot more likely that those people were vegetarians, rather than vegans. Or they were very limited in number and relied on their surrounding societies much more than people with a non-vegan diet.

jmull 8y ago

I think it's probably fair to change this: > but I’m also sure their perspective is warped by the need to make profit out of them. to something like this: > but I'm also sure their perspective is based on their need to subsist on them. I think your heart is in the right place, but characterizing family dairy farmers as "warped" and profiting is not going to end up connecting or being helpful.

Djvacto 8y ago
I mean, I'm not super well versed in small-scale agriculture or anything, but a) Is there that big of a difference between subsist and profit in this case? It's not like the family is just consuming the milk/etc themselves, they're selling it (in the case described above) and b)is there even a such thing as subsist in our society today? Especially in America, capitalism makes it impossible to just subsist, as you always need to be earning more. However, both of these are just as subjective as your suggested substitution, and I would like to express that I think Small-scale or Family Dairy Farmers are way better than any size factory farming.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
marricks 8y ago
I removed profit shortly after posting, it is just an awful place to use that word. I think shaped is better than the implications of warped, thanks for the thought. Warped is true to how I feel but shaped I agree is more generally correct.
justin66 8y ago
> but characterizing family dairy farmers as "warped" He characterized their perspective as warped: but I’m also sure their perspective is warped This is an entirely different thing.
fnovd 8y ago
At the end of the day, a cow to a dairy farmer is just a machine. Whatever airs people may put on when describing how they treat their animals, the reality is they would (and do) sell them off to the highest bidder once the the juice stops being worth the squeeze. We don't do this to other animals we claim to care for: an old dog that loses his youthful energy is still given a spot in the home and, if the time comes, will be put down in a more-or-less humane way. An old cow that loses her ability to produce milk is sold to whoever can make use of what's left of her body and promptly forgotten. If economic demands are the reason for this practice, then we can confirm that the amount of profit one can derive from a cow is the primary driver of interactions with her. Words like "warp" and "profit" are a symbol of a fundamentally different way of thinking about what a "reasonable" relationship with an animal should be. However, I don't think you can accurately describe what the relationship between a dairy farmer and a cow is without such language, as owning a dairy farm is a business and making a profit is of course a primary concern. We see companies large and small externalize costs in pursuit of profit. What's so sacred about the dairy farmer that we have to tiptoe around describing the nature of their business?
- a1369209993 8y ago
  "Warped" falsely implies that their relationship with a nonsapient meat-machine that exists for the purpose of turning grass and agricultural waste into good-tasting food is in some way unreasonable. What's so sacred about cows that we have to tiptoe around describing what they're for?
  - fnovd 8y ago
    That's exactly what I said: >Words like "warp" and "profit" are a symbol of a fundamentally different way of thinking about what a "reasonable" relationship with an animal should be. It's not a "false" implication as there is no true and objective measure of "reasonable". I substituted "fundamentally different" because I think it's more accurate than "false" or "wrong". Cows aren't "for" meat or dairy any more than Africans were "for" enslavement. It is a purpose bestowed upon them by an outside influence, for sure, but it is not an intrinsic property of the being him or herself.

moosey 8y ago

I view veganism as an attempt to escape, in part, an exploitative system. I find it incredibly clear that nearly every aspect of our lives and way of living are exploitative in various ways: we exploit people economically and through warfare, we exploit the natural world around us with little concern, we exploit animals. We are going to have to turn around and start a process of restoration soon, which is going to be far harder and will require much more organization. Exploitation is easy. Restoration is work. As you mention, there are huge sectors of our society that work in exploitative industries, and "their perspective is shaped by the need to make a living from them", but given the difficulties that we will face in fighting our current ecological disasters, they shouldn't fear. Work will be in high demand on the other side, it will simply be different.

MisterOctober 8y ago
Vegan here; first part of the above comment hits nail on head. When people ask me about the [apparent] contradictions associated with being vegan and also participating in industrial society, I mention something about my view of veganism being, at its most fundamental level, a personal stance intended to minimize exploitation.
- sharkmerry 8y ago
  As a counterpoint, similar to the user above, what about the exploitation of farm labor to harvest everything you eat?
  - fnovd 8y ago
    As far back as 1997, over half of all grain grown in the US goes to livestock [1]. So, going from animal protein to plant protein is a net reduction of farm labor and therefore requires less exploitation. [1] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-m...
    - MisterOctober 8y ago

gabbygab 8y ago

As a vegan, you depend on large corporations and the modern industrial society to exist. So it's strange to say you hate large corporations. A vegan lifestyle isn't one that you could maintain without international trade and industrialized life. Without global trade, oil, lab research, pharma companies, etc, you couldn't survive as a vegan. So I don't understand why you hate large corporations.

kiliantics 8y ago
> A vegan lifestyle isn't one that you could maintain without international trade and industrialized life I don't know how that follows. I think it is perfectly conceivable that one could be vegan without this, just as many vegans have been for millennia.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  I find it a lot more likely that those people were vegetarians, rather than vegans. Or they were very limited in number and relied on their surrounding societies much more than people with a non-vegan diet.