6 ms·
The idea that technology will allow us to keep cows happy and healthy in cramped prison-like conditions seems like incredible hubris. It seems like a much bett
by cwkoss 8y ago
The idea that technology will allow us to keep cows happy and healthy in cramped prison-like conditions seems like incredible hubris.
It seems like a much better solution to this 'problem' is let cows live outdoors and graze on grass.
FDA should mandate that all cows raised in confinement conditions get labeled as "prison beef'.
- makerofspoons 8y agoA much better solution is to introduce products to the market that make cows an unnecessary part of the process, such as lab grown meats and meat substitutes.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- vlan0 8y ago>It seems like a much better solution to this 'problem' is let cows live outdoors and graze on grass. With the number of cattle on this planet, this would require an insane amount of land. >FDA should mandate that all cows raised in confinement conditions get labeled as "prison beef'. I'm sure people would consume less if the simply put slaughter pictures on each piece of meat they buy. Rather than outsource the killing to a third party, which keeps people emotionally detached from the killing of billions of animals every year.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago> this would require an insane amount of land Which would constrain consumption, and cause prices to rise. Eventually we might end up at a sustainable amount. If that means most of us can't afford nearly as much, then that is probably great for our future and the planet. > if the simply put slaughter pictures on each piece of meat they buy Hmm. Sounds reasonable, except pictures alone didn't do that much to smoking rates. Pricing and eliminating marketing did.
- nightski 8y agoExcept smoking is actively harmful to your body. Meat is much more controversial. Actually, it's not a controversy at all to many practitioners and doctors promoting a low carb lifestyle. There is a lot of scientific evidence to support eating meat of all kinds being incredibly healthy! So comparing eating meat to smoking seems pretty ridiculous. Also if you look at government reports on greenhouse gas emissions animal agriculture only accounts for < 3% of U.S. emissions. It's a factor for sure, but not worth our primary focus imho.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoExcept I am only comparing the effect dramatic pictures had on sales. (Not that much). I'm not equating the two in terms of health or legislation that should be brought forth. Implying I am seems pretty ridiculous. :p Rising meat prices, for whatever reason, would tend to reduce consumption.
- nightski 8y agoIt depends on the type of marketing those pictures were. Pictures used in anti-smoking campaigns were of the humans consuming them and the related health issues that ensued. They weren't of manufacturing cigarettes. If you showed a bunch of in shape healthy people on low carb diets I'm not sure that would cause meat sales to decline. If you mean slaughter, well maybe it would have an effect on sales, maybe it wouldn't. But it's not comparable to the anti-smoking ads.
- vlan0 8y ago>Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke.[1][2] It's not as cut and try and you may think. [1]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/repo... [2]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2900444-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2...
- MrZongle2 8y agoI'm sure people would consume less if the simply put slaughter pictures on each piece of meat they buy. Certainly if the picture of the cow itself were on the package, and a randomly-generated name printed below the photo.
- DonHopkins 8y agoKill two birds with one stone: Put picture and names of missing children on packages of meat, and some people might think they were buying human flesh.
- pantalaimon 8y ago> I'm sure people would consume less if the simply put slaughter pictures on each piece of meat they buy. To be honest the slaughtering didn't put me off as much as learning under which conditions those animals have to spend their lives. They should put pictures of that on the meat products, or show Dominion in schools.
- pvaldes 8y ago> I'm sure people would consume less Most probably such blatant attempt on "psychological manipulation for toddlers" would backfire loudly. Adult omnivorous people know yet how a skinned cow corpse looks, keep enjoying meat, and couldn't care less. Other people would slowly desensitize by the continuous exposure and could even increase the consumption.
- pantalaimon 8y agoIt's not about how the animals look when they are dead. It's about what they have to endure while they are alive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko
- evolve2k 8y agoWhen I visited a friends dairy farm in New Zealand that was not my experience. In conventional farming the cows do live outdoors and are free to graze in large paddocks. Twice a day though the cows are full of milk and will be in pain if not milked. The cows are milked in the dairy twice a day and this is where this innovation applies. When out and about they go wherever, when in the dairy though the urine mixing with the poo seems to be an environmental problem. A conventional dairy farm does not confine the animals it just collects their milk each day and the cows know the routine.
- cwkoss 8y agoI understand there are good reasons to put happy cows in confined spaces for limited periods of time. If this was just a collection apparatus, I wouldn't be so horrified. But electric stimulation of the nerve to induce urination seems messed up.
- rebuilder 8y agoIs it electric stimulation? From the video it seems touch is sufficient.
- cdf2theworld 8y agoAh but this is the seeing point of New Zealand: they have a low population of people, and a lot of open grazing land. Heck there are more sheep than people there! That is a no go in the US.
- evolve2k 8y agoYou raise an important point alot of our food issues come from abstraction and seeing the products not as having coming from a living thing but rather as a commodity. We loose track of the implementation details of how the food is sourced.
- mikepurvis 8y ago> "prison beef" It's funny the dissonance of having the video cut between shots of the entrepreneur pitching the product while walking through an open green field, and shots of the cows in standing-room-only stalls.
- skrebbel 8y agoYou have never been on a farm, have you? Like people, the cows go outside and back into the stalls.
- reaperducer 8y agoIt seems like a much better solution to this 'problem' is let cows live outdoors and graze on grass. People raise cattle in Alaska.