7 ms·

You also cause way less suffering in the world, which is something I believe is very much worth striving for.

arethuza 7y ago
Eating far less meat, but meat that is produced to far higher standards of animal welfare would seem a reasonable compromise to me.
- ianai 7y ago
  There’s really no amount of nice treatment that makes taking a calf away from its mother alright. I’m not aware of any ways to produce dairy without systematic animal abuse.
  - ShlomoS 7y ago
    By not taking the calves away from their mothers? That's how we did it for centuries, we only started taking calves away from their mothers when artificial milk replacements made it more profitable to do so.
  - kaybe 7y ago
    I found a method that leaves them together for 3 months. That's an improvement at least. (Of course that means that the calf will take most -but not all- of the milk during that time. But then it is stated that the cost for the vet goes down a lot in exchange.) Another option I found is to give several calves to one cow for 6 months, which has advantages and disadvantages compared to the first way. (Longer time with milk and natural suckling behaviour but calves without their mother and the smaller ones might get less milk.) edit: Here is a list with places in Germany that do that: https://welttierschutz.org/hofliste-mit-mutter-oder-ammengebundener-kaelberaufzucht/ https://welttierschutz.org/hofliste-mit-mutter-oder-ammengeb... I'm not sure how to translate the key words for english googling.
    - ianai 7y ago
      That’s still plenty abusive.
      - kaybe 7y ago
        Thinking about it a while, I'd say let's not let the perfect stand in the way of the better.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
coldtea 7y ago
Animals eating other animals is natural evolutionary behavior. If carnivore animals had the same concerns and turned to tofu, they'd be dead. Let's concentrate of the suffering of our fellow human beings...
- paulluuk 7y ago
  Humans are not carnivores, and lions don't have grocery stores. If ducks stopped raping other ducks, they'd go extinct too. Not really sure if that's an argument in favor of human rapists, though.
  - dao- 7y ago
    Lions have no concept of morality either. We should care about unnecessary suffering because we can.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >We should care about unnecessary suffering because we can. "We should because we can"? There are many things that we "can" do that we better not do. There's no automatic logical deduction from "we can" to "so we should".
      - dao- 7y ago
        Avoiding unnecessary suffering is sometimes used as the basis for whole ethics systems. It's inherently good and doesn't need to be deduced from anything.
        coldtea 7y ago
        Well, who calls what's "unnecessary"? Killing animals for their meat is not like torturing animals for no reason (which indeed would be unnecessary). And how steep would the slope be? E.g. what about killing rodents and house pests?
  - coldtea 7y ago
moltar 7y ago
And during plant collection lots of animals die: - rodents die in wheat field during harvest - recently there was an article on HN of olive harvests killing hundreds of birds - entire forests are destroyed with wildlife by burning to grow palms for palm oil
- paulluuk 7y ago
  Yes, during plant collection animals die as well. Not nearly as many, of course, and the same products are eaten by meat eaters as well, and most plants are grown for animal feeding, but yes, it's impossible to live a regular human life and not indirectly hurt animals, humans or the environment. You can try to minimize it, though.
thrower123 7y ago
If you have so much as tried to grow a garden, much less farm at scale, you have a lot less sympathy for animals and their destructiveness. When you have racoons coming along at night knocking down your corn for the sheer hell of it, and not even eating it, or porcupines doing the same thing, or crows plucking out the stocks just as soon as they poke out of the ground, or deer mowing flat anything that isn't encased in an eight foot high fence, they lose their cute and cuddly charismatic aspects, and you start to view them like a horde of locusts, stealing the bread from your table, and prosecuting them with extreme prejudice becomes very, very attractive.
- paulluuk 7y ago
  It's almost as if you've built your garden right in the middle of their habitat. But seriously, I come from a family of farmers, and I know that the things that farmers do to animals is way worse than anything you've described here.
Chris_Chambers 7y ago
Thinking that way is a gateway to some very idiotic outcomes. Save your empathy for your loved ones and no one else. You’re probably the kind of person who gets on the city council and constantly votes to expand homeless shelters in the heart of downtown despite the accelerating increase in crime their presence causes.

Eating far less meat, but meat that is produced to far higher standards of animal welfare would seem a reasonable compromise to me.

ianai 7y ago
There’s really no amount of nice treatment that makes taking a calf away from its mother alright. I’m not aware of any ways to produce dairy without systematic animal abuse.
- ShlomoS 7y ago
  By not taking the calves away from their mothers? That's how we did it for centuries, we only started taking calves away from their mothers when artificial milk replacements made it more profitable to do so.
- kaybe 7y ago
  I found a method that leaves them together for 3 months. That's an improvement at least. (Of course that means that the calf will take most -but not all- of the milk during that time. But then it is stated that the cost for the vet goes down a lot in exchange.) Another option I found is to give several calves to one cow for 6 months, which has advantages and disadvantages compared to the first way. (Longer time with milk and natural suckling behaviour but calves without their mother and the smaller ones might get less milk.) edit: Here is a list with places in Germany that do that: https://welttierschutz.org/hofliste-mit-mutter-oder-ammengebundener-kaelberaufzucht/ https://welttierschutz.org/hofliste-mit-mutter-oder-ammengeb... I'm not sure how to translate the key words for english googling.
  - ianai 7y ago
    That’s still plenty abusive.
    - kaybe 7y ago
      Thinking about it a while, I'd say let's not let the perfect stand in the way of the better.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

coldtea 7y ago

Animals eating other animals is natural evolutionary behavior. If carnivore animals had the same concerns and turned to tofu, they'd be dead. Let's concentrate of the suffering of our fellow human beings...

paulluuk 7y ago
Humans are not carnivores, and lions don't have grocery stores. If ducks stopped raping other ducks, they'd go extinct too. Not really sure if that's an argument in favor of human rapists, though.
- dao- 7y ago
  Lions have no concept of morality either. We should care about unnecessary suffering because we can.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >We should care about unnecessary suffering because we can. "We should because we can"? There are many things that we "can" do that we better not do. There's no automatic logical deduction from "we can" to "so we should".
    - dao- 7y ago
      Avoiding unnecessary suffering is sometimes used as the basis for whole ethics systems. It's inherently good and doesn't need to be deduced from anything.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        Well, who calls what's "unnecessary"? Killing animals for their meat is not like torturing animals for no reason (which indeed would be unnecessary). And how steep would the slope be? E.g. what about killing rodents and house pests?
- coldtea 7y ago

moltar 7y ago

And during plant collection lots of animals die: - rodents die in wheat field during harvest - recently there was an article on HN of olive harvests killing hundreds of birds - entire forests are destroyed with wildlife by burning to grow palms for palm oil

paulluuk 7y ago
Yes, during plant collection animals die as well. Not nearly as many, of course, and the same products are eaten by meat eaters as well, and most plants are grown for animal feeding, but yes, it's impossible to live a regular human life and not indirectly hurt animals, humans or the environment. You can try to minimize it, though.

thrower123 7y ago

If you have so much as tried to grow a garden, much less farm at scale, you have a lot less sympathy for animals and their destructiveness. When you have racoons coming along at night knocking down your corn for the sheer hell of it, and not even eating it, or porcupines doing the same thing, or crows plucking out the stocks just as soon as they poke out of the ground, or deer mowing flat anything that isn't encased in an eight foot high fence, they lose their cute and cuddly charismatic aspects, and you start to view them like a horde of locusts, stealing the bread from your table, and prosecuting them with extreme prejudice becomes very, very attractive.

paulluuk 7y ago
It's almost as if you've built your garden right in the middle of their habitat. But seriously, I come from a family of farmers, and I know that the things that farmers do to animals is way worse than anything you've described here.

Chris_Chambers 7y ago

Thinking that way is a gateway to some very idiotic outcomes. Save your empathy for your loved ones and no one else. You’re probably the kind of person who gets on the city council and constantly votes to expand homeless shelters in the heart of downtown despite the accelerating increase in crime their presence causes.