9 ms·

There are now clear environmental and animal rights reasons to avoid red meat and dairy. Unfortunately, animal rights motivations don't seem to cut it for most

by moab 7y ago

There are now clear environmental and animal rights reasons to avoid red meat and dairy. Unfortunately, animal rights motivations don't seem to cut it for most of my colleagues and friends, who are by and large highly educated. Arguments about whether cows are "alive" or "feel pain" the same way humans do inevitably conclude with an acknowledgement that they probably do in all likelihood, but too bad, they taste good/produce animal products we like, and thus it sucks to be them. Or "too bad our ancestors have been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years". Thankfully, most are swayed by environmental arguments and have eliminated their red meat consumption. Far fewer have given up milk, probably out of long-standing habits of milk consumption with cereal/coffee. Just like the choice of whether we hurt or inflict pain and enslavement on a fellow human (a choice which has taken centuries to reverse), there's a choice of whether we enslave another sentient species for the sake of our tastebuds and convenience. I hope the decline of the milk industry continues, and that more of these farmers can successfully switch into more ethical and planet-friendly sources of revenue.

ip26 7y ago
Cheese & butter are pretty dang hard to replace, and yogurt fills a special nutritional niche. By the way, you profess to object to red meat and milk, but you're basically advocating veganism.
- cageface 7y ago
  What is this special nutritional niche that yogurt occupies? The majority of humans don't eat it and seem to be doing ok.
  - alwillis 7y ago
    Yogurt is milk that’s been fermented; the result releases probiotics that can help support helpful gut bacteria. But there other fermented foods one can eat that are dairy-free, like tempeh, kimchi and miso.
    - rsynnott 7y ago
      And how useful the whole dietary probiotic thing is is fairly controversial, anyway.
  - xzel 7y ago
    Yogurt contains probiotics so I'm assuming that is the niche he is talking about, i.e, fermented foods. Also I think a lot of the world does eat yogurt. It is very common in US, Canada, Australia, Europe and Asia. I'm not sure about Africa and South America. Apparently, more than 50% of the US population does (or at least yogurt and smoothies, which I'm assuming they meant yogurt based smoothies but who knows) https://www.statista.com/statistics/279748/us-households-consumption-of-yogurt-and-smoothies https://www.statista.com/statistics/279748/us-households-con...
    - cageface 7y ago
      Here in SE Asia yogurt is much less popular but there are lots of other non-dairy fermented, probiotic foods that people eat regularly like kimchi, natto, etc. So yogurt may be one of the few probiotic foods people eat in the West but it's hardly special.
      - sumedh 7y ago
        Yoghurt is pretty big in India as well.
  - ip26 7y ago
    I was mainly thinking of K2.
  - malkia 7y ago
    Can't tell right now, but in Bulgaria is what we get almost all day - either for breakfast, just like this, or for kids might add sugar (but no need to). Mix it with water - 50/50 or some other ratio - and you get yogurt drink - "airian", seeing here (in the US) that stores (mostly iranian) have such but salted, or carbonated. Found also the best representative (to me at least) yogurt at Whole Foods - yes, it's marked "Bulgarian", and it's pretty good :) I'm also following low-carb/keto diet, so while I like it, I have to be careful with it, though it's much better (cheat) than other things... (like ... pastry)
- moab 7y ago
  I'm actually working toward a sort of "orthodox"-Jainism in which you only eat substances that plants are actively trying to give to other animals to help them propagate themselves (so eating fruits/bellpeppers, etc. are all ok, but killing a plant to consume it is not). Anyway I understand that talking about animals and plants in this fashion is not a popular position on HN, and folks have and are likely to downvote me.
  - egdod 7y ago
    Water doesn’t actively try to give itself to be drunk. Is it ok to consume?
    - Pfhreak 7y ago
      Yo, don't do that here. Someone responded politely about their personal beliefs, asking a interrogative question like this is needlessly rude.
      - nitrogen 7y ago
        If it was never okay to as questions, then any discussion ever could be shut down with "personal belief". If some beliefs can be examined and others are deemed too sensitive, then eventually the untouchable beliefs multiply and take over all discussions. Beliefs are meant to be examined and evaluated, not coddled.
        Intermernet 7y ago
        Yep, but make sure you conduct your examination and evaluation in a polite and civil manner. Otherwise you're just being contrarian and rude. I believe in free speech, but I also believe that rude, insulting, thoughtless or incendiary speech deserves to be soundly ignored.
        bluntfang 7y ago
        Surely there's a difference between asking a question and saying things to be an asshole. Let's all strive to be less of an asshole as a society, ok?
tlarkworthy 7y ago
Yes, milk is hard to replace for the specific nutritional value it brings when raising small children. You can't go wrong feeding them cow's milk https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/vegetarian-vegan-children/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/vegetarian-...
- cageface 7y ago
  The majority of humans are lactose intolerant and can't drink cow's milk. So clearly it's not essential for humans of any age.
  - tlarkworthy 7y ago
    You are born un-abled to eat solids, so clearly drinking something for sustinence is essential for all humans at some point. Obviously breast milk is best, but not always possible, so then pick your substitute. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/drinks-and-cups-children/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/drinks-and-...
  - loeg 7y ago
    Not the majority of newborns...
  - brabel 7y ago
    Most people who are labeled lactose intolerant can still drink up to 100ml of milk per day without major problems. People who really cannot drink any amount of milk are allergic to it, but are extremely rare.
  - Broken_Hippo 7y ago
    IIRC, most small children (toddlers and infants especially) are not lactose intolerant. In general, giving a breast milk substitute is a good thing if breast milk isn't available. In fact, at a young enough age, milk is vital to survival in most cases. But as folks grow older, they can stop making the enzymes that break down milk. This happens less often if milk is kept in the diet and more often if you have genes that increase your chances of intolerance. This usually happens more often where milk isn't a staple food source for the population. Edit: Forgot a sentence.
Marsymars 7y ago
> Far fewer have given up milk, probably out of long-standing habits of milk consumption with cereal/coffee. I've given up milk except for coffee for what is purely vanity - casein in milk binds to tannins in coffee and reduces tooth staining. (Though I've kicked my daily coffee habit too - I mostly just get decaf lattes if I'm meeting someone socially for coffee, or the like.)
trevyn 7y ago
>Arguments about whether cows are "alive" or "feel pain" the same way humans do inevitably conclude with an acknowledgement that they probably do in all likelihood Strawman; they logically are not “alive” in the same way humans are and cannot “feel pain” the same way humans do.
- moab 7y ago
  By the argument you make below ("The brains are different.") you could use this argument to deny the humanity, or capability of feeling pain of anyone that isn't yourself. This argument quickly slides into solipsism, which is not a useful philosophical position to take in a world inhabited by agents that pass our individual Turing tests.
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  Okay, show your proof.
  - trevyn 7y ago
    The brains are different.
    - Supermancho 7y ago
      > they logically are not “alive” in the same way humans are My brain is not the same as yours. People who have live with 1 hemisphere are (likely) different than your brain (or however you want to define brain similarity). Your reasoning is not a sufficient bar to make an appeal to logic, on its own. Currently, science has favored Jaak Panksepp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaak_Panksepp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaak_Panksepp) above John B. Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson).
- arbitrary_name 7y ago
  What? Of course they feel pain. Do you have a cat or dog? They feel pain. So why wouldn't cows? Or pigs, which are arguably smarter than any of the above? To eat meat, one must acknowledge that it means causing pain and suffering. If you're fine with that, go right ahead. But you cannot pretend there are no consequences. i say this, by the way, as an occasional meat eater. But at least I'm honest with myself and others...
pm90 7y ago
I actually found it easy to give up milk but meat is hard to give up. There are so many foods that have meat as the core substance and I like the texture. I don’t think I can really reconcile my concern about animal rights, environment with the desire for meat. It’s a part of me that I like to not think about. Occasionally the pull manifests itself into a nudge to try the non-meat options when they are available.
nine_k 7y ago
I wonder what are your views on wildlife, where animals live often in quite poor conditions, and are regularly brutally killed and eaten. Isn't properly organized farm life a better option for e.g. a sheep? I'm not being ironic here; I'm genuinely curious.
- cageface 7y ago
  Watch this and decide for yourself: https://vimeo.com/209647801 https://vimeo.com/209647801 This is the reality of farm life for most animals, despite what you often see in commercials etc.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Grew up in farm country. That video is not the reality of farm life for most animals, especially not most farm animals. It is a video of the stereotypical view of farm life that most people who haven't lived within 100 miles of a farm think that farm life looks like.
    - cageface 7y ago
      Sorry but that's just not true: Using data from the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, which was released this month, it is estimated that 70.4 percent of cows, 98.3 percent of pigs, 99.8 percent of turkeys, 98.2 percent of chickens raised for eggs, and over 99.9 percent of chickens raised for meat are raised in factory farms. The percentage of animals raised on small family farms is negligible. That people like you aren't aware of this just shows how well this industry is hiding the truth. https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estima...
      - gamblor956 7y ago
        Your citations in no way refute my comment. The video is not representative of factory farms across the US. It is representative of some factory farms, but not the vast majority of them. That people like you aren't aware that most factory farms operate differently from the few depicted in a vegan propaganda video just shows how well the progaganda is working.
enaaem 7y ago
You are trying to guild trip lions. Majority people do not feel bad about the concept of killing and eating animals. And I am not talking about the terrible conditions of factory farms, which I think most people do oppose, but about the general concept of eating meat.
- morsch 7y ago
  The amount and frequency and price at which we consume meat necessitates very high intensity production. Most people, myself included, prefer not to think about it.
brailsafe 7y ago
I quite enjoy meat of many forms, and am largely indifferent to how that gets to me unless it's unsanitary. That said, I'm all for treating the animals as humanely as possible and optimizing the yield of various animal products until such a time comes that there are better options. I won't pay for it until I have to, but others will, and that's great. Temple Grandin has built a career on designing slaughterhouses for reducing the distress a cow is caused while it's being killed, and anything farmers can do to treat their animals well and produce better tasting beef seems pretty reasonable. Seems to me a lot like the automotive industry, in that electric cars are kind of viable sometimes, but not better or not suitable in a lot of areas just yet.
BlackFly 7y ago
The environmental arguments are hardly clear to anyone with experience farming since they appear to hinge on equating ranch land with arable land and cattle feed with millable grain. Industrial farming is easy to revile and many people are indeed searching for more sustainable and ethical alternatives. My family raised a small amount of cattle growing up and most of the "clear" arguments against livestock seem incredibly ignorant to me and contrary to the basic facts of my life. The ethical picture of killing animals is equally murky since obviously to feed the masses industrial farming is necessary and that means pesticides and vermin control. So, no matter what you're going to be killing animals and it becomes a question of utilitarian balance or drawing a line and saying those animals (rats and all insects probably) don't matter. Meanwhile, we still live in an era of slavery, but most people fill up their cars and eat chocolate without any cognitive dissonance. Why would the ethics of meat and dairy be uniquely more clear to people than human slavery and murder? Finally, people who actually care about their diet probably want a natural source of vitamin B12. South Park actually put the best satirical point on this side of the discussion. People switch over to things like the impossible burger and think they have improved their diet, but they are just switching out one crappy processed diet for another. For many people the clear reality of needing more fortified foods seems to be a degradation, not an improvement. Do I think these apologetics are going to change anyone's mind? No, just like your apologetics to people around you aren't convincing them in all but a few exceptional cases. Maybe at least people can agree that the discussion is anything but clear and try to be civil but polarisation is more of the zeitgeist than civil disagreement. Logistics and economy are not easy, ethics either, nor nutrition. The only truly clear thing in all of this to me is that the best thing I can do is not have any children, but it is equally clear that other people are not going to stop that.
- sc4les 7y ago
  There's a bunch of fallacies in here. Dude, you need ~10x the amount of calories recycled through an animal than eating those plants directly. Where do you think the calcium comes from? "Basic facts of life" is such a BS term. Sure, you need a happy picture in your head to justify the practice, but it just doesn't make any sense. Next the typical blabla about crop deaths. Did you know that the vast majority of crops to go animals? Wanna save the majority of cute mice and little birds? Eat plants directly, don't waste most of them to kill even more animals. Oh and you're pro-slavery as well? You seem to be a nice person. Do you also justify murder because other people jaywalk? B12 hahahaha please do some research! We feed those poor creates so much antibiotics so they don't die in their tiny cages that their gut bacteria barely produces any - so almost all B12 goes into their feed. You take B12, indirectly. Please tell me more about how natural that is and how impossible burger doesn't stack up to your "natural" diet. That stuff is made to have an alternative for McDonalds, not to be a healthfood. Man. You build a very weak story for you, which sounds like the typical BS excuse. "Ethics isn't easy" - you have the choice, three times a day, to either fund one of the most terrible practices on earth or drink slightly different plant juice for your breakfast and go with beans or impossible burger, whatever your health preference is. No need for complex ethics man. It's an easy change, just uncomfortable at first. Stop the stupid excuses. If everyone cuts their emissions by 80%, we don't need to stop having children and be the last ones to enjoy the world. In which scenario does that argument make any sense?
TheGallopedHigh 7y ago
On the aspect of pain and suffering: many small animals are killed in the act of harvesting a field mechanically. So if we posit that those animals are sentient and feel suffering, and far out number the number of bovine slaughtered, would we not cause more suffering haversting a field? This is serious question. Also: mono cultures of plants a can destroy landscapes and ruminating animals such as cows can be quite beneficial for the landscape. Edit: “mono” instead of “no”
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  > So if we posit that those animals are sentient and feel suffering, and far out number the number of bovine slaughtered, would we not cause more suffering haversting a field. What do you feed the cows with? The same things that humans instead could eat. So, not only are you hurting the cow, but you are also hurting the critters in the process of feeding the cow. > Also: mono cultures of plants a can destroy landscapes Okay, rotate the plants and have off-periods to not over harvest.
  - TheGallopedHigh 7y ago
    What do you feed cows with? Well most places other than America let them feed on grass which humans can’t consume... Cows don’t commonly eat small mammals.
- TheGallopedHigh 7y ago
  Downvotes because of posing serious questions? I would enjoy a discussion about it rather than drive by downvotes.
- bluntfang 7y ago
  We as a society have already solved this in our judicial system via a difference in punishment for murder, manslaughter. Let's strive to do less murder first, and then we can work on the harder problems like accidental animal death via externalities of production. Or we can work on both at the same time! Can we agree that intentional death is more of a low hanging fruit than accidental death, though?
jostylr 7y ago
Here is a question I would genuinely like answered. Isn't there a major tension between the environmental point of view and animal rights point of view? The environmental viewpoint seems clear and reasonable; keeping large animals alive is expensive in terms of resources and waste. So get rid of them. Reduce the population of cows from a billion to a million. But this seems to go against the idea of animal rights. After all, to make an environmental improvement, we would need to eliminate most of the cattle, i.e., kill them and not replace them. If you care about the conditions of a cow's life, is it moral to solve the problem by eliminating that life? How are these two viewpoints allies?
- mattmaroon 7y ago
  Attrition. Animals don’t live that long.
  - jostylr 7y ago
    20 years is natural lifespan of a cow. Supposedly 2030 is some kind of limit for climate change.
- latch 7y ago
  I don't think anyone is conflicted by this? Like you say: kill them and don't replace them. They're going to be slaughtered anyways. This year we slaughter 39 million, next year 25 million, the year after that 10 million, ... I don't think anyone [serious] (of those two groups) is going to complain too hard.
- bluntfang 7y ago
  Why do you feel like humans need to be responsible for upkeeping cattle populations, who's sole existence is for human consumption? As others have said...consume them and then don't replace them seems like a good plan.
specialist 7y ago
I was vegetarian for a stretch. Am a treehugger and child of farmers. Have no problem eating animals. Was mostly motivated by food safety and contempt for the misc industries. My health suffered. After watching Dr Terry Wahls TED talk about nutrition and mitochondria, I resumed eating animal protein. Like her, my health improved. Many, many people are successfully vegetarian (et al), so YMMV. I'll resume being vegetarian once nutrition science figures how I can do so safely. I'm very bullish on engineered meat, as in grown in a vat.
- bluntfang 7y ago
  What were your health problems that were solved by adding meat to your diet?
  - specialist 7y ago
    Psoriasis, edema, and general purpose malaise. The psoriasis was bleeding, covered my legs, arms, and entire scalp. I should have qualified my statement as "Believe, but cannot prove." None of this stuff is simple. (Accept maybe HFCS and calorie restriction.) Of all the things I've tried, it's hard to know which helped most and how. I also take breaks, just to be sure the things I'm doing are actually helping. Some years later, I have minimal psoriasis and no edema. I no longer take immunosuppressants or do UVB light therapy, but I do still use topical steroids occassionally. And when I slip from my nutrition plan, I feel like shit and the itchiness resumes. YMMV. Do what works for you, keep experimenting.

by moab 7y ago

ip26 7y ago

Cheese & butter are pretty dang hard to replace, and yogurt fills a special nutritional niche. By the way, you profess to object to red meat and milk, but you're basically advocating veganism.

cageface 7y ago
What is this special nutritional niche that yogurt occupies? The majority of humans don't eat it and seem to be doing ok.
- alwillis 7y ago
  Yogurt is milk that’s been fermented; the result releases probiotics that can help support helpful gut bacteria. But there other fermented foods one can eat that are dairy-free, like tempeh, kimchi and miso.
  - rsynnott 7y ago
    And how useful the whole dietary probiotic thing is is fairly controversial, anyway.
- xzel 7y ago
  Yogurt contains probiotics so I'm assuming that is the niche he is talking about, i.e, fermented foods. Also I think a lot of the world does eat yogurt. It is very common in US, Canada, Australia, Europe and Asia. I'm not sure about Africa and South America. Apparently, more than 50% of the US population does (or at least yogurt and smoothies, which I'm assuming they meant yogurt based smoothies but who knows) https://www.statista.com/statistics/279748/us-households-consumption-of-yogurt-and-smoothies https://www.statista.com/statistics/279748/us-households-con...
  - cageface 7y ago
    Here in SE Asia yogurt is much less popular but there are lots of other non-dairy fermented, probiotic foods that people eat regularly like kimchi, natto, etc. So yogurt may be one of the few probiotic foods people eat in the West but it's hardly special.
    - sumedh 7y ago
      Yoghurt is pretty big in India as well.
- ip26 7y ago
  I was mainly thinking of K2.
- malkia 7y ago
  Can't tell right now, but in Bulgaria is what we get almost all day - either for breakfast, just like this, or for kids might add sugar (but no need to). Mix it with water - 50/50 or some other ratio - and you get yogurt drink - "airian", seeing here (in the US) that stores (mostly iranian) have such but salted, or carbonated. Found also the best representative (to me at least) yogurt at Whole Foods - yes, it's marked "Bulgarian", and it's pretty good :) I'm also following low-carb/keto diet, so while I like it, I have to be careful with it, though it's much better (cheat) than other things... (like ... pastry)
moab 7y ago
I'm actually working toward a sort of "orthodox"-Jainism in which you only eat substances that plants are actively trying to give to other animals to help them propagate themselves (so eating fruits/bellpeppers, etc. are all ok, but killing a plant to consume it is not). Anyway I understand that talking about animals and plants in this fashion is not a popular position on HN, and folks have and are likely to downvote me.
- egdod 7y ago
  Water doesn’t actively try to give itself to be drunk. Is it ok to consume?
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    Yo, don't do that here. Someone responded politely about their personal beliefs, asking a interrogative question like this is needlessly rude.
    - nitrogen 7y ago
      If it was never okay to as questions, then any discussion ever could be shut down with "personal belief". If some beliefs can be examined and others are deemed too sensitive, then eventually the untouchable beliefs multiply and take over all discussions. Beliefs are meant to be examined and evaluated, not coddled.
      - Intermernet 7y ago
        Yep, but make sure you conduct your examination and evaluation in a polite and civil manner. Otherwise you're just being contrarian and rude. I believe in free speech, but I also believe that rude, insulting, thoughtless or incendiary speech deserves to be soundly ignored.
      - bluntfang 7y ago
        Surely there's a difference between asking a question and saying things to be an asshole. Let's all strive to be less of an asshole as a society, ok?

tlarkworthy 7y ago

Yes, milk is hard to replace for the specific nutritional value it brings when raising small children. You can't go wrong feeding them cow's milk https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/vegetarian-vegan-children/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/vegetarian-...

cageface 7y ago
The majority of humans are lactose intolerant and can't drink cow's milk. So clearly it's not essential for humans of any age.
- tlarkworthy 7y ago
  You are born un-abled to eat solids, so clearly drinking something for sustinence is essential for all humans at some point. Obviously breast milk is best, but not always possible, so then pick your substitute. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/drinks-and-cups-children/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/drinks-and-...
- loeg 7y ago
  Not the majority of newborns...
- brabel 7y ago
  Most people who are labeled lactose intolerant can still drink up to 100ml of milk per day without major problems. People who really cannot drink any amount of milk are allergic to it, but are extremely rare.
- Broken_Hippo 7y ago
  IIRC, most small children (toddlers and infants especially) are not lactose intolerant. In general, giving a breast milk substitute is a good thing if breast milk isn't available. In fact, at a young enough age, milk is vital to survival in most cases. But as folks grow older, they can stop making the enzymes that break down milk. This happens less often if milk is kept in the diet and more often if you have genes that increase your chances of intolerance. This usually happens more often where milk isn't a staple food source for the population. Edit: Forgot a sentence.

Marsymars 7y ago

> Far fewer have given up milk, probably out of long-standing habits of milk consumption with cereal/coffee. I've given up milk except for coffee for what is purely vanity - casein in milk binds to tannins in coffee and reduces tooth staining. (Though I've kicked my daily coffee habit too - I mostly just get decaf lattes if I'm meeting someone socially for coffee, or the like.)

trevyn 7y ago

>Arguments about whether cows are "alive" or "feel pain" the same way humans do inevitably conclude with an acknowledgement that they probably do in all likelihood Strawman; they logically are not “alive” in the same way humans are and cannot “feel pain” the same way humans do.

moab 7y ago
By the argument you make below ("The brains are different.") you could use this argument to deny the humanity, or capability of feeling pain of anyone that isn't yourself. This argument quickly slides into solipsism, which is not a useful philosophical position to take in a world inhabited by agents that pass our individual Turing tests.
throwaway5752 7y ago
Okay, show your proof.
- trevyn 7y ago
  The brains are different.
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    > they logically are not “alive” in the same way humans are My brain is not the same as yours. People who have live with 1 hemisphere are (likely) different than your brain (or however you want to define brain similarity). Your reasoning is not a sufficient bar to make an appeal to logic, on its own. Currently, science has favored Jaak Panksepp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaak_Panksepp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaak_Panksepp) above John B. Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson).
arbitrary_name 7y ago
What? Of course they feel pain. Do you have a cat or dog? They feel pain. So why wouldn't cows? Or pigs, which are arguably smarter than any of the above? To eat meat, one must acknowledge that it means causing pain and suffering. If you're fine with that, go right ahead. But you cannot pretend there are no consequences. i say this, by the way, as an occasional meat eater. But at least I'm honest with myself and others...

pm90 7y ago

I actually found it easy to give up milk but meat is hard to give up. There are so many foods that have meat as the core substance and I like the texture. I don’t think I can really reconcile my concern about animal rights, environment with the desire for meat. It’s a part of me that I like to not think about. Occasionally the pull manifests itself into a nudge to try the non-meat options when they are available.

nine_k 7y ago

I wonder what are your views on wildlife, where animals live often in quite poor conditions, and are regularly brutally killed and eaten. Isn't properly organized farm life a better option for e.g. a sheep? I'm not being ironic here; I'm genuinely curious.

cageface 7y ago
Watch this and decide for yourself: https://vimeo.com/209647801 https://vimeo.com/209647801 This is the reality of farm life for most animals, despite what you often see in commercials etc.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Grew up in farm country. That video is not the reality of farm life for most animals, especially not most farm animals. It is a video of the stereotypical view of farm life that most people who haven't lived within 100 miles of a farm think that farm life looks like.
  - cageface 7y ago
    Sorry but that's just not true: Using data from the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, which was released this month, it is estimated that 70.4 percent of cows, 98.3 percent of pigs, 99.8 percent of turkeys, 98.2 percent of chickens raised for eggs, and over 99.9 percent of chickens raised for meat are raised in factory farms. The percentage of animals raised on small family farms is negligible. That people like you aren't aware of this just shows how well this industry is hiding the truth. https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estima...
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      Your citations in no way refute my comment. The video is not representative of factory farms across the US. It is representative of some factory farms, but not the vast majority of them. That people like you aren't aware that most factory farms operate differently from the few depicted in a vegan propaganda video just shows how well the progaganda is working.

enaaem 7y ago

You are trying to guild trip lions. Majority people do not feel bad about the concept of killing and eating animals. And I am not talking about the terrible conditions of factory farms, which I think most people do oppose, but about the general concept of eating meat.

morsch 7y ago
The amount and frequency and price at which we consume meat necessitates very high intensity production. Most people, myself included, prefer not to think about it.

brailsafe 7y ago

I quite enjoy meat of many forms, and am largely indifferent to how that gets to me unless it's unsanitary. That said, I'm all for treating the animals as humanely as possible and optimizing the yield of various animal products until such a time comes that there are better options. I won't pay for it until I have to, but others will, and that's great. Temple Grandin has built a career on designing slaughterhouses for reducing the distress a cow is caused while it's being killed, and anything farmers can do to treat their animals well and produce better tasting beef seems pretty reasonable. Seems to me a lot like the automotive industry, in that electric cars are kind of viable sometimes, but not better or not suitable in a lot of areas just yet.

BlackFly 7y ago

The environmental arguments are hardly clear to anyone with experience farming since they appear to hinge on equating ranch land with arable land and cattle feed with millable grain. Industrial farming is easy to revile and many people are indeed searching for more sustainable and ethical alternatives. My family raised a small amount of cattle growing up and most of the "clear" arguments against livestock seem incredibly ignorant to me and contrary to the basic facts of my life. The ethical picture of killing animals is equally murky since obviously to feed the masses industrial farming is necessary and that means pesticides and vermin control. So, no matter what you're going to be killing animals and it becomes a question of utilitarian balance or drawing a line and saying those animals (rats and all insects probably) don't matter. Meanwhile, we still live in an era of slavery, but most people fill up their cars and eat chocolate without any cognitive dissonance. Why would the ethics of meat and dairy be uniquely more clear to people than human slavery and murder? Finally, people who actually care about their diet probably want a natural source of vitamin B12. South Park actually put the best satirical point on this side of the discussion. People switch over to things like the impossible burger and think they have improved their diet, but they are just switching out one crappy processed diet for another. For many people the clear reality of needing more fortified foods seems to be a degradation, not an improvement. Do I think these apologetics are going to change anyone's mind? No, just like your apologetics to people around you aren't convincing them in all but a few exceptional cases. Maybe at least people can agree that the discussion is anything but clear and try to be civil but polarisation is more of the zeitgeist than civil disagreement. Logistics and economy are not easy, ethics either, nor nutrition. The only truly clear thing in all of this to me is that the best thing I can do is not have any children, but it is equally clear that other people are not going to stop that.

sc4les 7y ago
There's a bunch of fallacies in here. Dude, you need ~10x the amount of calories recycled through an animal than eating those plants directly. Where do you think the calcium comes from? "Basic facts of life" is such a BS term. Sure, you need a happy picture in your head to justify the practice, but it just doesn't make any sense. Next the typical blabla about crop deaths. Did you know that the vast majority of crops to go animals? Wanna save the majority of cute mice and little birds? Eat plants directly, don't waste most of them to kill even more animals. Oh and you're pro-slavery as well? You seem to be a nice person. Do you also justify murder because other people jaywalk? B12 hahahaha please do some research! We feed those poor creates so much antibiotics so they don't die in their tiny cages that their gut bacteria barely produces any - so almost all B12 goes into their feed. You take B12, indirectly. Please tell me more about how natural that is and how impossible burger doesn't stack up to your "natural" diet. That stuff is made to have an alternative for McDonalds, not to be a healthfood. Man. You build a very weak story for you, which sounds like the typical BS excuse. "Ethics isn't easy" - you have the choice, three times a day, to either fund one of the most terrible practices on earth or drink slightly different plant juice for your breakfast and go with beans or impossible burger, whatever your health preference is. No need for complex ethics man. It's an easy change, just uncomfortable at first. Stop the stupid excuses. If everyone cuts their emissions by 80%, we don't need to stop having children and be the last ones to enjoy the world. In which scenario does that argument make any sense?

TheGallopedHigh 7y ago

On the aspect of pain and suffering: many small animals are killed in the act of harvesting a field mechanically. So if we posit that those animals are sentient and feel suffering, and far out number the number of bovine slaughtered, would we not cause more suffering haversting a field? This is serious question. Also: mono cultures of plants a can destroy landscapes and ruminating animals such as cows can be quite beneficial for the landscape. Edit: “mono” instead of “no”

ianleeclark 7y ago
> So if we posit that those animals are sentient and feel suffering, and far out number the number of bovine slaughtered, would we not cause more suffering haversting a field. What do you feed the cows with? The same things that humans instead could eat. So, not only are you hurting the cow, but you are also hurting the critters in the process of feeding the cow. > Also: mono cultures of plants a can destroy landscapes Okay, rotate the plants and have off-periods to not over harvest.
- TheGallopedHigh 7y ago
  What do you feed cows with? Well most places other than America let them feed on grass which humans can’t consume... Cows don’t commonly eat small mammals.
TheGallopedHigh 7y ago
Downvotes because of posing serious questions? I would enjoy a discussion about it rather than drive by downvotes.
bluntfang 7y ago
We as a society have already solved this in our judicial system via a difference in punishment for murder, manslaughter. Let's strive to do less murder first, and then we can work on the harder problems like accidental animal death via externalities of production. Or we can work on both at the same time! Can we agree that intentional death is more of a low hanging fruit than accidental death, though?

jostylr 7y ago

Here is a question I would genuinely like answered. Isn't there a major tension between the environmental point of view and animal rights point of view? The environmental viewpoint seems clear and reasonable; keeping large animals alive is expensive in terms of resources and waste. So get rid of them. Reduce the population of cows from a billion to a million. But this seems to go against the idea of animal rights. After all, to make an environmental improvement, we would need to eliminate most of the cattle, i.e., kill them and not replace them. If you care about the conditions of a cow's life, is it moral to solve the problem by eliminating that life? How are these two viewpoints allies?

mattmaroon 7y ago
Attrition. Animals don’t live that long.
- jostylr 7y ago
  20 years is natural lifespan of a cow. Supposedly 2030 is some kind of limit for climate change.
latch 7y ago
I don't think anyone is conflicted by this? Like you say: kill them and don't replace them. They're going to be slaughtered anyways. This year we slaughter 39 million, next year 25 million, the year after that 10 million, ... I don't think anyone [serious] (of those two groups) is going to complain too hard.
bluntfang 7y ago
Why do you feel like humans need to be responsible for upkeeping cattle populations, who's sole existence is for human consumption? As others have said...consume them and then don't replace them seems like a good plan.

specialist 7y ago

I was vegetarian for a stretch. Am a treehugger and child of farmers. Have no problem eating animals. Was mostly motivated by food safety and contempt for the misc industries. My health suffered. After watching Dr Terry Wahls TED talk about nutrition and mitochondria, I resumed eating animal protein. Like her, my health improved. Many, many people are successfully vegetarian (et al), so YMMV. I'll resume being vegetarian once nutrition science figures how I can do so safely. I'm very bullish on engineered meat, as in grown in a vat.

bluntfang 7y ago
What were your health problems that were solved by adding meat to your diet?
- specialist 7y ago
  Psoriasis, edema, and general purpose malaise. The psoriasis was bleeding, covered my legs, arms, and entire scalp. I should have qualified my statement as "Believe, but cannot prove." None of this stuff is simple. (Accept maybe HFCS and calorie restriction.) Of all the things I've tried, it's hard to know which helped most and how. I also take breaks, just to be sure the things I'm doing are actually helping. Some years later, I have minimal psoriasis and no edema. I no longer take immunosuppressants or do UVB light therapy, but I do still use topical steroids occassionally. And when I slip from my nutrition plan, I feel like shit and the itchiness resumes. YMMV. Do what works for you, keep experimenting.