4 ms·

The alternative is by butchering. (E.G.) there was sufficient demand for meat/processing ability at plants. Though I honestly wish there was a more humane alte

by zadkey 6y ago

The alternative is by butchering. (E.G.) there was sufficient demand for meat/processing ability at plants. Though I honestly wish there was a more humane alternative to culling. These industrial farms don't have room to spare for animals that aren't wanted. I wish there was some kind of park or nature reserve or somewhere that they could be sent to live out their lives in peace instead of the culling. Or if such places already exist, laws that mandate that they be sent there.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
I wish so too. But honestly, space could likely be found. The problem is - and would be with your hypothetical nature reseve - that somebody has to pay for a) feeding these animals beyond their expected lifetimes, and b) fuel necessary to ship them to their reserve en-masse.
PeterisP 6y ago
Who would feed them? Releasing large quantities of animals to nature is both anti-ecological and inhumane, as it results in destruction of that ecosystem, starvation, cannibalism, etc. Like the horrible aftermath of the cases when activists have "freed" animals from fur farms, resulting in them dying within weeks but also taking all the local wildlife (e.g. nesting birds) with them. You can successfully do a controlled release of a limited number of animals given proper preparation. But if we're talking about releasing large numbers quickly, culling is much more humane than that that.
ksdale 6y ago
Very few animals besides apex predators in the wild live long enough to die of old age. Rather they die from starvation or disease or are eaten by something else. Life on industrial farms sounds terrible, for sure, but death in nature is also terrible, to the point that I'm not sure it's a mercy to "set them free".
bbrree66 6y ago
Or we just don't eat meat..... no that's too crazy! Moron. EDIT: Downvote to your heart's content! Truth is not decided by consensus. What I said is true, even if you don't like it.
- anon73044 6y ago
  So the factory farms would have an even bigger surplus? Vegans/vegetarians/etc. might get to claim the moral high ground but until legislation forces the market to change, the point is moot.
  - bbrree66 6y ago
    I'm not sure if you're purposely being silly or what.... But I will spell it out. If people stopped demanding meat, then factory farms wouldn't breed these animals, and the suffering for them would end.
    - effingwewt 6y ago
      I get that this is something you are passionate about but the way you move goalposts and use ad hominem against every counter argument to yours doesn't help your point, nor does constantly bashing anyone who has a differing opinion. Make a rational argument to convince others, dont call names and avoid points you don't want to discuss, it just makes you look like a troll, and gives vegans/vegetarians a bad look by proxy. You have consistently avoided the fact that people eat meat (whether or not you like it or agree with it, you dont get to choose for other people), that animals in the wild have far less 'humane' deaths, in the wild, ie starvation and disease, etc. I agree this is a problem that needs a solution, but I don't see you giving one other than 'stop eating meat, morons'.
      - bbrree66 6y ago
        Please show me the ad hominem. I said I think you may be purposefully misunderstanding, that is not ad hominem Where did I avoid the fact that people eat meat? And where did I avoid the fact that there are rough deaths in the wild? I addressed it specifically with "let's focus on the suffering that is CAUSED by us." Stop eating meat is the recommendation because that is the simple solution. That is the rational argument. There is no ethical way to eat meat. I've seen zero counter arguments to that point. How can there be more of a solution? Yes there are logistics involved in getting there but that is the simple and clear solution. Accepting that is step 1, logistics of doing it is step 2. What more do you need than a simple solution? It's also interesting that you accuse me of avoiding points then write an entire response that completely ignores the factually accurate points I have made.

by zadkey 6y ago

TeMPOraL 6y ago

I wish so too. But honestly, space could likely be found. The problem is - and would be with your hypothetical nature reseve - that somebody has to pay for a) feeding these animals beyond their expected lifetimes, and b) fuel necessary to ship them to their reserve en-masse.

PeterisP 6y ago

Who would feed them? Releasing large quantities of animals to nature is both anti-ecological and inhumane, as it results in destruction of that ecosystem, starvation, cannibalism, etc. Like the horrible aftermath of the cases when activists have "freed" animals from fur farms, resulting in them dying within weeks but also taking all the local wildlife (e.g. nesting birds) with them. You can successfully do a controlled release of a limited number of animals given proper preparation. But if we're talking about releasing large numbers quickly, culling is much more humane than that that.

ksdale 6y ago

Very few animals besides apex predators in the wild live long enough to die of old age. Rather they die from starvation or disease or are eaten by something else. Life on industrial farms sounds terrible, for sure, but death in nature is also terrible, to the point that I'm not sure it's a mercy to "set them free".

bbrree66 6y ago

Or we just don't eat meat..... no that's too crazy! Moron. EDIT: Downvote to your heart's content! Truth is not decided by consensus. What I said is true, even if you don't like it.

anon73044 6y ago
So the factory farms would have an even bigger surplus? Vegans/vegetarians/etc. might get to claim the moral high ground but until legislation forces the market to change, the point is moot.
- bbrree66 6y ago
  I'm not sure if you're purposely being silly or what.... But I will spell it out. If people stopped demanding meat, then factory farms wouldn't breed these animals, and the suffering for them would end.
  - effingwewt 6y ago
    I get that this is something you are passionate about but the way you move goalposts and use ad hominem against every counter argument to yours doesn't help your point, nor does constantly bashing anyone who has a differing opinion. Make a rational argument to convince others, dont call names and avoid points you don't want to discuss, it just makes you look like a troll, and gives vegans/vegetarians a bad look by proxy. You have consistently avoided the fact that people eat meat (whether or not you like it or agree with it, you dont get to choose for other people), that animals in the wild have far less 'humane' deaths, in the wild, ie starvation and disease, etc. I agree this is a problem that needs a solution, but I don't see you giving one other than 'stop eating meat, morons'.
    - bbrree66 6y ago
      Please show me the ad hominem. I said I think you may be purposefully misunderstanding, that is not ad hominem Where did I avoid the fact that people eat meat? And where did I avoid the fact that there are rough deaths in the wild? I addressed it specifically with "let's focus on the suffering that is CAUSED by us." Stop eating meat is the recommendation because that is the simple solution. That is the rational argument. There is no ethical way to eat meat. I've seen zero counter arguments to that point. How can there be more of a solution? Yes there are logistics involved in getting there but that is the simple and clear solution. Accepting that is step 1, logistics of doing it is step 2. What more do you need than a simple solution? It's also interesting that you accuse me of avoiding points then write an entire response that completely ignores the factually accurate points I have made.