4 ms·

You ask people to stop eating animals, but your complaints aren't about eating animals. They are about how we keep and handle those animals. Would you be more o

by ysavir 6y ago

You ask people to stop eating animals, but your complaints aren't about eating animals. They are about how we keep and handle those animals. Would you be more okay with eating animals if they were kept in better habitats, designed for stress-free animal living? And if we didn't meddle in their breeding and/or didn't meddle in their genetics or hormones?

yboris 6y ago
Given that 99% of animals come from factory farms, the safest choice is to abstain from consuming meat. Given that the incentives are massively aligned with cutting corners to save money, even farms that aim to offer better treatment of animals, will be pushed to cut corners to compete. They will have more incentive to appear to treat animals well, not to actually treat animals well. Given that there are sensible alternatives to meat, the question for a meat eater isn't between meat and not eating food, but instead eating a slighly-differently-tasting dish.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > Given that 99% of animals come from factory farms In what planet? You could be surprised to know that the real number is much lower. After FAO for example, percentage of pigs being breed in intensive in 2010 ranged from 6% to 60%. In Europe it was a 30% for example. The current 2020 values can differ a little of course, but definitely would not support such bold claim as "99% of animals come from a factory farm... so we should we all turn crazy, or start eating pills, or whatever". This is a myth. As the IF(statement) part is False, the THEN{we should...!} part does not apply.
  - yboris 6y ago
    I am speaking about the US. I'd love to see your sources. Here's a reference: https://faunalytics.org/fundamentals-farmed-animals/ https://faunalytics.org/fundamentals-farmed-animals/ Intensive productions makes up the majority percentage of production: 97% Chicken 96% Pig 66% Cow Here's another source just in case: https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estima... 70.4% of cows 98.3% of pigs 99.8% of turkeys 98.2% of egg-laying hens, and over 99.9% of chickens raised for meat
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      You are saying "animals are tortured"-> then{people should stop eating animals} But what you really mean to say is "animals are tortured in US" -> then{people should stop eating animals} See the bubble here? We could say something like this also for example: "animals are tortured in US" -> then{We should start importing all our meat from Argentina} And that would be a real solution for your angst. Much more simple plan that trying to feed humanity with pills, or drawing veins in a chunk of soy. Some people has in mind a fixed, immutable THEN part and -after that- they look for an IF random part that would support the narrative. A part that would typically involve cute things crying in danger and emotional distress. Who cares if it tags people with real names as "torturers"? (is my opinion, so it must be reality because opinion = true facts, right?). Who cares if the facts were faked, distorted of shown in a questionable way to fit into the replaceable part of the slot? This is not an honest way to do things. Is the digital modern equivalent to "lets come to the castle with torches and pitchforks because... who needs a reason, this people is evil", and this is garbage.
      - yboris 6y ago
        You are assuming that meat from Argentina does not come from animals that are tortured. Please do your research: many countries are adopting the American CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) model - thereby importing the practices of animal abuse. The argument I am making is towards the largest audience on this website: people living in the US. The argument is to encourage them to eat less meat. Just because you have come up with some plan to fix the problem does not fix the problem. Until your plan is implemented, buying meat in the US causes a tremendous amount of animal suffering. Your choice to purchase the meat results in funding further animal suffering.
  - taffer 6y ago
    According to the 2017 USDA census, more than 97% of all pigs come from farms having > 1000 animals [1]. This is what I would call factory farming, and you will find similar figures for European countries. [1] https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.php https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.p...
- ysavir 6y ago
  I notice that you haven't answered my question.
  - yboris 6y ago
    Sorry I went on a tangent that I thought was more-relevant to what is happening in the world. I am open to the possibility that it may be acceptable, under some conditions, to consume animal flesh. As you are trying to point out, I think, it's not the act of consumption that is problematic, but the process of getting the animal flesh to your mouth. My biggest problem with the current system is the welfare of animals, not the fact that someone is chewing this bit of matter rather than that piece of matter. I am trying to point out that the scenario of treating animals well while desiring to consume them is counter to maintaining a system of care. There is also something problematic with ending a life that is full of enjoyment short, just so that some other individuals have a meal that is slightly different than another (similarly-tasty) meal. I hope all these discussions will become obsolete / moot when meat alternatives become more-available and cheaper. We on HN likely have more resources to choose; I hope that more of us choose less meat.

by ysavir 6y ago

yboris 6y ago

Given that 99% of animals come from factory farms, the safest choice is to abstain from consuming meat. Given that the incentives are massively aligned with cutting corners to save money, even farms that aim to offer better treatment of animals, will be pushed to cut corners to compete. They will have more incentive to appear to treat animals well, not to actually treat animals well. Given that there are sensible alternatives to meat, the question for a meat eater isn't between meat and not eating food, but instead eating a slighly-differently-tasting dish.

pvaldes 6y ago
> Given that 99% of animals come from factory farms In what planet? You could be surprised to know that the real number is much lower. After FAO for example, percentage of pigs being breed in intensive in 2010 ranged from 6% to 60%. In Europe it was a 30% for example. The current 2020 values can differ a little of course, but definitely would not support such bold claim as "99% of animals come from a factory farm... so we should we all turn crazy, or start eating pills, or whatever". This is a myth. As the IF(statement) part is False, the THEN{we should...!} part does not apply.
- yboris 6y ago
  I am speaking about the US. I'd love to see your sources. Here's a reference: https://faunalytics.org/fundamentals-farmed-animals/ https://faunalytics.org/fundamentals-farmed-animals/ Intensive productions makes up the majority percentage of production: 97% Chicken 96% Pig 66% Cow Here's another source just in case: https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estima... 70.4% of cows 98.3% of pigs 99.8% of turkeys 98.2% of egg-laying hens, and over 99.9% of chickens raised for meat
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    You are saying "animals are tortured"-> then{people should stop eating animals} But what you really mean to say is "animals are tortured in US" -> then{people should stop eating animals} See the bubble here? We could say something like this also for example: "animals are tortured in US" -> then{We should start importing all our meat from Argentina} And that would be a real solution for your angst. Much more simple plan that trying to feed humanity with pills, or drawing veins in a chunk of soy. Some people has in mind a fixed, immutable THEN part and -after that- they look for an IF random part that would support the narrative. A part that would typically involve cute things crying in danger and emotional distress. Who cares if it tags people with real names as "torturers"? (is my opinion, so it must be reality because opinion = true facts, right?). Who cares if the facts were faked, distorted of shown in a questionable way to fit into the replaceable part of the slot? This is not an honest way to do things. Is the digital modern equivalent to "lets come to the castle with torches and pitchforks because... who needs a reason, this people is evil", and this is garbage.
    - yboris 6y ago
      You are assuming that meat from Argentina does not come from animals that are tortured. Please do your research: many countries are adopting the American CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) model - thereby importing the practices of animal abuse. The argument I am making is towards the largest audience on this website: people living in the US. The argument is to encourage them to eat less meat. Just because you have come up with some plan to fix the problem does not fix the problem. Until your plan is implemented, buying meat in the US causes a tremendous amount of animal suffering. Your choice to purchase the meat results in funding further animal suffering.
- taffer 6y ago
  According to the 2017 USDA census, more than 97% of all pigs come from farms having > 1000 animals [1]. This is what I would call factory farming, and you will find similar figures for European countries. [1] https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.php https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.p...
ysavir 6y ago
I notice that you haven't answered my question.
- yboris 6y ago
  Sorry I went on a tangent that I thought was more-relevant to what is happening in the world. I am open to the possibility that it may be acceptable, under some conditions, to consume animal flesh. As you are trying to point out, I think, it's not the act of consumption that is problematic, but the process of getting the animal flesh to your mouth. My biggest problem with the current system is the welfare of animals, not the fact that someone is chewing this bit of matter rather than that piece of matter. I am trying to point out that the scenario of treating animals well while desiring to consume them is counter to maintaining a system of care. There is also something problematic with ending a life that is full of enjoyment short, just so that some other individuals have a meal that is slightly different than another (similarly-tasty) meal. I hope all these discussions will become obsolete / moot when meat alternatives become more-available and cheaper. We on HN likely have more resources to choose; I hope that more of us choose less meat.