4 ms·

It's not so simple as all that. We raise chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese completely free range. Our homestead doesn't really even have fence on all sides a

by jbotz 5y ago

It's not so simple as all that. We raise chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese completely free range. Our homestead doesn't really even have fence on all sides and most of it is virgin forest. All these sepecies can survive on their own in the forest here, although not in the same population density that they have on our homestead. We feed them, we take care of them when they are sick, and we provide some protection from predators... we also have dogs, and the dogs presence alone helps quite a bit with that. We also take some of their eggs, and sometimes we kill some of them. The birds know all of this, yet they stay, because life is better here than in the forest. Actually, some of the ducks (Moscovy ducks, they are fully native here) do leave, but they do so mostly when there are too many males and they end up fighting a lot. The bottom line to me is this... we keep the birds for eggs and fertilizer (and because we like them), we really eat very little meat, but we have to manage the population. When we let it get too big they suffer more, there's more disease, more fighting, etc. In fact, sometimes when the population has gotten rather dense, there has been murder and infanticide among them! They can't solve the population problem non-violently on their own, but they do like the benefits of food and safety, so we have to solve the population problem for them. I'm not rationalizing, I love these animals and don't like killing them, and I have gone long stretches of time without eating any meat and don't mind that. But I kill them, because when the time comes it's the right thing to do, and after I kill some I eat them because that's also the right thing to do, not because I want to eat meat. So you might say: well then don't keep animals! Maybe, but keeping them is the most ecological way to maintain the soil fertility around our homestead (poor tropical soils) and the food we can produce because of this reduces our overall ecological footprint. I think it's a win-win for us, the animals, and the planet.

sweetheart 5y ago
You’re talking about justifying killing these animals to solve problems that are caused by farming the animals to begin with, which you even say yourself. I can’t say anything about maintaining soil fertility because I know nothing about it, but what is about chickens that preserves the soil, and why can it only come from those chickens? Something about nutrients in the soil I imagine, right?
- jbotz 5y ago
  Since we plant things that we eat and sell (or give away) we are removing nutrients from the soil. Someone has to put them back. We could do that with industrial NPK fertilizer, but that's not very ecological. Chicken manure is a more complete and natural fertilizer, and for the most part the chickens even spread it around for us. They also engage in some pest control (the ducks are especially good at that, without them we'd have a problem with some foreign snails that have invaded around here). We're not really "farming" the animals. We're more co-habitating with them. The birds and humans here are part of a society, an ecosystem that needs both and in which humans play a role of both caretakers and occasionally predators. Predators are necessary in a natural system and what we're trying to do is to imitate nature as best we can. This all may sound a bit pretentious, but, like I said, the birds are actually free to leave, and generally they don't, so it would seem they agree. In fact, a couple of times wild ducks have even voluntarily joined our little society! Also, I'm not trying to "justify" anything. What we're trying to do here is a live a bit closer to nature than people generally do, reduce our ecological footprint a bit, and treat nature and all life with a bit more respect. And what we've found is that you can't be close to nature without facing death in various forms every day. So ultimately, I don't think that Pollan's conclusion is "weird" and I don't think that "killing an animal ... is always wrong". I think treating nature with respect and letting sentient beings live their life in a way that respects their nature is more important than simply "not killing".
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    > I think treating nature with respect and letting sentient beings live their life in a way that respects their nature is more important than simply "not killing". But isn't the best way to respect these animals is to avoid killing them when we don't need to in order to survive? I've talked to so, so many people who keep animals and ultimately kill them that talk about this reverence for the natural world, and they talk about how death is an intrinsic part of that natural world. Sure, that's true, but that doesn't mean we need to contribute to that death (and suffering, naturally), when it doesn't need to take place. Will there always be gruesome, painful deaths? Of course. Will there always be animals that eat other animals? Definitely. But that doesn't mean it's totally fine for us to decide when animal lives or dies. An animal that has made no deals with you, has not agreed to any sort of symbiotic relationship which ends in it's death in order to feed you. Sure, the animals are treated well, and sure the birds at least can decide to leave, but them deciding not to doesn't mean they are agreeing to get slaughtered. > and I don't think that "killing an animal ... is always wrong" You left out the most important part of what I said in that quote, and mischaracterized it. I don't think it's always wrong to kill an animal. I said its always wrong to kill an animal when we don't need to do it in order to survive. That last part is really, really important. At the end of the day, I'm not saying you don't care about animals, or want to live in harmony with them. You do, and I do as well. All I'm trying to do is get you to consider that maybe we can do that and also understand that animals don't want to die for us, and they don't need to. That's it. You want to live closer to nature? Hell yeah, that's great. You provide a safe place for animals to live and prosper and enjoy life? Amazing, I'm so in support of you for doing that. But then let's continue that respect and peace by deciding to simply not kill the animal. > I think treating nature with respect and letting sentient beings live their life in a way that respects their nature is more important than simply "not killing". In situations that are not life and death, i.e. you are not in a sitation in which you must kill one of these animals in order to survive, how are "treating nature with respect and letting sentient beings live their life in a way that respects their nature" and not killing them not the same exact thing?

by jbotz 5y ago

sweetheart 5y ago

You’re talking about justifying killing these animals to solve problems that are caused by farming the animals to begin with, which you even say yourself. I can’t say anything about maintaining soil fertility because I know nothing about it, but what is about chickens that preserves the soil, and why can it only come from those chickens? Something about nutrients in the soil I imagine, right?

jbotz 5y ago
Since we plant things that we eat and sell (or give away) we are removing nutrients from the soil. Someone has to put them back. We could do that with industrial NPK fertilizer, but that's not very ecological. Chicken manure is a more complete and natural fertilizer, and for the most part the chickens even spread it around for us. They also engage in some pest control (the ducks are especially good at that, without them we'd have a problem with some foreign snails that have invaded around here). We're not really "farming" the animals. We're more co-habitating with them. The birds and humans here are part of a society, an ecosystem that needs both and in which humans play a role of both caretakers and occasionally predators. Predators are necessary in a natural system and what we're trying to do is to imitate nature as best we can. This all may sound a bit pretentious, but, like I said, the birds are actually free to leave, and generally they don't, so it would seem they agree. In fact, a couple of times wild ducks have even voluntarily joined our little society! Also, I'm not trying to "justify" anything. What we're trying to do here is a live a bit closer to nature than people generally do, reduce our ecological footprint a bit, and treat nature and all life with a bit more respect. And what we've found is that you can't be close to nature without facing death in various forms every day. So ultimately, I don't think that Pollan's conclusion is "weird" and I don't think that "killing an animal ... is always wrong". I think treating nature with respect and letting sentient beings live their life in a way that respects their nature is more important than simply "not killing".
- sweetheart 5y ago
  > I think treating nature with respect and letting sentient beings live their life in a way that respects their nature is more important than simply "not killing". But isn't the best way to respect these animals is to avoid killing them when we don't need to in order to survive? I've talked to so, so many people who keep animals and ultimately kill them that talk about this reverence for the natural world, and they talk about how death is an intrinsic part of that natural world. Sure, that's true, but that doesn't mean we need to contribute to that death (and suffering, naturally), when it doesn't need to take place. Will there always be gruesome, painful deaths? Of course. Will there always be animals that eat other animals? Definitely. But that doesn't mean it's totally fine for us to decide when animal lives or dies. An animal that has made no deals with you, has not agreed to any sort of symbiotic relationship which ends in it's death in order to feed you. Sure, the animals are treated well, and sure the birds at least can decide to leave, but them deciding not to doesn't mean they are agreeing to get slaughtered. > and I don't think that "killing an animal ... is always wrong" You left out the most important part of what I said in that quote, and mischaracterized it. I don't think it's always wrong to kill an animal. I said its always wrong to kill an animal when we don't need to do it in order to survive. That last part is really, really important. At the end of the day, I'm not saying you don't care about animals, or want to live in harmony with them. You do, and I do as well. All I'm trying to do is get you to consider that maybe we can do that and also understand that animals don't want to die for us, and they don't need to. That's it. You want to live closer to nature? Hell yeah, that's great. You provide a safe place for animals to live and prosper and enjoy life? Amazing, I'm so in support of you for doing that. But then let's continue that respect and peace by deciding to simply not kill the animal. > I think treating nature with respect and letting sentient beings live their life in a way that respects their nature is more important than simply "not killing". In situations that are not life and death, i.e. you are not in a sitation in which you must kill one of these animals in order to survive, how are "treating nature with respect and letting sentient beings live their life in a way that respects their nature" and not killing them not the same exact thing?