4 ms·

humane slaughter is an oxymoron that attempts to insulate us from the weight that comes with taking a life. some methods are better than others (i.e., minimize

humane slaughter is an oxymoron that attempts to insulate us from the weight that comes with taking a life. some methods are better than others (i.e., minimize suffering), but no slaughter is humane.

wizofaus 4y ago
If it's to put an animal out of misery when there's no way of treating an injury or illness surely it qualifies. But I agree the word "humane" gets somewhat abused when applied to situations where animals are more useful to us dead than alive. I don't mind "cruelty free", and that really should be a minimal criteria for how we treat other species.
- boston_clone 4y ago
  I should have added a qualifier for humane slaughter in regards to meat processing. Yes, there are times when euthanasia may be appropriate - but it’s tough still to mete out the morality when no intent or consent is communicated, no? Most “cruelty free” labeling is also farcical, unfortunately. The amount of suffering involved with animal agriculture is repulsively shocking when fully grasped, and difficult to unsee unless willful ignorance takes the proverbial wheel.
tablarasa 4y ago
Perhaps that is true if you solely interact with food after it is dead and processed. Many people live much closer to their food production. I don't view the phrase "humane slaughter" as an attempt to insulate "us"; I think it is an acknowledgement by practitioners that they are mindful of what they are doing and to whom. It is also a direct reference to applicable laws where that term is codified. Some people view killing animals for food as entirely humane, which is to say some combination of natural and ethical. You may not view any kind of animal slaughter as humane, but if pressed could you describe how humane your soy, wheat, etc. production is?
- boston_clone 4y ago
  What is humane about raising an animal in captivity and killing it for unnecessary consumption after only a few years or months of life? Surely you can figure out how eating beans is a little more kind.
  - mhb 4y ago
    If the animal had a happy few years or months of life do you consider that a net increase in happiness even if the animal is killed?
    - boston_clone 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by "net increase in happiness". Like, if the universe was a big bank of emotions from which we all made withdrawals and deposits? That's a weird premise to accept. In any case, the act of killing a sentient being is wrong. We've got that more or less universally codified for other humans (and most pets); seems we may just need a few more uncomfortable ethical discussions before we reach consistency.
      - mhb 4y ago
        Yes, but it doesn't have to be the universe. It could just be a farm. Suppose a cow has a happy 3 year life munching grass in the field but is killed after that. There's more happiness on the farm. So should there be more of those cows on the farm? Or would it be better if those cows had never lived.
  - tablarasa 4y ago
    Huh, I had considered consumption to be necessary for my own persistence. Most increase in land-based agricultural productivity in this day and age comes from intensification on existing land or removal of forested habitats. Those come at a huge cost to biodiversity and ecosystem services. They also have social costs to other humans. > "Surely you can figure out how eating beans is a little more kind." I don't think this snarkiness is very productive, but I'm super used to hearing this sentiment; often the people who express this type of idea have really good intentions that I am totally aligned with, but they also fall into logical fallacies usually due to missing information around ecology, agriculture, and food systems. It makes perfect sense if you take a very narrow view of how food is produced and what alternatives there are for land and water use: just eat a bean because it doesn't scream! Totally. But growing that bean comes at a cost and ignoring that because you read Sinclair or can afford to shop for high-end foods isn't helpful. I think it is a fantasy to suggest that the problems will be solved if peoples and cultures around the world just subscribe to my view of what is ethical or desirable. Any fish would prefer you eat a bean. But the animals and plants that would use the land on which its grown would prefer you eat a fish. Those of us working to build sustainable food systems that minimize the overall impact on natural systems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services will fail if we take such a simplistic and naive view of the tradeoffs.

humane slaughter is an oxymoron that attempts to insulate us from the weight that comes with taking a life. some methods are better than others (i.e., minimize suffering), but no slaughter is humane.

wizofaus 4y ago

If it's to put an animal out of misery when there's no way of treating an injury or illness surely it qualifies. But I agree the word "humane" gets somewhat abused when applied to situations where animals are more useful to us dead than alive. I don't mind "cruelty free", and that really should be a minimal criteria for how we treat other species.

boston_clone 4y ago
I should have added a qualifier for humane slaughter in regards to meat processing. Yes, there are times when euthanasia may be appropriate - but it’s tough still to mete out the morality when no intent or consent is communicated, no? Most “cruelty free” labeling is also farcical, unfortunately. The amount of suffering involved with animal agriculture is repulsively shocking when fully grasped, and difficult to unsee unless willful ignorance takes the proverbial wheel.

tablarasa 4y ago

Perhaps that is true if you solely interact with food after it is dead and processed. Many people live much closer to their food production. I don't view the phrase "humane slaughter" as an attempt to insulate "us"; I think it is an acknowledgement by practitioners that they are mindful of what they are doing and to whom. It is also a direct reference to applicable laws where that term is codified. Some people view killing animals for food as entirely humane, which is to say some combination of natural and ethical. You may not view any kind of animal slaughter as humane, but if pressed could you describe how humane your soy, wheat, etc. production is?

boston_clone 4y ago
What is humane about raising an animal in captivity and killing it for unnecessary consumption after only a few years or months of life? Surely you can figure out how eating beans is a little more kind.
- mhb 4y ago
  If the animal had a happy few years or months of life do you consider that a net increase in happiness even if the animal is killed?
  - boston_clone 4y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "net increase in happiness". Like, if the universe was a big bank of emotions from which we all made withdrawals and deposits? That's a weird premise to accept. In any case, the act of killing a sentient being is wrong. We've got that more or less universally codified for other humans (and most pets); seems we may just need a few more uncomfortable ethical discussions before we reach consistency.
    - mhb 4y ago
      Yes, but it doesn't have to be the universe. It could just be a farm. Suppose a cow has a happy 3 year life munching grass in the field but is killed after that. There's more happiness on the farm. So should there be more of those cows on the farm? Or would it be better if those cows had never lived.
- tablarasa 4y ago
  Huh, I had considered consumption to be necessary for my own persistence. Most increase in land-based agricultural productivity in this day and age comes from intensification on existing land or removal of forested habitats. Those come at a huge cost to biodiversity and ecosystem services. They also have social costs to other humans. > "Surely you can figure out how eating beans is a little more kind." I don't think this snarkiness is very productive, but I'm super used to hearing this sentiment; often the people who express this type of idea have really good intentions that I am totally aligned with, but they also fall into logical fallacies usually due to missing information around ecology, agriculture, and food systems. It makes perfect sense if you take a very narrow view of how food is produced and what alternatives there are for land and water use: just eat a bean because it doesn't scream! Totally. But growing that bean comes at a cost and ignoring that because you read Sinclair or can afford to shop for high-end foods isn't helpful. I think it is a fantasy to suggest that the problems will be solved if peoples and cultures around the world just subscribe to my view of what is ethical or desirable. Any fish would prefer you eat a bean. But the animals and plants that would use the land on which its grown would prefer you eat a fish. Those of us working to build sustainable food systems that minimize the overall impact on natural systems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services will fail if we take such a simplistic and naive view of the tradeoffs.