6 ms·

It sounds like you are suggesting non-animal agriculture kills or displaces more animals than animal agriculture. What do you think the animals humans like to

It sounds like you are suggesting non-animal agriculture kills or displaces more animals than animal agriculture. What do you think the animals humans like to eat, eat? A heck of a lot of grain and other plants. "Animal agriculture" includes the fluffy animals (with whom we may empathize - they ain't robots) and the massive farms that grow their feed. Animal agriculture incidentally kills and displaces far more other creatures than non-animal agriculture simply due to the additional land requirements. It is far easier to accept the less harmful industry.

rlt 4y ago
I don't think they were suggesting that. More something along the lines of "you're likely to be killing animals either way, so just accept that nature is cruel and don't feel guilty about it". There's a wide spectrum of how much you're willing to do to avoid causing suffering: - Nothing, eat meat from the worst factory farms without second thought - Only eat meat from local, ethical, sustainable, etc farmers. - Only eat meat you have personally killed in the most humane way possible - Vegetarianism - Veganism - Fruitarianism - Starve to death?
- pyrale 4y ago
  It's kind of bad either way tbh. Imagine going to the funeral for someone else's mother and saying something to the tune of "The old hag was going to die anyway, so don't be sad". Telling people that their principles or feelings are wrong is rarely a great way to convince people, it just makes you look obnoxious in debates.
  - headsoup 4y ago
    That's just an absurd analogy. On the second point, I agree, if in person I wouldn't make such a statement in that way because reactions are immediate and you're within immediate awkwardness. But on the internet, you read a statement and then you will emotionally react, but can then go research more, ponder, deliberate and choose whether you respond emotionally, matter-of-factly, not at all, etc. I think that's great and in a sense encourages some more provocative honesty that we dance around in the flesh.
- antonvs 4y ago
  You skipped cannibalism. Only eat people who deserve it, Dexter-style.
  - nier 4y ago
    Like that wouldn’t leave a bad taste in your stomach.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Cannabat 4y ago
  Most humans can live deeply fulfilling and joyful lives without causing as much suffering as they do now. They don't need to feel guilty about what they are doing now so much as strive to cause less suffering. Maybe you must eat factory farmed meat, fine, it's not for me to say. But that's not most people. Most people can do with reducing their meat intake, and it isn't hard. It's not like you are in the wilderness hunting or anything. You just go to the grocery store and buy veggies and beans and stuff. Furthermore, for some people, eating meat from a factory farm is orders of magnitude more difficult than eating a strict plant based diet. Maybe that's easy for you - not for me. Finally, while nature may indeed be cruel, we do not need to be.
  - briandear 4y ago
    Curious about deer: if deer aren’t hunted, they overpopulate and starve. It would be cruel not to hunt them. Wild pigs are another significant environmental nuisance. They reproduce rapidly and cause massive destruction wherever they go. Seems like managing those populations without eating the meet is worse ethically. The idea that killing animals is more cruel than not is to ignore ecology. Factory farms and industrial meat is certainly another story. But I wanted to point out that cruelty is not so black and white. It’s similar to the cat people that feed strays — makes them feel good, but it makes the problem worse which is more cruel than simply not feeding the strays.
    - Cannabat 4y ago
      > Curious about deer: if deer aren’t hunted, they overpopulate and starve. It would be cruel not to hunt them. I strongly disagree with this. If there were no humans participating, and deer ended up overpopulated, and then starved, would there be any issue? Of course not, this is just how nature balances itself. That "killing an animal directly via hunting" is more cruel than "letting the populate self-correct via natural processes" is not a matter of common sense - it's not something we all agree on. There is an implication that we know better than the universe and I'm not convinced that is the case. > Wild pigs are another significant environmental nuisance. They reproduce rapidly and cause massive destruction wherever they go. Seems like managing those populations without eating the meet is worse ethically. I assume you are referring to feral pigs, which are not wild in the sense that a native creature is. They are domesticated pigs which have ended up in foreign environments. Whether hunting them is appropriate or not, I'm not sure. Nowadays, though, we have gotten ourselves in a pickle, by eliminating the natural predators in many environments in which deer thrive naturally, or have adapted to. Via our own lack of foresight, consideration for the planet as a whole, or even some degree of self-serving malice, we have created a really tricky problem. I do agree we ought to work on this issue. Hunting is probably the best, most practical solution we have, but only because I believe we should try to fix what we have broken, not because it is somehow less cruel. A less practical but far less cruel solution may be a sterilization program for the invasive populations.
- ada1981 4y ago
  What is the “humane” way to kill? Is the humane way to kill an animal the same way one would humanely kill a toddler without consent of the parents or child? If not why not, when we consider animal have at least the intelligence, will to live, social connections and capacity for suffering as children?
  - jacobr1 4y ago
    Two factors: 1) Humanely raised 2) Efficiently killed (done quickly with limited/no pain). One can argue the cruelty of eating animals regardless - but there very much is a difference between tightly caged factory farming, pumping animals with medicine constantly because the conditions keep them sick all the time, and raising animals in a healthy environment.
  - eimrine 4y ago
    > What is the “humane” way to kill? Halal one. > Is the humane way to kill an animal the same way one would humanely kill a toddler without consent of the parents or child? Interesting wording. > If not why not, when we consider animal have at least the intelligence, will to live, social connections and capacity for suffering as children? When we will be able to ask for that kind of a contest? PS. I know, animals has some signs of intelligence. But for me this measure of intelligence is not enough for not willing to eat it. And referring to parent poster, I really think there is some ethics in eating only those meat which has been killed by me, but I only have a chicken farm when I want to eat not only chicken.
    - ada1981 4y ago
      Halal slaughter is in no way humane.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Halal slaughter is certainly not the most humane way to kill animals; it optimizes for religious taboos on consumption of blood more so than lack of suffering. For the latter, you really want to target the brain directly if at all possible.
pvaldes 4y ago
> It sounds like you are suggesting non-animal agriculture kills or displaces more animals than animal agriculture. Is exactly what happens. Without cattle there is not the need of meadows anymore. Not wildflowers, butterflies, hedgehogs, molluscs or birds. Soy fields have a biodiversity composed of: Soy. Period.
- vnorilo 4y ago
  The bulk of soy production is for cattle feed. https://ourworldindata.org/soy https://ourworldindata.org/soy
  - barrell 4y ago
    This is quite a red herring. The bulk of soy production is waste, that we have managed to use for cattle feed, because they can upcycle it into consumable nutrients. If we got rid of all cattle, we would not reduce the amount of soybeans grown by 77%, just our utilization of what is grown.
    - vnorilo 4y ago
      I don't know much about this particular thing. would be glad to read up on this if you share a good source.
      - pvaldes 4y ago
        Is easy to understand even without bibliography. Soy is an annual herb. It grows all the summer, invest everything on producing fruits in fall and then die in winter. Beans are the crop. Everything else must wait until they are ready, and by then it will be basically dry matter. Therefore all except the beans is a residual. Can still be recycled into more human food by herbivores, but we couldn't do it directly. We can't feed on dry stems, withered flowers or brown leaves.
      - barrell 4y ago
        I would highly recommend the book Sacred Cow. It has links to hundreds of studies within for further research. The authors, Diana rogers and Robb Wolf have been on many podcasts since it's release to discuss the topic. If you want specific studies I can go look up in the book but it sounds like your asking for further reading, not cited sources.
headsoup 4y ago
No, I'm suggesting it is not a good/bad dichotomy and people should make sure large decisions are not made on what they think are simple moral choices. I mean if you determine that animals dying for your diet is no good, then make sure you consider the people that might be dying to bring you the goods you haven't checked the source of, or for the stadium you enjoy watching events at, etc. Quit meat if you feel you need to, but don't pretend it makes you a morally better person because 'animal murder,' it's not that simple.
therealjumbo 4y ago
I think they are simply pointing out that you must kill other animals in order to live. There's no way around it. If your interested in killing the least amount of animals, why not go hunting and fishing, that almost assuredly kills fewer than industrialized agriculture. I've replaced almoat all beef all year round in our family with deer venison kept year round in a chest freezer. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think that veganism or vegetarianism for most people is very emotional action. Most of the pop media around it focuses on the cuteness of the animal not on the total number of animals killed. and it's ignoring that like in hunting or ethical farming, the animals have a very full happy life. As a hunter it's interesting seeing this article on HN and seeing no mention of hunting. Also not a bad thing, it's not part of the culture here, but it's interesting to see that bias in the HN culture.

rlt 4y ago

I don't think they were suggesting that. More something along the lines of "you're likely to be killing animals either way, so just accept that nature is cruel and don't feel guilty about it". There's a wide spectrum of how much you're willing to do to avoid causing suffering: - Nothing, eat meat from the worst factory farms without second thought - Only eat meat from local, ethical, sustainable, etc farmers. - Only eat meat you have personally killed in the most humane way possible - Vegetarianism - Veganism - Fruitarianism - Starve to death?

pyrale 4y ago
It's kind of bad either way tbh. Imagine going to the funeral for someone else's mother and saying something to the tune of "The old hag was going to die anyway, so don't be sad". Telling people that their principles or feelings are wrong is rarely a great way to convince people, it just makes you look obnoxious in debates.
- headsoup 4y ago
  That's just an absurd analogy. On the second point, I agree, if in person I wouldn't make such a statement in that way because reactions are immediate and you're within immediate awkwardness. But on the internet, you read a statement and then you will emotionally react, but can then go research more, ponder, deliberate and choose whether you respond emotionally, matter-of-factly, not at all, etc. I think that's great and in a sense encourages some more provocative honesty that we dance around in the flesh.
antonvs 4y ago
You skipped cannibalism. Only eat people who deserve it, Dexter-style.
- nier 4y ago
  Like that wouldn’t leave a bad taste in your stomach.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Cannabat 4y ago
Most humans can live deeply fulfilling and joyful lives without causing as much suffering as they do now. They don't need to feel guilty about what they are doing now so much as strive to cause less suffering. Maybe you must eat factory farmed meat, fine, it's not for me to say. But that's not most people. Most people can do with reducing their meat intake, and it isn't hard. It's not like you are in the wilderness hunting or anything. You just go to the grocery store and buy veggies and beans and stuff. Furthermore, for some people, eating meat from a factory farm is orders of magnitude more difficult than eating a strict plant based diet. Maybe that's easy for you - not for me. Finally, while nature may indeed be cruel, we do not need to be.
- briandear 4y ago
  Curious about deer: if deer aren’t hunted, they overpopulate and starve. It would be cruel not to hunt them. Wild pigs are another significant environmental nuisance. They reproduce rapidly and cause massive destruction wherever they go. Seems like managing those populations without eating the meet is worse ethically. The idea that killing animals is more cruel than not is to ignore ecology. Factory farms and industrial meat is certainly another story. But I wanted to point out that cruelty is not so black and white. It’s similar to the cat people that feed strays — makes them feel good, but it makes the problem worse which is more cruel than simply not feeding the strays.
  - Cannabat 4y ago
    > Curious about deer: if deer aren’t hunted, they overpopulate and starve. It would be cruel not to hunt them. I strongly disagree with this. If there were no humans participating, and deer ended up overpopulated, and then starved, would there be any issue? Of course not, this is just how nature balances itself. That "killing an animal directly via hunting" is more cruel than "letting the populate self-correct via natural processes" is not a matter of common sense - it's not something we all agree on. There is an implication that we know better than the universe and I'm not convinced that is the case. > Wild pigs are another significant environmental nuisance. They reproduce rapidly and cause massive destruction wherever they go. Seems like managing those populations without eating the meet is worse ethically. I assume you are referring to feral pigs, which are not wild in the sense that a native creature is. They are domesticated pigs which have ended up in foreign environments. Whether hunting them is appropriate or not, I'm not sure. Nowadays, though, we have gotten ourselves in a pickle, by eliminating the natural predators in many environments in which deer thrive naturally, or have adapted to. Via our own lack of foresight, consideration for the planet as a whole, or even some degree of self-serving malice, we have created a really tricky problem. I do agree we ought to work on this issue. Hunting is probably the best, most practical solution we have, but only because I believe we should try to fix what we have broken, not because it is somehow less cruel. A less practical but far less cruel solution may be a sterilization program for the invasive populations.
ada1981 4y ago
What is the “humane” way to kill? Is the humane way to kill an animal the same way one would humanely kill a toddler without consent of the parents or child? If not why not, when we consider animal have at least the intelligence, will to live, social connections and capacity for suffering as children?
- jacobr1 4y ago
  Two factors: 1) Humanely raised 2) Efficiently killed (done quickly with limited/no pain). One can argue the cruelty of eating animals regardless - but there very much is a difference between tightly caged factory farming, pumping animals with medicine constantly because the conditions keep them sick all the time, and raising animals in a healthy environment.
- eimrine 4y ago
  > What is the “humane” way to kill? Halal one. > Is the humane way to kill an animal the same way one would humanely kill a toddler without consent of the parents or child? Interesting wording. > If not why not, when we consider animal have at least the intelligence, will to live, social connections and capacity for suffering as children? When we will be able to ask for that kind of a contest? PS. I know, animals has some signs of intelligence. But for me this measure of intelligence is not enough for not willing to eat it. And referring to parent poster, I really think there is some ethics in eating only those meat which has been killed by me, but I only have a chicken farm when I want to eat not only chicken.
  - ada1981 4y ago
    Halal slaughter is in no way humane.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Halal slaughter is certainly not the most humane way to kill animals; it optimizes for religious taboos on consumption of blood more so than lack of suffering. For the latter, you really want to target the brain directly if at all possible.

pvaldes 4y ago

> It sounds like you are suggesting non-animal agriculture kills or displaces more animals than animal agriculture. Is exactly what happens. Without cattle there is not the need of meadows anymore. Not wildflowers, butterflies, hedgehogs, molluscs or birds. Soy fields have a biodiversity composed of: Soy. Period.

vnorilo 4y ago
The bulk of soy production is for cattle feed. https://ourworldindata.org/soy https://ourworldindata.org/soy
- barrell 4y ago
  This is quite a red herring. The bulk of soy production is waste, that we have managed to use for cattle feed, because they can upcycle it into consumable nutrients. If we got rid of all cattle, we would not reduce the amount of soybeans grown by 77%, just our utilization of what is grown.
  - vnorilo 4y ago
    I don't know much about this particular thing. would be glad to read up on this if you share a good source.
    - pvaldes 4y ago
      Is easy to understand even without bibliography. Soy is an annual herb. It grows all the summer, invest everything on producing fruits in fall and then die in winter. Beans are the crop. Everything else must wait until they are ready, and by then it will be basically dry matter. Therefore all except the beans is a residual. Can still be recycled into more human food by herbivores, but we couldn't do it directly. We can't feed on dry stems, withered flowers or brown leaves.
    - barrell 4y ago
      I would highly recommend the book Sacred Cow. It has links to hundreds of studies within for further research. The authors, Diana rogers and Robb Wolf have been on many podcasts since it's release to discuss the topic. If you want specific studies I can go look up in the book but it sounds like your asking for further reading, not cited sources.

headsoup 4y ago

No, I'm suggesting it is not a good/bad dichotomy and people should make sure large decisions are not made on what they think are simple moral choices. I mean if you determine that animals dying for your diet is no good, then make sure you consider the people that might be dying to bring you the goods you haven't checked the source of, or for the stadium you enjoy watching events at, etc. Quit meat if you feel you need to, but don't pretend it makes you a morally better person because 'animal murder,' it's not that simple.

therealjumbo 4y ago

I think they are simply pointing out that you must kill other animals in order to live. There's no way around it. If your interested in killing the least amount of animals, why not go hunting and fishing, that almost assuredly kills fewer than industrialized agriculture. I've replaced almoat all beef all year round in our family with deer venison kept year round in a chest freezer. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think that veganism or vegetarianism for most people is very emotional action. Most of the pop media around it focuses on the cuteness of the animal not on the total number of animals killed. and it's ignoring that like in hunting or ethical farming, the animals have a very full happy life. As a hunter it's interesting seeing this article on HN and seeing no mention of hunting. Also not a bad thing, it's not part of the culture here, but it's interesting to see that bias in the HN culture.