5 ms·

And here I was thinking you linked to a vegan alternative. While less cruel, I wouldn’t call murdering an animal to satisfy your tastebuds cruelty-free.

arcticbull 4y ago
Fair enough, I was alluding to the fact there's 100% less feeding funnel shoved down their throats daily. Here's a photograph of the production process from Wikipedia, but I'd probably avoid it if you're feeling hungry. [1] Personally I don't mind killing animals for food, I'd just prefer to avoid torturing them first. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras#/media/File:Mulard_duck_being_force_fed_corn_in_order_to_fatten_its_liver_for_foie_gras_production.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras#/media/File:Mulard_d...
- waffleiron 4y ago
  I agree with your point, these geese live way better lives than their force fed brethren. I just couldn’t agree with the cruelty-“free” part.
defrost 4y ago
If we're playing ethics, how do you feel about murdering introduced animals to lessen their devestating impacting om pre existing ecologies? eg: Clean skin bull roundups in the Northern Territory and camel roundups in Central Australia? These are large coordinated musters to funnel feral animals into yards, to tracks, and to slaughter. There's a profit, sure, but the incentive for many is to stop them tearing up and destroying the land.
- waffleiron 4y ago
  I think that’s a really interesting ethical question, personally I think the profit incentive will cause a cobra effect type situation and these species will never be made extinct where they were introduced. Having that in mind it’s a situation where one needs a crystal ball to determine whats the right things. A single large ecological shift, with all ethical harms that come with it, or a long term lower level of ethical harm.
  - defrost 4y ago
    I'm familiar with the areas in question and I fall on the side of believing that feral donkeys, camels, bulls, dogs, cats, cane toads, et al will never be erradicated as the area is vast and the animals are dug in; the best that can be achieved is to routinely cull back. On another ethical point; the "natural" boom | bust cycle of kangaroos in the Australian outback - their numbers explode when there are years of rain, and the ground is littered with bones in the years that follow. Is it ethical to cull booming kangaroo numbers (that will die in any case) to prevent the otherwise inevitable pressure on limited water supplies that follows? This is the land of Peter Singer (and others).

arcticbull 4y ago

Fair enough, I was alluding to the fact there's 100% less feeding funnel shoved down their throats daily. Here's a photograph of the production process from Wikipedia, but I'd probably avoid it if you're feeling hungry. [1] Personally I don't mind killing animals for food, I'd just prefer to avoid torturing them first. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras#/media/File:Mulard_duck_being_force_fed_corn_in_order_to_fatten_its_liver_for_foie_gras_production.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras#/media/File:Mulard_d...

waffleiron 4y ago
I agree with your point, these geese live way better lives than their force fed brethren. I just couldn’t agree with the cruelty-“free” part.

defrost 4y ago

If we're playing ethics, how do you feel about murdering introduced animals to lessen their devestating impacting om pre existing ecologies? eg: Clean skin bull roundups in the Northern Territory and camel roundups in Central Australia? These are large coordinated musters to funnel feral animals into yards, to tracks, and to slaughter. There's a profit, sure, but the incentive for many is to stop them tearing up and destroying the land.

waffleiron 4y ago
I think that’s a really interesting ethical question, personally I think the profit incentive will cause a cobra effect type situation and these species will never be made extinct where they were introduced. Having that in mind it’s a situation where one needs a crystal ball to determine whats the right things. A single large ecological shift, with all ethical harms that come with it, or a long term lower level of ethical harm.
- defrost 4y ago
  I'm familiar with the areas in question and I fall on the side of believing that feral donkeys, camels, bulls, dogs, cats, cane toads, et al will never be erradicated as the area is vast and the animals are dug in; the best that can be achieved is to routinely cull back. On another ethical point; the "natural" boom | bust cycle of kangaroos in the Australian outback - their numbers explode when there are years of rain, and the ground is littered with bones in the years that follow. Is it ethical to cull booming kangaroo numbers (that will die in any case) to prevent the otherwise inevitable pressure on limited water supplies that follows? This is the land of Peter Singer (and others).