3 ms·

The definition of humanely includes compassion and sympathy. Even if you raise a cow on a 'happy' farm, at the end the cow will end up in a slaughter house whe

The definition of humanely includes compassion and sympathy. Even if you raise a cow on a 'happy' farm, at the end the cow will end up in a slaughter house where the cow experiences immense terror and fear. To be humane would mean not to eat animals if our survival doesn't depend on it and in most parts of the world we don't need to eat animals anymore. I think 'less cruel' would be a more apt description - but eating animals that came from a happy farm is still cruel.

cbrozefsky 4y ago
Interestingly, on my last visit to the farm stand picking up beef, the owner was talking about how made their choice of butcher based on those principals. They take them to one whose operation was designed with consultation from Temple Grandin. She takes the cows she has raised there herself, and witnesses the operation. I've processed chickens and ducks that I have raised. Much smaller scale, and actually when it comes to duck I'm much more about the eggs than the meat 8^)
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  If there is no other way to survive - yes raising or hunting animals and doing the best we can to minimise suffering is essential. There are videos of farmers who gave up farming animals because they realized 'there is someone in there'. In the BBC docu series 'dark side of dairy' a farmer starts crying when he's asked to explain what happens to the baby cow. Chickens are deeply social animals and can create deep bonds with humans. You might have seen the video of a hen waiting for her human friend coming back from school and running towards him. Or how about Monique - the hen that traveled around the world and 'kind of saved my life' [0] of her human friend. Cows are these gentle and curious giant creatures and yet we betray their trust by killing them in the end. [1] Also, why are we not using the actual words like killing and butchering vs processing. The meat industry comes up with all these words to soften what is actually happening to animals. Humanity will eventually give up killing & consuming animals for pleasure and future humans will see what we are doing now to other sentient beings as barbaric [2] [0]https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/apr/21/why-did-the-chicken-cross-the-globe-french-sailor-guirec-soudee-monique https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/apr/21/why-did-the-c... [1] https://moustache-farmer.de/en https://moustache-farmer.de/en [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS7NRtEJBcA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS7NRtEJBcA
  - cbrozefsky 4y ago
    I disagree with your prediction about future humanity, but respect your perspective. I guess one way to put it would be to say that I have a bit more of a Tibetan Buddhist perspective. I've had my hands in a carcass, pulling out organs. I have tried to make sure I made death and quick and painless as I could for chickens. I have not butchered anything bigger than that. I don't do that for all my meat. I think we differ more about how much death and life are intertwined and inseperable, than we differ on how sacred and considerate that relationship should be.
    - uxcolumbo 4y ago
      > I disagree with your prediction about future humanity In what way? Humanity has agreed that human slavery is bad, so why would future humans not apply this same principle to other sentient beings - since the need to exploit and kill other animals becomes ever more redundant. Most of us here in the West eat animals either because of culture or tradition and because we enjoy the taste, not because we need it to survive. Will there be small pockets of humans in the future that still eat animals? Yes, tribal folks living with nature or people who choose to live in areas where there are no other food sources. But I believe most future humans will reject the idea that exploiting and killing animals is necessary for our survival, when there are so many other food sources available. In the future we'll probably have meat substitutes that are healthier and with a smaller carbon and cruelty footprint than animal meat. > Tibetan Buddhist perspective I don't know what this perspective really means. I read some time ago the Dalai Lama was advised to eat animals, because his health depended on it. And maybe other Buddhists and people in Tibet have to eat animals because their survival depends on it. Also my understanding of Buddha's teachings is to end suffering. A core principle of Buddhism is non-violence, kindness and compassion. Killing an animal when it's not necessary is neither of those. I also understand that it's ok for Buddhists to eat animals if they weren't killed specifically for them. But buying animal meat from shops does not qualify that criteria. Eating roadkill does. We can choose between causing suffering or not causing suffering. A tiger for example can't. So when we can avoid the exploitation and killing of animals - why don't we? This ex special forces guy perfectly sums it up. https://youtu.be/BUMGBwgGYWw?t=100 https://youtu.be/BUMGBwgGYWw?t=100
pacaro 4y ago
This is an important perspective. We all have to find our own peace with how the food we eat is produced. Temple Grandin discusses this in "Animals Make Us Human: Creating the Best Life for Animals" [1]. She discusses the distress she felt when the first slaughter house that she had designed opened, and she watched the cows calming going to be slaughtered. Even with the reduced distress, or perhaps because of it, that she felt like a betrayer. But she also talks about how she comes to terms with consuming ethically produced meat. Prey species like cattle — or the nearest wild equivalent — live with high stress levels, with threats from predators, and the constant search for food. On a farm the food is assured, and the environment is less stressful. Her thesis (which I hope I am representing correctly) is that this can be a trade. The animal lives a calmer safer life, without cruelty, and in return, we eat it. Not everyone will be happy with that argument. The world would be arguably be a better place if more people thought about this [1] https://a.co/d/bQwSb4q https://a.co/d/bQwSb4q
- uxcolumbo 4y ago
  Interesting. If all animals currently consumed would be treated like that - then yes suffering overall would be reduced. But it's not realistic to feed the world with these farming methods. And 'ethical farming' is not without cruelty. Cruelty is still applied at the end. And I wouldn't call it a fair trade either. These cows are being bred because we want to eat them. If there wasn't a demand then the cow on the ethical farm wouldn't exist or experience cruelty. Animals in nature are free and yes are being hunted by other animals who need to eat other animals to survive. It's the nature of things. Most of humanity don't need to eat meat anymore and hence have the choice of not causing suffering or being cruel.

cbrozefsky 4y ago

Interestingly, on my last visit to the farm stand picking up beef, the owner was talking about how made their choice of butcher based on those principals. They take them to one whose operation was designed with consultation from Temple Grandin. She takes the cows she has raised there herself, and witnesses the operation. I've processed chickens and ducks that I have raised. Much smaller scale, and actually when it comes to duck I'm much more about the eggs than the meat 8^)

uxcolumbo 4y ago
If there is no other way to survive - yes raising or hunting animals and doing the best we can to minimise suffering is essential. There are videos of farmers who gave up farming animals because they realized 'there is someone in there'. In the BBC docu series 'dark side of dairy' a farmer starts crying when he's asked to explain what happens to the baby cow. Chickens are deeply social animals and can create deep bonds with humans. You might have seen the video of a hen waiting for her human friend coming back from school and running towards him. Or how about Monique - the hen that traveled around the world and 'kind of saved my life' [0] of her human friend. Cows are these gentle and curious giant creatures and yet we betray their trust by killing them in the end. [1] Also, why are we not using the actual words like killing and butchering vs processing. The meat industry comes up with all these words to soften what is actually happening to animals. Humanity will eventually give up killing & consuming animals for pleasure and future humans will see what we are doing now to other sentient beings as barbaric [2] [0]https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/apr/21/why-did-the-chicken-cross-the-globe-french-sailor-guirec-soudee-monique https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/apr/21/why-did-the-c... [1] https://moustache-farmer.de/en https://moustache-farmer.de/en [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS7NRtEJBcA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS7NRtEJBcA
- cbrozefsky 4y ago
  I disagree with your prediction about future humanity, but respect your perspective. I guess one way to put it would be to say that I have a bit more of a Tibetan Buddhist perspective. I've had my hands in a carcass, pulling out organs. I have tried to make sure I made death and quick and painless as I could for chickens. I have not butchered anything bigger than that. I don't do that for all my meat. I think we differ more about how much death and life are intertwined and inseperable, than we differ on how sacred and considerate that relationship should be.
  - uxcolumbo 4y ago
    > I disagree with your prediction about future humanity In what way? Humanity has agreed that human slavery is bad, so why would future humans not apply this same principle to other sentient beings - since the need to exploit and kill other animals becomes ever more redundant. Most of us here in the West eat animals either because of culture or tradition and because we enjoy the taste, not because we need it to survive. Will there be small pockets of humans in the future that still eat animals? Yes, tribal folks living with nature or people who choose to live in areas where there are no other food sources. But I believe most future humans will reject the idea that exploiting and killing animals is necessary for our survival, when there are so many other food sources available. In the future we'll probably have meat substitutes that are healthier and with a smaller carbon and cruelty footprint than animal meat. > Tibetan Buddhist perspective I don't know what this perspective really means. I read some time ago the Dalai Lama was advised to eat animals, because his health depended on it. And maybe other Buddhists and people in Tibet have to eat animals because their survival depends on it. Also my understanding of Buddha's teachings is to end suffering. A core principle of Buddhism is non-violence, kindness and compassion. Killing an animal when it's not necessary is neither of those. I also understand that it's ok for Buddhists to eat animals if they weren't killed specifically for them. But buying animal meat from shops does not qualify that criteria. Eating roadkill does. We can choose between causing suffering or not causing suffering. A tiger for example can't. So when we can avoid the exploitation and killing of animals - why don't we? This ex special forces guy perfectly sums it up. https://youtu.be/BUMGBwgGYWw?t=100 https://youtu.be/BUMGBwgGYWw?t=100

pacaro 4y ago

This is an important perspective. We all have to find our own peace with how the food we eat is produced. Temple Grandin discusses this in "Animals Make Us Human: Creating the Best Life for Animals" [1]. She discusses the distress she felt when the first slaughter house that she had designed opened, and she watched the cows calming going to be slaughtered. Even with the reduced distress, or perhaps because of it, that she felt like a betrayer. But she also talks about how she comes to terms with consuming ethically produced meat. Prey species like cattle — or the nearest wild equivalent — live with high stress levels, with threats from predators, and the constant search for food. On a farm the food is assured, and the environment is less stressful. Her thesis (which I hope I am representing correctly) is that this can be a trade. The animal lives a calmer safer life, without cruelty, and in return, we eat it. Not everyone will be happy with that argument. The world would be arguably be a better place if more people thought about this [1] https://a.co/d/bQwSb4q https://a.co/d/bQwSb4q

uxcolumbo 4y ago
Interesting. If all animals currently consumed would be treated like that - then yes suffering overall would be reduced. But it's not realistic to feed the world with these farming methods. And 'ethical farming' is not without cruelty. Cruelty is still applied at the end. And I wouldn't call it a fair trade either. These cows are being bred because we want to eat them. If there wasn't a demand then the cow on the ethical farm wouldn't exist or experience cruelty. Animals in nature are free and yes are being hunted by other animals who need to eat other animals to survive. It's the nature of things. Most of humanity don't need to eat meat anymore and hence have the choice of not causing suffering or being cruel.