7 ms·

It makes me ashamed to be human. Reading stuff like that, and thinking about what we do to cows, sheep, lambs, chickens, etc, it dawned on me a while ago that h

• CalRobert 4y ago
  We moved to the Irish countryside and hearing the dairy cows wailing for their calves that have just been taken away from them is an uexpected meat/dairy deterrent.
  • beckler 4y ago
    When I was much younger, we had a donkey that had a breach birth, and the foal became stuck. It was awful, in every sense of the word. The foal ended up dying mid-birth, and we then did everything we could to save the mother. To the point where we were had a chain wrapped around the dead foal for pulling, and we had to cut up and break its bones to get it out. We eventually saved the mother, but that donkey was truly scarred. For about two years, I would of said that donkey was clinically depressed. It really changed my perspective on just how intelligent animals actually are, and I’m sure they feel complex emotions just like us.
    • cmrdporcupine 4y ago
      Heartbreaking story. I had never paid much attention to donkeys until the neighbours got one a couple years ago. They really are a fascinatingly emotive and sensitive animal and more like a pet than typical livestock. It comes up to the fence to socialize with us and get snuggles, and rubs noses with our border collies. It plays with their German Shepherd and with their kids in the yard. It likes to snuggle. It is protective of the miniature goats and sheep that it cohabits with. I expected it to be more similar to a horse, but it's different. Far less aloof. Kind of want one of my own now.
  • uoaei 4y ago
    I've always been impressed by vegetarians, because of their comfort in the moral convictions that keep cows alive and suffering for their dairy and children, but never dead for their meat (and an end to their suffering).
    • CalRobert 4y ago
      A lot of them don't seem to realize dairy and veal go hand in hand. Or some are vegetarian for other reasons (health, ecological, religous, etc)
      • uoaei 4y ago
        The thought-terminating cliche raises its head again. There is nothing "ecologically" sound about keeping cows alive and burping on the cheapest feed available. This is not a criticism of your response, just pointing out that these kinds of cliches become culturally embedded after a certain amount of time, even if they do not reflect the reality.
        • CalRobert 4y ago
          I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that people have lots of different reasons for choosing to be vegetarian, and animal welfare isn't always their concern. I certainly recognize dairy has a large ecological impact (I live in Ireland after all; we're choking on dairy) but someone who eats dairy and beef probably has a greater impact than someone who eats dairy and plant-based foods.
  • mellavora 4y ago
    I wonder if today's epidemic of depression isn't in part fueled by the consumption of milk from grieving cows. That distress has to get into the milk; this is one of the pathways of epigenetic regulation -- meaning the distress is heritable, and may impact cross-species. And it is a completely unneccessary practice. See https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/find-connect/projects/keeping-cow-calf-bringing-innovation-dairying https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/find-connect/project... On this farm, calves are kept with cows for 5 months after birth.
• paulcole 4y ago
  Wealthy people in developed countries won’t change. They either don’t want to inconvenience themselves or acknowledge that they’re the problem - or both. People will instead say nonsense like, “corporations are the problem.” I think it’s great that you’re taking steps to reduce your impact on the world (I’ve made many myself: no meat, no kids, no driving, no flying, small dense housing), but honestly don’t get your hopes up for anyone else following suit.
  • dzdt 4y ago
    Wealthy people's habits may be the problem, but its important to understand that putting the blame on individuals' choices is a trap and distraction. The solution is regulation. Heavy, obtrusive, expensive regulation, which is required because as you say most people won't change.
    • paulcole 4y ago
      Yeah, I honestly don’t care if most people won’t change. I’ve done what I want to for the planet and I’ll be long dead before the bill for climate change really comes due. It’s their kids’ problem not mine. Good luck to them.
      • hexatin 4y ago
        At the risk of being trite, your comment did make me think of the line from the end of The Lorax: “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
        • paulcole 4y ago
          I’ve cared enough to live a drastically different life from most Americans (albeit, it’s a way of life I prefer and I’d live this way even if it was worse for the environment). That’s about all I’m willing to do.
    • mr_toad 4y ago
      > Heavy, obtrusive, expensive regulation, which is required because as you say most people won't change. People will just vote it down. And not just the rich; the middle classes, the working classes, practically anyone who stands to lose even a few dollars or a few luxuries. People will only accept regulations that don’t affect themselves.
• jterrys 4y ago
  >But that animals are fellow beings, a lot like us in many ways. I didn't want pain, or someone to kill me, so I figured they didn't either. I respect your noble pursuit of not eating meat, and I have encountered arguments similar to yours enough times now that I feel compelled to respond in genuine kindness as someone who does like to eat meat (within "reason"). Animals are benignly cruel to each other beyond your imagination or the production of what nature documentaries will show you. Nature is a fight of survival. No animal wants pain or to be eaten, yet that is the reality that every wild animal faces. The conversation of humanizing animals is very interesting, but in the process we disregard the reality of their natural existence. Their lifespans are short, and often brutal. I weigh the reality of wilderness to the reality of industrial farming and ask myself if there isn't some kind of middle ground. I think there is. You can raise animals in pastures where they free range outside. They have a relatively peaceful, predation, free life after which you consume them (by killing them quickly and painlessly). I deplore the reality of industrial farming and "agricultural waste". Chickens being raised for one singular body part and then thrown away. We do not treat any of our food with respect, living or otherwise. We are not efficient. We do not care about quality. We don't even try consuming the whole thing. That's where I find this industry disgusting. Meat should not be this disposably cheap.
  • myshpa 4y ago
    > Animals are benignly cruel to each other beyond your imagination https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/animals-eat-animals https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/animals-eat-animals > They have a relatively peaceful, predation, free life after which you consume them https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/humane-meat https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/humane-meat
    • amrocha 4y ago
      They're not fallacies, they're fundamental disagreements. 1. No, animals do not have rights. 2. No, animal lives are not morally equal to human lives. 3. No, eating animals is not cruel. If you disagree with these then that's fine, we can have a discussion about that, but you have to understand that not everyone agrees with you on these points otherwise you'll become that annoying vegan that pushes their beliefs on everyone.
• Gordonjcp 4y ago
  The meat I eat comes from a ten minute bike ride's distance from my house. The heavily-processed vegetable-based "product" aggressively marketed to you has been shipped halfway round the world, having been farmed using just about the least sustainable farming practices imaginable. Which one is harming the environment?
  • myshpa 4y ago
    Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%. Very little food is air-freighted; it accounts for only 0.16% of food miles. Many of the foods people assume to come by air are actually transported by boat – avocados and almonds are prime examples. Shipping one kilogram of avocados from Mexico to the United Kingdom would generate ... only around 8% of avocados’ total footprint. Even when shipped at great distances, its emissions are much less than locally-produced animal products. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • drewm1980 4y ago
    If your grocery doesn't have locally produced, affordable, delicious vegan junk food by now you should be pissed off at the people producing your food and demand better.
    • Gordonjcp 4y ago
      I don't eat junk food.
• belorn 4y ago
  Humans need to start living in harmony with nature. We need to stop using artificial fertilizers that end up in the ocean and slowly suffocating and starving animals. I like oxygen and so do they. We must also stop spraying literal poison on the land and exterminating the insect population that other animals need to survive. We must stop cooking the planet and especially the oceans, and stop burning forests in order to grow things like avocado. However I understand that people do need to eat something, and thus I would encourage people to consider their diet based on the more complex plane than vegetarian vs meat. Most food, especially cheap food, do have negative consequences on the environment. If you can, look into the background of food you buy, alternative raise and farm your own food (chickens are excellent pets and one of the best way to keep grass down without using machinery, and they eat practically everything that would go into a compost). It doesn't scale but it do reduce the problem. Those that want to take a even bigger step can try the few environment friendly choices like say seaweed and shellfish. There is zero risk of mussel genocide, through one has to be aware of the farming method.
  • tap-snap-or-nap 4y ago
    Humans cannot help themselves disturb the delicate balance in many natural systems. Corporations are the real extremists today and a difficult challenge our society faces due to the effects it has on human society and all other species on this planet.
  • kortilla 4y ago
    > We need to stop using artificial fertilizers 80% of the population will starve to death if we do this. Is that what you want?
    • belorn 4y ago
      As I began in my second paragraph above, people do need to eat something. Right now that means sacrifice the environment if we want to keep everyone alive in the short term. Long term we could have farming that has zero environmental impact, like vertical farming with fully contained and controlled environment. It would cost huge amount of money and with the current economical system it would be impossible to feed everyone on the planet, but the technology is technically there. Right now however, a person should to take into account the environmental impact that different food has. Going into a store and buying a avocado will leave the buyer with some blood on their hands. They can try to reduce the amount of blood by making a difference choice depending on how a specific food is produced, but it will be more complex than just looking if it contains meat.
• jmkr 4y ago
  Animal rights is the most important movement. Everything every other movement says applies to animals as well, yet they get ignored, and they do not have a voice. From the article > "It's devastating," he said. "This is more than just an income issue for me. It's an inability to do what I love. So, on a financial level and on a personal level, it's devastating." I'm glad it's a financial loss. Nobody should be a commodity. And it's wrong that it's what somebody loves to do.
• 14 4y ago
  If someone said I could live my life and be happy but at the end I have to die or not live at all I am going to choose life. The same is true for the animals I raise. They get to have a very peaceful life where they are spoiled. They get heat in the winter, fresh water daily, the correct amount of calories each day, treats which they love like fresh picked berries and other foods they love, protection from predators, and all and all a very privileged life. But in the end they do die as painlessly as I can make it. If I didn’t raise these animals they just wouldn’t have existed to begin with. So I do feel bad they have to die but I also gave them a great life.
  • wyre 4y ago
    All those things could presumably be said about Scandinavian prisons but anyone would still prefer freedom ;)
    • olyjohn 4y ago
      What's an animal going to do with it's freedom? Go get a college degree and launch a startup?
  • drewm1980 4y ago
    Your animals are pets, not a food production system. Those animal farming practices will not scale to feed 8 billion people. Most ~humans are not receiving the standard of care you claim to be providing your animals with. The idea that continuing to live is a personal decision is tempting as a part of a moral code (Ayn Rand takes this idea to absurd conclusions, for example.), but depression/suffering must be ~extremely severe for people to get over their self-preservation instinct. You are ~not, in any meaningful way, making a conscious decision to continue living for the rest of your natural life. You never gave consent to be in the situation you're in as a human being, and the animals you're raising ~certainly didn't.