4 ms·
Sad for the animals. But what do people reading the article think is going to happen to the animals anyway? They are going to get killed so you can eat them. Ha
by uhtred 4y ago
Sad for the animals. But what do people reading the article think is going to happen to the animals anyway? They are going to get killed so you can eat them. Have you seen how they kill chickens? Hang them by their feet and slit their throats. Nice. All because YOU demand it every time you buy that pack of chicken breasts for your unimaginative "lean protein hurr durr" meal of chicken and broccoli. Maybe stop eating meat and the poor things wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
- ccooffee 4y agoAgreed. This isn't really a threat from the perspective of the animals. (Or, well, it is, but the magnitude of the loss isn't very high. Maybe it's like a death row inmate dying of covid instead of lethal injection scheduled for a month in the future?) The animals are going to die regardless. This is a ransomware threat to the profit-making which requires the animals to die in the "right" manner. Granted, the article DOES NOT discuss this issue as the title (and your comment) suggests. The article talks about how ransomware is a sneaky threat to Canadian national food security. I'd not considered ransomware and food security too closely intertwined, so that's nice I guess. If all of the livestock in the country dies, there's probably not enough rice, beans, and potatoes for everyone .
- kulahan 4y agoBecause there's a difference between millions of animals being murdered for no reason and then wasted vs millions of animals being slaughtered for food. For one, nobody is going to eat those animals because many of them were not ready or there is simply too much supply for the demand at that time.