4 ms·

You're talking about relatively few people -- I too would bet that most people (those of us not working in slaughterhouses) would find videos from factory farms

You're talking about relatively few people -- I too would bet that most people (those of us not working in slaughterhouses) would find videos from factory farms disturbing. There's a reason big-ag farmers are afraid people will see videos showing their operations. So afraid that they pay off politicians to ban such video recording.

Jensson 3y ago
> I too would bet that most people (those of us not working in slaughterhouses) would find videos from factory farms disturbing. But why would they be more disturbing than watching a person slaughtering and cutting up an animal? You didn't answer the question, you just said that one was disturbing, not why one was more disturbing than the other.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Why is it relevant whether one can put a finger on the difference? The claim was that people use their economic distance from meat production to protect themselves from the negative feelings that would be created if they had to do it themselves, especially in the manner of factory farming. Anyway my theory for the distinction is 1) the scale of suffering is obviously far far greater than family-scale slaughter and 2) the way in which we do factory farming reflects poorly on us as a species. If people had to see their livestock suffer, they would make a different calculation of how much meat to eat and how to handle that animal while it’s alive. As someone else mentioned, this isn’t some crazy avant garde hypothesis: this is exactly why mass meat producers don’t want people filming their operations. The prior argument that “people always killed animals!” is irrelevant. They certainly did not kill animals the way we do today and again, this is evidenced in the belief systems that emerged during times where people couldn’t afford to be hundreds of miles removed from the production of their food.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > Why is it relevant whether one can put a finger on the difference? You brought this up, not me. > 1) the scale of suffering is obviously far far greater than family-scale slaughter Not if every family has to slaughter their own meat, the scale is the same just distributed so you don't see it. > 2) the way in which we do factory farming reflects poorly on us as a species This isn't inherent to factory farming though, just the ways it is done in some places. And this goes for family farming as well, some families would put animals in small cages and not take care of them to save money and because they are lazy. If you filmed them and their animals I don't think people would feel any different.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      No, I pointed out the difference, which is obviously real. The reason for the difference is irrelevant. Uhhh no, the scale certainly wouldn’t be the same. An average American eats more than a hundred animals per year. You can’t seriously think people would be consuming at that rate, or could even afford to consume at that rate, without factory farming. > some families [abuse their animals]… people wouldn’t feel any different We literally put people in jail for abusing their animals, so yes, they actually do feel differently about it.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        > An average American eats more than a hundred animals per year Most of that are chickens. Have you seen a family farm where people eat their chickens? They just take one and behead it, killing it takes no effort and is just a part of preparing the food no different than peeling the vegetables. Killing a chicken a day per family is very little work. > We literally put people in jail for abusing their animals, so yes, they actually do feel differently about it. Those laws also applies to factory farms, unless you do worse than them you are fine.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Yes it is actually hard to kill a chicken per day, which is why societies that have to grow and kill their own food don’t eat a chicken per day. Only the hyper-industrialized meat producers get even close to that.
        Exoristos 3y ago
        Where do you guys come up with this stuff? When I was a teen in Appalachia, I butchered dozens of chickens a day, by hand, during canning season.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        I think you lost the thread. The claim was factory farming doesn’t change the volume of meat consumption and production, only the geographic location of it. It is economically not viable for every American family to produce and kill their own 2lb of (currently, on average) consumed meat per day. That is why we have factory farming and why it dominates our food supply: economies of scale. The lack of these economies is why you objectively and in actual fact do not see the same scale of meat consumption in less industrialized food systems. It has nothing to do with whether it’s physically or psychologically possible to kill x chickens per day.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Jensson 3y ago

> I too would bet that most people (those of us not working in slaughterhouses) would find videos from factory farms disturbing. But why would they be more disturbing than watching a person slaughtering and cutting up an animal? You didn't answer the question, you just said that one was disturbing, not why one was more disturbing than the other.

ethanbond 3y ago
Why is it relevant whether one can put a finger on the difference? The claim was that people use their economic distance from meat production to protect themselves from the negative feelings that would be created if they had to do it themselves, especially in the manner of factory farming. Anyway my theory for the distinction is 1) the scale of suffering is obviously far far greater than family-scale slaughter and 2) the way in which we do factory farming reflects poorly on us as a species. If people had to see their livestock suffer, they would make a different calculation of how much meat to eat and how to handle that animal while it’s alive. As someone else mentioned, this isn’t some crazy avant garde hypothesis: this is exactly why mass meat producers don’t want people filming their operations. The prior argument that “people always killed animals!” is irrelevant. They certainly did not kill animals the way we do today and again, this is evidenced in the belief systems that emerged during times where people couldn’t afford to be hundreds of miles removed from the production of their food.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > Why is it relevant whether one can put a finger on the difference? You brought this up, not me. > 1) the scale of suffering is obviously far far greater than family-scale slaughter Not if every family has to slaughter their own meat, the scale is the same just distributed so you don't see it. > 2) the way in which we do factory farming reflects poorly on us as a species This isn't inherent to factory farming though, just the ways it is done in some places. And this goes for family farming as well, some families would put animals in small cages and not take care of them to save money and because they are lazy. If you filmed them and their animals I don't think people would feel any different.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    No, I pointed out the difference, which is obviously real. The reason for the difference is irrelevant. Uhhh no, the scale certainly wouldn’t be the same. An average American eats more than a hundred animals per year. You can’t seriously think people would be consuming at that rate, or could even afford to consume at that rate, without factory farming. > some families [abuse their animals]… people wouldn’t feel any different We literally put people in jail for abusing their animals, so yes, they actually do feel differently about it.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > An average American eats more than a hundred animals per year Most of that are chickens. Have you seen a family farm where people eat their chickens? They just take one and behead it, killing it takes no effort and is just a part of preparing the food no different than peeling the vegetables. Killing a chicken a day per family is very little work. > We literally put people in jail for abusing their animals, so yes, they actually do feel differently about it. Those laws also applies to factory farms, unless you do worse than them you are fine.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Yes it is actually hard to kill a chicken per day, which is why societies that have to grow and kill their own food don’t eat a chicken per day. Only the hyper-industrialized meat producers get even close to that.
        Exoristos 3y ago
        Where do you guys come up with this stuff? When I was a teen in Appalachia, I butchered dozens of chickens a day, by hand, during canning season.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        I think you lost the thread. The claim was factory farming doesn’t change the volume of meat consumption and production, only the geographic location of it. It is economically not viable for every American family to produce and kill their own 2lb of (currently, on average) consumed meat per day. That is why we have factory farming and why it dominates our food supply: economies of scale. The lack of these economies is why you objectively and in actual fact do not see the same scale of meat consumption in less industrialized food systems. It has nothing to do with whether it’s physically or psychologically possible to kill x chickens per day.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]