6 ms·

This article and the research it describes are so confusing to me, as someone who owns livestock and has been around a variety of farm animals. Of COURSE they h

by kaikai 3y ago

This article and the research it describes are so confusing to me, as someone who owns livestock and has been around a variety of farm animals. Of COURSE they have friends, can hold their pee, and have complex emotions. If people spent time with meat animals, there would be a lot more vegetarians. I feel like the only reason we tell ourselves otherwise is because we want to be able to excuse terrible practices like battery cages and feed lots. If they’re dumb animals that can’t feel, it’s easier to allow that treatment. I didn’t think actual farmers or people who research farm animals would be surprised at these kinds of results.

browningstreet 3y ago
My son and I often joke that in the same way that some countries require a period of military service, we could require a period of agricultural and meat farm service. Maybe even garbage disposal service.
- primax 3y ago
  And service working as a hospitality worker. No one would ever be rude to servers again.
- c22 3y ago
  Add customer service and janitorial to the list...
  - harha 3y ago
    And before you know it you have some bureaucrat deciding on how to live your life.. I’d rather not have any mandatory service
    - metabagel 3y ago
      It’s just a thought experiment.
      - harha 3y ago
        It’s quite a practical one where I come from, you can choose civil service instead of military service, where you’ll function as an underpaid slave to an organization that lacks incentive to develop your skills, pay a fair wage and focus on things that are relevant, it will rather do whatever keeps the inflow of almost free labor going. This is all because someone thought it’s good to have young people give something back to society, whatever that means.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- blackoil 3y ago
  As per YouTube, in Japan student cleanup the classroom and manage school farm, that should give some perspective.
theultdev 3y ago
> If people spent time with meat animals, there would be a lot more vegetarians. Having grown up on a ranch, yes I know cows are smart... chickens not so much. It does not change my views on eating beef at all. Cows are treated very well in all the ranches I've been on. One because it makes them taste better, another because we about our livestock. Your alternative is them not existing at all, they cannot survive in nature. The cow does not know it's going to be slaughtered. It lives a nice happy life roaming the fields, on the last few days it goes to processing to eat a massive last great meal. It's the nicest form of us being eating our prey.
- karterk 3y ago
  > Cows are treated very well in all the ranches I've been on. Unfortunately the entire premise of your argument is based on a personal anecdote that's a gross generalization of vast number of cattle farms.
  - spookie 3y ago
    Let's be fair and acknowledge the difference between a small local farm and the larger "industrial"-like ones. I grew up in a farm, I know others too, people are kind to their animals. Of course, the larger ones don't care. The same happens even when producing vegetables, no regards to nature in those cases either.
- defrost 3y ago
  > Your alternative is them not existing at all, they cannot survive in nature. That's flat out false - there are many examples of free range beef, the entire clean skin northern australian market for one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBpOiEfYk6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBpOiEfYk6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B-zWxDJOZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B-zWxDJOZU
- archon1410 3y ago
  Every time there's an article posted somewhere stating the obvious (as the original post does), there's always someone in the comments referring to non-humans as if they are objects, insisting that of course it is okay to breed various animals into existence to exploit someone for life and then hang them by a hook when they're no longer useful, and slit their throats or shoot them or to dismember them alive (as is documented). "Of course cows are treated well!", nevermind their children being taken away from them and slaughtered in childhood—love for your children must just be a human thing. Nevermind that the majority of cows, hundreds of millions of them, exist in factory farms. No, you should continue to eat flesh because "we treat them well in ranches". Incredibly depraved behaviour that history will not look kindly upon. It should, and does, make anyone with a conscience nauseous and sick.
odyssey7 3y ago
“I believe I have omitted mentioning that, in my first voyage from Boston, being becalm'd off Block Island, our people set about catching cod, and hauled up a great many. Hitherto I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food, and on this occasion consider'd, with my master Tryon, the taking every fish as a kind of unprovoked murder, since none of them had, or ever could do us any injury that might justify the slaughter. All this seemed very reasonable. But I had formerly been a great lover of fish, and, when this came hot out of the frying-pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanc'd some time between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs; then thought I, "If you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you." So I din'd upon cod very heartily, and continued to eat with other people, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.” — Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography
- ornornor 3y ago
  I’d say the difference is that we have the possibility to not eat them and still sustain ourselves well. Fishes don’t have canned beans and tofu factories, it’s either eat other fish or die, there is no choice. Unlike for humans, where eating animals is a choice not an obligation.
  - Pamar 3y ago
    This is basically the position of Plutarch on the matter of eating meat: http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/plutarch01.htm http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/plutarch01.htm ... humans have the option to choose differently, carnivores cannot. In a sense, exercising the option makes us "more human" (or less animal) than defaulting to a meat diet.
Dalewyn 3y ago
>I feel like the only reason we tell ourselves otherwise is because we want to be able to excuse terrible practices like battery cages and feed lots. No, the reason is simply a desire to feel superior; a desire to have unique properties not shared by other organisms. It's raw, undiluted human egoism; we desire to be gods of the universe.
raynr 3y ago
Most people I've talked to want farm animals to be treated "well", and whatever that word means in their heads, we all agree that it's some standard higher than industrial scale factory farming. The problem is that meat and dairy from humanely treated free-range animals is generally more expensive, and most people aren't willing to pay extra or cut down on their meat consumption. And so it goes.
strken 3y ago
People use the word feedlot interchangeably to describe anything from an indoor shed where animals are so crammed in they're nearly immobilised, to an outdoor area with some shadecloth and troughs but no grass, to animals kept in exactly the same paddocks they're usually in but fed supplemental feed during a drought[1]. Yes, the weird American torture sheds are bad, but an outdoor feedlot with shade and space is really not that bad for the animals. It's a complicated tradeoff between different factors: cattle are much more protected from predators (dogs, usually) and random stressors, they have ample food and water at all times, they're better able to be monitored for disease and injury; however, they've got less space, it can be hot and dusty, and there's more random stuff going on around them[0]. People have this idea in their heads that a feedlot looks like a sow stall or a chicken cage when in actual fact it's a crowded paddock with all the grass trampled[1]. Not exactly nice, but not some insane torture device either. [0] https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/Fulltext/AN19621 https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/Fulltext/AN19621 [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-03-15/feedlot-definition-causes-problems-for-drought-affected-farmers/10899488 https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-03-15/feedlot-definit...

by kaikai 3y ago

browningstreet 3y ago

My son and I often joke that in the same way that some countries require a period of military service, we could require a period of agricultural and meat farm service. Maybe even garbage disposal service.

primax 3y ago
And service working as a hospitality worker. No one would ever be rude to servers again.
c22 3y ago
Add customer service and janitorial to the list...
- harha 3y ago
  And before you know it you have some bureaucrat deciding on how to live your life.. I’d rather not have any mandatory service
  - metabagel 3y ago
    It’s just a thought experiment.
    - harha 3y ago
      It’s quite a practical one where I come from, you can choose civil service instead of military service, where you’ll function as an underpaid slave to an organization that lacks incentive to develop your skills, pay a fair wage and focus on things that are relevant, it will rather do whatever keeps the inflow of almost free labor going. This is all because someone thought it’s good to have young people give something back to society, whatever that means.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
blackoil 3y ago
As per YouTube, in Japan student cleanup the classroom and manage school farm, that should give some perspective.

theultdev 3y ago

> If people spent time with meat animals, there would be a lot more vegetarians. Having grown up on a ranch, yes I know cows are smart... chickens not so much. It does not change my views on eating beef at all. Cows are treated very well in all the ranches I've been on. One because it makes them taste better, another because we about our livestock. Your alternative is them not existing at all, they cannot survive in nature. The cow does not know it's going to be slaughtered. It lives a nice happy life roaming the fields, on the last few days it goes to processing to eat a massive last great meal. It's the nicest form of us being eating our prey.

karterk 3y ago
> Cows are treated very well in all the ranches I've been on. Unfortunately the entire premise of your argument is based on a personal anecdote that's a gross generalization of vast number of cattle farms.
- spookie 3y ago
  Let's be fair and acknowledge the difference between a small local farm and the larger "industrial"-like ones. I grew up in a farm, I know others too, people are kind to their animals. Of course, the larger ones don't care. The same happens even when producing vegetables, no regards to nature in those cases either.
defrost 3y ago
> Your alternative is them not existing at all, they cannot survive in nature. That's flat out false - there are many examples of free range beef, the entire clean skin northern australian market for one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBpOiEfYk6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBpOiEfYk6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B-zWxDJOZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B-zWxDJOZU
archon1410 3y ago
Every time there's an article posted somewhere stating the obvious (as the original post does), there's always someone in the comments referring to non-humans as if they are objects, insisting that of course it is okay to breed various animals into existence to exploit someone for life and then hang them by a hook when they're no longer useful, and slit their throats or shoot them or to dismember them alive (as is documented). "Of course cows are treated well!", nevermind their children being taken away from them and slaughtered in childhood—love for your children must just be a human thing. Nevermind that the majority of cows, hundreds of millions of them, exist in factory farms. No, you should continue to eat flesh because "we treat them well in ranches". Incredibly depraved behaviour that history will not look kindly upon. It should, and does, make anyone with a conscience nauseous and sick.

odyssey7 3y ago

“I believe I have omitted mentioning that, in my first voyage from Boston, being becalm'd off Block Island, our people set about catching cod, and hauled up a great many. Hitherto I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food, and on this occasion consider'd, with my master Tryon, the taking every fish as a kind of unprovoked murder, since none of them had, or ever could do us any injury that might justify the slaughter. All this seemed very reasonable. But I had formerly been a great lover of fish, and, when this came hot out of the frying-pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanc'd some time between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs; then thought I, "If you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you." So I din'd upon cod very heartily, and continued to eat with other people, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.” — Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography

ornornor 3y ago
I’d say the difference is that we have the possibility to not eat them and still sustain ourselves well. Fishes don’t have canned beans and tofu factories, it’s either eat other fish or die, there is no choice. Unlike for humans, where eating animals is a choice not an obligation.
- Pamar 3y ago
  This is basically the position of Plutarch on the matter of eating meat: http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/plutarch01.htm http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/plutarch01.htm ... humans have the option to choose differently, carnivores cannot. In a sense, exercising the option makes us "more human" (or less animal) than defaulting to a meat diet.

Dalewyn 3y ago

>I feel like the only reason we tell ourselves otherwise is because we want to be able to excuse terrible practices like battery cages and feed lots. No, the reason is simply a desire to feel superior; a desire to have unique properties not shared by other organisms. It's raw, undiluted human egoism; we desire to be gods of the universe.

raynr 3y ago

Most people I've talked to want farm animals to be treated "well", and whatever that word means in their heads, we all agree that it's some standard higher than industrial scale factory farming. The problem is that meat and dairy from humanely treated free-range animals is generally more expensive, and most people aren't willing to pay extra or cut down on their meat consumption. And so it goes.

strken 3y ago

People use the word feedlot interchangeably to describe anything from an indoor shed where animals are so crammed in they're nearly immobilised, to an outdoor area with some shadecloth and troughs but no grass, to animals kept in exactly the same paddocks they're usually in but fed supplemental feed during a drought[1]. Yes, the weird American torture sheds are bad, but an outdoor feedlot with shade and space is really not that bad for the animals. It's a complicated tradeoff between different factors: cattle are much more protected from predators (dogs, usually) and random stressors, they have ample food and water at all times, they're better able to be monitored for disease and injury; however, they've got less space, it can be hot and dusty, and there's more random stuff going on around them[0]. People have this idea in their heads that a feedlot looks like a sow stall or a chicken cage when in actual fact it's a crowded paddock with all the grass trampled[1]. Not exactly nice, but not some insane torture device either. [0] https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/Fulltext/AN19621 https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/Fulltext/AN19621 [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-03-15/feedlot-definition-causes-problems-for-drought-affected-farmers/10899488 https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-03-15/feedlot-definit...