5 ms·

During COVID, farmers were killing pigs with steam. Imagine being steamed alive. Animal industry is cruel beyond most people's imagination. Anything to lessen t

by akudha 2y ago

During COVID, farmers were killing pigs with steam. Imagine being steamed alive. Animal industry is cruel beyond most people's imagination. Anything to lessen that cruelty is good, very good. We aren't gonna reduce our meat consumption, the least we could do is lessen their suffering https://www.humanesociety.org/blog/factory-farms-are-baking-pigs-alive-during-pandemic-veterinarians-call-changing-guidance https://www.humanesociety.org/blog/factory-farms-are-baking-... From the article above In an even more extreme form, referred to as VSD-plus, heat, steam and/or gas are injected into the building, baking the animals alive

poincaredisk 2y ago
>We aren't gonna reduce our meat consumption, Why? This is certainly possible if we, humans, really wanted to. So I assume you just don't believe society will ever decide to do it. This is unnecessarily negative outlook IMO - the first step to change something is to believe change is possible.
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  This is a classic is-ought situation. Seems easier to improve the process and ethics of killing animals for consumption rather than reducing meat consumption at a society level. People don’t change their ways very easily. I know I have to fight rolling my eyes whenever someone suggests the the solution is simple: eat less meat.
  - poincaredisk 2y ago
    I agree with your statements, but why not do both? Improving the process of killing animals doesn't exclude working towards reducing the number of deaths. If the GP said we will never stop eating meat I would agree. But saying we can't even reduce it is a bit extreme - we successfully reduced many other things (without banning them, just by coercing people - for example cigarettes).
  - sahila 2y ago
    When speaking of ethics, how do you measure the ethics of causing pain vs killing? I'd say even a 1% reduction in consumption (killing) is better than whatever pain reduction. I guess the point is you and others feel so strongly about ways to reduce suffering but couldn't care less about life.
    - neom 2y ago
      Not sure that is fair. Many people accept that there are 2 sure things in life (maybe 3) - birth and death. In a way, birth and death are two of the most natural things we have, a family of birds is born, a fox makes it's way up the tree and eats them all. Many people be able to say "that's life, i just hope the didn't suffer!"
      - sahila 2y ago
        Fair enough, but I don't think that would be consistent when applied to people. Which is to say ethics likely isn't that important for most people - we often try our best to prevent death and may even increase someone's suffering to prolong their life.
        neom 2y ago
        I'm from Canada where we have legal assisted death, something I would vote for over and over again, as I think most Canadians would. I don't eat much meat personally, but it's more a ecological environmental thing vs an animals thing. Things live, things die, that is life, oh well. :)
  - akudha 2y ago
    Seems easier to improve the process and ethics of killing animals for consumption rather than reducing meat consumption at a society level. This is the point I am also trying to make. At least short term, I do not see meat consumption going down. Maybe younger folks growing up today might understand climate change and the meat industry's contribution to it more than their parents/grandparents and be willing to make changes to their diet, but changes like this take a lot of time, if they happen at all. In the meantime, anything we can do to lessen the cruelty to factory farmed animals (for ethical reasons) and anything we can do to reduce harm caused by meat industry on the environment, however small, is worth pursuing
- akudha 2y ago
  This is not negativity, this is reality. I have never eaten meat in my life. But I am surrounded by meat eaters. Even polite, rational, calm discussion about reducing meat consumption doesn't last more than a minute. It is as though people are more addicted to meat than alcohol and somehow it is drilled into their heads that humans need meat for protein and strength, though there are tons of vegetarians who lead healthy lives. You don't need to take my word for it - try talking to someone about reducing their meat consumption and see how the conversation goes.
  - poincaredisk 2y ago
    >This is not negativity, this is reality. Saying "we aren't gonna reduce our meat consumption" is negativity. Saying "we aren't gonna stop eating meat" would be realistic. But there are plenty of ways we could reduce it. For example, there is a growing trend (in larger cities at least) to reduce one's meat consumption (sometimes completely - there are more vegetarians year by year). Another thing would be reducing subsidies that go towards producing meat - they skew the market in a way that promotes meat. That would be a unpopular change, which is why nobody does it, but it would make sense considering just environmental impact (carbon credits are an even different but related topic). I'm not going to convince anyone to stop eating meat, who am I to tell them how to live (and I understand why that would be annoying). But changing my personal habits is absolutely within my power, and that may even convince someone to do the same (just like my decision to stop eating meat was because I learned my friend does it.
    - akudha 2y ago
      I never asked anyone to stop eating meat or even reduce it. I only tried (very politely, because I know this is a sensitive topic) to point out the effects of overfishing etc and in my experience, people don't want to hear it. In many cases, they are fully aware of the effects of meat/dairy industry, they still don't want to give up meat. This I understand, I struggled to give up coffee for many many years. On the question of reducing subsidies for the meat industry - are you aware how powerful the meat industry is? Even the almighty Oprah at the height of her fame and reach couldn't do anything, got sued by the beef industry. There are a few states that have ag-gag laws, do you really think there is political will to repeal these? In my town, a single mango costs $3.49. Sure it would be nice to subsidize fruits and veggies, but animal industry lobbying is way more powerful than mango/watermelon lobbying. I appreciate your positivity, I suppose our experience on this issue has just been polar opposite.
AcerbicZero 2y ago
Thats horrifying, and it motivated me to do a bit of reading - most of what I saw suggested it was only used for containment of wide spread infections in factory farmed animal population (mad cow was the one that came up the most) and in those cases I can kinda understand the need to contain the animals and dispatch them....but the idea that it could last 3+ hours is still unacceptable. I don't mind the killing, but it should be quick, efficient, and as painless as possible for the animal involved.
aziaziazi 2y ago
The non-plus VSD is described as so: > Ventilator shutdown involves locking a flock or herd of animals in a building and turning off the ventilation systems. As the temperature rises and gases inside the building accumulate, the animals suffocate to death, usually over a period of many hours. Rising "gases" is CO2. Suffocation by co2 is one of the worse death because that’s how the body knows he needs to inhale. Most of the other gases will kill you without you noticing. but forcing a subject to breath co2 is absolute torture. Images talk by themselfs I guess, here’s 4 hour of the process which is legal in most of the world beware, not a fun video : https://www.farmtransparency.org/videos?id=2d2a5ec62b https://www.farmtransparency.org/videos?id=2d2a5ec62b UK replaced CO2 with other gaz[0] and the pigs dies as a sleep. The price difference is a needle. 0: butane or nitrogen IIRC but someone more knowledgeable may correct me.
- metalman 2y ago
  there are abetoirs that have continious public viewing, and pigs are gassed, with CO,carbon monoxide, knocking them out, and then then they are bled never know a thing, CO causes no reaction other than going to sleep.Holland I think
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - aziaziazi 2y ago
    I suggest you have a look at the video I posted above. I'm sure plenty slaughterhouses does a good job at mixing CO2 with something else. We only need to regulate the maximal CO2 concentration, the prices won't move neither the bacon availability but there will be much much less suffering https://edepot.wur.nl/546026 https://edepot.wur.nl/546026 > The principle of gas stunning or Controlled Atmosphere Stunning (CAS) is that animals are exposed to a high concentration of CO2, CO2 mixed with inert gases, or inert gases only > Carbon dioxide especially at high concentrations (above 40%) is pungent and painful to inhale and leads to a highly aversive response involving very loud and high-pitched vocalisations and vigorous attempts to escape from the gondola and the exposure to the gas, including scratching other pigs vigorously with the claws of the front legs and trampling of pigs that have become recumbent. Furthermore, during the induction phase animals will show increased breathing and gasping associated with signs of breathlessness (“air hunger”). Induction of unconsciousness with CO2 stunning does not immediately induce unconsciousness and the process is associated with fear, pain and respiratory distress (Verhoeven et al., 2016; Beausoleil and Mellor, 2015), lasting from the start of exposure to CO2 until loss of consciousness

by akudha 2y ago

poincaredisk 2y ago

>We aren't gonna reduce our meat consumption, Why? This is certainly possible if we, humans, really wanted to. So I assume you just don't believe society will ever decide to do it. This is unnecessarily negative outlook IMO - the first step to change something is to believe change is possible.

DiggyJohnson 2y ago
This is a classic is-ought situation. Seems easier to improve the process and ethics of killing animals for consumption rather than reducing meat consumption at a society level. People don’t change their ways very easily. I know I have to fight rolling my eyes whenever someone suggests the the solution is simple: eat less meat.
- poincaredisk 2y ago
  I agree with your statements, but why not do both? Improving the process of killing animals doesn't exclude working towards reducing the number of deaths. If the GP said we will never stop eating meat I would agree. But saying we can't even reduce it is a bit extreme - we successfully reduced many other things (without banning them, just by coercing people - for example cigarettes).
- sahila 2y ago
  When speaking of ethics, how do you measure the ethics of causing pain vs killing? I'd say even a 1% reduction in consumption (killing) is better than whatever pain reduction. I guess the point is you and others feel so strongly about ways to reduce suffering but couldn't care less about life.
  - neom 2y ago
    Not sure that is fair. Many people accept that there are 2 sure things in life (maybe 3) - birth and death. In a way, birth and death are two of the most natural things we have, a family of birds is born, a fox makes it's way up the tree and eats them all. Many people be able to say "that's life, i just hope the didn't suffer!"
    - sahila 2y ago
      Fair enough, but I don't think that would be consistent when applied to people. Which is to say ethics likely isn't that important for most people - we often try our best to prevent death and may even increase someone's suffering to prolong their life.
      - neom 2y ago
        I'm from Canada where we have legal assisted death, something I would vote for over and over again, as I think most Canadians would. I don't eat much meat personally, but it's more a ecological environmental thing vs an animals thing. Things live, things die, that is life, oh well. :)
- akudha 2y ago
  Seems easier to improve the process and ethics of killing animals for consumption rather than reducing meat consumption at a society level. This is the point I am also trying to make. At least short term, I do not see meat consumption going down. Maybe younger folks growing up today might understand climate change and the meat industry's contribution to it more than their parents/grandparents and be willing to make changes to their diet, but changes like this take a lot of time, if they happen at all. In the meantime, anything we can do to lessen the cruelty to factory farmed animals (for ethical reasons) and anything we can do to reduce harm caused by meat industry on the environment, however small, is worth pursuing
akudha 2y ago
This is not negativity, this is reality. I have never eaten meat in my life. But I am surrounded by meat eaters. Even polite, rational, calm discussion about reducing meat consumption doesn't last more than a minute. It is as though people are more addicted to meat than alcohol and somehow it is drilled into their heads that humans need meat for protein and strength, though there are tons of vegetarians who lead healthy lives. You don't need to take my word for it - try talking to someone about reducing their meat consumption and see how the conversation goes.
- poincaredisk 2y ago
  >This is not negativity, this is reality. Saying "we aren't gonna reduce our meat consumption" is negativity. Saying "we aren't gonna stop eating meat" would be realistic. But there are plenty of ways we could reduce it. For example, there is a growing trend (in larger cities at least) to reduce one's meat consumption (sometimes completely - there are more vegetarians year by year). Another thing would be reducing subsidies that go towards producing meat - they skew the market in a way that promotes meat. That would be a unpopular change, which is why nobody does it, but it would make sense considering just environmental impact (carbon credits are an even different but related topic). I'm not going to convince anyone to stop eating meat, who am I to tell them how to live (and I understand why that would be annoying). But changing my personal habits is absolutely within my power, and that may even convince someone to do the same (just like my decision to stop eating meat was because I learned my friend does it.
  - akudha 2y ago
    I never asked anyone to stop eating meat or even reduce it. I only tried (very politely, because I know this is a sensitive topic) to point out the effects of overfishing etc and in my experience, people don't want to hear it. In many cases, they are fully aware of the effects of meat/dairy industry, they still don't want to give up meat. This I understand, I struggled to give up coffee for many many years. On the question of reducing subsidies for the meat industry - are you aware how powerful the meat industry is? Even the almighty Oprah at the height of her fame and reach couldn't do anything, got sued by the beef industry. There are a few states that have ag-gag laws, do you really think there is political will to repeal these? In my town, a single mango costs $3.49. Sure it would be nice to subsidize fruits and veggies, but animal industry lobbying is way more powerful than mango/watermelon lobbying. I appreciate your positivity, I suppose our experience on this issue has just been polar opposite.

AcerbicZero 2y ago

Thats horrifying, and it motivated me to do a bit of reading - most of what I saw suggested it was only used for containment of wide spread infections in factory farmed animal population (mad cow was the one that came up the most) and in those cases I can kinda understand the need to contain the animals and dispatch them....but the idea that it could last 3+ hours is still unacceptable. I don't mind the killing, but it should be quick, efficient, and as painless as possible for the animal involved.

aziaziazi 2y ago

The non-plus VSD is described as so: > Ventilator shutdown involves locking a flock or herd of animals in a building and turning off the ventilation systems. As the temperature rises and gases inside the building accumulate, the animals suffocate to death, usually over a period of many hours. Rising "gases" is CO2. Suffocation by co2 is one of the worse death because that’s how the body knows he needs to inhale. Most of the other gases will kill you without you noticing. but forcing a subject to breath co2 is absolute torture. Images talk by themselfs I guess, here’s 4 hour of the process which is legal in most of the world beware, not a fun video : https://www.farmtransparency.org/videos?id=2d2a5ec62b https://www.farmtransparency.org/videos?id=2d2a5ec62b UK replaced CO2 with other gaz[0] and the pigs dies as a sleep. The price difference is a needle. 0: butane or nitrogen IIRC but someone more knowledgeable may correct me.

metalman 2y ago
there are abetoirs that have continious public viewing, and pigs are gassed, with CO,carbon monoxide, knocking them out, and then then they are bled never know a thing, CO causes no reaction other than going to sleep.Holland I think
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  I suggest you have a look at the video I posted above. I'm sure plenty slaughterhouses does a good job at mixing CO2 with something else. We only need to regulate the maximal CO2 concentration, the prices won't move neither the bacon availability but there will be much much less suffering https://edepot.wur.nl/546026 https://edepot.wur.nl/546026 > The principle of gas stunning or Controlled Atmosphere Stunning (CAS) is that animals are exposed to a high concentration of CO2, CO2 mixed with inert gases, or inert gases only > Carbon dioxide especially at high concentrations (above 40%) is pungent and painful to inhale and leads to a highly aversive response involving very loud and high-pitched vocalisations and vigorous attempts to escape from the gondola and the exposure to the gas, including scratching other pigs vigorously with the claws of the front legs and trampling of pigs that have become recumbent. Furthermore, during the induction phase animals will show increased breathing and gasping associated with signs of breathlessness (“air hunger”). Induction of unconsciousness with CO2 stunning does not immediately induce unconsciousness and the process is associated with fear, pain and respiratory distress (Verhoeven et al., 2016; Beausoleil and Mellor, 2015), lasting from the start of exposure to CO2 until loss of consciousness