4 ms·

Fuck, no. Why would you assume mass-slaughter of living beings is going to continue happening?

by yuvadam 14y ago

randomdata 14y ago
Because demand for meat has only risen over time? Most people only seek quality care while the animal is alive, not a complete end to eating meat. I realize technology is on the horizon that could change things in the future, but we are talking about today.
- pyre 14y ago
  | Most people only seek quality care while | the animal is alive This is impossible at current levels of demand, and the push to keep meat, which historically was only hyper-available to the rich, cheap so that people can all afford to have turducken[1] wrapped in bacon for breakfast, lunch and dinner. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turducken http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turducken
  - randomdata 14y ago
    Care to elaborate? I assume you mean because owners are increasingly reliant on external labour to fulfill the demand, and, like with any business, labour does not always care about the level of quality in operation that the stakeholders, that have traditionally supplied the products, do?
    - pyre 14y ago
      If you also want to talk about the quality of life of the animal, it gets more complicated. Even "free range"/"cage free"/etc animals live in stressful and crowded environments, just less stressful and crowded then other farms animals that are not <insert label here>.
      - randomdata 14y ago
        I once took an animal rights activist friend to another friend's farm, which is on the larger size – one of the largest in my area – and he was quite surprised by and happy to see the level of care the animals received. The animals were calm, friendly, and not at all what I would imagine a stressed animal would look like. What we observed there was pretty typical of the other barns I have been in as well. That doesn't make you wrong, of course, but it leaves me wondering that if the barns/pastures you have spent time in are equally representative, perhaps you just come with a different metric for what is quality care? If so, who gets to decide what is acceptable? What is good for one animal rights activist isn't necessarily good for another, so who gets to be right when striving for the same goal?
        spacemanaki 14y ago
        What does "large" in this case mean? Are we talking about factory farm style CAFO? What I've read, which may admittedly be outdated, is that these kinds of farms are where the majority of meat, dairy and eggs comes from (in the US).
        randomdata 14y ago
        We're talking hundreds, possibly thousands, heads of cattle, but it wouldn't fit my definition of a factory farm. Those aren't really a thing around here. There is only one a wide radius I would even begin to consider a factory farm. But we weren't talking about factory farms anyway, we were talking about typical farms, free range, cage free, etc. and whether they are still providing a comfortable environment for animals, or not.
        spacemanaki 14y ago
        A few comments up thread pyre suggested that it is not possible to meet the demands of cheap, plentiful meat while providing animals reasonable quality of life. This seems to be born out by the fact the factory farms are the norm, and smaller farms like the one you mentioned are the exception (note that I'm specifically talking about in the US, where meat consumptions is ultra high, and from what I've read factory farms are the norm).
- yuvadam 14y ago
  Most people will do whatever they are told, and eat whatever they are sold. I will believe human beings are truly interested in eating meat once they carry out the necessary steps themselves, instead of importing workers from other countries to commit these atrocities in their name (Fast Food Nation is a recommended movie to watch in this regard.) If we are talking about today we should recognize that mass enslavement and slaughter of animals, mechanized and automated, is immoral and wrong, and act to bring an end to it.
  - antihero 14y ago
    Why? Why is being an ethical omnivore wrong? If a pig is raised in a nice surrounding, not separated from it's kids, and slaughtered in a way that is significantly more painless than dying of disease or natural causes, why is that actually bad?
    - trhtrsh 14y ago
      Let's worry about that case after we've handled the 99% of cases where omnivorance is not supported by ethical practices.
- asciimo 14y ago
  This is not true in the United States. Per capita meat consumption in the United States dropped by 6% between 2006 and 2010 (http://www.voanews.com/content/as_world_meat_consumption_grows_americas_appetite_wanes/1634222.html http://www.voanews.com/content/as_world_meat_consumption_gro...). The USDA predicts that this decline will continue. (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/01/americans-are-eating-less-meat/47295/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/01/americans-ar...)

Fuck, no. Why would you assume mass-slaughter of living beings is going to continue happening?

by yuvadam 14y ago

Fuck, no. Why would you assume mass-slaughter of living beings is going to continue happening?

Because demand for meat has only risen over time? Most people only seek quality care while the animal is alive, not a complete end to eating meat. I realize technology is on the horizon that could change things in the future, but we are talking about today.

pyre 14y ago
| Most people only seek quality care while | the animal is alive This is impossible at current levels of demand, and the push to keep meat, which historically was only hyper-available to the rich, cheap so that people can all afford to have turducken[1] wrapped in bacon for breakfast, lunch and dinner. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turducken http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turducken
- randomdata 14y ago
  Care to elaborate? I assume you mean because owners are increasingly reliant on external labour to fulfill the demand, and, like with any business, labour does not always care about the level of quality in operation that the stakeholders, that have traditionally supplied the products, do?
  - pyre 14y ago
    If you also want to talk about the quality of life of the animal, it gets more complicated. Even "free range"/"cage free"/etc animals live in stressful and crowded environments, just less stressful and crowded then other farms animals that are not <insert label here>.
    - randomdata 14y ago
      I once took an animal rights activist friend to another friend's farm, which is on the larger size – one of the largest in my area – and he was quite surprised by and happy to see the level of care the animals received. The animals were calm, friendly, and not at all what I would imagine a stressed animal would look like. What we observed there was pretty typical of the other barns I have been in as well. That doesn't make you wrong, of course, but it leaves me wondering that if the barns/pastures you have spent time in are equally representative, perhaps you just come with a different metric for what is quality care? If so, who gets to decide what is acceptable? What is good for one animal rights activist isn't necessarily good for another, so who gets to be right when striving for the same goal?
      - spacemanaki 14y ago
        What does "large" in this case mean? Are we talking about factory farm style CAFO? What I've read, which may admittedly be outdated, is that these kinds of farms are where the majority of meat, dairy and eggs comes from (in the US).
        randomdata 14y ago
        We're talking hundreds, possibly thousands, heads of cattle, but it wouldn't fit my definition of a factory farm. Those aren't really a thing around here. There is only one a wide radius I would even begin to consider a factory farm. But we weren't talking about factory farms anyway, we were talking about typical farms, free range, cage free, etc. and whether they are still providing a comfortable environment for animals, or not.
        spacemanaki 14y ago
        A few comments up thread pyre suggested that it is not possible to meet the demands of cheap, plentiful meat while providing animals reasonable quality of life. This seems to be born out by the fact the factory farms are the norm, and smaller farms like the one you mentioned are the exception (note that I'm specifically talking about in the US, where meat consumptions is ultra high, and from what I've read factory farms are the norm).
yuvadam 14y ago
Most people will do whatever they are told, and eat whatever they are sold. I will believe human beings are truly interested in eating meat once they carry out the necessary steps themselves, instead of importing workers from other countries to commit these atrocities in their name (Fast Food Nation is a recommended movie to watch in this regard.) If we are talking about today we should recognize that mass enslavement and slaughter of animals, mechanized and automated, is immoral and wrong, and act to bring an end to it.
- antihero 14y ago
  Why? Why is being an ethical omnivore wrong? If a pig is raised in a nice surrounding, not separated from it's kids, and slaughtered in a way that is significantly more painless than dying of disease or natural causes, why is that actually bad?
  - trhtrsh 14y ago
    Let's worry about that case after we've handled the 99% of cases where omnivorance is not supported by ethical practices.
asciimo 14y ago
This is not true in the United States. Per capita meat consumption in the United States dropped by 6% between 2006 and 2010 (http://www.voanews.com/content/as_world_meat_consumption_grows_americas_appetite_wanes/1634222.html http://www.voanews.com/content/as_world_meat_consumption_gro...). The USDA predicts that this decline will continue. (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/01/americans-are-eating-less-meat/47295/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/01/americans-ar...)