this seems relative
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 year ago (12 children)

A single counterexample would disprove this

Go ahead.

Torture factories don't exist

What do you mean? It sounds like torture to me: "Chickens raised for meat have been genetically selected for rapid growth. They typically reach market weight 6–7 weeks after hatching and grow so fast that their organs and bones often cannot keep up. As a result, many die from heart failure or other ailments, and countless more suffer from broken bones, lameness, and ruptured organs."

Many more kinds of torture are documented by this and many other sources that are easy to find.

I don't know how you can prove this

Here's the data.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Here’s the data.

    this data is based on bad science. in particular, it relies on poore-nemecek 2018, which misuses LCA data by combining disparately methodized studies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It sounds like torture to me

    in torture, the point is to cause pain. in farming, pain is incidental. if it could be done at the same cost and entirely painlessly, i'm sure that method would prevail.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Sure. I'd be down with calling them "extreme pain and suffering for cheaper food" farms if you prefer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I just want you to stop trying to use sophistry to convert people to your ideology. surely the plain-spoken facts are sufficient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Go ahead.

    hunting can yield hundreds of pounds of meat for just a few dollars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Sure, assuming you have the rifle, the training and the hunting rights, and assuming your time doesn't count as value.

    I'm definitely more pro hunting than pro factory farming!

    But I don't really know of any poor people in industrialized countries who get their meat from hunting, especially not ones that eat meat every day. Maybe some special cases in very rural places? And it's hardly scalable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You don't need that to hunt.

    A crude selfmade bow and arrow is enough. Even a rock will do.

    That is how they did it for thousands of years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Is this really an argument for a non-meat diet being too expensive?

    Imagine the effort, time and risk involved in hunting and killing a rabbit or deer with a rock, and subsequent slaughtering and storing of meat. Doesn't that represent much more value than the money you would pay for an equivalent amount of nutrition from non-meat sources? At least in an industrialised nation?

  • source
  • parent