you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 76 points 3 months ago (66 children)

As much as I find chickens, and all avians in general, cute and I find it sickening the way they are treated... I do love eggs, they're tasty, versatile, easy to cook, and unbelievably healthy.

I think the differential we have to identify is one thing, and that is scale.

I am not a vegan, I do not believe it is wrong to consume animals or animal-sourced products, however I do support animal welfare and believe that if we are to raise livestock for consumption they should be treated as the sentient, thinking, feeling creatures that they are and cared for accordingly.

Imagine instead of human and animal rights we just had "sentient rights", for example.

Being able to test for sentience is a topic in and of itself, and out of scope for my argument.

I think there is no harm done in, a hypothetical world where people had the space to do such a thing, raising our own livestock, limited to individual homesteads or the immediate settlement (a local town market, for example).

The line where it becomes unethical is quite obvious really, are the animals treated as living things, or machines to simply fuel and feed to grow them for slaughter and harvest? Yes, in my example of fair treatment the goal may be to raise them for eventual slaughter, but its their lifelong treatment where this applies, not the overall objective.

  • source
  • hideshow 66 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    The better treatment balloons costs by requiring more land and more care, which significantly inflates the cost of the final products. This could be an effective measure for reducing meat consumption by people buying less to save money, many people would be against those increases.

    Its just like mass produced clothing. Since they dont see the abuse and destruction, they are satisfied with the lower prices at the store.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Again, scale.

    How much of the meat produced is actually eaten? What’s the chance for each garment produced to actually be worn more than once?

    The current system can downsize significantly without needing to raise prices, as we’re already in a significant surplus.

    The point at which products are no longer guaranteed due to demand is when the prices have to go up.

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

    That surplus is factored in to the companies making money and providing consistant demand. Prices will increase if the treatment gets better because the capitalists and oligarchs will not willingly take a profits cut. The surplus waste in the current system could be utilized better, for example fast freezing and being provided to food banks or soup kitchens.

    No matter how you cut it, if labor and land demand increases, the price will increase.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I don’t really disagree with you, but land area isn’t actually a significant factor. When you consider how much land is used to produce feed for the pigs, it’s clear that the stables themselves take up very little space.

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

    The land use would be significantly higher if the pigs were pasture fed instead of crop fed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Sure, but we don't have to go all pasture fed. Maybe just 10x more space for them in their stables could be a start. Would it be more expensive, absolutely, but either people will have to eat less meat, consumption has almost doubled the past 70-ish years, or they'll have to pay more for it.

    I'm not saying people shouldn't get to eat meat, I'm just saying it's rediculously cheap for what it is, and really not needed in the amounts people eat.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    Doubling the cost to raise chicken wouldn't double the shelf price. Most of the cost of food comes from the distribution network. Chicken raised this way costs double because that's what some consumers will pay over cheaper chicken.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    if we are to raise livestock for consumption they should be treated as the sentient

    this is a contradiction in itself.

    It is normal and healthy for people to empathize with the animals they eat, to be concerned about whether or not they are living happy lives and to hope they are slaughtered humanely. However, if it is unethical to harm these animals, then it is more unethical to kill them.

    Killing animals for food is far worse than making them suffer. Of course, it is admirable that people care so deeply about these animals that they take deliberate steps to reduce their suffering (e.g. by purchasing "free-range" eggs or "suffering free" meat). However, because they choose not to acknowledge the right of those same animals to live out their natural lives, and because slaughtering them is a much greater violation than mistreatment, people who eat 'humane' meat are laboring under an irreconcilable contradiction.

    from https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/humane-meat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I don't even eat meat and I disagree completely with that lol. There is nothing wrong or unnatural about killing animals for food. There is something wrong and unnatural about abusing the lives of those animals and treating them with no respect.

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

    I don't even eat meat and I disagree completely with that lol.

    care to give a reason why? Why do you think hurting animals is bad?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • Ok but why do you think its bad to abuse these animals aside from killing them? That's the part I'm curious about. What kind of pain would you consider immoral? Do you count emotional pain such as separating a newborn child from it's mother for instance?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (3 children)

    The "natural life" of all animals bred for meat ends with their slaughter, by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't exist? Their purpose is not to die of old age, that itself would be a horribly cruel existence past the point when slaughter would normally occur.

    None of these creatures exist in nature. If they're going to exist at all, why not give the best life and fulfillment of purpose if you can?

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

    you have an incredibly bleak outlook on the "purpose" of a life. The slave is bred for the purpose of toiling for their master their entire life, does that justify anything? Hell the only reason the worker gets a wage is so they can work for the capitalist. The only reason people get maternity leave etc. is to breed more workers, that's your purpose in life.

    Only the oppressor has a free choice in their lifes purpose. Well, somehow they always choose to oppress more so who knows. At least we have that old debate finally sorted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    Btw, veganism is really about just minimizing the harm you cause to the world. Don’t let any puritans tell you otherwise. What you have described is a form of veganism! Admittedly, it’s a little bit minimalistic, but it’s still something!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

    From thevegansociety.com, emphasis mine. I'd argue strongly and vehemently that what is described above is not "as far as is possible and practicable" at all! It's firmly within "as long as it doesn't really inconvenience me" territory

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

    I'm not a perfect vegan, I do my best, and I'm getting better. The expectation of perfection is self defeating. Ideally, though, I would have zero captive slaughtered animals in the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Right, I'm explicitly talking about "as far as is practicable and possible". For instance I have to take a certain medication in order to function but there is no vegan derivative, they all contain gelatin. It is impossible for me to "exclude all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals". But I do it "as far as is possible" which (at least initially) went far beyond what I considered comfortable.

    And that's the distinction I'm trying to make, if you are sure it is impossible, if it is not practicable (as in, not possible to be put into practice no matter how you twist or turn it), then sure it is what it is. what can you do. No ethical consumption under capitalism. But if you still have holdouts because you aren't "ready" to give up certain treats or comforts then you aren't (yet?) vegan.

    Not being able to reach perfection is no excuse to not get as close as possible to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I don't know that there's any one thing that veganism is "all about", per se. There are a ton of good reasons to eat fewer animal products, and everyone can cut out some level of extra saturated fat in their diets. The ability to cull and harvest a disgusting level of animal meat is the reason heart disease is the number one killer of modern humans

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    There are a ton of good reasons to eat fewer animal products...

    And none of those reasons are veganism. Veganism provides a singular reason to not exploit animals any more than we need to for survival.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (7 children)

    Then as a vegan you would support raising chickens, pigs, and goats on a small hobby farm where the animals are extremely well cared for and happy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    animal sanctuaries exist for this reason

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    How will you get the milk and eggs without abuse? Cows don't just automatically start producing milk and chickens were bred to lay more eggs at the cost of their health. If you really tried to get these products without abusing the animals it would be so inefficient that only a tiny fraction of people could afford to consume them in bigger amounts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Considering I don't see animals as some product that exists for me so I would consider eating goats cheese in this utopian scenario the similarly as eating cheese made from human milk; really fucking weird, with the addition that human cheese would probably be made with the explicit consent of the human it stems from which the goat can never give unless you want to open the floodgates to even more sexual animal abuse

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    It's wild how many people can't separate an animal from the ways it can benefit people. If a goat is making milk, it probably has a baby to feed. The idea of just letting it feed that baby doesn't seem to occur to people. They see the milk as a product for their own use, and if people aren't using it, it's "wasted." It only makes sense if one's never critically examined their choices in a world full of exploitation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    The problem you're describing is extremely niche. A rescued cow that is still lactating, where the calf could not be rescued, will likely need to be milked in order not to develop any issues in her udder. That milk is a byproduct of a medical procedure made necessary by the abuse she suffered. I would see to it that it gets put to use for the cow children first but in the end whether you pour it down a drain or your throat makes no difference. However that milk will dry up after a couple months anyway. No mammal produces milk just because, it is always to provide for a child.

    As for if making cheese out of that milk would be vegan, it depends on the rennet I suppose. For cows you don't have to butcher calves anymore so it's likely gonna be possible. For goats I don't know.

    A rescued sheep might need to get shorn regularly due to a problem of its breed. However again the focus is not getting wool, it's to help the sheep, which means it should be shorn more often than at a farm and not as close to the skin than "normally", resulting in a poorer wool quality since the individual hairs are much shorter.

    Like you could ask if eating roadkill is vegan. Sure, if it doesn't interrupt any animals grieving process or rituals, whatever, who cares. I think our ancestors probably scavenged a lot of the animal products they used.

    But there is an ethical issue with breeds that depend on humans for their survival, it's that the people hold the power of life or death over them. There can be no meaningful consent there. Additionally they have to be held in captivity if they would die in the wild. Which is why rescued animals usually aren't allowed to breed. They could never be allowed to breed as they wish anyway, otherwise their population might overwhelm the care humans are capable of giving them anyway, so let's cut it off entirely.

    So your hypothetical vegan animal products depend on rescue farms that would be phased out. There is no vegan way to get animal products in perpetuity.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    But surely in the present state of affairs where that treatment is not the norm, veganism is the only ethical approach, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    The way I see it, the tiny fraction of meat that's produced ethically should go to the tiny fraction of people with dietary restrictions that require meat.

    The vast majority of people are not going out to investigate small farms to see if their practices are ethical. They are buying meat from a grocery store, and if they consider it at all, they might pick one with a label slapped on like "organic," completely meaningless thanks to lobbying.

    Practically speaking, it is almost always a choice between torture products and nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    What about wool, honey, milk, eggs.

    Again, it's a matter of whether you're looking at things in the abstract, or in terms of how things actually work.

    Take eggs for example. Eggs aren't just a byproduct of having chickens around, there are specific breeds that are dedicated to egg-laying. Because only a small number of males are needed for reproduction, most male chicks are put on a conveyor and ground to death. While I can't claim to be an expert in German laws, I did find that German courts have allowed this practice.

    It's a similar story with milk. Because dairy cows are a different breed, male calves are typically slaughtered at birth. Dairy cows are kept in a constant state of pregnancy, suffer the stress of being separated from their young, and are killed as soon as the milk slows down, typically a quarter of their natural lifespans. Dairy is also similarly bad for the environment as beef, and there are widely available plant-based substitutes like oat milk that taste just as good, if not better.

    No matter what animal product we're talking about, maximization of profits is almost always going to involve cruelty, environmental harm, and selective breeding to the point that any expectations about natural by-products aren't true. Even with regulations (which can be difficult to enact effectively), there are tradeoffs: limiting cruelty can increase environmental impact (as well as the price). If animal products were appropriately priced based on offsetting the harm they cause, they would be unable to compete against plant-based alternatives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    And once again, this is an argument against factory farming and inhumane practices, not farming and domestication in general.

    Yes, I agree that factory farming is horrific. Yes, I agree that people should eat less meat. Yes, I agree people need to be more aware of where their products come from.

    However, just because you neighbor beats his dog doesn't mean everyone does.

    And I repeat the same question I ask every time. Are you universally against ALL forms of animal domestication and husbandry? Eg. A small hobby farm that keeps a few chickens for eggs, and a few goats for milk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    And once again, this is an argument against factory farming and inhumane practices, not farming and domestication in general.

    Yes, because that's what 99% of the decisions of 99% of people involve. Just because it's theoretically possible to imagine a situation where these things are done ethically doesn't mean that's actually an option that is practically available.

    I am not particularly interested in criticizing small farms with relatively ethical practices. My position, from my original comment, is, "But surely in the present state of affairs where that treatment is not the norm, veganism is the only ethical approach, no?"

    Is there a hypothetical situation where it's ethical to kill an innocent person?Suppose some space aliens say they'll destroy the world with a giant laser if you don't. That hypothetical does not change the fact that not killing innocent people is still a good general rule in the vast majority of situations you'll actually encounter in life. To throw out all reservations against murder just because of that hypothetical would be making a rule from the exception.

    Likewise, I'm sure you can imagine a hypothetical situation where it's ethical to consume animal products, but unless that situation is an actual, real thing in your life, that you've looked into to verify is the case (which the example of eggs in Germany makes me skeptical of), then what you're doing is throwing out a generally good rule based on an unrealistic hypothetical, just because following the rule would be inconvenient.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Well unfortunately you haven't got what you wanted, you clearly have a very simple view on nutrition, and a concerning lack of intelligence.

    What is an egg? It is a vessel to grow a living organism in a self-contained environment, providing all the resources needed to do so.

    Resources such as:

    • Vitamins
    • Amino-acids
    • Antioxidants
    • Healthy, unsaturated fats

    If an egg was so bad for your health, I ask you quite simply, how the hell do they support a chick during a very intense time of rapid growth?

    That's like saying being in a womb is unhealthy for a developing foetus.

    Please, next time, perhaps try updating your knowledge to something a bit more modern than WW2 before "jumping in and correcting" anyone again. With the constant stream of AI slop onto the internet, the last thing we need is human slop too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I have a health degree, but ok mr. Expert. Have fun with ur heart disease. I'd just appreciate if you didn't confidently lead others down ignorant health courses like "eggs are healthy" lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    Salmonella

    You cook them, solved.

    High choleserol

    You don't base your diet on 100% eggs, limiting your diet to any one food will be damaging regardless.

    Prostate cancer

    Sure, higher risk, from what baseline? Varies massively per-person, and people's risk-tolerance is subjective... Personally I don't really care.

    Diabetes

    Again, significantly higher chance, from what baseline? 0.02 is 100% higher than 0.01, misleading.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago* (10 children)

    Yes, slaves are super convenient. No one ever said that slaves aren't nice to have, dude. YOUR experience is not the fucking point.

    There is no way to create a creature for the express purpose of exploitation that is okay. There is no way to create a creature with the intention of forcing it into a state of total dependence that is not actually evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    comparing slaves to animals is what slavers do

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Yes! Good on you for noticing the speciesism that racism is built on! If non-human animals have less worth than humans then liking some humans to non-human animals means they have less worth. The issue is at the very start, that

    a) non-human animal and human are a meaningful distinction
    b) non-humans have inherently less worth than humans

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Yeah, pet ownership is not considered vegan. On account of, you know, owning a sentient being, treating it as property.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)