351
352

We need to stop torturing chickens (thestar.com)

lnfinity が 投稿

全 179 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Gigathulu 31ポイント32ポイント  (1子コメント)

And all the other animals we eat.

[–]YellowPoison 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes but that's not the point here. Did you not read the part where most people don't even associate chickens as being real animals? Yes, ideally all animals would be well treated and we wouldn't eat any of them but using chickens as the point of this article doesn't invalidate all other animals.

[–]lnfinity[S] 53ポイント54ポイント  (55子コメント)

Most of us would stop to help a bird with a broken wing who was suffering on our front lawn, but many of us pay companies for products knowing that a great deal of suffering is caused to animals in the process. We know that chickens suffering in factory farms and slaughterhouses suffer much like the bird on your front lawn, so why should there be this disconnect in our actions?

[–]applejak 43ポイント44ポイント  (24子コメント)

If we as consumers start to demand better treatment of the resources we consume, we'll start to get closer to the actual cost of consumption. As it is, we are able to consume resources far below the actual cost for doing so and we're beginning to reap the fruits of that greedy nature. Things are harder for everything else because we want things to be easy for us. It's a morally corrupt mode of living and very clearly an unsustainable one.

I address the issue personally by eating mostly veggie and when I do eat meat/byproducts I get all Portlandia about where the meat is sourced. I realize that most Americans don't have the luxury of not buying Tysons at Safeway or Walmart and so the plight of these animals isn't likely to change soon. Unless we can agree to enforce stronger regulations and ultimately be willing to pay the true cost of living here in the U.S.

[–]bluntzfang 2ポイント3ポイント  (22子コメント)

do you mind listing what factors go into the 'actual' cost of consumption? how do you quantify animal cruelty in terms of dollars?

To make it simple, how much does it cost to grow 1 'sustainable' chicken? What are the items with dollar values listed that go into the cost of said chicken?

[–]GreatAssGoblin 16ポイント17ポイント  (10子コメント)

There are economists that work on this very thing. I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I took a course with one such economist. He has written a lot of interesting articles on the topic.

Here's a TL;DR version: For things that are quantifiable as in "this costs $X to reverse/mitigate the ecological damage", that's the extra cost. For things that are more difficult to quantify, such as ethical concerns or social values, this is measured by a "willingness to pay".

NB I am by no means an economist so I may not be able to answer further questions, but I have read a handful of scientific articles on the topic and taken two courses that touched on the subject. I encourage you to read Dr. Kosoy's articles.

[–]applejak 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

Go to the store and compare the price of an egg sourced from free-range, hand-harvested chickens and their industrially farmed counterparts.

[–]tensegritydan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not to go too specific, but in any production cost you are going to have marginal cost which would be direct cost of materials, labor. In addition, you have overhead, which would be everything from facilities/space, utilities, sales/marketing/admin, etc.

On the other side you you have revenue and cost of sales to be deducted from revenue for marginal revenue. It may be that consumers are willing to pay more for a sustainably-produced chicken or maybe they are not.

The difference between 'sustainable' vs 'non-sustainable'/status-quo could be reflected as either increase or decrease in any of those costs or revenue.

Maybe a 'sustainable' chicken requires, for example, more facilities/space, maybe higher vet costs, perhaps more expensive feed, or more labor to maintain them. Some of those costs could also be lower.

Hopefully, an actual sustainable chicken farmer and status-quo farmer can give us their marginal costs and marginal revenue, but I would not hold your breath.

There may also be some interesting effects going on where less cruelty equals lower costs. Take the case of Temple Grandin and her redesign of cattle processing which results in more human treatment and simultaneously higher efficiency/less waste.

[–]YellowPoison 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then why not just not eat meat?

[–]kslidz 13ポイント14ポイント  (29子コメント)

the thing is we are unwilling to pay the company to treat them better hence the smaller market for free range chickens.

[–]whitedawg 23ポイント24ポイント  (10子コメント)

In my opinion, that's an oversimplification. The vast majority of people don't know about the extent to which animals are mistreated when they're making their purchasing decisions. At most stores, you see Chicken Brand A for $X per pound, and Chicken Brand B for $Y per pound, and that's the only information presented. Without further context, it's tough to fault consumers too heavily for choosing the brand that's cheaper.

Information asymmetry is an economic problem. It's difficult for the market to solve that problem independently, because there's no incentive for industrial farmers to disclose the extent to which they mistreat their animals. The problem can only be solved by either required disclosure, or required standards of humane treatment.

[–]elijahsnow 5ポイント6ポイント  (9子コメント)

Nope. The vast majority of the worlds population has no time for such luxuries. Things are tough.

[–]alice-in-canada-land 8ポイント9ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'm sorry you're being down voted. What you say is, unfortunately, true. Many people simply can't choose to spend more on food.

Sure; I get that one can eat cheaper as a vegetarian, or by careful budgeting and home cooking. But a mom working full time with a limited budget, and kids who love chicken nuggets often just doesn't have the time or energy to make other choices.

[–]--frymaster-- 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

the fact is that vegetarian food options are more expensive than standard, western, animal-based foods for two major reasons:

  • economy of scale. if you have a massive level of production it makes economic sense to invest big money capital-intensive automation that brings down the per-unit price. of course, it's exactly this drive towards automation that's lead to the horrors of the modern cafo. the demand for meat (in this case, chicken) makes it feasible to invest in factory farming, which drives down the cost of meat, which increases the demand as it now competes on price point as well as its other merits [sic.].

  • government subsidies. most western nations subsidize farming to some level. in the united states, the great preponderance of that goes to animal agriculture. in the u.s., even if you choose to not eat a mcnugget, some of your tax dollars are going to paying mcnugget-chicken-factory-operators. it should be noted that while farmers who grow cereal crops for human consumption also get some subsidization, although it is small compared to animal agriculture operators. farmers who grow fruits and vegetables get pretty much zero.

if vegetarian food options could avail themselves of these two factors they would in all likelihood be as cheap or cheaper than animal-based alternatives.

as a side note, there is a company called hampton creek foods that is in the process of designing and producing a complete egg replacement using only plant material. they estimate that their product is going to be potentially 48% cheaper than chicken eggs. currently they pretty much only offer an eggless mayonnaise (i hate mayonnaise in general, but folks who can stomach the greasy sludge say the hampton creek mayo is indistinguishable from the egg stuff) and plan to release a scrambled-egg liquid by november of this year.

[–]autowikibot 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation:

In the terminology of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is an animal feeding operation (AFO) that (a) confines animals for more than 45 days during a growing season, (b) in an area that does not produce vegetation, and (c) meets certain size thresholds. The EPA's definition of the term "captures key elements of the transformations" observed in the animal agriculture sector over the course of the 20th century: "a production process that concentrates large numbers of animals in relatively small and confined places, and that substitutes structures and equipment (for feeding, temperature controls, and manure management) for land and labor."

Image i - CAFO for cattle

Interesting: Beef | Manure management | Animal feeding operation | Black River (New York)

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]elijahsnow 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Sure. I was thinking more in Hyderabad India or Rift Valley Kenya but that too.

[–]alice-in-canada-land 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Agreed.

Though, to be fair, those people aren't really the consumers driving this chicken torture.

[–]elijahsnow 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sure they are. Doesn't a significant proportion of the capacity of the southern United States chicken go to China who in turn exports it to tertiary regions.? Also Asia produces almost half anyway and east Africa is picking up the pace.

[–]alice-in-canada-land 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Perhaps, I'm aware of Canadian pork being exported to Asia; wasn't aware that chickens are too (would sort have expected it to be the other way around actually).

But poor people the world over are hardly in a position to consume the vast quantities of cheaply produced protein that North America and other wealthy nations do.

Perhaps we need to eat a little less?

[–]ITiswhatITisforthis 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Welcome to Reddit- Where you can get down voted for stating the ugly truth, instead of down voting for being irrelevant.

[–]Golden_Booger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly. Most of us who have the ability and free time to read and vote on your comment make up the minority of the people that we are talking about. Many people, are hungry. I am sure if I am starving, my preference to drive extra miles and pay more money for wholefoods chicken goes out the window. Cheap chicken is important diet to low income families who can't afford to think about the treatment of the chicken. You can go the Kroger in my low income neighborhood and stand by the chicken on sale and watch who gets it. My rambling point is this can't be addressed by a boycott.

[–]masamunexs 10ポイント11ポイント  (9子コメント)

I don't think it's unwillingness, it's the ability to turn a blind eye. If you were at a restaurant and the server says if you pay an extra dollar you can get the chicken special where the chicken isnt tortured to death, most people probably would pay the extra dollar. It's the fact that we're removed from the butchering process that allows for this to happen.

[–]BestBootyContestPM 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

I don't understand this logic at all. Plenty of people just don't care or don't see an issue with it.

It's the fact that we're removed from the butchering process that allows for this to happen.

The fact that we're removed from the butchering process is relatively new to society. It just doesn't make any sense that people would suddenly care about the life of their food. The vast majority of people that have an issue with it don't eat meat anyways. Its preaching to the choir.

A lot of people have killed or still kill their own food and it doesn't bother them at all.

[–]masamunexs 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'm not saying killing for food is wrong, (I'm not even really saying torturing animals before ultimately killing them is wrong, theyre gonna die and youre gonna eat them anyways so arguably what does it matter in the end), I'm just saying that our viewpoint on food will differ if we had to regularly witness or take part in the slaughtering and butchering process. Some people will be unmoved by the process, but I suspect most wont. Most hunting societies formed rituals regarding the killing of animals precisely because they did care and respect the life of the animal that died to feed them.

[–]Gullex 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

...you really don't see anything wrong with torturing an animal before killing them for food?

[–]masamunexs 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

I personally don't care for it, but at the same time I see irony in the fact that we systematically raise animals who exist only for the purpose of eventually being slaughtered for food, but get worked up on how much they suffer just before they die, as if somehow we can sleep better knowing that it didn't suffer too much before it gets gutted and put on our plate. Honestly, you're aware of these cruel practices, has that caused you to stop eating meat born of those conditions?

[–]Gullex 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

OK, I understand much better what you're saying now and I think I agree with you.

People focus a lot on the humane treatment of farm animals, and I question whether or not it's possible to raise an animal for slaughter at all. Actually, for some reason it seems even more perverse to be really nice to the animals when you're going to kill them in the end.

I did stop eating meat.

[–]jthommo 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

But it's quite reasonable to have a utilitarian view that suffering is bad, whereas a non suffering death is perfectly acceptable, especially in the case of animals who are very unaware of themselves as a persistent entity. There are moral differences between animals and humans when it comes to death, but less so when it comes to suffering. Is that an ironic thing?

[–]Gullex 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

especially in the case of animals who are very unaware of themselves as a persistent entity.

We have absolutely no way of knowing how an animal perceives itself. You can't prove to me that you are self-aware, much less an animal.

There are moral differences between animals and humans when it comes to death

What are those differences?

[–]LongUsername 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're putting words in his mouth. He never said it wasn't wrong, just that it is irrelevant to his argument.

[–]Gullex 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not even really saying torturing animals before ultimately killing them is wrong, theyre gonna die and youre gonna eat them anyways so arguably what does it matter in the end

That seems to strongly imply he doesn't think torture is wrong.

[–]SenorMcGibblets 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Unwilling or unable? Most lower and middle class folks don't have room in their budgets to spend extra money on free range chicken...its pretty easy to not give a shit how the animals are being treated- or more generally, how any sort of produce came to be in the refrigerators at your local supermarket for such a low price- when the alternative is demanding food production methods that will make said food unafforable for you.

[–]procrastibatwhore -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

Just being honest here... I don't care about it right now because there is a plethora of issues that take priority from my personal perspective... e.g. homelessness... military industrial complex... government spying and overreach... etc

[–]Gullex 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's not like compassion is some finite resource, that you have to allocate it to certain areas. You can care about all of those issues.

[–]procrastibatwhore -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

True... but in reality some things are just more important than other things...

[–]Gullex 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sure. But how does that manifest in your everyday life? Do you encounter a lot of situations on a regular basis where you have to make a choice between those?

[–]JaneFairfaxCult 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's pretty empowering to realize that food is an area where we really can make a difference, take a stand for justice, mercy and compassion. (And the environment to boot.). Small difference? Sure. But it's easy to do, and it does add up.

[–]Gullex 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

At the same time it's kind of frustrating to think the enormous difference that we could make if everyone (that was able) went vegetarian, but they don't, mostly because people don't realize 1. how detrimental the meat industry is and 2. how easy it is to go vegetarian.

[–]cvest 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you think eating vegan (or less meat) would have to lesser the effort you admit to the other causes you mentioned?

[–]gibusyoursandviches 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

I feel like people just like meat way too much to ever give it up, its very engrained in our culture. So the only real way to end animal cruelty would be to get lab grown meats and make them cheaper and more delicious than your animal cruelty meat for competition. Eventually, animals will need to be treated better so they taste better and thus can compete with lab grown meat.

[–]kleredrager 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nice hearing from lab grown meat again, you don't hear about it that often. (I forgot about it). I agree that that would be a great step. I think it will take some time for mankind to eat lab grown meat like they now eat normal meat but it will be worth it.

[–]gibusyoursandviches 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The guys over at /r/futurology talk about it often enough. I really feel like its one of the only solutions that everyone can compromise with. Eating meat is a cultural thing though, so it will probably take a few decades for lab growns to really take off and compete with other meats both in terms of quality and quantity.

[–]liatris 21ポイント22ポイント  (82子コメント)

How much would these changes in policies cause the meat prices to go up? $1/lb? $2? $3? The article gives no information about the actual economics of their policies. Chicken is a healthful, inexpensive, versatile source of protein. If instituting animal rights policies is going to cause the price of meat to increase for poor people, including food insecure people, then I'm not going to put a chicken above a human being.

I also think there is a moral difference between kicking a chicken for no reason vs transporting chickens in non-air conditioned vans. The article seems to conflate different types of treatment with abuse to strengthen their argument.

How much C02 would it release to give chickens air conditioning? There are poor elderly people who die of heat stroke because they can't afford air conditioning but this author wants to give it to chickens?

[–]whitedawg 13ポイント14ポイント  (8子コメント)

You're right, it isn't entirely fair to clamor for a policy that would make healthy food too expensive for lower-income people. But all food policies affect each other, and this wouldn't be a problem if the U.S. had a realistic food policy.

Currently, farm funding legislation tends to overemphasize the wrong things. For instance, corn is heavily subsidized, despite being one of the least healthy crops (particularly when processed into things like chips and corn syrup). Meanwhile, most green vegetables receive little to no subsidy. And Republicans have made a concerted effort to dismantle the food stamp program over the past 35 years.

If we subsidized crops with an eye toward their nutritional value rather than the strength of their lobby, and if we had a food stamp program strong enough to ensure that all families could afford healthy food, then we wouldn't be forced to make the tradeoff of animal welfare for human welfare.

[–]jedify 8ポイント9ポイント  (14子コメント)

How much C02 would it release to give chickens air conditioning?

You're misleading here, we're not talking about mild discomfort. A closed truck in the summer can exceed 140 F. Combine that with no food or water for 36 hrs, and that meets all definitions of torture.

[–]Thelonious_Cube 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

that meets all definitions of torture

For a human, but how do we gauge the suffering of a chicken?

For example, going without food for two weeks or more is par-for-the-course for some snakes.

I have no way of knowing how a chicken feels about 140-degree heat

[–]jedify 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Good point, though think most animals have similar maximum temperature allowances. Chickens probably less so since they are covered in feathers and can't sweat like we can. I've kept chickens, and would guess them to be similar to us. If its over 100F outside, they will stay in the shade, "pant" with their beaks open, or hold their wings out to get more airflow.

Edit: I looked it up, chickens begin to show signs of heat stress at 82F due to their feathers and body temp of up to 107F.

[–]Thelonious_Cube 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

But my larger point is that it's easy to say "this looks like torture" from an anthropocentric POV when the animal in question has very different wants and needs.

I read a study years ago about chickens and wire-mesh cage floors vs. solid floors (and, I think, some other features of their environment) and it was interesting to see that the things seemed to matter to them were not what one might expect

[–]jahlove24 21ポイント22ポイント  (44子コメント)

I think a point could be made about Western civilization and our overconsumption of meat. Chicken is healthy and full of protein, but so are beans, tofu, and quinoa. All of which are cheaper than chicken and involve no animal cruelty. I am a vegetarian, but I don't completely disagree with eating meat. I feel like if you enjoy the taste of meat you should be able to experience it. However, there is no possible way that you can put a positive spin on the way factory farms work, regardless of your intent to keep consuming meat.

[–]solepsis 18ポイント19ポイント  (9子コメント)

I don't know where you live where quinoa is cheaper than chicken... Even the free-range organic meat is still far less than the $12/lb dried quinoa costs in my major city.

[–]jahlove24 6ポイント7ポイント  (8子コメント)

Hmm, I haven't bought chicken in a long while but quinoa is about $5.99 a pound at my local grocery store. Health food stores give you a better selection but at a much higher price.

[–]-MOPPET- 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's still quite a bit more expensive than chicken.

[–]Tomgibo 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes, but that is a false comparison because you don't eat dry quinoa and when cooked it can gain 4 times the starting volume, so per volume of food consumed that quinoa would be $1.50/lb.

[–]Thelonious_Cube 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Comparing by the pound is useless - you need to compare nutrients and what's required for a healthy diet

[–]snarkosaurus -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

And per gram of protein consumed, quinoa would be $20.00/lb

[–]liatris 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can buy a 10lb bag of legs/thighs for $6 and use every part. The meat obviously, the bones roasted for stock then pressure cooked into paste to added as an ingredient for dog biscuits.

[–]alice-in-canada-land 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Let's have a conversation about how Indigenous people in the Andes can no longer afford to eat Quinoa since it became a health-food staple in the wealthy world.

[–]jahlove24 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Damn.

[–]jthommo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This was a real concern for me for a while, although quinoa can now be grown in multiple places, increasing supply and putting less pressure on the price of Quinoa in south america. That said I haven't seen any proof that this has happened

[–]bigunit3000 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Vegan here, and quinoa is horrible for protein -- it's got four times as much carbs. Yeah, it's "complete", but complete proteins are bullshit, unless you're eating the same food weeks at a time.

Beans and tofu, among other veg proteins, are legitimate though.

[–]jahlove24 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Honestly I usually just throw a handful in with a salad for texture. I eat more beans than about 8 people combined though.

[–]you_stupid_people 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

No one would die if chicken wasn't available for cheap. You are being overly dramatic.

[–]filippp 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'm not going to put a chicken above a human being.

I'd argue that the suffering the chicken goes through and the mild inconvenience that the rise in prices would cause (gee, just eat beans or lentils on some days) are completely incomparable.

[–]liatris 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

The mild inconvenience of increased prices? Do you understand that poor people spend a much larger portion of their income on food? Do you realize how much food prices have risen in the past decade? You are arguing we should care more about chickens than poor people. That is the underlining premise of your argument.

Suppose we use a hypothetical scale and say that if these animal rights policies were instituted the lives of the poor would be made 5% worse and the lives of chickens would be made 50% better. Now, make an argument for why it's ok for poor people, who already suffer a lot in our world, to suffer 5% more for the sake of a chicken doing 50% better.

Explain to me why the poor should suffer even 1% more for the benefit of a chicken?

[–]cultculturee 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Okay so I eat meat. Let me preface with that. But let's just look at this from an argumentative standpoint.

Why can't it be all-inclusive? It's not like we're going to completely end poverty, and then we get to focus on the food industry. Like "Thank God there's no more poor people to worry about! Okay what's next on the list then..." With each and every problem all we are doing is putting bandaids on a very large wound.

So if we want to mend that large wound we have to work on becoming more civilized as a species, right? It seems like collectively we've decided that means if there is an opportunity for suffering we do our best to avoid it. We don't let people murder each other, we don't destroy the environment in which we live. If something is in pain we try our best to stop it. That's the whole concept of being humanitarian--is setting a standard for our species to strive for.

And I mean obviously we're really far off from achieving really any of those goals--like it's kind of really sad actually, but doesn't that sound like the kind of world you'd like to live in? I totally agree with you that there's this huge pragmatic dilemma when it comes to basically who deserves to suffer less. We only have so many resources and have to choose where to spend them wisely to make any improvements at all, or to at the very least keep them from getting worse. But I would argue that just because we give precedence to one thing that doesn't completely invalidate the other. Just because people are higher up on the totem pole, that doesn't mean that chicken's problems just don't matter at all--or, and here's probably the important part, that we should allow them to get worse. I'll argue that by doing so, by invalidating the chicken by ignoring or defending its pain goes beyond pragmatism and actively advocates for living in a more barbaric world. It goes beyond just having this necessary evil and instead says "I'm okay with living in a world where this barbarism is tolerated and allowed to exacerbate." It is effectively inhumane.

So it's not like we're going to ever have a situation where people don't suffer at all and then suddenly we get to work on the chicken suffering, there's inherently going to be some give and take. But if we actively ignore one problem in favor of another we are allowing ourselves to be willing participants in the very degradation of humanity. And when we seem to be the only ones with the capability and opportunity to make something of this world, I think that's a very sad thing indeed.

[–]SushiAndWoW 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

You are arguing we should care more about chickens than poor people.

How about we care about creatures with a capacity to suffer, based on their capacity to suffer?

You are misrepresenting the argument when you state it as caring "more" for chickens than for people. The argument is about caring also for chickens. This is as opposed to your position, which is to not care at all.

In your view, any amount of caring for chickens is excessive, because the amount we should care for them is zero. Any amount of caring will cause some inconvenience, and you will interpret that as "putting chicken ahead of people".

[–]Thelonious_Cube -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

But how do you gauge the capacity of a chicken to suffer under certain conditions?

[–]filippp 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

They don't have to always eat chicken, you know. One can get all the necessary nutrients from plant-based foods.

[–]ITiswhatITisforthis 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I love how people "MUST TAKE A STAND" for the well being of chickens, yet no one gives 2 shits about the well being of their own species, humans.
I mean I get it, no one likes to hear about, or see animal abuse or cruelty, but lets be real, we eat chickens!
I guess the human mentality is, I hate that person, that person is a human, therefore I hate humans.

[–]Arthellia 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you eat 100 gram of meat a week, how much dollar would that cost and how is that 5% exactly?

Also, I think no one stated you should make chicken more expensive and leave all the rest the way it is now. If people are struggling to buy food in one of the richest countries in the world, then your solution should not be torturing the animals for cheap food. Your solution should making these people able to live a normal life AND making the chickens able to live a normal life, and there is definitely enough money to do that. Easily. It's just with the really rich people who pay little taxes and doesn't make it happier, and with wars, an other stuff not making someones life better.

[–]HaroldHood 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

How much C02 would it release to give chickens air conditioning?

What is C02?

[–]ITiswhatITisforthis -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yea, I don't get it. I could see if there was a massive amount of chicken farmers that were beating chickens for no reason or because a person gets off on beating his chickens. At the end of the day, those chickens end up being served for dinner. I don't think NOT having AC is going really bother them.

[–]Arthellia 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

So, you think the solution is giving chickens and other animals a horrible life for the protein of poor people?

I would suggest: 1. Learn people how much meat they ACTUALLY need. A lot of people I know eat meat everyday and lots, too - whole you are allready eating more than enough of it with a little bit of meat once or twice a week. Support eating healthier and support eating less meat. And you could also eag eggs for your protein. Or veggies. Vegetables do contain protein. Only for stuff like vitamine B12 (or maybe another B?) you'll need a little bit of meat sometimes. 2. Tax the meat. Especially the bad, unhealthy produced meat. (This helps with point 1.) Forbid that animals are treated as soulles creatures, you don't have to give 'em televisions, but LIVEABLE lifes. Like, you wouldn't want to kill yourself if you were the animal. It IS NOT normal to abuse creatures because you like the taste and you want twice as much of it for your money. That's cruel. 3. Help the poor people. Make sure everyone has enough money for the basics. US is really a poor country in this way, the lucky are ultrarich but the unlucky are really unlucky. Make unhealthy food more expensive (because, in the long term it IS), use the tax money to make healthy food cheap. Maybe something something learn people to cook (school programs?) because that might be a factoe in bad eating too.

Profit: 1. Less produced meat, less other food goes to animals, more food (more land) to feed the hungry. Less rainforest to burn. Better world for your kids. And for unluckier kids in poor countries, too. 2. Less use of antibiotics, less resistant bacteria, less sick people. Yaay! 3. How can you want to torture innocent animals yo? You don't really need too. 4. Oh and more healthy people thus costing less money so you can save more animals and/or teach people about food.

[–]liatris 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think we have limited resources and therefore should prioritize some interests above others. Personally, I prioritize access to cheap meat for the poor over the suffering of animals. I don't condone workers kicking chickens, but I realize it's a shitty job and humans are emotional beings. I don't like it, but I can understand how it happens. I don't particularly care about chickens having an air conditioned ride to the slaughterhouse when poor, elderly people die of heat exhaustion every summer. If it came to a question of me donating money for an elderly, poor person to have a/c versus a chicken, I would pick the human every time and sleep well.

You seem convinced of your stance so I don't see the point of arguing about the topic.

[–]xtacy_hi 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

The only way to make people stop/reduce eating chicken or any other animal is to make them kill their own food before cooking it. Lets see how many of them then can justify that yummy taste. The film that environmental organizations don't want you to see!

[–]pohatu 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have a feeling if you made everyone work on a chicken farm, we'd have a lot of people okay with torturing chickens.

[–]Conchobair 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Have you ever met anyone that grew up on a farm? Once you get desensitized to it, then you really have no problem slitting an animal's throat and gutting it. The only thing that makes people feel icky about it is that they have never done it. Once you do it a few times it's no big deal.

[–]iwillcontradictyou 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ive watched a number of food activist films and Id be willing to kill every animal I eat. It wouldnt be pleasant, but I'd do it because I love meat. I feel like the ick factor is really overstated by a lot of people. If it was less expensive/I had the space Id hunt game and raise my own chickens.

[–]yourfuneralpyre 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have taken part in processing a free-range chicken from live-and-kicking to cooked-in-a-stew and I really can't believe how chicken from the store is under $2.00/lb. It took longer than 30 minutes for us to take it from live animal to boneless meat, and all we got out of it was about 2 lbs. or less. It was a pretty small chicken because it wasn't pumped up with growth hormones and fed until it's unable to walk like the ones from the poultry farms.

There are so many corners cut just so American people can have cheap and plentiful meat. If things were done more safely and less cheaply, yes, meat would cost more, but I would be OK with that. Maybe we would eat less meat overall, which would be more healthy, and the animals would be treated better.

[–]amaxen 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If killing your own food became a thing, the animal rights orgs would be up in arms to make it illegal - killing your own meat would lead to less empathy for their 'all life is sacred' position.

[–]daylily 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Raise chickens first and watch how healthy chickens will gang up and kill weak birds. After seeing that a couple times, they really aren't that hard to kill.

[–]gandalfblue -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've done it it's not hard or all that unpleasant.

[–]heyjoe21 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Almost every single chicken on the planet is living in a poultry industry version of the holocaust. This is bad, if they were Jews, I'd be like Hey, cut it out guys!

Why don't I care on a cognitive level or feel empathy for their suffering?

I just don't, I could come up with plenty of reasons why I shouldn't care, but I don't think any of those reasons account for my lack of giving a shit about chickens. You shouldn't care either. If you do, your selectively empathizing with one form of suffering in and endless sea of suffering. It's unhealthy, it does you no good. It doesn't stop the chicken torture either. Maybe instead of doing more to alleviate suffering, we should learn to be more cold hearted and dispassionate in how we look at the world, it might be of some benefit.

[–]seviliyorsun 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEHtCP1C12E

[–]tslocum 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The average person couldn't care less where their meat comes from. Out of sight, out of mind. If I weren't painfully aware of the way we farm animals I would probably still be eating juicy burgers and teriyaki chicken.

I've stood on my soapbox and informed my family and friends about this sort of thing, and their lack of interest borders boredom. So I'll just keep to myself and eat my veggie patties, while the populace infuse themselves with growth hormones and stressed/tortured meat.

[–]THEsolid85 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have no idea how a chicken feels, is the thing. Lots of other animals, when they have broken bones, or are generally suffering, their behavior changes in a noticeable and obvious way. It's easier to feel sympathy, and empathy even, because we can see it with our own eyes. But with chickens, it's not so obvious. They seem to operate in a state of hysteric delirium all the time.

Maybe there's a better way to slaughter them more humanely, to ensure they're as comfortable as possible in their lives until the end. I think the answer is really asking mass production lines to slow the fuck down. Like the article says, the problems occur when you make employees maintain a certain quota (20 per MINUTE??) and they have no sense of empathy in harming the animals to get it done.

[–]Carvinrawks 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Okay. I agree. But... one problem at a time. Lets stop torturing humans first? Set a gold standard with the way we treat our own species before we go condemning our own species for the way we treat another species.

I mean, I dont mean to insinuate ones WORSE the other, such specious claims wont hold in the long run. But one is certainly more imperative.

[–]spif 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Farm animals only exist to feed us. They're basically biological machines for making meat. They will never achieve any higher purpose than that.

[–]foomfoomfoom -5ポイント-4ポイント  (7子コメント)

No. Our lifestyle is predicated on the pain of defenseless things. The atmosphere. The oceans. Powerless creatures. That's just what it means to be a human. We have teeth in order to grind up other living things and claim the resources they labored to organize. If you start suggesting that our lives aren't dependent on the pain of other living things, then you start pushing us in the direction of solar-powered robots.

[–]Alebarbar 5ポイント6ポイント  (6子コメント)

So I should go out and murder an invalid? Deliberatly make other sentient being feel pain because that is in some way the 'natural' order of things?

I really fail to see how you can sugguest this as a valid moral outlook (or what you have against solar powered robots).

[–]foomfoomfoom 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

No, because that doesn't create an unbalanced transfer of value. I'm just saying that it's easier if we recognize that our entire lives are predicated on exploitation (the force that created your computer, your clothing, and your cheap food) rather than trying to root it out one source at a time. We humans are the most exploitative creatures imaginable. We should just accept that aspect of our character rather than fight it.

[–]Alebarbar 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

So I just do whatever actions most benefit me regardless of their consequences to others? I should not kill for no reason, but if they have a nice watch, go ahead? (Just stealing the watch instead of killing them for it, and thereby attempting to minimise harm, would of course be denying the exploitative aspect of our character).

That really seems to me to be the logical conclusion of your argument, if you feel I have misrepresented it please help me understand.

[–]foomfoomfoom 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's important to have an in-group who you care about and to whom you apply the golden rule. But it's also reality that your life is predicated on there being an out-group that you ruthlessly exploit the fuck out of without sympathy. That's just the nature of your biological and psychological system. Your life is dependent on fucking up the lives of other living things. That's the nature of being a human. I'm telling you that it's better to accept this fact then try to act like you're a passive stone that isn't fuelled by death. You'll be more comfortable and self-accepting if you just admit that your well-being is dependent on the pain-being of other living things.

[–]Alebarbar 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

So essentially you are saying:

"You should embrace being selfish (in specific ways) because it will make you feel better (and is inevitable to some degree anyway)”

(Again let me know if you think I have got this wrong)

Which is in and of itself a selfish reason, and does not morally justify the pain of other living things.

And whilst I do agree that currently my life does rely to some degree on the pain of others, but there is no universal reason as to why that should be the case. You yourself mentioned solar powered robots, although seemingly with some distain, whereas I see them as a potential way of making the universe a better place for all, including those who we might put in our 'out-group'.

(Although obviously I would not worry about the pain felt by those that are not conscious, as they do not feel pain, or anything else for that matter).

EDIT: By "selfish" I mean decreasing others quaility of life for a smaller gain in your quaility of life.

[–]foomfoomfoom 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

That, and I also think life is only fun whenever you're fighting for things that others want. No one would care about the Super Bowl if the players weren't excited about winning and hated playing football and did so half-heartedly. I think trying to take from others the things they value most is the best way to create genuine competition. And I think the male mind is wired for competition. So really what I'm saying is that if you want to live up to your full potential, then you have to fight to pry from others that which they hold most dear.

[–]whyisthereapostlimit 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

We humans are the most exploitative creatures imaginable. We should just accept that aspect of our character rather than fight it.

Funny thing is that it is as much in our nature to be reflective of our exploits =). Perhaps we should accept this aspect of our nature. After all, it wasn't a species that portrayed exploitation and no thought to the consequences that evolved to where we are now, it was a species that could also learn and adapt after reflection.

[–]jaygreen88 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm not going to stop eating chicken, but there is seriously no need for them to suffer. But is there anything I can do besides becoming vegetarian?

[–]UmamiSalami 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can donate money to advocacy organizations such as Vegan Outreach.

[–]LongUsername 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Buy from local farms at farmer's markets? And tour the farm so you know what conditions they're grown in?

The other option is they're not hard to grow if you have some land and build a chicken tractor. Then you have to deal with slaughtering and plucking them though.

[–]beeeees 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you actually have more power than a vegetarian. The only thing you can do is vote with your dollar. If you're able to afford it, support smaller free range chicken farms.

[–]kleredrager 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It may sound weird, but it is better to buy meat from animals which had a good life than stop eating meat at all. If people only buy the good meat it will get the interest of the meat industry.

[–]Conchobair -4ポイント-3ポイント  (4子コメント)

The chickens will be spared when they stop being so delicious.

[–]kleredrager 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

You know you can buy chicken that have had a good life right? And for a bonus, they taste even better.

[–]Conchobair 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's not necessarily true. Chicken for the most part just tastes like chicken.

[–]kleredrager 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

And beer tastes like beer, but you have shitty beers and you have great beers.

[–]Conchobair 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can have a palate for beer and recognize that, but there is not palate for chicken. Being able to distinguish between types of chicken would require a palate that would be more sensitive than a world class sommelier.