Thread: Video - World's Largest Hatchery - Um, wow.

It's just a very hypocritical position (I guess calling everybody hypocrites was an act of hypocrisy in itself, ironically...). It's the classic 'oh, one person can't make a difference, might as well not bother' fallacy. The fallacy of course is that millions of people have the same everybody-else's-fault mentality.

Originally Posted by Xei

Pretty much the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

Of course you caused it to die. Do you think that the food industry produces a fixed number of animals each year and if people don't eat them then they just rot..? No, you demand more meat, so the supply increases, so they kill more animals. It's entirely your fault.

Some veggie/vegan Buddhists make the same argument, but it's no more valid now than it was in 600 BC India/Nepal. If someone goes into the meat business with the hope and expectation of profit, that's his decision. How he interprets the market data and what action he takes in light of it is also his decision. When one of his employees throws a bolt through a cow's skull, the businessman is indirectly responsible. When his buddy Joe Blow comes to him and says, "Find me a good cow for my big BBQ," and the businessman finds a cow and tells his employee, "Kill that cow for Joe Blow," and the employee lowers the bolt and says, "Say hello to Joe Blow for me," Joe Blow is indirectly responsible.

To say the lady who walks into a supermarket, sees some steaks and thinks, "That looks good for dinner," just killed 7% of a cow is ludicrous. Which cow did she kill? To turn the situation around, what would she have to do to save a cow? If she never eats meat again, will she be able to point to a single cow anywhere in the world that she had saved?

To save a cow, she would have to form the intention of saving a cow, find an imperiled cow, and take actions that secure it from harm.

Likewise, if some guy forms the intention of killing a cow, would we consider him a reasonable person if he goes to the supermarket, buys a steak, and declares his goal accomplished?

Refraining from meat so as not to contribute to the demand is laudable, for the intention. If you wish to spare a single animal from harm, you'll need a different plan of action.

Why isn't there any blood when the chicks are dropped into the grinder?

this video reminds me a lot of a video I had seen on youtube, where they slaughter pigs. They beat them to death with hammers, just bang em in the head till they die. And the pigs would be squealing so SO excruciatingly loud, trying to get away.

Originally Posted by Lulian

So a single person is going to change the market? I'd rather not give a crap and eat what I enjoy eating. :V

If the roles were reversed and we were the animal and they were the human they would not care at all anyway.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

If the roles were reversed and we were the animal and they were the human they would not care at all anyway.

Good point. If chickens hungered for humans and thought they could easily eat us, they would. Not one of them would have a moment of remorse over it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Good point. If chickens hungered for humans and thought they could easily eat us, they would. Not one of them would have a moment of remorse over it.

Chickens for the Ethical Treatment of Humans. CETH. Buy a T-shirt.

Originally Posted by DarkLucideity

Chickens for the Ethical Treatment of Humans. CETH. Buy a T-shirt.

That really is a good idea. $$$$$$$$$

Put me on that t-shirt wagon!!

Holy shit!

You mean Holy Chicken!

Originally Posted by Invader

That decision doesn't need to involve the senseless torture of other creature.

It's not senseless. It makes sense to not spend the additional money for our selfish consumption, which would only be negatively impacted at a financial level.

Humane treatment can't be applied to animals. We don't eat humans, but we do eat animals.

Originally Posted by Lulian

So a single person is going to change the market? I'd rather not give a crap and eat what I enjoy eating. :V

A "single person" is the only thing that will change the market.
We're all a bunch of single people. How ever much you stop eating, is however much you stop killing.

Okay I reread Xei's and Taosaur's discussion and thought of something. If everyone gradually became vegan, that wouldn't really save animals in the conventional sense either. What would happen is that less cows, pigs, chickens, etc. would be born in the first place. So animals would only be saved if saving meant not being subjected to life at all.

... Right?

It seems that some vegans/vegetarians think that if they don't buy meat one day, a cow somewhere that is standing in line for slaughter will suddenly be let free. Doesn't work that way.

Yes! Great point. The fact that animals are being killed to be our food does not take away the fact that the industry we support is what gave them life in the first place. We are creating animals!

Originally Posted by ClouD

Humane treatment can't be applied to animals. We don't eat humans, but we do eat animals.

Lies, some humans actually do eat other humans. Animals eat other animals, we eat animals aswell. Animals torture their prey just as humans torture their prey including other humans like war and bullys and stuff.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes! Great point. The fact that animals are being killed to be our food does not take away the fact that the industry we support is what gave them life in the first place. We are creating animals!

Speaking of life....


Say we can clone animals and they wont feel pain, or wont be conscious, it will pretty much be a veggy. Is it wrong to kill it for food? it's pretty much a lab rat, if we could get our food that way then it would put alot of this away, we could even skin the furs off. It's never been alive, so it can't be killed.

Originally Posted by Xei

Pretty much the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

Of course you caused it to die. Do you think that the food industry produces a fixed number of animals each year and if people don't eat them then they just rot..? No, you demand more meat, so the supply increases, so they kill more animals. It's entirely your fault.

I don't think he relates to the food industry, but an animal who died of natural causes or an animal which does not contribute to the market system of the food industry.

I think the text in the spoiler uncovers some confusion. Note that the text is cut out of a larger text.

Spoiler for Good text on the problem:

Next: The meat eating vegetarian human vulture. Consider A, an ethical vegetarian, goes out to dinner with his significant other B. B, not a vegetarian, orders baked chicken. Now B has just contributed to the demand for meat since the restaurant will now order another chicken from its supplier, causing that supplier to kill another chicken. At this point (after B has been served) it does not matter one iota what happens to B’s chicken – the demand has been registered – eat it, bury it with a sacred ceremony, give it away – doesn’t matter as far as the demand for chicken meat goes. Halfway through the meal, B is too full to eat another bite. B offers A the chicken that has not been touched. A can eat the chicken knowing that doing so is in no way contributing to the future slaughter of chickens. Another example (not as simple and straightforward as the first, with perhaps a tinge of grey depending on how one defines the details): A goes to B’s annual office xmass party buffet where several hundred people (none of which A knows) eat, drink, dance, and socialize in the holiday spirit as they wander about the facility. Every year they serve the same amount of the same things (some of which are meat) at the same place in the same way. Again, A (the meat eating vegetarian human vulture) can eat the meat knowing that doing so is in no way contributing to the future slaughter of animals because A realizes that eating meat is not the problem – killing animals to eat them when it is not even vaguely necessary to do so is the problem. There are many other such real world examples where a meat eating vegetarian human vulture can eat meat without contributing to the abuse of other sentient beings.

Full thread here: http://www.my-big-toe.com/phpBB34/vi...t=2867&start=0

Meat eating vegetarian human vulture sounds as an ideal ethic.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Lies, some humans actually do eat other humans. Animals eat other animals, we eat animals aswell. Animals torture their prey just as humans torture their prey including other humans like war and bullys and stuff.

'Humane treatment'.

You missed the point here, animals do not treat other animals 'humanely'. Nor do people who eat other people.

# humanist: pertaining to or concerned with the humanities; "humanistic studies"; "a humane education"
# marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering
# showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Okay I reread Xei's and Taosaur's discussion and thought of something. If everyone gradually became vegan, that wouldn't really save animals in the conventional sense either. What would happen is that less cows, pigs, chickens, etc. would be born in the first place. So animals would only be saved if saving meant not being subjected to life at all.

... Right?

It seems that some vegans/vegetarians think that if they don't buy meat one day, a cow somewhere that is standing in line for slaughter will suddenly be let free. Doesn't work that way.

Yeah that's quite right, it's the greatest problem with vegetarianism.

What meat eaters do is effectively give life to animals which wouldn't have existed in the first place.

It's the only pragmatic solution really. The vegetarian solution would have be to raise livestock, feed it, and then let it live out its natural lifespan... which is of course ridiculous, for a start because it's completely economically unfeasable.

However, the lives that we do create should be respected. They shouldn't be subjected to needless pain.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

I don't think he relates to the food industry, but an animal who died of natural causes or an animal which does not contribute to the market system of the food industry.

I think the text in the spoiler uncovers some confusion. Note that the text is cut out of a larger text.

Spoiler for Good text on the problem:

Next: The meat eating vegetarian human vulture. Consider A, an ethical vegetarian, goes out to dinner with his significant other B. B, not a vegetarian, orders baked chicken. Now B has just contributed to the demand for meat since the restaurant will now order another chicken from its supplier, causing that supplier to kill another chicken. At this point (after B has been served) it does not matter one iota what happens to B’s chicken – the demand has been registered – eat it, bury it with a sacred ceremony, give it away – doesn’t matter as far as the demand for chicken meat goes. Halfway through the meal, B is too full to eat another bite. B offers A the chicken that has not been touched. A can eat the chicken knowing that doing so is in no way contributing to the future slaughter of chickens. Another example (not as simple and straightforward as the first, with perhaps a tinge of grey depending on how one defines the details): A goes to B’s annual office xmass party buffet where several hundred people (none of which A knows) eat, drink, dance, and socialize in the holiday spirit as they wander about the facility. Every year they serve the same amount of the same things (some of which are meat) at the same place in the same way. Again, A (the meat eating vegetarian human vulture) can eat the meat knowing that doing so is in no way contributing to the future slaughter of animals because A realizes that eating meat is not the problem – killing animals to eat them when it is not even vaguely necessary to do so is the problem. There are many other such real world examples where a meat eating vegetarian human vulture can eat meat without contributing to the abuse of other sentient beings.

Full thread here: http://www.my-big-toe.com/phpBB34/vi...t=2867&start=0

Meat eating vegetarian human vulture sounds as an ideal ethic.

On reflection and further reading, I want to back off on my response to Xei--I'd say we each overstate the case in opposite directions. There's considerable gray area as to whether purchasing meat constitutes ordering the death of an animal (to replace the inventory you've depleted). There are certainly a number of steps between consumer and abattoir where even the possibility of 'causing' death can be aborted, and rarely anything approaching a clear chain of causation linking a specific consumer to a specific animal's suffering or death. On the other hand, what if you buy the last steak from a restaurant that calls a farmer that butchers a cow? It's ultimately a personal decision for someone who wishes to 'do no harm' or has taken a vow not to kill, whether and to what degree they consider themselves culpable for the diffuse effects of consumer demand and what that assessment means to their lifestyle. Short of complete disengagement from the economy (i.e. nun/monkhood), there's no objective baseline for zero harm or only necessary harm.

Elaborating on the (or rather, a) Buddhist perspective: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...aq.html#veggie

And what about purchasing meat of an animal that someone else killed? Is this consistent with the Buddhist principles of compassion and non-harming, a cornerstone of right resolve? This is where things get tricky, and where the suttas offer only spotty guidance. In the Buddha's definition of right livelihood for a lay person, one of the five prohibited occupations is "business in meat" [AN 5.177]. Although he does not explicitly state whether this prohibition also extends to us, the butcher's clients and customers, it does place us uncomfortably close to a field of unskillful action.


To summarize what the suttas tell us: it appears that one may, with a clear conscience, receive, cook, and eat meat that either was freely offered by someone else, or that came from an animal who died of natural causes. But as to purchasing meat, I am just not sure. There are no clear-cut answers here.

To summarize what the suttas tell us: it appears that one may, with a clear conscience, receive, cook, and eat meat that either was freely offered by someone else, or that came from an animal who died of natural causes. But as to purchasing meat, I am just not sure. There are no clear-cut answers here.

Personally, I go the middle path and eat meat that is freely offered to me but only buy free range. My main concern is not the killing of the animal but the suffering that they endure in a factory farming environment.

Assembly line robots killing baby chicks? This is almost as unethical as wild coyotes killing baby chicks.

Someone has to put an end to this whole "food chain" thing. I'm writing a letter to my congressman telling him to vote to stop macro-biology.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

Assembly line robots killing baby chicks? This is almost as unethical as wild coyotes killing baby chicks.

Someone has to put an end to this whole "food chain" thing. I'm writing a letter to my congressman telling him to vote to stop macro-biology.

I have to take issue with the conflation of killing an animal to eat it and keeping it in fundamentally inhumane conditions through the entirety of its existence for the purposes of eating it. It seems to me that they're two separate issues. Frankly, the male chicks are the lucky ones.

Do what you want, but using an analogy between an animal eating a wild animal that had the chance to live a good life and be free prior to its death and bringing an animal into the world only to sear its beak off and keep it in hellish conditions for the duration of its short life to justify your choices strikes me as sloppy thinking.

One day, maybe they'll genetically engineer meat that just grows in a vat.

I think that DarkLucidiety's argument about the parental instinct makes a lot of sense applied to most people. They evolved to protect cute. The funny thing is that I just don't give a fuck about that. It bothers me when fish are tortured just as much. It bothers me when people kill ants for fun. I don't even get an emotional reaction to watching that video honestly. I just recognize it as being fucked up and, in the long run, totally avoidable.

And no, I'm not going to start my own farm but I do vote with my dollar. I'd encourage any vegetarians reading this to start eating meat again (limited amounts of it really are good for you) and do the same.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

One day, maybe they'll genetically engineer meat that just grows in a vat.

Your post inspired me... I suddenly wondered why nobody had done that, it should be possible...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

Apparently the only thing holding it back is financial considerations.

I wonder what the hell the moral implications of this'd be...

Which has the moral high ground; eating meat which didn't come from a conscious animal, or eating meat from an animal which had a life?

I bet it's largely moral taboo holding this back at the moment... and I bet it'll be waived when mass starvation sets in in the Westernised world.

Edit: This is bizarre... personally if there's no particular incentive either way I'd go for real animals, because you're creating conscious beings; as long as they're not in poor conditions.

PETA however is providing a $1,000,000 prize to the lab which firsts produces in vitro chicken... I think that's ridiculous, that's just... deleting animals. Billions of animals which would have lived will never have existed.

This really goes straight to the crux of moral philosophy. It's confusing stuff.

Ugh, that's sickening. Doesn't apply to me, of course. I raise my own chickens