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

**Robot_Butler** · 09-03-2009 11:45 PM

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.

**DrunkenArse** · 09-04-2009 12:50 AM

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.

**Xei** · 09-04-2009 01:08 AM

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.

**Sornaensis** · 09-04-2009 01:45 AM

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

**Xei** · 09-04-2009 01:48 AM

Why is it sickening..? It's not harming anything. No cruelty. It's just inanimate mass. Do you find yoghurt sickening?

**Universal Mind** · 09-04-2009 01:58 AM

It's either us or them.

**Sornaensis** · 09-04-2009 02:25 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

Why is it sickening..? It's not harming anything. No cruelty. It's just inanimate mass. Do you find yoghurt sickening?

I actually don't eat yogurt

But I get your point. The idea of meat-in-a-vat just seems like it can't possibly produce healthy meat. Isn't that why it's usually attached to an animal before consumption?

**LucidFlanders** · 09-04-2009 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

I think it's fine, the animals are not alive right? created in a lab, and not conscious. If it is alive and aware then there could be a moral thing to this, if it's not alive in any way shape or form then it's not hurting nobody. The purpose is to feed us, so it's purpose is done.

**Xei** · 09-04-2009 02:03 AM

I think it's clear that there is no moral disadvantage, but would you rather that there had been an animal which had had a life..?

It's the choice between an animal having existed, and an animal not having existed. Which do you choose?

Surely you'd rather choose that the animal had existed, and had a life?

**DrunkenArse** · 09-04-2009 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

I think it's clear that there is no moral disadvantage, but would you rather that there had been an animal which had had a life..?

It's the choice between an animal having existed, and an animal not having existed. Which do you choose?

Surely you'd rather choose that the animal had existed, and had a life?

It's pretty irrelevant to me that more animals exist just so that we can eat them. I think there is a huge moral disadvantage to bringing consciousness into the world without it having a chance of being happy on whatever level it would mean for that particular form of conciousness.

**Xei** · 09-04-2009 02:09 AM

Okay, two questions:

1. Pick one of two options: an animal never exists / an animal exists and is 'happy'.
2. Pick one of two options: an animal never exists / an animal exists and is 'unhappy'.

Also, is there any moral difference between never bringing an animal into being as opposed to killing an animal?

**Mes Tarrant** · 09-04-2009 02:10 AM

But then, some of those lives would be happy. There are at least some farms in the world that don't mistreat animals, as we can probably all agree on. So there is a chance that some of those animals could have a happy life - would you deny them that chance?

Anyway, you guys are right, this is getting into complicated philosophical territory.

Do you think more animals could be saved from mistreatment if all the vegetarians in the world started eating meat BUT only bought it from sources that they knew practiced "humane" treatment of animals?

**LucidFlanders** · 09-04-2009 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It's pretty irrelevant to me that more animals exist just so that we can eat them. I think there is a huge moral disadvantage to bringing consciousness into the world without it having a chance of being happy on whatever level it would mean for that particular form of conciousness.

Animals don't exist so we can eat them, we eat them because we choose to eat them. Nothing in this world is meant to be eaten by anything, it just happens to stay alive. It's a dog eat dog world.

**LucidFlanders** · 09-04-2009 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

I think it's clear that there is no moral disadvantage, but would you rather that there had been an animal which had had a life..?

It's the choice between an animal having existed, and an animal not having existed. Which do you choose?

Surely you'd rather choose that the animal had existed, and had a life?

If it was a conscious animal then yeah, if it was dead and not conscious and made just for food then there is nothing to worry about. But i eat meat, and i seen alot of this stuff already from youtube so i can also shrug it off.

Speaking of not conscious...i wonder how that baby is doing?

**Taosaur** · 09-04-2009 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

I think it's clear that there is no moral disadvantage, but would you rather that there had been an animal which had had a life..?

It's the choice between an animal having existed, and an animal not having existed. Which do you choose?

Surely you'd rather choose that the animal had existed, and had a life?

Why would anyone surely choose that? One of the worst aspects of industrial animal agriculture is that we summon so many beings into lives of torment. It would absolutely be better if we were turning less of the earth into miserable pigs.

**Invader** · 09-04-2009 07:32 AM

Solution: Genetically engineer trees that grow meat.

**Mes Tarrant** · 09-04-2009 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Why would anyone surely choose that? One of the worst aspects of industrial animal agriculture is that we summon so many beings into lives of torment. It would absolutely be better if we were turning less of the earth into miserable pigs.

I don't know about "absolutely." How could one claim that a moment of life, of consciousness, no matter how that time period happens to turn out, is worse than not living at all? Who really has the authority to make that decision...? We can't even take a poll and ask the animals if they would have preferred to have never existed.

**Licity** · 09-07-2009 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

My body is "alive". My body and all forces acting of it are a direct result of innumerable cells, each of which satisfy the conditions for life on their own. My sperm cells, even when separated from my body, still move around and carry out an actual task beyond 'sit there and metabolize'. If cells are removed from me unharmed, they can be put into a petri dish in a laboratory and grown in culture while still performing the functions of life on their own. If my cells are anything like the cells in a chicken or cow, then how is in-vitro meat any less alive than a chicken or cow raised the regular way?