This is essentially a video of what happens to male baby chicks in the world's largest egg-laying breed hatchery.
Now, I eat meat and cannot STAND vegans/vegetarians who shove their way of life down my throat, but this thread isn't really about food choices...
It's more about, what can I do about this?? Know exactly where I'm getting my eggs from, for a start, I guess.
I suppose if these and other factories were more humane, the price of animal products would soar, which is fine with me and a lot of people because it means better treatment of animals. I wonder how long other consumers would put up with that, though. Or even if we achieved a level of humane treatment of animals across the board, I wonder if some companies would try to sneak in bad treatment to lower the price of the products.
Edit: AHA! I forgot to post a link. Brb. Ah ok there we go.
09-02-2009, 03:26 AM
no-Name
Umm, can we see the video, please?
EDIT:
I hate videos like this, worse than shockers :\
There's a line between pulling people into your cause with fear, and using evidence to try and take a stand against something. I think this video toes that line quite nicely.
I'm a vegetarian myself, but won't tell anyone unless they directly ask, or tell me to eat something I'd rather not.
There are better ways to do anything, but I won't pretend I know the perfect way to fix this problem. For the moment, it feels like being vegetarian is the best I can do.
People are always going to want more money, for less work. I don't have much faith in the greater part of humanity because of it.
Thoughts~
09-02-2009, 03:38 AM
Mes Tarrant
Yeah sorry I posted it.
09-02-2009, 03:48 AM
Descensus
The part where the male chicks are ground alive is fucking terrible...But the end of the video killed it. "Adopting a vegan diet," yeah fuck that.
09-02-2009, 03:51 AM
Sornaensis
Yes, well, that's life. If you want to change it then open your own goddamn factory and use a more humane approach. See how that works for you. Honestly, it is of absolutely no consequence. It isn't like they are obliterating an ecosystem or making large areas of land useless; they're killing off the portion of animals that would otherwise bog down the production of the food. Could you imagine the cost of euthanaizing all of those chicks? Thats hundreds of chicks per minute. And I mean come on; they're CHICKENS. There are MILLIONS of them there, and they expect the workers to handle them carefully? Again, start your own hatchery if you're so concerned about proper treatment of BIRDS.
Anyway, I raise my own free range chickens, so this REALLY does not affect me :)
09-02-2009, 03:56 AM
Universal Mind
Damn. :shock: That's awful. I just sat down after eating supper. Guess what the meat part of my supper was. Rotisserie chicken and a hardboiled egg. Now I feel guilty.
I think that chicken factory situation might be the worst case of sexism I have ever heard of.
It seems like the animals that have it best before becoming meat are animals that are hunted in the wild. A lot of types of farm raised animals end up getting tortured at some point.
09-02-2009, 03:56 AM
DrunkenArse
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
It's more about, what can I do about this?? Know exactly where I'm getting my eggs from, for a start, I guess.
I guess another thing that you can do is try to spread information about animal awareness and that their suffering is as real as ours. People get away with this sort of stuff because the attitude seems to be that the victims are "only" animals.
Some people just really don't care about the suffering of others though.
09-02-2009, 04:59 AM
grasshoppa
"A compassionate vegan diet..."
Oh stfu, that isn't going to do anything...
09-02-2009, 05:05 AM
Mes Tarrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
But the end of the video killed it. "Adopting a vegan diet," yeah fuck that.
Yes! Honestly, they need to keep that stuff to themselves - bah, if only they knew how much that turns a lot of people away!
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
Yes, well, that's life. If you want to change it then open your own goddamn factory and use a more humane approach. See how that works for you. Honestly, it is of absolutely no consequence. It isn't like they are obliterating an ecosystem or making large areas of land useless; they're killing off the portion of animals that would otherwise bog down the production of the food. Could you imagine the cost of euthanaizing all of those chicks? Thats hundreds of chicks per minute. And I mean come on; they're CHICKENS. There are MILLIONS of them there, and they expect the workers to handle them carefully? Again, start your own hatchery if you're so concerned about proper treatment of BIRDS.
See... I like animals, especially cute fuzzy little things, but... you definitely have a point! And I completely agree with you - just imagine the cost of keeping all those other chicks alive, just so at the end of the day people could have some eggs. But there's really no way to say that without sounding insensitive, even though it's totally true. :whyme:
Would people have a problem if those thicks were killed humanely, no pain or suffering?
09-02-2009, 05:25 AM
ClouD
Does this feel right, killing these living creatures that may feel and think as we do, that live. No, it doesn't.
Is it the right thing to do for humanity, which thrives from selfish consumption. Yes, it is.
You or the chicken?
09-02-2009, 06:14 AM
DarkLucideity
If you think about it, if you saw fish being dropped into a grinder like that, chances are you wouldn't feel quite as sorry for them. They're not cute. Thus you have none of that parental instinct to protect them.
09-02-2009, 07:16 AM
LucidFlanders
I am having a hard time trying to know what is worse. These hatchery guys, or the person talking in the video, the kind who try and make you feel sorry by stabbing you in the heart, just like those guys telling you to feed a starving kid faggots who steal 99% of the money you give them. Probably half and half. Atleast the male chicks die somewhat fast. I used to be bugged by these videos, but i'm pretty used to seeing and knowing these things now. I'm not going to stop eating what i eat, why should I? shit happens, and there is no way to stop it. For every vegan there are 10 more non vegans, it's a useless battle that can't be won, so just accept it, it's bigger then all of us.
If you think these chicks suffer you have not seen the fur industry, they skin animals ALIVE! that shit is hard to watch, REALLY hard to watch. It's not like we don't do this to humans anyway. I have absolutly no heart for human kind, i lost it a long time ago. If i had the choice to pick my life or the existance of every human in the world (meaning the end of human kind), i'd pick mine easily without regret.
Seriously do the chics even feel pain? seems they are born prematurly.
If you really wanna worry about this, worry about the city you live in, not some place far far away in neverland.
09-02-2009, 07:22 AM
LucidFlanders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
Yes! Honestly, they need to keep that stuff to themselves - bah, if only they knew how much that turns a lot of people away!
See... I like animals, especially cute fuzzy little things, but... you definitely have a point! And I completely agree with you - just imagine the cost of keeping all those other chicks alive, just so at the end of the day people could have some eggs. But there's really no way to say that without sounding insensitive, even though it's totally true. :whyme:
Would people have a problem if those thicks were killed humanely, no pain or suffering?
No i would not because it's a quick painless death, but i guess whatever works best/cheaper is the better option. We are all going to die anyway, they just get born before they are supposed to be born and die before they are supposed to be born. Life is not fair, life is a sack of shit so adapt and move on or cry about it.
09-02-2009, 07:27 AM
Mes Tarrant
Do they really do that in the fur industry... I mean, is it common? Or do people just say that to scare people farther away from animal products? Well anyway, that's a different issue altogether, but I'm just curious as I know nothing about it. Well... except for one of the Kardashians posing for PETA and then wearing leather at the conference or whatever that followed. :roll:
Good point about the fish. Reminds me of self-proclaimed "vegetarians" eating fish. Bunch of nut jobs, imo.
ClouD, hmm, yes. It's like, a lion wouldn't care about how much pain you suffered when he chowed down on you, right? Humans make their own lives very complicated, analyzing all of these things.
Yeah. Still not sure what my final stance is though.
09-02-2009, 07:39 AM
LucidFlanders
The fur industry is brutal, just brutal. Go find some youtube videos of them slicing off the furs of animals, and beating them up, and making them as much pain as possible, then comes living conditions. Atleast chics get it easy.
No, a lion wont care. A lion can't care...we can care if we wanted, but it's impossible to even stop all this for a more humane way of doing it. There is just WAY too many and it would make production come to a really slow pace, people will be demanding their food because alot of places will not have much because we are all doing humane ways of killing animals. We care but only because we are made to have these feelings, billions of years of evolution. We are just animals like the rest of the animals, just smarter ones. Look at war? we are savages.This is in us because we are raised this way, to think this way, to be this way, but also even without the training we have survival instincts which takes no training. It's a thing in everyone...do whatever it takes to survive or you will die.
Just think of it this way. The pain may be great, but they are free of pain now. They are dead.
09-02-2009, 07:44 AM
Mes Tarrant
I just thought of something, reading your post. Maybe we care so much because our life is too easy. I mean, if we were all fighting for our food rather than waltzing into the grocery store and then complaining that that one brand of cereal with the strawberries is out of stock, then none of us would care about this. Or at least, the vegans would keep their mouths shut. In fact maybe there wouldn't even be any vegans. :P
09-02-2009, 07:47 AM
LucidFlanders
I work at a grocery store, i've heard it all.:)
09-02-2009, 08:04 AM
DarkLucideity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
Good point about the fish. Reminds me of self-proclaimed "vegetarians" eating fish. Bunch of nut jobs, imo.
lol, yes. "I'm a vegetarian... except for fish." Well apparently you're not a vegetarian then. I must be a vegetarian too, except for meat.
09-02-2009, 08:04 AM
Invader
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
You or the chicken?
That decision doesn't need to involve the senseless torture of other creature.
09-02-2009, 08:22 AM
Alric
I don't see how leaving half dead chickens laying around is very sanitary either. They should be checking for ones that fall off far more often. As for grinding up all the baby males, that is pretty gross. Though it might seem even more gross if you found out what they did with all the ground up babies. I am sure they sell the meat to someone. Probably to feed to other animals.
09-02-2009, 08:32 AM
dajo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
Or at least, the vegans would keep their mouths shut. In fact maybe there wouldn't even be any vegans. :P
Don't you think that there might be vegans, who actually know what they are
doing, not pushing anything down anybody's throat and having valid points?
For crying out loud, where is the tolerance here?
Especially when you admit not knowing anything about it.
Quote:
Well anyway, that's a different issue altogether, but I'm just curious as I know nothing about it.
Food industry is actually a complicated, big topic. Don't be so quick to judge.
09-02-2009, 08:34 AM
Mes Tarrant
O ho! :D Well excuuuse me!
You're right, there are vegans who don't get in anyone's way. But the ones who do stick with you for a while.
09-02-2009, 04:10 PM
Taosaur
Most of the time, DV draws a great mix of perspectives, with sharp, creative, open-minded people in abundance. On this one topic, however, you reliably turn into a pack of whining hypocrites, seizing on pat answers to avoid thinking through a subject that makes you uncomfortable.
It's understandable, food being a highly emotional topic, thoroughly tangled with love and guilt and oedipal whatnot in most people's psyche, all of which colors our decisions and responses before we can even consider things like nutrition and ethics. Nearly everyone goes on the defensive when they feel their food choices are under scrutiny, overreacting to perceived slights and creating conflict where there need be none. Honestly, the "I'm vegetarian BUT..." crowd is probably the most relaxed and secure in their diet of anyone, and least hypocritical in its defense.
For the ethics of omnivory in general, I'm with the Buddha: if you didn't kill or otherwise cause the death of a specific creature, you've done no harm. You can't do harm retroactively by eating the flesh of something already dead.
It is, however, perfectly appropriate to express disgust at disgusting practices, as in the video above. Current practices in industrial animal agriculture are not remotely necessary to our nourishment, and in fact DO NOT nourish us. The overabundance of animal products at artificially deflated prices impacts our health in ways that ultimately cost us a lot more than a certified organic, grass-fed steak; the facilities themselves are often as bad or worse than a steel mill in their output of solid waste and noxious gases, impacting the long term nourishing capacity of our environment; and employing people to essentially torment the damned eats away at our culture. Then there's the simple matter of quality--the products of an automated death camp come nowhere near the standards of an actual farm, and the pervasiveness of a cheap, crap standard limits both the viability of better producers and consumer access to their products. Rather than employing our collective will to look the other way, why not make the decision to demand that our food industries actually nourish our health and humanity?
09-02-2009, 04:30 PM
Universal Mind
Uh, I don't understand your complaint. Both sides of the coin have had both sympathy and disgust expressed for them in this thread.
09-02-2009, 05:15 PM
Xei
Quote:
For the ethics of omnivory in general, I'm with the Buddha: if you didn't kill or otherwise cause the death of a specific creature, you've done no harm. You can't do harm retroactively by eating the flesh of something already dead.
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.
09-02-2009, 05:42 PM
Lulian
Quote:
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.
So a single person is going to change the market? I'd rather not give a crap and eat what I enjoy eating. :V
09-02-2009, 05:48 PM
Xei
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.
09-02-2009, 08:47 PM
Taosaur
Quote:
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.
09-02-2009, 09:17 PM
Kuhnada29
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.
09-03-2009, 01:41 AM
LucidFlanders
Quote:
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.
09-03-2009, 02:00 AM
Universal Mind
Quote:
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.
:chuckle: 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.
09-03-2009, 02:25 AM
DarkLucideity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
:chuckle: 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.
09-03-2009, 03:23 AM
Universal Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLucideity
Chickens for the Ethical Treatment of Humans. CETH. Buy a T-shirt.
:lol: That really is a good idea. $$$$$$$$$
09-03-2009, 03:35 AM
Mes Tarrant
Put me on that t-shirt wagon!!
09-03-2009, 03:43 AM
fzongqvxp
Holy shit!
09-03-2009, 04:40 AM
LucidFlanders
You mean Holy Chicken!
09-03-2009, 04:59 AM
ClouD
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
09-03-2009, 05:35 AM
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.
09-03-2009, 06:20 AM
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!
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.
09-03-2009, 06:56 AM
LucidFlanders
Quote:
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!
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.
09-03-2009, 12:37 PM
Specialis Sapientia
Quote:
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.
Meat eating vegetarian human vulture sounds as an ideal ethic.
09-03-2009, 06:28 PM
ClouD
Quote:
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
09-03-2009, 06:49 PM
Xei
Quote:
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.
09-03-2009, 09:38 PM
Taosaur
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
09-03-2009, 09:42 PM
DrunkenArse
Quote:
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.
09-03-2009, 11:45 PM
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.
09-04-2009, 12:50 AM
DrunkenArse
Quote:
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.
09-04-2009, 01:08 AM
Xei
Quote:
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...
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.
09-04-2009, 01:45 AM
Sornaensis
Ugh, that's sickening. Doesn't apply to me, of course. I raise my own chickens :)
09-04-2009, 01:48 AM
Xei
Why is it sickening..? It's not harming anything. No cruelty. It's just inanimate mass. Do you find yoghurt sickening?
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.
09-04-2009, 02:03 AM
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?
09-04-2009, 02:06 AM
DrunkenArse
Quote:
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.
09-04-2009, 02:09 AM
Xei
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?
09-04-2009, 02:10 AM
Mes Tarrant
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?
09-04-2009, 02:14 AM
LucidFlanders
Quote:
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?
09-04-2009, 02:15 AM
DrunkenArse
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
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?
I have no problem with that. I'm just talking about factory farms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
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?
I do. The increased demand would increase production which would lower cost which would make it more accessible to more people.
The flip side though is that free range takes space. Chickens and goats can be integrated very well into a small scale farm though. You would essentially be looking at dismantling the entire agro-industrial complex and replacing it with local farms. I'm for that for all sorts of reasons not related to humane treatment of other animals. I do recognize that it could be dismissed as hippie drivel though.
09-04-2009, 02:17 AM
LucidFlanders
Quote:
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.
09-04-2009, 02:20 AM
DrunkenArse
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidFlanders
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.
Almost every member of every domesticated species of chicken that we eat exists so that we can eat it. These things aint surviving in the wild on their own and they aren't the product of natural selection. The whole species exists so that we can eat them.
09-04-2009, 02:22 AM
LucidFlanders
I am meaning all animals. Chickens really are the weakest link though.
09-04-2009, 02:25 AM
Sornaensis
Quote:
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 :P
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? :P
09-04-2009, 02:25 AM
DrunkenArse
@LucidFlanders, I'm just referring to factory farmed animals.
09-04-2009, 03:33 AM
Taosaur
Quote:
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.
09-04-2009, 07:32 AM
Invader
Solution: Genetically engineer trees that grow meat.
09-04-2009, 08:02 AM
Mes Tarrant
Quote:
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. :whyme:
09-04-2009, 10:47 AM
tkdyo
at first...I was quite disgusted by the meat grinder....then the same line that threw everyone else off threw me off....
however, I have to say...it would be nice if we could produce the meat more humanely for the same price...but if we cant, then I guess keep it going that way. the reason i say this is because like cloud put it (whether being sarcastic or not) the whole industry is for our consumption and I will tell you now....we didnt get to the top of the food chain by eating only fruits and vegis, any scientist will tell you that.
09-04-2009, 11:08 AM
JamesLD
becoming a vegetarian is not going to stop this shit from happening.
eggs are awesome, especially in a fried egg sandwich:D
09-04-2009, 01:23 PM
Taosaur
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
at first...I was quite disgusted by the meat grinder....then the same line that threw everyone else off threw me off....
however, I have to say...it would be nice if we could produce the meat more humanely for the same price...but if we cant, then I guess keep it going that way. the reason i say this is because like cloud put it (whether being sarcastic or not) the whole industry is for our consumption and I will tell you now....we didnt get to the top of the food chain by eating only fruits and vegis, any scientist will tell you that.
The price is part of the problem--from a standpoint of public health, producing less meat at a somewhat higher cost would be an improvement, both in terms of diet and all the secondary impacts of the meat industry on the environment, disease agents, worker health, and not least of all our consciences. The present system does not nourish us, but feeds appetites that ultimately work against us.
Quote:
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. :whyme:
Hehe, I'm letting Xei encourage my tendency to overstate :P Regarding who has the authority, though, we're already making these decisions--we determine these creatures' form and number and the course their lives will take. We've been playing god with their lives for millenia; we're just terrible, terrible deities.
From my perspective, it's not a matter of creating something new that wasn't there before--'a' consciousness--but of directing the flow of life and sentience into a dark, dark place. Even disregarding the obvious suffering of the animals, we as humans cannot muck around in these torture chambers and feed off of the suffering without doing ourselves harm, distorting our view of life, and holding ourselves back. Fewer pigs does not equal less life and less consciousness, just less consciousness bound up in torment.
09-04-2009, 02:30 PM
DrunkenArse
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
at first...I was quite disgusted by the meat grinder....then the same line that threw everyone else off threw me off....
The last line was a mistake. It doesn't detract from the point though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
however, I have to say...it would be nice if we could produce the meat more humanely for the same price...but if we cant, then I guess keep it going that way. the reason i say this is because like cloud put it (whether being sarcastic or not) the whole industry is for our consumption and I will tell you now....we didnt get to the top of the food chain by eating only fruits and vegis, any scientist will tell you that.
We didn't get to the top of the food chain by factory farming animals either. We could stay at the top of the food chain without doing it. And we aren't really at the top of the food chain either: there is no top of the food chain. One day, microbial organisms are going to eat us.
09-04-2009, 02:41 PM
tkdyo
Taosaur, you make a good point. I never said I was AGAINST it though. I would love for it to be more sanitairy thats for sure
Philosopher...I think you misunderstand my last line there, my point is we are where we are, big brain and all, due in large part to the consumption of protein in our omniverous diet...meaning I was pointing out from a health standpoint being a vegan isnt a great thing either
09-05-2009, 02:47 AM
khh
Wow, that video is just gruesome. Especially that poor chick that fell through the washer.
It's just not right to have industrial machinery handle chicks, though those workers weren't exactly better. Humans :(
About the grown meat debate:
I'd much rather eat grown meat than meat from a being which lived a bad life and endured needless torture. It's not as if an animal not being born is a crime against anyone. It's about reducing suffering.
09-07-2009, 07:10 AM
Xaqaria
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidFlanders
shit happens, and there is no way to stop it... it's a useless battle that can't be won, so just accept it, it's bigger then all of us.
This view applied generally through out all aspects of life is the reason why the world is in such a terrible place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
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. :whyme:
All you have to do is ask yourself, having existed briefly and excruciatingly could you ever wish to have not existed? And then ask yourself, having not existed at all, could you ever wish to have existed excruciatingly, or even at all? Nothing is better or worse than non-existence for the being in question.
09-07-2009, 07:22 AM
LucidFlanders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
This view applied generally through out all aspects of life is the reason why the world is in such a terrible place.
One person can't make a difference, only everybody can, and since that wont happen why bother wasting your time trying to change something, it's not going to even work.
09-07-2009, 07:33 AM
Licity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Your post inspired me... I suddenly wondered why nobody had done that, it should be possible...
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?
09-07-2009, 05:06 PM
Xei
Um because in vitro meat doesn't have a brain... and is hence no more conscious than a rock?
09-07-2009, 06:23 PM
Licity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Um because in vitro meat doesn't have a brain... and is hence no more conscious than a rock?
So your definition of life is based around consciousness?
09-07-2009, 08:27 PM
Sornaensis
Alive as cabbage and most people don't see a moral conflict in eating that.
09-07-2009, 08:43 PM
Universal Mind
I have an idea. All of those male chicks that are being thrown into the grinder could instead be thrown into a big container and PETA and so forth could buy all of the male chicks and keep them alive on big ass farms. The hatcheries would no doubt rather make money off the male chicks than just throw them into a grinder. This could be done with enough support and financial contributions. Who's up for it?
09-07-2009, 08:47 PM
Sornaensis
Great idea! It'll restart the economy! 8D
09-07-2009, 08:47 PM
DrunkenArse
You're conflating suffering and death. There is only a brief instance of suffering associated with the grinder. Focus on the females having their beaks singed off?
09-07-2009, 08:54 PM
Sornaensis
I dunno about that though. I trim my chickens' beaks back all of the time. If it hurt the that much, then they wouldn't be able to eat.
09-08-2009, 02:01 AM
Universal Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
You're conflating suffering and death. There is only a brief instance of suffering associated with the grinder. Focus on the females having their beaks singed off?
I was throwing out an idea for those who are pissed about the grinder, but I was being sarcastic. There is no way in Hell any organization is actually going to do that.
09-08-2009, 02:22 AM
Mes Tarrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
I dunno about that though. I trim my chickens' beaks back all of the time. If it hurt the that much, then they wouldn't be able to eat.
Why is that normally done?
09-08-2009, 02:36 AM
Sornaensis
If it grows to long, then they can't eat, and when they peck amongst each other they can seriously injure one another. But mainly for the eating thing. It's a bigger problem for males though, since they mount the hens and peck at people. Not a major thing, though. I do it about once in a while when they start to grow out. They keep them dull most of the time, but we keep them in in the winter and they start to grow out. That's probably why they cut them like that in the hatcheries: they won't be out wearing their beaks down.
09-08-2009, 02:51 AM
Mes Tarrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
If it grows to long, then they can't eat, and when they peck amongst each other they can seriously injure one another. But mainly for the eating thing. It's a bigger problem for males though, since they mount the hens and peck at people. Not a major thing, though. I do it about once in a while when they start to grow out. They keep them dull most of the time, but we keep them in in the winter and they start to grow out. That's probably why they cut them like that in the hatcheries: they won't be out wearing their beaks down.
Ah. That seems okay to me... like trimming your cat's or dog's nails or something! I didn't know beaks grow back out. Maybe they do it in a more extreme way in the hatcheries... like cutting off enough to never have to trim them again.
09-08-2009, 02:55 AM
Xei
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licity
So your definition of life is based around consciousness?
No but I have no particular moral qualms about killing things which are alive but not conscious, for example killing bacteria or harvesting wheat.
09-08-2009, 03:06 AM
DrunkenArse
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
That's probably why they cut them like that in the hatcheries: they won't be out wearing their beaks down.
Apparently they even do it in the free range and organic category of farms.
This strikes me as a pretty unbiased article but that could just be because I'm biased. If you read it, let me know what you think.
EDIT: By unbiased, I of course mean that they make a good argument, not that they don't take a side. They clearly do. Poor choice of words but I lack a better one.
09-08-2009, 03:16 AM
Mes Tarrant
Ok. Well now I don't know what to think. On the one hand trimming beaks prevents a load of problems (which, by the looks of it, could also be prevented by using free-range farms), but on the other it causes acute/chronic pain in addition to new problems.
And there are problems with free-range farms as well.
At this point it seems like there are going to be issues with chickens regardless.
09-08-2009, 03:21 AM
Sornaensis
Interesting, I guess. Doesn't seem like there is a way around it, though. One way kills livestock, the other may cause accute pain in the beak and face...
09-08-2009, 04:09 PM
khh
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Apparently they even do it in the free range and organic category of farms.
Why would they need to de-beak them in a proper free range farm, though? You'd think the problem would get handled as in nature there. (ie. the beak gets ground on sand and stone during normal activities, so that it won't become too long.)
This strikes me as a pretty unbiased article but that could just be because I'm biased. If you read it, let me know what you think.
The article was good, they presented the fact and drew conclusions from them.
09-09-2009, 06:00 PM
Robot_Butler
I'm so glad I'm not in the ag business. Creating food is gross, no matter how you look at it. If I had my way, I wouldn't have to eat at all. I would just photosynthesize by the pool all day.
09-10-2009, 01:22 AM
Mes Tarrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot_Butler
I'm so glad I'm not in the ag business. Creating food is gross, no matter how you look at it. If I had my way, I wouldn't have to eat at all. I would just photosynthesize by the pool all day.
:D Heh heh.
09-15-2009, 04:26 PM
Zhaylin
This is a most interesting and informative thread. Thanks for presenting all sides so well everyone.
I haven't watched the videos or read the links yet (I've been catching up on Hulu :D), but I will before I go back to the "Farm".
The Buddhists perspective particularly interested me (not that I agree 100%... but it's pretty close lol).
Back in 2001 I bought around 75 rabbits of differing ages, sexes, and types with the intent of going into the rabbit business (for both meat rabbits and pets). I was completely ignorant about them though and it ended disasterously for the most part. But when I bought them, the lady selling practically gave me all of her hens and her rooster.
I didn't think I would enjoy raising chickens at all but it was terrific.
Unlike rabbits, chickens are VERY hardy and "hard to kill" (via ignorance). They were free range (no enclosure at all) and they thrived. The kids loved searching the yard for the eggs (even though they roosted in their coop, they liked to lay their eggs under fallen branches and cars lol).
When I let the rabbits out of their cages they too began thriving.
I was also "given" three pheasants and learned just how bad beaks can be. The owner had warned me that the male had a taste for blood and she wasn't kidding. Though they had more than enough room to roam, he pecked the female and killed the chick.
I later learned that chickens can develope the same bad habit (though I never personally had a problem).
I think education is the number one thing that can help unnecessary abuse and deaths of animals. But even that isn't good enough. It seems the world we live in becomes more and more apathetic with the passing of each year. If it doesn't directly effect someone, a lot of people simply don't care.
When I was a kid, my uncle took me fishing. We brought back several fish and I cried and became VERY angry when he de-scaled his catches without first removing the heads. I hd no problem killing my fish and eating them, but I thought the least I could do was put them out of their misery quickly.
I was a wierd kid though. When I was 5 my grandma caught me playing with a poisonous bug. She told me to get rid of it but I kept finding it and never had a problem lol. When I was 7 and living in Puerto Rico, I caught and played with the tarantulas, "poisonous" bull frogs, tree frogs and hung lizards from my ears as if earrings :D At around the same age, I pulled the wings off a fly and then cried for days.
Humans are supposed to be more than mere animals. We have the capacity for empathy, compassion and mercy. Such things simply aren't hard-wired into the brains of animals. They don't have moral delimas (sp).
It seems many people want to shed their humanity to be just another animal controlled by instincts and desires alone. :/
And here I am, having high and lofty ideals, eating at McD's and smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day. We work with what we have, I guess. I would love to have my own operational and private farm, but I'm too lazy.
