Animal cruelty in the food industry

Any discussion not related to furry goes in here. Politics, religion, current affairs...this is the place for it.
Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Animal cruelty in the food industry

#1

Post by Leeward »

I'd like to start a discussion on something that isn't all that controversial for a change. This is a topic I care about, not just because my 'sona is a cow but because like any decent human being I think all animals should be treated humanely, even if we don't know or don't perceive that they experience suffering. (Just as a side note, I have not seen Food Inc., because I don't want to never want to eat again. Not burying my head in the sand, I know what's in it, I just don't want to have horrible mental images every time I have a burger.)

There are tons of stories on how animals are housed and slaughtered incredibly cruelly in abattoirs, and videos on that topic are enough to make most people feel queasy. Below is one such example that made the news, but this is common practice worldwide.

Warning: not for sensitive viewers.


Now the thing that bothers me about that story is what she says right at the end: "I myself have stopped playing a part in animal suffering. I stopped eating them." What exactly is that supposed to achieve? I know quite a few vegetarians, pescatarians, vegans, and so on, but I wonder... does it actually make a difference?

There is a very well-known principle at work here: supply and demand. People demand meat, meat is supplied to meet the demand, by any means necessary. It's basic economics. Becoming a vegetarian will reduce the demand by one seven-billionth (0.00000014285714%). That is laughably insignificant. Promoting vegetarianism worldwide is not a viable option either, because there are simply too many of us. Humans are omnivores and require protein as part of their diet. Yes there are ways to achieve this even as a vegan, but that is not something most people are willing to take the trouble to do, for various reasons.

On the legislation front, animals are afforded a pitiable amount of protection in this country, and the rest of the world isn't all that much better. In South Africa, it is only if another entity witnesses an act or animal cruelty, and is willing (and able!) to pursue legal action that a perpetrator will see any sort of consequence. And even then it is often not taken seriously. Just look at HHCU's Facebook page for examples.

I find it incredibly unethical to ignore what is not only obvious but proven by research: that animals can indeed experience suffering. I don't claim to be an expert in animal psychology, but it seems pretty obvious to me when a cow or a horse is frightened or in pain.

Opinions? Comments? Questions? Ideas?
Randall
Posts: 1616
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:15 am
Species: Funambulus palmarum (Squirrel)
Region: Gauteng

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#2

Post by Randall »

Animals do indeed experience suffering... There is no doubt.
All intelligent creatures do, there is also no doubt about it.
Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#3

Post by Leeward »

Another point I forgot to mention, but that I think is pertinent. This is just my opinion though. I think that people who are vegetarians/pescatarians/vegans/whatever-ians by choice, as a lifestyle and not dietary/health choice, are simply paying a "clear conscience tax" and kidding themselves into thinking they're making a difference. If they really wanted to make a statement, they would be animal welfare activists.
User avatar
Raven Song
Stealer of Time
Posts: 7039
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:56 pm
Gender: Does it matter?
Sexual preference: Other
Species: Shapeshifting Anubian
Region: Other
Location: Londonium ONce more...
Contact:

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#4

Post by Raven Song »

my mother used to be quality control manager for one of the Karan Beef plants way back in the day. She saw some pretty gruesome things. It saddens me that in modern times we have yet to come up with a better way to keep animals, which, without, we would struggle greatly.

I went to a chicken expo once and met a large machine, it's massive... anyway its revolutionary because the chickens are sent in one end and like ten different products come out the other. I wont go into details because I don't understand it well enough but I did question the guys at the time about "But how do you ensure the animal is "no longer living" as kindly as you can?" to which they responded...

This chamber is basically a kill chamber. Chickens go in, a small amount of electricity is sent through them, enough to stop the heart. they come out the other side and a person physically checks them. they go in machine.

Its like pigs. Pigs are highly intelligent animals and if they saw the pig in front of them get shot (the way cows are) they'd panic and run away and try and escape. So they also get an electric shock to the brain, killing them. they don't notice, they feel nothing, there is no panic, and it's very clean.

On the veggie vegan thing: So I know both types. My aunt is a veggievore because of her IBS and it helps it a lot (her son, my cousin, will now become vegan too because he's been diagnosed with IBS so they wanna see if it will work for him). I work with two "choice" veggievores". they piss the crap out of me. "How can you eat a chicken when you know what a baby chicken looks like." Easy, with honey mustard sauce. I know there is cruelty in the world and I know that there is unfair and unethical treatment of animals but if human beings stopped eating cows, sheep, pigs and chickens, they would have to stop farming the majority of these animals. if they did the current stock would be culled and most likely wasted in one way or another. after they stopped farming them the majority of these species would probably become extinct. and then they'd be harping on about how we let them go extinct...

I don't have anything against them. but I'm gonna eat my pork chop whether you want me to or not.

also on my aunt, she co-exists quite happily in a house where everyone else eats meat. why cant all veggievores be that cool?
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. Pablo Picasso
Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#5

Post by Leeward »

What I'm wondering though is what it would actually take for change to happen. Everyone becoming vegetarians would cause an economic collapse and environmental disaster, so that's a no. Personally I think the way forward is to use the very same supply-and-demand system against the food industry, by demanding animal products that were obtained ethically. I'm not talking buying only free range eggs and chicken here, I'm talking actively protesting the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses, coops, laying farms, dairy farms, etc. Things like letting animals see their peers get killed, live butchering, unreasonably confined living conditions, and forced prevention of instinctive behaviour (e.g. raising young in the case of dairy cattle) should be illegal.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#6

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Leeward wrote:There is a very well-known principle at work here: supply and demand. People demand meat, meat is supplied to meet the demand, by any means necessary. It's basic economics. Becoming a vegetarian will reduce the demand by one seven-billionth (0.00000014285714%). That is laughably insignificant.
Well the significance really depends on what you expect to get out of it. Do you expect one person to change the world? If so, then it's going to be insignificant. On the other hand, from a quick Google search, people eat between 7000 to 8000 animals over their life. So do you think saving 7000 animals is significant?

You might respond that one person won't show up in sales and will be ignored and that's true. But the idea isn't that one person can change the world, it's that one by one we can make a difference together. One raindrop is insignificant but if you get enough of them it will fill a dam or flood a town. As more people stop eating meat then the demand will become noticeably smaller and the supply will shrink.
Leeward wrote:Humans are omnivores and require protein as part of their diet.
Even though every part of that is true, it's still nonsense. Most people eat too much protein and a vegetarian diet is not at risk of being too low in protein. There are some vitamins that it's easy to run out of but protein is not a concern.
Leeward wrote:This is just my opinion though. I think that people who are vegetarians/pescatarians/vegans/whatever-ians by choice, as a lifestyle and not dietary/health choice, are simply paying a "clear conscience tax" and kidding themselves into thinking they're making a difference. If they really wanted to make a statement, they would be animal welfare activists.
That's just uncalled for and unfair. Not everyone wants to make their life about being an activist for various causes and you don't get to lump people that avoid unethical actions with the people that are doing those things. Can you really say you are an activist on every ethical position you take? I doubt that's even possible. You can't really say you care about animal welfare while contributing to the system that is harming their welfare.
Leeward wrote: Everyone becoming vegetarians would cause an economic collapse and environmental disaster, so that's a no.
No, it wouldn't.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Raven Song
Stealer of Time
Posts: 7039
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:56 pm
Gender: Does it matter?
Sexual preference: Other
Species: Shapeshifting Anubian
Region: Other
Location: Londonium ONce more...
Contact:

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#7

Post by Raven Song »

Rakuen, just a question, are you a veggievore by any chance?

Leeward I will agree with Rakuen purely in the fact that as the progressive society we are, we will find a way to replace it. the Environment may be impacted for a while, but like the dinosaur extinction it will stabilise again...

Rakuen on the "You can't really say you care about animal welfare while contributing to the system that is harming their welfare." I think that's a little unfair. My mother is a huge animal rights activist. she dedicated 80% of her free time to protest marches, education forums, throwing paint at fur shops etc. She still eats meat. the difference is where she gets it from. my mother only eats meat sourced from local farmers. She even visited one of their farms. While we both still agree its unfair that we're killing an animal and nomming away at it, at least she's trying to make the situation better by not supporting the super groups who contribute to the unethical treatment of their animals. we've even spoken about my sisters boyfriend building a chicken coop for her in the corner of the garden, it would be sufficient space for the birds and she could eat fresh eggs on occasion.

I also don't think a lot of vegetarians/vegans etc do their "protesting against the system" right. they make a mockery of the plight by being so... well... hippy??? (I'm struggling to find the right word but basically - societies mentality towards individuals who fight for the freedom of the earth and its creatures are considered mostly to be hippy type people... you know, the smoke pot all day, dance naked in the moonlight, have names like flowerchild, even though that isn't what they are like at all...)
this makes it hard for them to be heard correctly, and its even harder when there is so much power from the superbrands that supply the animal product industry.
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. Pablo Picasso
Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#8

Post by Leeward »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:On the other hand, from a quick Google search, people eat between 7000 to 8000 animals over their life. So do you think saving 7000 animals is significant?
Not if they're going to be slaughtered anyway. That's the problem. Reducing the supply will only happen if the demand is significantly lowered.
You might respond that one person won't show up in sales and will be ignored and that's true. But the idea isn't that one person can change the world, it's that one by one we can make a difference together. One raindrop is insignificant but if you get enough of them it will fill a dam or flood a town. As more people stop eating meat then the demand will become noticeably smaller and the supply will shrink.
And how exactly would you suggest we make that happen? If you were to take your average vleisvreeter to an abattoir to see how the animals are slaughtered, I doubt there would be much of a reaction. What is needed is a shift in thinking before a shift in habits can be accomplished.
Leeward wrote:Humans are omnivores and require protein as part of their diet.
Even though every part of that is true, it's still nonsense. Most people eat too much protein and a vegetarian diet is not at risk of being too low in protein. There are some vitamins that it's easy to run out of but protein is not a concern.
I don't know enough about nutrition to dispute that, but I'll agree that many people eat far too much meat, particularly in the US. I do know a little bit about evolutionary biology however, so I can say that we have a dentition typical of omnivores, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that we should have at least some regular intake of meat. Which nutrients that pertains the most to I have no idea though.
That's just uncalled for and unfair. Not everyone wants to make their life about being an activist for various causes and you don't get to lump people that avoid unethical actions with the people that are doing those things. Can you really say you are an activist on every ethical position you take? I doubt that's even possible.
Like I said, it's just my opinion. If you don't eat meat purely out of moral objection, you're achieving absolutely nothing but depriving yourself and annoying people with your self-righteousness. Good job promoting sustainability. I'm not saying it's as bad as actively contributing to the problem, quite the opposite, but that the effect is as minimal as it gets, and yet for some reason seems to garner a great deal of passion. Activism doesn't have to be literal protesting and all that, it can be as simple as raising awareness or exposing wrongdoings.

EDIT: This is also sort of in response to this:
RavenSong wrote:I also don't think a lot of vegetarians/vegans etc do their "protesting against the system" right. they make a mockery of the plight [...] this makes it hard for them to be heard correctly, and its even harder when there is so much power from the superbrands that supply the animal product industry.
I would much rather have a vegetarian like your mom tell me about its benefits than some hippy with an "animals have feelings" sign.
You can't really say you care about animal welfare while contributing to the system that is harming their welfare.
I don't think you get what I'm saying here. I'm saying the problem isn't with the fact that people eat meat, but the fact that the food industry makes it needlessly cruel. If I had the option of eating ethically sourced meat without facing financial ruin, believe me, I would. I already eat little meat in comparison to most people.
Leeward wrote: Everyone becoming vegetarians would cause an economic collapse and environmental disaster, so that's a no.
No, it wouldn't.
Really? So if everyone became vegetarians overnight, what would happen to the meat industry, their employees and the livestock? It would have to be a very gradual shift for it to work.
User avatar
Ivic_Wulfe
Viridis Spes Vulupe
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:58 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Other
Species: Green Folf
Region: Gauteng
Location: Pretoria East (I prefer Valhalla)
Contact:

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#9

Post by Ivic_Wulfe »

AND THEN THE CAGE COMES DOWN! The cage with the Japanese fighting spiders inside, your mother strikes a match off her forearm and tells you to dance in the front room for money... - Dylan Moran
Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#10

Post by Leeward »

Ivic_Wulfe wrote:I'm just gonna leave this here:

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the ... hands-4659
Excellent read, thanks Ivic.
Mice are far more sentient than we thought. They sing complex, personalised love songs to each other that get more complex over time. Singing of any kind is a rare behaviour among mammals, previously known only to occur in whales, bats and humans. [...] Baby mice left in the nest sing to their mothers — a kind of crying song to call them back. For every female killed by the poisons we administer, on average five to six totally dependent baby mice will, despite singing their hearts out to call their mothers back home, inevitably die of starvation, dehydration or predation.
I see an upcoming Pixar movie.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#11

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

RavenSong wrote:Rakuen, just a question, are you a veggievore by any chance?
I've been a vegetarian for almost 6 years, I think.
RavenSong wrote:My mother is a huge animal rights activist. she dedicated 80% of her free time to protest marches, education forums, throwing paint at fur shops etc. She still eats meat. the difference is where she gets it from. my mother only eats meat sourced from local farmers.
Sounds more like animal welfare than animal rights. But how do you kill ethically if you agree that they are intellgient, have feelings and suffer? You could reduce or eliminate any pain or knowledge of death but death itself is a harm. If a murderer snuck into a house while someone was sleeping and quietly killed them there would be no suffering but no one would say that was ethical. How can you make an argument for ethical treatment of animals based on their intelligence and ability to suffer while not saying that's ethical killing of humans?
Leeward wrote:Not if they're going to be slaughtered anyway. That's the problem. Reducing the supply will only happen if the demand is significantly lowered.
Here's the thing. You can't reduce the demand unless people stop buying it. It's not going to happen all at once so you either accept some sort of progress or you might as well give up.
Leeward wrote:And how exactly would you suggest we make that happen? // What is needed is a shift in thinking before a shift in habits can be accomplished.
Yes, exactly. So you spread the demand for vegetarian alternatives, you promote vegetarianism and you educate people about ethical issues. But you have to take some sort of action at the same time. Would you stand there saying, "Slavery is wrong and we need to educate people that whites and blacks are equal. But me setting my slaves free is not going to significantly change that so back to work you go!"
Leeward wrote:I do know a little bit about evolutionary biology however, so I can say that we have a dentition typical of omnivores, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that we should have at least some regular intake of meat.
No, it's reasonable to conclude that we evolved from an ancestor that ate a diet of plant and animal material. That does not mean that we have to eat meat and it doesn't mean that we should eat meat. You can look at evolutionary biology see that only males and females produce offspring, that that's necessary for continued existence of our species and conclude that males should only have sex with females. But you can't do that. Evolutionary past does not dictate ethics or what should be done.
Leeward wrote:Really? So if everyone became vegetarians overnight, what would happen to the meat industry, their employees and the livestock? It would have to be a very gradual shift for it to work.
Firstly, you said nothing about it happening overnight so you've changed your statement. Secondly, that's not going to happen so it doesn't make sense to address it.
Ivic_Wulfe wrote:I'm just gonna leave this here:

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the ... hands-4659
Two flaws with the reasoning there. It assumes that food has to be produced, in that case, in Australia. If the world functioned properly then food would be exported in a more effiicient way. Also it fails to draw an ethical difference between intentional and unintentional harms.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Raven Song
Stealer of Time
Posts: 7039
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:56 pm
Gender: Does it matter?
Sexual preference: Other
Species: Shapeshifting Anubian
Region: Other
Location: Londonium ONce more...
Contact:

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#12

Post by Raven Song »

Leeward, my moms not a vegetarian for medical reasons, the same medical reasons I cant be a vegetarian.

Rakuen, cudos to you for being a vegetarian for so long, before I found out about my problems I tried it and failed miserably... that being said I'm pretty much living as a vegetarian now thanks to time contraints with work so I'm ill a lot again.

Rakuen I get what your saying with animal welfare and animal rights but the two bleed into each other, especially in a market like South Africa (where she's based).
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. Pablo Picasso
Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#13

Post by Leeward »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:But how do you kill ethically if you agree that they are intellgient, have feelings and suffer? You could reduce or eliminate any pain or knowledge of death but death itself is a harm.
The same way you put down a suffering beloved pet or perform assisted suicide on a terminal patient. Firstly ensure that they are unconscious, then eliminate sensory perception, then induce either brain death or cardiac arrest. Death is a kindness to those who are chronically suffering, and if done painlessly is not unethical. Surely we can afford the same courtesy to healthy animals we kill for food?
If a murderer snuck into a house while someone was sleeping and quietly killed them there would be no suffering but no one would say that was ethical. How can you make an argument for ethical treatment of animals based on their intelligence and ability to suffer while not saying that's ethical killing of humans?
There is a key difference here: the murderer does not eat his victim. Unless he's Hannibal Lecter. The whole point is that the animal was raised for its meat, and has to die for that intended purpose to be fulfilled. At the very least it shouldn't suffer when it does.
Leeward wrote:Not if they're going to be slaughtered anyway. That's the problem. Reducing the supply will only happen if the demand is significantly lowered.
Here's the thing. You can't reduce the demand unless people stop buying it. It's not going to happen all at once so you either accept some sort of progress or you might as well give up.
The problem is not the amount of demand, it's the manner in which the supply is supplied. Animals could be treated completely ethically, yet they are traumatised for the sake of efficiency. That's my beef with the meat industry.
Leeward wrote:And how exactly would you suggest we make that happen? // What is needed is a shift in thinking before a shift in habits can be accomplished.
Yes, exactly. So you spread the demand for vegetarian alternatives, you promote vegetarianism and you educate people about ethical issues. But you have to take some sort of action at the same time. Would you stand there saying, "Slavery is wrong and we need to educate people that whites and blacks are equal. But me setting my slaves free is not going to significantly change that so back to work you go!"
You're using the analogy wrong. A vegetarian would be someone who has no slaves but is regarded as crazy because they say nobody should have slaves. Someone like me would have one very well-treated slave and tell people that they should treat their slaves with dignity. Indentured servitude can be regarded as a form of employment if implemented correctly. This is what I'm getting at, we don't all need to be vegetarians for animals to be treated well.
No, it's reasonable to conclude that we evolved from an ancestor that ate a diet of plant and animal material. That does not mean that we have to eat meat and it doesn't mean that we should eat meat. [...] Evolutionary past does not dictate ethics or what should be done.
Actually, it does. You can't change your biochemistry and dietary requirements at will. Evolution doesn't work like that. Dogs evolved from wolves (the "selectively" is irrelevant) and they need a primarily meat-based diet because they are carnivores, and will not survive on kale and goji berries.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#14

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Leeward wrote:The same way you put down a suffering beloved pet or perform assisted suicide on a terminal patient. Firstly ensure that they are unconscious, then eliminate sensory perception, then induce either brain death or cardiac arrest. Death is a kindness to those who are chronically suffering, and if done painlessly is not unethical. Surely we can afford the same courtesy to healthy animals we kill for food?
The key difference there is that both those cases your aim is to reduce suffereing. You wouldn't consider it the same to put Fluffy to sleep when he has terminal cancer and to put fluffy to sleep because you want to go on holiday and renting a cage is expensive.
Leeward wrote:Actually, it does. You can't change your biochemistry and dietary requirements at will. Evolution doesn't work like that. Dogs evolved from wolves (the "selectively" is irrelevant) and they need a primarily meat-based diet because they are carnivores, and will not survive on kale and goji berries.
I'm replying to this next because they go together. Omnivore does not mean that you have to eat meat. We do have certain requirements that can not be neglected but there is no need for humans to eat meat. If there were, I would be dead. There have been/are several vegetarian and mostly vegetarian societies in the world.
Leeward wrote:There is a key difference here: the murderer does not eat his victim. Unless he's Hannibal Lecter. The whole point is that the animal was raised for its meat, and has to die for that intended purpose to be fulfilled. At the very least it shouldn't suffer when it does.
That presumes that the purpose of an animal is to be of use to humans. I've pretty much only seen that argument from a religious point of view. Isn't it also possible that it's purpose is to suffer?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Raven Song
Stealer of Time
Posts: 7039
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:56 pm
Gender: Does it matter?
Sexual preference: Other
Species: Shapeshifting Anubian
Region: Other
Location: Londonium ONce more...
Contact:

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#15

Post by Raven Song »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:
That presumes that the purpose of an animal is to be of use to humans. I've pretty much only seen that argument from a religious point of view. Isn't it also possible that it's purpose is to suffer?
I think that ones a little unfair.

In this argument there will always be (roughly) three sides:

People who believe, whether religious or not (my father is the least religious man you'll ever meet but he also says "animals were put here for us to eat" in a few more enlightened words). These people believe that the animal product industry is a vital branch of human growth and development, not just through history but in current times as well. Most of them also feel that should that be taken away, bad things happen.it doesn't mean they think the animal is meant to suffer, they just simply believe that it is their purpose to benefit humanity. It sounds greedy but it is the way of thinking ingrained in many people from eons ago...

People who believe animals are not put here to be eaten. People who believe in free roaming etc. etc. I often these people to be the most hypocritical though. I've met roughly fifty in the past four years since mother began her tirade against the system and almost all of them have pet animals. If you are going to support freeing a chicken, don't have pooki back at home in her fancy kennel.
I do however agree with them that animals should not be kept in the conditions they are mostly in. I agree that zoo's aren't ideal, but here's where I become the third type of person.

People who are all for freeing the chicken and hating zoo's but will also admit that zoo's have done a shitload for the wildlife of the world as well through public awareness, education, research and breeding programs. I also feel that certain farming scenarios are good, like the ones in the Midwest of America where there are herds of a bajillion cows romping free... and then I get upset when I see the way they are rounded up.
as the third type, I don't defend either of the first two. Because I cant. I am a hypocrite. I want freedom for Nandos the chicken but I want crispy chicken wings. But it's the bed I've chosen to lie in. I've done the research I've been to the dietician. It's not for me. I like ribs too much.
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. Pablo Picasso
Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#16

Post by Leeward »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:The key difference there is that both those cases your aim is to reduce suffereing. You wouldn't consider it the same to put Fluffy to sleep when he has terminal cancer and to put fluffy to sleep because you want to go on holiday and renting a cage is expensive.
That's an idiotic comparison. Not only would you most probably want your pet back after your holiday, but a new pet costs a lot more than boarding.
Leeward wrote:Actually, it does. You can't change your biochemistry and dietary requirements at will. Evolution doesn't work like that. Dogs evolved from wolves (the "selectively" is irrelevant) and they need a primarily meat-based diet because they are carnivores, and will not survive on kale and goji berries.
I'm replying to this next because they go together. Omnivore does not mean that you have to eat meat. We do have certain requirements that can not be neglected but there is no need for humans to eat meat. If there were, I would be dead. There have been/are several vegetarian and mostly vegetarian societies in the world.
I hear you, but I'm not entirely sure that's true. And even so, don't vegetarians in first world countries take supplements?
Leeward wrote:There is a key difference here: the murderer does not eat his victim. Unless he's Hannibal Lecter. The whole point is that the animal was raised for its meat, and has to die for that intended purpose to be fulfilled. At the very least it shouldn't suffer when it does.
That presumes that the purpose of an animal is to be of use to humans. I've pretty much only seen that argument from a religious point of view. Isn't it also possible that it's purpose is to suffer?
That is absolutely not what I was getting at. Animals exist for the same purpose we do: none whatsoever. It is extremely arrogant of humans to presume that everything else exists to serve us. What I mean is that we intend to kill the animal because we are playing the role of a natural predator, but unlike most predators we actually care whether or not our prey has to suffer.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#17

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Leeward wrote:That's an idiotic comparison. Not only would you most probably want your pet back after your holiday, but a new pet costs a lot more than boarding.
The relevant part was one set of actions was done to reduce suffering (suffering which you didn't have a part in causing) while the other was done not for the animal but to fulfill your own wants.
Leeward wrote:I hear you, but I'm not entirely sure that's true. And even so, don't vegetarians in first world countries take supplements?
Many people do. Sometimes for good reasons, often unnecessarily.
Leeward wrote:That is absolutely not what I was getting at. Animals exist for the same purpose we do: none whatsoever. It is extremely arrogant of humans to presume that everything else exists to serve us. What I mean is that we intend to kill the animal because we are playing the role of a natural predator, but unlike most predators we actually care whether or not our prey has to suffer.
I see two issues there that are being mixed together. First is the question of purpose and second is the issue of suffering. To me it seems a problem that you are deriving an animal's purpose from the intentions of the person who is raising it. People raise some dogs with the intention of having them fight but I am sure you would not say that fighing is the dogs purpose.

When it comes to suffering you are switching between positions. First you said that an animals suffering was important in and of itself. Now it seems like you're saying that the suffering is important because we care about the suffering. Maybe it's just a flaw that we probably aren't writing completely clearly but you could have written "We are playing the role of a natural predator and, like most predators, we don't care whether or not our prey has to suffer."

Perhaps we should go back to the begining and more clearly define our positions?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#18

Post by Leeward »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:
Leeward wrote:That's an idiotic comparison. Not only would you most probably want your pet back after your holiday, but a new pet costs a lot more than boarding.
The relevant part was one set of actions was done to reduce suffering (suffering which you didn't have a part in causing) while the other was done not for the animal but to fulfill your own wants.
Aha, here's the distinction: want =/= need. Not just in terms of nutrition, but economically. For example cattle are raised in ridiculous numbers to fulfil demand, and were they not slaughtered there would be a market crash, and an environmental impact from their continued existence.
First is the question of purpose and second is the issue of suffering. To me it seems a problem that you are deriving an animal's purpose from the intentions of the person who is raising it. People raise some dogs with the intention of having them fight but I am sure you would not say that fighing is the dogs purpose.
Intended purpose in itself is not necessarily ethical, as in the dog fighting. But even so, human-intended purpose is not the same thing as existential purpose, which is arguably meaningless and irrelevant. Intended purpose does not dictate fate, but plays a strong role in it.
When it comes to suffering you are switching between positions. First you said that an animals suffering was important in and of itself. Now it seems like you're saying that the suffering is important because we care about the suffering. Maybe it's just a flaw that we probably aren't writing completely clearly but you could have written "We are playing the role of a natural predator and, like most predators, we don't care whether or not our prey has to suffer."
We're entering the meta-ethical here. Ethics as we know it is a human construct. We are among the few species that have a sense of right and wrong, and ours is (arguably) very strongly developed. Sure, we could say that ethics is a universal concept, but most species we know of have no grasp of it. Hence my statement that it is us specifically who care about our prey's suffering.

EDIT: I just want to add that predation is a natural phenomenon and that we should not be ashamed of the fact that we may be an at least partly predatory species. The difference is that we as an ethically conscious species should try not to induce excessive and undue suffering because of it.
Perhaps we should go back to the begining and more clearly define our positions?
I think that would be a good idea.
Randall
Posts: 1616
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:15 am
Species: Funambulus palmarum (Squirrel)
Region: Gauteng

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#19

Post by Randall »

I believe that, in recent years a lot of progress has been made in terms of humane treatment of animals in the food industry. I know this from my work in the industrial electronics sector, where clever computerized systems render animals painlessly dead and without stress or anxiety.

However, in terms of cruelty, I believe human beings have the capability of being cruel beyond measure. Not even natural predators are as cruel as we can be. I do not believe it is wrong to eat animals, however I do believe certain animals are not to be eaten. Its just unwritten rules I guess.

In times gone by it seems mankind went through a really troubled period, filled with immeasurable cruelty towards man and beast alike.

Animals such as cats, need meat to survive, their metabolism and bodies are designed to eat other animals and they do not live long if they do not have access to these food sources.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#20

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Leeward wrote:For example cattle are raised in ridiculous numbers to fulfil demand, and were they not slaughtered there would be a market crash, and an environmental impact from their continued existence.
This is a pointless argument because it'll never happen that way. If everyone stopped eating meat it would gradually over a long period of time. Probably over centuries or decades, not years and certainly not overnight.
Leeward wrote:I think that would be a good idea.
In this case and for me, the relevant principle is not to cause unnecessary harm against another without their consent. This is expanded as something which should be followed by all able to understand it as we all want to avoid undesired harm and for a fair and equal world based on the idea of a veil of ignornace (The concept of designing an ethical system without foreknowledge of your own position in that system).

I also reject, on the basis of no good supporting evidence, any notion of a god, soul or spirit which might otherwise alter the balance of such a system.

Based on multiple lines of evidence, both direct and inferred due to similarities in evolutionary history and basic anatomy, that non-human animals are also sentient and capabale of suffering and other emotions. This ability is not equal in all animals but the distinctions are not relevant for the majority of cases of food animals.

With regards to human nutrition, while humans may have evolved eating meat that is no longer necessary. This is evidenced by the existence and survival of both individual vegetarians as well as vegetarian societies and studies showing both the adequecy and health benefits of vegetarian diets. At the same time I do not see evolution or biology as relevant for ethical considerations, such as biological needs being irrelevant for ethical status of homosexuality.

While harm can be experienced physically and mentally, I maintain that harm would also include that which, painlessly, violates personal autonomy. If I were killed in my sleep it would not cause me a sensation of pain but I would consider such an action to be harmful nonetheless.

Combining the above, I would consider farming animals for meat to be unethical as the actions up to and including slaughter are inherently harmful and I have no forced requirement for meat to survive. I do not consider the desire for meat to outweigh the ethical obligation to avoid unnecessary harm.

If, to use the question every vegetarian is asked at least once, one were on a deserted island and the only food available were meat then that balance would be shifted. Barring a non-meat source of food, meat will be a requirment for survival and ensuring ones own survival allows exemption from other ethical concerns (At east in this framework).
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Helios_phi
The depraved
Posts: 2247
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 9:00 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#21

Post by Helios_phi »

Sonic2k wrote:(sic) I believe human beings have the capability of being cruel beyond measure......

however I do believe certain animals are not to be eaten. Its just unwritten rules I guess.
Attachments
images (27).jpg
[REDACTED]
User avatar
Ocean knight
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 8:46 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Grey wolf
Region: Gauteng
Location: Pretoria

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#22

Post by Ocean knight »

I believe it's ok to eat meat. I however do not agree with the standard farming methods. Unfortunately these are not the big issues. This is:

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about 795 million people of the 7.3 billion people in the world, or one in nine, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2014-2016.

1. An estimated 29.8 million people live in modern slavery today
2. Slavery generates $32 billion for traffickers globally each year
3. Approximately 78% of victims are enslaved for labor, 22% of victims are enslaved for sex
4. 55% of slavery victims are women and girls
5. 26% of slaves today are children under the age of 18

I know animal cruelty is big and it really does upset me. I think animal cruelty is disgusting. BUT let's focus on feeding and protecting humans first.
I don't want change the subject or undermine animal cruelty but plz keep this in mind.
We are drowning in conformity.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#23

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Don't do that. This is about animal cruelty in the food. If you want to talk something else then make a different thread for it.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Sev
Superbike Snow Leopard
Posts: 6596
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:27 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Gay
Species: Snow Leopard
Region: Western Cape
Location: A Twisty Road

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#24

Post by Sev »

And this is why I can't wait for wait grown meat to become viable. For everyday purposes it'll be perfectly adequate - I don't see a Big Mac being noticeably different. "Real" meat would then be mostly for special occasions.
User avatar
Ocean knight
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 8:46 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Grey wolf
Region: Gauteng
Location: Pretoria

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#25

Post by Ocean knight »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:Don't do that. This is about animal cruelty in the food. If you want to talk something else then make a different thread for it.
Sorry i just wanted people to think about it, not discuss it.

As for my view i eat meat. I don't have a problem with vegetarians. I understand if someone does not eat meat or animal products. Animal cruelty does make me upset and people need to stand up against it and support those trying to help animals. In my family we eat mostly free range animal and animal products both for health reasons and for the animals. Of course this does not help with the way they are slaughtered. I think we should be allowed to eat what we want (within reason) and not be judged.
We are drowning in conformity.
User avatar
Animew
Banter kitty
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:45 pm
Species: Animu cat

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#26

Post by Animew »

... oh god... this is some kind of messed up nightmare isn’t it... i totally miss out on a topic extremely close to my heart but to make it worse RAKUEN of all people pretty much says what i wana say (kinda lol)... only he does it better than i could... with his superior wording and scholarly elocution...
well whatever, you get em tiger.
...i still hate you though...

(aaaaahahahahaha! get it!? because he is a growlithe and they have tiger stripe like patterns!)

rakuen has pretty much done an outstanding job and i don’t wana fuck it up by saying something stupid... but i'm going to anyways... well, i'm going to give my 10c worth anyways whether or not it’s stupid is up to who reads it.

Lee it seems to me you base your standing on thinking that you actually NEED animal protein as opposed to just WANTING it. but you just don’t want the animals you intend to eat to suffer... but most people can survive off plant protein and no matter how you kill something you will always cause suffering. even farm animals make deep bonds with each other and miss those dead loved ones.
killing an animal (even farm animals bred for food) in my opinion is EXACLY the same morally as killing a human being. there is no greater power giving some divine right upon a human to just declare themselves superior to all other life on the planet. Intelligence is no excuse/justification, in fact our intelligence should make us know better don’t you think?
you argue that natural predation is a moral justification and i do agree that it is the normal way of the world for predators to kill prey. but keeping a living being alive merely to be slaughtered at your leisure when you see fit is no longer natural predation (or symbiosis as originally intended with farming), it's parasitic. irrespective of the method of killing. if you think yourself more worthy of life than another and you seek to basically steal its hard won recourses (and complain about having too much resources when you get fat) then at least have the guts to fight that life form for it. natural predation is a contest between two lives that mutually benefit both species by weeding out the weak and making both species healthier. <_< keeping an animal custody till it is so ill adapted to freedom that it’s dependant on you, only benefits your species and when people bringing up the dependence of those animals as an excuse to continue their incarceration, it is a testament to human arrogance in my opinion.

now before anyone accuses me of being a hippy, i actually do eat meat and i enjoy it... now before i get accused of being a hippycrit, I don’t lie to myself and try to play the good guy, “only eating meat because I NEED to.” I choose to kill living things and eat their flesh. though i tried to become a vegivore (for financial reasons not moral reasons) but my metabolism leans more to the carnivore end of the omnivore spectrum so i get sick from most crucial vegivore foods. still, i've always managed to get by on one kill a month and i've never used guns to hunt. recently though there is not much in the form of prey and what little is left, i leave alone (and rescue from snares) so they can re populate. but these damn poachers are wiping out the prey on an industrial scale *sigh* if only i could legally eat humans...

aaaahnyway so i've taken to eating bugs. works perfectly as an animal protein and fat source.
so you see lee, even if you really do NEED as opposed to WANT... there are actually better alternatives to slaughtering poor little fluffy animals.
farming roaches/crickets and that sort of thing is actually more efficient than farming cows and sheep since you get better food to biomass ratio. also less space is required... in the end humans kill animals because they WANT to... not because they NEED to... we like how their flesh tastes, nothing more or any less selfish. as long as we are clear on that i'm good and i'll leave everyone to bask in their murderous indulgences.
not judging... just sayin... after all, I’m a murderous monster too. just like the rest of you animalvores… just can’t stand folks not being honest about it.
Ocean knight wrote:Sorry i just wanted people to think about it, not discuss it.
nunu, please do make that thread. people have been meaning to for a while actually and a discussion about it would be good.
Duck face? i thought they were all just making fart noises when posing for pictures...
Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#27

Post by Leeward »

All right well now that I have access to a PC again I can resume the walls of text. So let me clarify my stance on this. Before I start though I just want to say that I consider this sort of discussion a friendly debate, and not so much something to be resolved or "won" as something to provide alternative viewpoints to think about. Therefore please take whatever is said here with a pinch of salt.

In a nutshell, you could say I have a strongly utilitarian standpoint. I believe that purpose dictates and justifies existence and actions, whether that purpose is natural, artificial, non-existent, moral, immoral, or amoral (as an aside, that would make an interesting D&D-style alignment grid). In that sense, I have a great respect for natural phenomena such as evolution. More specifically, I believe that predation in particular is a necessary phenomenon for several reasons: natural selection, population control, dietary requirements of predators, and so on. Therefore, I do not believe that killing animals for their meat, in and of itself, is wrong.

However, I have a massive objection to the fact that neglect and cruelty are standard practice in the animal product industry. This is not just for foods such as meat (un-sedated slaughter), dairy (separation of mother and young at birth), and eggs (overcrowding, restriction and mutilation), but also for non-foods such as wool (overcrowding and mistreatment) and fur (overcrowding and live skinning).

The reason for this is somewhat arbitrary yet internally consistent. I think that we humans are morally responsible for minimising the suffering that we cause, simply by virtue of being able to understand the concept of morality (by extension this would also apply to some other species, but that is a topic for another day). In simple terms, if you can understand that doing something will cause unnecessary, avoidable suffering, it is wrong of you to do it. There are several caveats to that statement though.

The "unnecessary" refers to several concepts: prevention of future suffering (e.g. medical injections, culling), consent (e.g. BDSM), nutrition (livestock slaughter, for human or animal consumption), and other situations that have a certain degree of requirement for an action that causes suffering.

That is where the "avoidable" comes into play. Where an action that causes suffering is "required", I believe it is wrong to inflict any more than what is absolutely necessary for that action to be fulfilled. For example, culling elephants may be necessary to avoid ecosystem damage, but chasing them from helicopters and making them panic in the process is totally unnecessary when they could be stalked and sedated then humanely put down, or even unsuspectingly killed in one shot.

Another example closer to the topic at hand would be dairy farming, where calves are routinely removed from their mothers at birth so that none of their milk is "wasted". If the calf is female, it will have the exact same fate as its mother, and if it is male, it will most likely be slaughtered for discount veal, or more rarely kept for breeding. A dairy cow has to either carry a calf to term or be given hormones (BST, or rBST) to start producing milk. Hormones are objected to for several other reasons (which I won't go into) but routine psychological trauma isn't exactly preferable. If I'm not mistaken, this is a modern practice; it is perfectly feasible to allow a dairy cow to raise her first calf naturally, and either start milking it as the calf is weaned, or milk it at a reduced rate from the start and increase it after weaning (if the cow continues to be milked, it continues to produce milk). Not only does this avoid the trauma to both calf and mother, but also provides many health benefits to both (again, I won't go on a tangent on the benefits of breastfeeding), and it only marginally reduces the milk yield within the cow's lifetime.

Anyway back on point. I do not object to the consumption of animal products. I do not object to the fact that those industries exist. I object to the fact that neglect, cruelty, sadism, and cutting corners for the sake of output and profit are the driving factors of those industries. I believe that legislation and enforcement of ethical codes would be a good solution, as opposed to boycott which attacks the industry itself instead of its standards.
User avatar
Sev
Superbike Snow Leopard
Posts: 6596
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:27 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Gay
Species: Snow Leopard
Region: Western Cape
Location: A Twisty Road

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#28

Post by Sev »

Welcome to capitalism, where the sole focus is increasing profits.

It's strange, we waste effort on nonsense like "organic" products and non-GM foods, yet we cannot give even the slightest courtesy to livestock. If the industry can capitalize on fads such as gluten free, it can find some sort of justification for cruelty free that is not based on morals - since megacorporations don't have any.
Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#29

Post by Leeward »

Maybe we need to make cruelty-free animal products a thing, like organic foods.
Randall
Posts: 1616
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:15 am
Species: Funambulus palmarum (Squirrel)
Region: Gauteng

Re: Animal cruelty in the food industry

#30

Post by Randall »

Sev wrote:Welcome to capitalism, where the sole focus is increasing profits, lining pockets, and appeasing shareholders

It's strange, we waste effort on nonsense like "organic" products and non-GM foods, yet we cannot give even the slightest courtesy to livestock. If the industry can capitalize on fads such as gluten free, it can find some sort of justification for cruelty free that is not based on morals - since megacorporations don't have any.
FTFY
Post Reply