Special offer

  • amelia@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    I used to eat meat and love it, then I learned about how animals are treated in the meat industry and stopped. I probably would have been totally okay with looking at this picture about 10 years ago. Now looking at it makes me think of the poor sentient being that probably went through a life that was hell just to get cut up into pieces and be sold in a grocery store and it makes me a bit sick. We should really stop and take a step back and think about whether what we do to animals is right. Imagine someone would raise a dog confined in a tiny space, never letting them see the daylight, then after about 2 years cut them into pieces like that. You wouldn’t like that, would you?

    • dingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      For context, I eat meat.

      But sometimes I do wonder if one day society will look back at the practice of eating animals and see it as barbaric, just as we do with slavery.

      • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sorry in advance! The morality of meat really interests me.

        It seems almost guaranteed that we will look back on factory farming in this fashion. The current system requires significant help from the legal system (banning documentation of the animals’ conditions, excessively prosecuting people who break the rules, looking the other way when farms hire people who will lose their jobs if they rock the boat) just to keep going.

        Whether or not meat consumption in general meets the same societal fate seems less certain to me. We don’t view any other animals killing their prey as immoral, and before the industrial agricultural takeover lots of folks lived on farms and raised livestock for slaughter and treated them far better. Groups that lives successfully and sustainably off the land, like the Polynesians who settled Hawaii, raised livestock and fished a renewable amount. That’s been going on for ages and ages. Is it the act of killing a conscious animal we’ll have issue with? Will that sentiment focus on the smart animals like pigs and cows, and leave chickens and fish as acceptable? Will it rule out all animals even though some of them are so dumb that their form of consciousness is unrelatable? What about insect biomass based food? Will it spread to certain plants or fungi as we learn more about their forms of awareness and how they experience the world? Plants sharing knowledge through pheromones and root systems seems quite similar to the level of communication ants and other colony insects have. Where is the line going to be drawn?

        From a knowledge standpoint, I simply don’t know enough about nutrition to understand whether or not humans can be ‘maximally healthy’ on a vegetarian or vegan or pescatarian or w/e diet. If we can, sweet! If not, what’s the next move? Lab grown meat seems like it’s just around the corner but then when you listen to a podcast on where they’re at you realize they can’t mimic any of the complex structures that give meat texture; they’re sometimes only 20, 30% meat with the rest being additives; they suck an undetermined but certainly super high amount of energy from the grid just to perform these relatively rudimentary feats. It does make me wonder if having some cows that wander around eating grass and killing one or two of the herd periodically is really worse from a moral standpoint than covering entire ecosystems in solar panels to run the scaled up meat labs. Not to mention how either option seems like there’s no way it can scale to how many people are living on the planet right now!

        I certainly don’t envy the next generations. Which is a weird feeling. I don’t think we’re supposed to feel bad for our descendants. I hope they figure out the things that stumped us.

        My family is mostly veggie, still eat dairy and some meat on the weekends. No pork because I’m trying to keep pushing the line further towards a place I feel better about. Pigs are just too dang smart for the hellish conditions they’re raised in on U.S. farms. Drawing that line felt hard, pepperoni might be my favorite use case for meat. But I think my kids will grow up just a little further toward the point of outrage we need to be at to save these animals from the madhouse created to feed us.

        • amelia@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          Deutsch
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          From a knowledge standpoint, I simply don’t know enough about nutrition to understand whether or not humans can be ‘maximally healthy’ on a vegetarian or vegan or pescatarian or w/e diet.

          According to science, a whole-food, plant-based diet is basically the healthiest way to eat. You would need to supplement vitamin B12, but that’s it (and it’s very easy to do that). So from a health perspective, there is really no point against a vegan diet.

          If you are interested in the morality of meat / veganism I highly recommend the debate videos by Ed Winters on Youtube where he talks to people about why they’re not vegan and it’s very respectful and also insightful. Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdqAyFhWL2s (some are way more controversial though, this guy is already quite “vegan-positive”, still an interesting discussion)

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            those aren’t debates, they are grandstanding. he picks on adolescents still in school and tries to make them look foolish for clicks.

            • amelia@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              Deutsch
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              He goes to elite universities and interviews people his age. Where the hell do you think he should go to find more equal debate partners? Maybe he just has the better arguments?

                • amelia@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I disagree. Everyone who eats meat should be able to reflect on that fact and if you can’t defend your behavior in a debate, maybe you should change it.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    if you can’t defend your behavior in a debate, maybe you should change it.

                    abushed adolescents who have not developed a debate around a topic may not be capable of defending their behavior in a debate at the drop of a hat, but they have not prepared for such a circumstance. on the otherhand, this charlatan shows up with a pocketful of cheap rhetorical tricks and makes them look foolish for money.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                He goes to elite universities and interviews people his age.

                two years ago, he was a guest lecturer teaching a course on media at harvard. the power imbalance alone makes the production of that video immoral.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            According to science, a whole-food, plant-based diet is basically the healthiest way to eat.

            there is no single answer that fits everyone universally.

            • amelia@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              Deutsch
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              That is true, but there are statistical trends that you can observe in scientific studies. How else would you rate how healthy something is? Just because some person is allergic to nuts doesn’t mean they’re not generally a healthy snack.

            • Zacryon@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              General fact:
              People need a specific set and amount of nutrients to survive.
              Specifics:
              Amount and composition is influenced by individual factors.

              Various nutrient sources exist and you can cover all your required nutrients from non-animal sources if you want to.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                some people might be able to, but even ideologically committed, educated people with common health conditions have found it difficult.

        • Zacryon@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Where is the line going to be drawn?

          As far as I know a lot of vegans for example draw the line at a specific set of complexity of the being. Usually the property “has a central nervous system” is sufficient, which is why some vegans even eat oysters. The wording “sentience” is also used often.

          The argumentation is also that emotions are tied to higher processing capabilities. A lot of animals fear joy, pain can get sad etc… Plants don’t. Reactions of plants to external stimuli are rather very primitive reflexes than the result of active processing and reflection about stimuli, i.e. thinking, which is something only observed in animals with brains.

          Don’t pin me down on that, I’m not a vegan. That’s just something I picked up through discussions with them.

          I simply don’t know enough about nutrition to understand whether or not humans can be ‘maximally healthy’ on a vegetarian or vegan or pescatarian or w/e diet

          Idk what a “w/e diet” is, nor can I speak about pescetarians. But from what I’ve read it is perfectly possible to live a long and healthy life on a purely plant-based diet (respectively non-animal-based, bc mushrooms are not plants).

          I can point you towards scientific literature on that topic if you would like to have some assistance.

          It makes sense if you think about it that way:
          What do we get from eating meat for example? What is it, that makes it somehow valuable for our bodies? What stuff is inside food in general which makes us need to eat?

          It’s a bunch of specific chemicals, which we have come to name “nutrients”. You don’t need the flesh of the animal per se, you need the iron, the fats, the proteins, vitamins, minerals et cetera. We humans need a specific set of those nutrients in a specific amount in order to maintain a healthy and functioning body (also influenced by individual factors like whether someone has iron resorbtion issues or if someone is a child or old or pregnant or an athlete or whatever). Other animals require different amounts and possibly also different sets of nutrients.

          The question for us is now whether we can get those nutrients from purely non-animal sources. And the answer is: yes, we can. That doesn’t mean eating only vegs will be healthy in the long run, as you probably need to supplement vitamin B12 and possibly more. But those supplements can be made from purely non-animal sources.

          It does make me wonder if having some cows that wander around eating grass and killing one or two of the herd periodically is really worse from a moral standpoint than covering entire ecosystems in solar panels to run the scaled up meat labs.

          If you are concerned about ecosystems, you know that the animal industry is one of the major contributors to climate change, right? And the fact that we use a huge chunk of agricultural land to grow animal food? In the EU alone about 71 % of agriculture is dedicated to feed animals. Source for the latter.

          Furthermore, solar panels are not the only means of energy production. (And those are and should be regulated according to approrpiate environmental laws such that sensitive ecosystems are sufficiently protected.) There are also plenty of other renewables and concepts to meet demands such as rooftops covered in solar panels, wind turbines etc…

          From an ecological perspective it would be best if we completely stopped producing animal based products.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            From an ecological perspective it would be best if we completely stopped producing animal based products.

            from an ecological perspective, it would be best if we completely stopped producing products. why single out livestock when we could be focusing on petrochemicals or mined metals?

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            In the EU alone about 71 % of agriculture is dedicated to feed animals. Source for the latter.

            but the vast majority of that is grazing land. some of that may not agriculturally viable for any other purpose, and having it as grazing land is better than many of the uses we could develop there, like concrete jungles.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            it is perfectly possible to live a long and healthy life on a purely plant-based diet

            … for some people.

      • amelia@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I hope we will. Also because it might mean that as a society we’ll have met human needs enough to have capacity to address animals’ needs as well.

        I’m putting a lot of hope into synthetic meat. It would come with all the benefits of real meat but without all the downsides like animal suffering, climate and environmental cost, overuse of antibiotics, harmful hormones etc. I guess if synthetic meat gets cheap enough, it will at some point be the norm, and eating real animal flesh will maybe become a weird delicacy for the rich.

    • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m with you about the meat industry and mass-production. If we all cut down on meat consumption significantly, we’d be more healthy and it would be possible to raise lifestock in a species-appropriate manner.

      I’m not with you about humanizing animals. Eating animals is natural. Our species has evolved doing so (far more rarely than nowadays of course). And animals in nature are eaten far more brutally and painfully than even our mass-produced lifestock.

      • amelia@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        Deutsch
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m not humanizing animals. I just acknowledge the fact that they are sentient beings that are capable of feeling pain, physically and emotionally. That enjoy certain things and dislike other things. Is it okay to torture a dog because wild dogs get into fights where they get hurt terribly?

        Of course animals in nature are killed brutally, but so are humans. It’s totally natural for bears to kill humans. Does that mean we can also kill humans? See how this doesn’t mean anything for the question whether it’s immoral to kill animals or not? I wouldn’t even necessarily disagree that it can be morally okay to kill an animal, given certain circumstances. The argument “in nature, animals are killed brutally” just has absolutely no implications for human ethics. Animals and “nature” have no concept of morality. Humans do.

          • amelia@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            Deutsch
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            How about accepting that your argument was wrong? Your first paragraph had nothing to do with it. I agree with your first paragraph, but we must still ask the question whether it is moral or not to kill animals for food even if they didn’t suffer. It’s not clear and people have different opinions on it and that’s okay. In any way, a lot would have to change compared to the status quo.

      • Zacryon@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        raise lifestock in a species-appropriate manner

        Who decides what “species-appropriate” is?

        If we would base that on the nature of animals, we would have to let them roam freely and not actively breed or kill them. Consider for example how short the lifespan of cattle has become. In nature about 20 years iirc and now 5 years tops.

        Doing so would collide with an efficient meat industry and in the end raise prices. Nobody would want that who isn’t a vegan, vegetarian or someone who has other reasons not to eat meat or consume animal products in general.

        I wonder how far more advanced aliens would decide to raise us in a species-appropriate manner if they would visit us and came to the conclusion that there is no reason to respect our free will.

        We are basically doing the same with animals and I find it curious how we as humans come to decide what the best way to captivate, breed and kill animals is.

        Eating animals is natural

        And if something is natural, does that always create virtue?

        It is also natural not to brush one’s teeth, or to have sexual needs or not to wear pants. Does that imply that it’s okay to go around and rape people or flash them?

        It’s also only natural to have the urge to kill someone sometimes if one is especially angry. Why are we stopping them?

        We as humans are at the capacity to derive ethical values and decide whether something natural is also “good”.

        And animals in nature are eaten far more brutally and painfully than even our mass-produced lifestock.

        How is this relevant?
        Yes they die in nature and get killed by predators who need them to survive, which can help to stabilise ecosystems (see for example how the reintroduction of wolves has helped in some problematic regions).
        But:
        Do we need them to survive? Are we stabilsing eco systems by breeding and killing animals? Are we living in the wild nature like those predators or do we have gained a lot of control over it and have the privilege to live in an established society?

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          In nature about 20 years iirc and now 5 years tops.

          cattle don’t live to 20 years without veterinary care, protection from predators and elements, and access to sufficient clean food and water.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Who decides what “species-appropriate” is?

          The scientists who research the matter, just like they did with zoo enclosures

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      Ελληνικά
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Sentient beings are dying in sweatshops to make your clothes and smartphones, why are you so tied up about a pig.

      Extreme comparisons aside, consumers support business practices with their purchases, and one of the largest factors for a consumer is price. I would like to see an animal health/welfare rating that is mandatory and highly visible on all products that are made from animals. Consumers can make better decisions but only if they have better info.