- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Last year, I wrote a great deal about the rise of “ventilation shutdown plus” (VSD+), a method being used to mass kill poultry birds on factory farms by sealing off the airflow inside barns and pumping in extreme heat using industrial-scale heaters, so that the animals die of heatstroke over the course of hours. It is one of the worst forms of cruelty being inflicted on animals in the US food system — the equivalent of roasting animals to death — and it’s been used to kill tens of millions of poultry birds during the current avian flu outbreak.
As of this summer, the most recent period for which data is available, more than 49 million birds, or over 80 percent of the depopulated total, were killed in culls that used VSD+ either alone or in combination with other methods, according to an analysis of USDA data by Gwendolen Reyes-Illg, a veterinary adviser to the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), an animal advocacy nonprofit. These mass killings, or “depopulations,” in the industry’s jargon, are paid for with public dollars through a USDA program that compensates livestock farmers for their losses.
“I hate cruelty to animals” buys animal products at the grocery store
This is such a common phenomenon that it has a name: cognitive dissonance. If you already knew what that was, then your comment suggests another example of it.
They’re not mutually exclusive. There’s plenty of ways to buy ethically sourced meat. Local butchers often buy pigs, chickens, and cows to butcher and cut for consumers near me. The cows typically have a central barn where they have clean bedding and recycling water troughs, get fed every morning (maybe night), and are allowed to freely roam in a pasture whenever they please.
I eat about the size of my palm of meat every day, so over the corse of a year i probably eat 5-6 chickens, a sixth of a pig, and an eight of a cow. At those numbers, it’s totally possible to make ethically sourced meat work as a business.
A substantial percentage of people have access to food systems that allow them to thrive on plants alone, freeing them from a dependence on animal products. For these individuals, is ‘ethically sourced meat’ even possible? That is to say: if we know that killing a living being is unnecessary, is it ethical to do it anyway?
It’s an interesting question that probably has an individualized answer depending on who you ask. In my opinion, we have afforded their species comforts that no other species has. So a humane death and respectful use of their body is ethical in my eyes. Most wild animals die from infection or starvation and we’ve protected our domesticated animals from that horrible drawn out death on ethical farms.
I’d argue the most ethical course of action is to halt the breeding of additional animals for the purpose of slaughter. We have complete control of the situation here: not all wild animals die gruesome deaths, but a livestock animal’s fate is decided far before they are even born. It feels a little less than ‘humane’.
And that’s why the truly realistic and humane people reduce their animal product consumption and try to limit it to local products.
I agree that this is probably realistic but still incredibly difficult to call ‘humane’.
Here’s a definition from a quick web search:
Would you say that an individual who has the choice not to kill an animal and does it anyway is doing a ‘humane’ thing? Does it make difference where that killing happens?
The “ethical” food typically cost more – what if they can’t afford it? Would you give them financial aid, or does your preaching stop at words?
In case you missed it, I made a point of scoping this ethical question to people who do have the means to make choices with their consumption. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask people to make ethical choices provided that they are able.
I wouldn’t tell someone not to shoot an oncoming attacker because murder is unethical. In the same vein if someone has no choice in what they can eat, it would be ridiculous to tell them to try to ‘make ethical choices’.
Shooting an oncoming attacker isn’t murder. Not a great comparison.
So not the point though
That’s fine, you can pick your example of choice then.
Person A is presented with ethical dilemma X. They are in a position where they can freely make a choice.
Person B is presented with the same ethical dilemma X. They are not in a position where they are able to freely make a choice.
Person B is not obligated to try to pick the more ethical choice in dilemma X, since they are unable to freely make a decision.
Rice veggies and beans is among the cheapest of foods.
It’s also great depression food if you eat it regularly!
And anyway, not everybody can eat all the same foods. Plenty of people can’t eat beans without shitting their brains out, for example. Likewise with a lot of vegetables, though then it depends on the type of vegetable.
Honestly. I absolutely agree that it’s a great cheap and healthy meal, and it’s one I eat just about every day. But it tends to be the only suggestion I see people make in these threads. Like don’t get me wrong, it’s a great suggestion, but c’mon
The only ethically sourced meat is meat that’s hunted to prevent overpopulation. There is no ethical way to make two animals breed with the intent to cut their offspring’s life short so that you can eat it.
I hate capitalism, I still spend money
I can exist within society and still be critical of it, quite frankly I’m not sure how else one exists.
You’re aware of how we treat produce pickers right? How we treat the people who sew your clothes together? Or the people who assembled the device you’re reading this on?
Cruelty to life exists at every level. If you’ve ever eaten chocolate, or had coffee you’ve participated in slavery.