Ethics of Beef Production.

[marie-claude]

if your brain is destroyed before the pain impulses can get to it you feel no pain...

 

I tried to find sources and reports about animal slaugther that are freely accessible to all, but most are published in peer-reviewed journals. I did read several of those. There is one here that I could find a link for which is free: http://scholarship.l...412&context=lcp

 

As I previously said, I'd agree with you that a perfect shot would probably cause very minimal pain as it would nearly instantly cause brain death. However, not all shots are perfect shots, quite obviously, so that various amounts of pain are to be expected. Gun shots have also been reported in many studies not to be used as it sends brain pieces down the lungs of the animal in some cases, which isn't desirable given the mad cow problem. Non-penetrating stunning seems to be quoted as slightly less efficient in many studies.

 

At any rate, if you make perfect shots at home killing your animals, well, good for you. Overall, though, in the industry, the study above says that suffering remains commonplace. Note also that the ethics proposed are one of "minimizing needless suffering", i.e. what I have been arguing all along.

 

>>The state and federal laws described above represent significant progress

>>toward minimizing needless suffering in the slaughter process. Yet such

>>suffering remains commonplace, and much more can and should be done.

 

Needless to say, I think that the most certain manner to avoid causing an animal needless suffering is to avoid raising it to one day kill it and eat it.

Edited March 23, 2012 by marie-claude

[questionposter]

I tried to find sources and reports about animal slaugther that are freely accessible to all, but most are published in peer-reviewed journals. I did read several of those. There is one here that I could find a link for which is free: http://scholarship.l...412&context=lcp

 

As I previously said, I'd agree with you that a perfect shot would probably cause very minimal pain as it would nearly instantly cause brain death. However, not all shots are perfect shots, quite obviously, so that various amounts of pain are to be expected. Gun shots have also been reported in many studies not to be used as it sends brain pieces down the lungs of the animal in some cases, which isn't desirable given the mad cow problem. Non-penetrating stunning seems to be quoted as slightly less efficient in many studies.

 

At any rate, if you make perfect shots at home killing your animals, well, good for you. Overall, though, in the industry, the study above says that suffering remains commonplace. Note also that the ethics proposed are one of "minimizing needless suffering", i.e. what I have been arguing all along.

 

>>The state and federal laws described above represent significant progress

>>toward minimizing needless suffering in the slaughter process. Yet such

>>suffering remains commonplace, and much more can and should be done.

 

Needless to say, I think that the most certain manner to avoid causing an animal needless suffering is to avoid raising it to one day kill it and eat it.

 

I suppose it's completely possible that getting a shot to the brain doesn't kill you, but if it doesn't kill you, then you most likely go into a coma from all the blood loss and lack of brain tissue, unless it missed the important parts of your brain that much, but animals like cows don't really move a lot, so it's probably pretty easy to get a clear shot of their head.

Edited March 25, 2012 by questionposter

[marie-claude]

I suppose it's completely possible that getting a shot to the brain doesn't kill you, but if it doesn't kill you, then you most likely go into a coma from all the blood loss and lack of brain tissue, unless it missed the important parts of your brain that much, but animals like cows don't really move a lot, so it's probably pretty easy to get a clear shot of their head.

 

Well, actually, the stunning doesn't kill the cows. Bullet shots are really not the norm. Stunning lets the animal supposedly insensibilized. There are lots of mishaps, though. Recently, we've had one highly mediatized case in Qc of a horse slaughterhouse where the hits where commonly missed the first time. At any rate, even if the suffering is short when done adequately, it isn't painless.

Edited March 25, 2012 by marie-claude

[leugi]

what we need, is to find a way to make artificial meat, then nothing dies and people stop complaining.

[zapatos]

what we need, is to find a way to make artificial meat, then nothing dies and people stop complaining.

Unless the artificial meat is made or grown from living cells. Then of course we have death again.

 

Also, if we only get to eat artificial meat I guarantee I'll be complaining!

[leugi]

Unless the artificial meat is made or grown from living cells. Then of course we have death again.

 

Also, if we only get to eat artificial meat I guarantee I'll be complaining!

 

yea but people don't really care about organisms that don't have feelings because it is only things that have feelings that make us reflect and think as if we were in their place. and yea me too, i'll be complaining that my stomach hurts because i ate too much of it.

[MonDie]

I want to join this discussion by proposing the hypothesis that there is no ethical argument for eating a animal at all.

 

I like to see it this way: An alien species occupies the world and slaves mankind. They let us work and kill us to eat us. We scream and try to resist and fight back, but there are so overpowered that we don't have any chances. So we ask them completely outraged "How can you do that to us? Don't you see that we are sentient beings? Why are you slaving us and killing our children?" And then the aliens relay that it is just logical for them to do that because there are so much smarter, and better, and valuable. They claim that they are not killing the children because they are evil but young humans just taste so well!

 

Of curse, from this perspective we can say, that the extraterrestrials don't behave ethically. But that is just the same perspective like a chicken could have about our behavior.

zapatos would probably argue, that our perspective it the one which counts, because we can make it count:

I'm still reading the thread, but the argument I was reading didn't seem to be going toward what I am about to say.

 

Of course, if humans made this argument after they were enslaved, it would be clear that they were only arguing for their own benefit. However, we could argue that humans should change their view even before they're enslaved because of their ability to feel empathy.

Humans have the intelligence to think about things that aren't happening, but might happen, which is displacement (linguistics). Mafio's hypothetical story is meant to invoke empathic feelings for enslaved animals through our ability to grasp displacement.

If an argument would conclude that empathy for other genera is natural for humans or was adaptive for humans, it would be a good argument from the psychological or evolutionary perspective. Such an argument would probably rely on the functionality of the social nature of humans. If an argue would conclude that a popular belief about empathy can be logically extrapolated to this issue, that would also be a good argument. Such an argument would probably rely on the more common belief that pets should not be abused.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[MonDie]

Unless the artificial meat is made or grown from living cells. Then of course we have death again.

Give it up. Nobody empathizes with tissue cells.

 

Also, if we only get to eat artificial meat I guarantee I'll be complaining!

Even if it's physically the same as real meat?

What if scientists invent it and start saying it's revolutionary because it's produced much more efficiently than live cows? Then would you eat the green eggs and ham?

[CCWilson]

Since cows do not - as far as we know - ruminate on death and what happens after they're gone, fear of death doesn't come into it, as it does for humans. Cows presumably worry about the prospect of pain, but not death, which is a complex concept. So if your main concern is that we should avoid suffering, as mine is, then as long as the cow dies quickly and relatively painlessly, there should be no ethical objection.

[MonDie]

Since cows do not - as far as we know - ruminate on death and what happens after they're gone, fear of death doesn't come into it, as it does for humans. Cows presumably worry about the prospect of pain, but not death, which is a complex concept. So if your main concern is that we should avoid suffering, as mine is, then as long as the cow dies quickly and relatively painlessly, there should be no ethical objection.

What does ruminating on death have to do with pain?

I doubt they have no objections to dying even if they have no precedent for what death is like, as is the case with humans. An animal that didn't instinctually avoid death wouldn't be very fit for survival (with the partial exception of species where kin selection is important). If they don't appear to object to dying, it's because they have no idea that they're about to die. If anything, it's a feat of the intellect for a person to be able to end their life willingly.

 

---

http://www.scienceda...20323134531.htm

Read the paragraph under "Lowing."

 

http://www.scienceda...71008171240.htm

This one is about recent mothers producing milk sooner if they have less serotonin. It just gives a better understanding of the "Lowing" section of the prior article.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[CCWilson]

In humans, you have mental suffering if you know you're going to die, because you have a concept of death. Animals avoid death by instinct and possibly fear of pain, but they don't suffer mental anguish from fear of death as we do. So again I don't have any moral objection to killing livestock, as long as its done as painlessly as possible, because then there would be no suffering. What sort of death would you prefer, when the time comes? Me, I'd like for it to be quick and painless and unexpected, not a lingering death in hospital. Of course we don't get to choose.

[Mark Ian]

This is why I think it would be good to stop eating meat.

emotional:

slaughter: in which the cows are not properly killed, skinned alive, killed using unorthodox methods have become the norm in most industrial livestock farms (probably most of the meat you eat)

 

logical:

1. the giant hundred thousand cow farms working at industrial scale of today are incredibly energy inefficient. The cows have to eat plant material and then convert it to meat. During the process allot of energy is lost.

2. Not only is factory farming cows (or any meat animal in general) energetically inefficient, it also takes up allot of space. In the moment it may seem chill, but with our exponentially growing population the cattle could take up valuable living space away from humans.

3. factory farms use loads of antibiotics. here is an article. use google scholar if you wanna know more about why it is bad to use antibiotics in factory farming (be it chicken, cattle or fish)

4. methane

 

I eat meat every day nevertheless.

[Phi for All]

This is why I think it would be good to stop eating meat.

emotional:

slaughter: in which the cows are not properly killed, skinned alive, killed using unorthodox methods have become the norm in most industrial livestock farms (probably most of the meat you eat)

 

logical:

1. the giant hundred thousand cow farms working at industrial scale of today are incredibly energy inefficient. The cows have to eat plant material and then convert it to meat. During the process allot of energy is lost.

2. Not only is factory farming cows (or any meat animal in general) energetically inefficient, it also takes up allot of space. In the moment it may seem chill, but with our exponentially growing population the cattle could take up valuable living space away from humans.

3. factory farms use loads of antibiotics. here is an article. use google scholar if you wanna know more about why it is bad to use antibiotics in factory farming (be it chicken, cattle or fish)

4. methane

 

I eat meat every day nevertheless.

1 -3 are reasons to change the way meat is processed, not reasons to stop eating meat. And methane's CO2 is quickly reabsorbed by plants and doesn't really add much to net greenhouse gases.

[Moontanman]

This is why I think it would be good to stop eating meat.

emotional:

slaughter: in which the cows are not properly killed, skinned alive, killed using unorthodox methods have become the norm in most industrial livestock farms (probably most of the meat you eat)

 

logical:

 

This is a very serious charge, while I don't doubt your veracity I do doubt that this is either wide spread or necessary but it is something that could be changed and should be. I would get behind any movement to stop such an atrocity. I grew up on a farm, any animal that was killed was killed as cleanly and quickly as possible.

 

On the other hand I have no problem with killing to eat, we are animals and historically hominids that were vegetarian died out while hominids that included meat in their diets went on to evolve into us, we are omnivores, we evolved to eat meat and certain parts of plants, we cannot for instance eat grass or most leaves from trees. Most vegetation is inedible to us, we are also not apart from or separate from the ecosystem of this planet, we are the top predator, we are evolved in such a way as to require meat in our diets.

 

 

1. the giant hundred thousand cow farms working at industrial scale of today are incredibly energy inefficient. The cows have to eat plant material and then convert it to meat. During the process allot of energy is lost.

 

This only partly true, cows, I don't know why we are just focusing on cows, but cows routinely graze on land unsuitible for farming and eat vegetation humans cannot eat.

 

2. Not only is factory farming cows (or any meat animal in general) energetically inefficient, it also takes up allot of space. In the moment it may seem chill, but with our exponentially growing population the cattle could take up valuable living space away from humans.

 

Again this is only partly true, cattle commonly are grazed on marginal lands, hill sides and flood plains where humans do not normally live.

 

3. factory farms use loads of antibiotics. here is an article. use google scholar if you wanna know more about why it is bad to use antibiotics in factory farming (be it chicken, cattle or fish)

 

This is a problem, I think the use of antibiotics in this way should be stopped immediately.

 

4. methane

 

Humans, when fed a vegetarian diet expel methane on a large scale and for some reason so do old men no matter what they eat.

 

I eat meat every day nevertheless.

 

As do I...

[Mark Ian]

to Phi for all: Firstly, argument one is not related to the way the meat is processed, but to the way energy is lost every time it passes in between organisms in a food chain. Secondly, you are denying the antecedent. Argument two and three are valid because it is not possible to supply the amount of meat (in industrial countries) at a reasonable cost without using factory farming. If every American would stop eating meat, long term benefits directly linked to arguments two and three would result. If the method of processing would change to the better, similar long term benefits would result. All arguments apply to both why we should stop eating meat and why we should change the way we process meat.

I agree that if we are able to change the way we process meat to such an extent that the negative side effects are dismissible it would be preferable to stop eating meat (heck, meat tastes great).

I didn't know of the reabsortion of the methane directly back into the surrounding plants. Especially in factory farms. Surely you are able to back your claim with a paper or two.

 

to Moontanman: I assure you that there is sufficient material to backup my claim. Animal cruelty is wide spread in factory farms. The reason I do not list any references is because I do not find emotional arguments very credible. I do not have a problem with killing an animal for food.

You criticize my logical arguments, I will attempt to neutralize your counter-arguments:

note: my arguments base on the majority: factory farming, where most meat for industrial countries is produced. With that said, you may want to look at this article on what is fed to most cattle. This article is from UCSUSA, which should add some credibility to their claims. Although, according to the ucsusa, what they feed to the animals is quite nauseating (and stands as its own argument) it indirectly shows that the majority of cattle do not feed on inedible plants that grow on infertile soil, fortifying argument one. If the majority of cattle would feed on inedible plants that grow on infertile soil, your counter-argument would be valid. It is not. Effectively you are committing a fallacy of logic in the form of an irrelevant conclusion. Your second counter argument ignores my second statement that it is a future problem linked to the exponential growth of humanity, and that the cattle population would have to match such a growth to sustain our current meat consumption. Please reformulate your counter-argument in consideration of this statement.

Edited August 26, 2012 by Mark Ian

[Phi for All]

to Phi for all: Firstly, argument one is not related to the way the meat is processed, but to the way energy is lost every time it passes in between organisms in a food chain. Secondly, you are denying the antecedent.

This argument assumes that livestock eat plants that could have been eaten by humans, and that's not the case in most instances. It also assumes that all land currently grazed by livestock is suitable for farming, which is obviously not the case without a great deal of expense.

 

And I'm not denying the antecedent, you're proposing a false dilemma. Just because current methods of factory farming are inefficient doesn't mean we need to stop eating meat to fix the problem.

 

Argument two and three are valid because it is not possible to supply the amount of meat (in industrial countries) at a reasonable cost without using factory farming. If every American would stop eating meat, long term benefits directly linked to arguments two and three would result. If the method of processing would change to the better, similar long term benefits would result. All arguments apply to both why we should stop eating meat and why we should change the way we process meat.

In that case, they aren't valid since improving the process to be more humane and efficient is hugely preferable. It doesn't involve giving up several species which have become domesticated and wouldn't survive in the wild, and are our only naturally occurring sources of vitamin B12. You'd also have to prove that there is enough arable land to provide enough of a plant-only diet for the entire world.

 

Extreme measures like completely giving up meat on a voluntary basis are completely untenable. The amount of resources we'd have to expend selling such an idea would be cost-prohibitive, and quite frankly, I think would work about as well as any other kind of prohibition has worked with humans, especially omnivorous humans.

 

I didn't know of the reabsortion of the methane directly back into the surrounding plants. Especially in factory farms. Surely you are able to back your claim with a paper or two.

Methane from livestock doesn't contribute to the net gain in greenhouse gases because the CO2 obtained from methanogenesis is from sources that used up atmospheric CO2 in the first place. I can search for a paper which shows this, but what you're suggesting is killing off the world's livestock in order to prevent them from burping. How is this a viable solution?

[A Tripolation]

This is why I think it would be good to stop eating meat.

emotional:

slaughter: in which the cows are not properly killed, skinned alive, killed using unorthodox methods have become the norm in most industrial livestock farms (probably most of the meat you eat)

 

Untrue on all accounts. Industry standards are fairly rigorous. I've never been to a slaughterhouse where any of that took place, nor are there any good reasons to do the things you describe. Can you list some?

 

1. the giant hundred thousand cow farms working at industrial scale of today are incredibly energy inefficient. The cows have to eat plant material and then convert it to meat. During the process allot of energy is lost.

 

The chemical energy used in combustion energies sits at around 35%. That's not a good reason to abandon cars, nor is it a good reason to stop eating meat.

 

2. Not only is factory farming cows (or any meat animal in general) energetically inefficient, it also takes up allot of space. In the moment it may seem chill, but with our exponentially growing population the cattle could take up valuable living space away from humans.

 

No, it doesn't. This is even less true of small-farms, where cattle graze on slopes, in wooded areas, and other human-inaccessible areas.

 

 

3. factory farms use loads of antibiotics. here is an article. use google scholar if you wanna know more about why it is bad to use antibiotics in factory farming (be it chicken, cattle or fish)

 

From your link:

This is one of the primary reasons why I ONLY recommend organic, grass-fed, free-range meats or organic pasture-raised chickens, as non-medical use of antibiotics is not permitted in organic farming.

 

The article is clearly biased and skews the conclusions from the actual research. If all farmers went organic, the world would starve. This is a logistics problem. Organic farming is actually quite selfish.

 

Grass-fed? What does he think we feed cattle at feed lots? They are fed diets consisting of feed/silage, both of which are plant products. Cattle graze on...grass.

I do endorse freed-range, but I know that it is not tenable from the amount of meat the US consumes. I am all for reduction of meat-consumption and to make a move towards all free-range farms. I detest factory farms. But the author does not take into consideration the considerable cost in infrastructure that this would entail.

 

Antibiotics are not used as much as described. I can't speak for factory farms and their practices, but on small-farms (1000 or less head of cattle), antibiotics are only used when necessary. And it seems to me to be an irresponsible farmer who would let his cow die a slow, painful death from an infection when antibiotics could easily cure her.

 

All in all, we should seek to reduce our meat-consumption. But the methods advocated by vegetarians/vegans are almost always ridiculous. This probably comes from them never having set foot on a real farm in their entire life.

[iNow]

Untrue on all accounts. Industry standards are fairly rigorous. I've never been to a slaughterhouse where any of that took place, nor are there any good reasons to do the things you describe.

Don't get me wrong... I love meat, and think this is definitely an issue of having better enforcement of existing standards, but the issues he cites are not at all unheard of.

 

In fact, here's a (quite disturbing, watch only if you are okay seeing upsetting content) video from just last week when a plant was closed in California.

 

 

 

 

Granted, there is no skinned alive, but those conditions are clearly not what we should expect from our producers in a humane society, nor are these types of issues as rare as some people imagine given our continued push toward lower costs and less skilled workers. Another example of these issues, but with cruelty extending to humans where workers are trafficked as sex slaves is Food Inc.

[Mark Ian]

To Phi for All:

I am not proposing a false dilemma. I have listed arguments for 'why we should stop eating meat'. I was never debating whether 'stop eating meat' or 'changing the production of meat' is the better path to take. I even agree with you at the end of my last post stating: "I agree that if we are able to change the way we process meat to such an extent that the negative side effects are dismissible it would be preferable to stop eating meat (heck, meat tastes great)." which you choose to ignore.

 

You are right: you are not denying the antecedent in relation to arguments two and three. I just looked up the definition and it does not make sense, sorry about that. What I wanted to express is that you assume that because argument 2&3 support 'the way meat is processed' argument 2&3 do not support 'reasons to stop eating meat' (with the following mathematical analogy a&b => c; a&b≠>d; if anybody knows which fallacy of logic this belongs to, please post about it these arguments are valid for both subjects.

 

Energy Transfer between organisms in a food chain is fundamental. We cannot alter the efficiency of energy transfer between primary, secondary and tertiary consumers, because energy will always be lost in the form of respiration. Any change in the way we process the meat will not influence energy transfer, unless we make cows primary consumers. (which would be really cool, I like the idea of engineering our food- but with the tools we are offered by bio eng. molecular bio and synthetic bio etc. aren't developed enough for this step yet) This ties in to your second argument concerning arable land for [...]: I think it will eventually become impossible to sustain the world population, but even more so if the population would be fed through a secondary consumer, simply because of Energy Transfer.

 

The vitamin B12 argument is terrific! I am very interested in the introduction of metabolic pathways between species (here is an example. It might be possible to do so with vitamin B12, if the proteins responsible for its metabolization are known and the precursor materials are abundant enough in the plant cytosol) but there is no at hand counter argument, which does not involve genetically engineering plants to produce B12.

 

After I did some googling on the methane subject I can agree with you. It is a cycle and therefore is sustainable.

 

To A Tripolation:

 

Try searching for 'factory farming' in google scholar most of it is very negative. I also watched a German documentary on factory farming, (my friend had found it on the internet and challenged me to eat a Döner sandwich while watching, I won haha) which showed how cows were skinned, some of them being still alive because the iron bolt that should have killed the animal probably missed the brain. The factory was probably in America because the workers had an American accent. It was far more disturbing than the youtube video iNow posted. I will try to find the video, but I doubt I can post it here. I can send it via email though if you like.

 

concerning your counter argument on energy efficiency: Not only is this a false analogy, your analogy is also total bogus. Especially in engineering we strive to produce an energetically efficient machine. Today many companies are working on getting rid of the the gasoline powered engine and replacing it with an electric motor (which happenes to be ~3 times as efficient as the conventional motor). I personally find that Energy efficiency is the most important factor in this discussion.

 

antibiotics: Ill just list a few papers: paper 1 paper 2 paper 3 paper 4 (I just typed in 'antibiotic farming' into google scholar. I bet you can find papers more directly linked to factory farming of cows, but I almost guarantee that you find not one paper speaking positively on how farmers choose to use antibiotics)

There is no denying that the usage of antibiotics already caused damage to environment and even to us. The news article I posted earlier may pose an unrealistic solution, but the damage which antibiotics cause is very real.

 

You also may want to read this article I mentioned in my last post, which is filled with highly disturbing claims which strongly oppose to your opinion on what the cows are fed.

 

I also think that we should reduce meat consumption and work on improving standards in factory farms as a first step. But in the long run, I believe that meat consumption will simply die out as a main part of the human diet and turn into a luxury good like wine or cigars. This could gradually happen without any prohibition laws (though a tax on meat like on alcohol or cigarettes is possible)

[Phi for All]

'reasons to stop eating meat' (with the following mathematical analogy a&b => c; a&b≠>d; if anybody knows which fallacy of logic this belongs to, please post about it these arguments are valid for both subjects.

You're trying to convert a logical argument into a reality-based one. Energy transfer is negated by market demand (if raising livestock for consumption was inefficient enough to upset cost-effectiveness, it wouldn't be a viable business model). Usable space for raising livestock can be (and is most often) done in areas people don't find attractive to live. And it's simply easier (and more efficient and economical) to improve inefficiencies than to prohibit consumption.

 

Energy Transfer between organisms in a food chain is fundamental. We cannot alter the efficiency of energy transfer between primary, secondary and tertiary consumers, because energy will always be lost in the form of respiration. Any change in the way we process the meat will not influence energy transfer, unless we make cows primary consumers. (which would be really cool, I like the idea of engineering our food- but with the tools we are offered by bio eng. molecular bio and synthetic bio etc. aren't developed enough for this step yet) This ties in to your second argument concerning arable land for [...]: I think it will eventually become impossible to sustain the world population, but even more so if the population would be fed through a secondary consumer, simply because of Energy Transfer.

So you think we could eventually develop the technology to feed the world on plants alone, but you conclude that bioengineering of animal protein sources will never reach similar technological levels? Again, that doesn't seem like it's based in reality.

[Anders Hoveland]

I'm not sure about banning beef, but I definitely think there should be more laws and regulations to protect farm animals from abuse and neglect in those huge corporate slaughterhouses.

The regulations have to affect not only the production within the region, but also the importation of beef from outside, otherwise more regulations will just drive the local price up and shift all the production somewhere else.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[EquisDeXD]

I think there's two sides to this argument: At the current population, would it be more unethical to let many people starve to death if we didn't farm animals? But at the same time if people hadn't been doing it in the first place, society would have already been based on getting a food supply from not mass-producing meat, and the population wouldn't be as high as there would not be as many resources for the population to expand it's use to.

Edited October 21, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[SamBridge]

I think there's two sides to this argument: At the current population, would it be more unethical to let many people starve to death if we didn't farm animals? But at the same time if people hadn't been doing it in the first place, society would have already been based on getting a food supply from not mass-producing meat, and the population wouldn't be as high as there would not be as many resources for the population to expand it's use to.

Why do you think people would die if we didn't have those farms? Some fat slobs can't eat at McDonalds every day so they are going to die? Just look at the world around you, there's millions of animals surviving without our technological advances. Besides, there's large portions of the world that eat bugs and seafood as well. I don't think those are much better though, it's still a pretty violent industrial scale slaughter/harvest of particular species of organisms, it reminds me of genocide, especially when people just hunt sharks to cut off their fins and just throw them back in the water as if they'll be fine, that's like what crack-adicted lawless militia did to people in Africa, they would just go around and cut off people's limbs who were't on their side, sometimes just for fun. But I guess I agree if more research were put into making modified plants or cultivating them more efficiently that would probably be enough, even with the current population, the only problem would be getting people to like eating vegetables more too. And industrial farms don't just have this ethics problem they have pollution problems too, they make up a large percentage of the green-house gases emitted, if I remember my stats correctly it was near 1/3.

 

In humans, you have mental suffering if you know you're going to die, because you have a concept of death. Animals avoid death by instinct and possibly fear of pain, but they don't suffer mental anguish from fear of death as we do. So again I don't have any moral objection to killing livestock, as long as its done as painlessly as possible, because then there would be no suffering. What sort of death would you prefer, when the time comes? Me, I'd like for it to be quick and painless and unexpected, not a lingering death in hospital. Of course we don't get to choose.

That doesn't really seem to make sense. If you back a virulent animal into a corner, like a rattlesnake, it will attack you because it thinks you are going to kill it. The mental anguish you are describing doesn't seem to be very different from fear itself.

Though the cows probably I don't think know they are going to get killed, so I would agree with you there, unless they take a hint and notice that it smells like cow carcasses all around them, but I can't say for sure, maybe they are slaughtered in a different room and where they are lined up so that the smell is blocked off.

Edited January 15, 2013 by SamBridge