Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rescuers race to save 14k sheep on capsized cargo ship

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Rescuers race to save 14k sheep on capsized cargo ship

#51

Post by IceCreamGondola »

kmlx wrote: post #50
IceCreamGondola wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing wrong with needing to transport but the problem is that globalisation has made it economically more viable to sell globally than locally. Produce should first be sourced locally then globally when they really need it.

> Produce should first be sourced locally then globally when they really need it. global (aka long-distance) trade started around 3000 BC. it got a boom in 1815 due to mechanisation. if you want to find out more, this is a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade

As I've said elsewhere, I have no issue with global trade. What I have an issue with is our over-reliance on global trade.

Re: Rescuers race to save 14k sheep on capsized cargo ship

#52

Post by adrianN »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #47
adrianN wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part about importing dead sheep instead of live sheep is the problem?

ah, the good old "I can't see why they doing it so they must be wrong" line of thinking. dunno, on top of my head: how much does shipping frozen good costs over short-medium distances? how much does slaughtering cost in either countries? how do you track if food was processed according to that market expectancy and codes? why wendy is so big on touting his beef was never frozen? and there's not even a general rule, s…

Maybe we shouldn't optimize just for cost effectiveness if sentient beings are involved?

Re: Rescuers race to save 14k sheep on capsized cargo ship

#53

Post by MisterTea »

Aeolun wrote: post #24
growlist wrote: post #3

Live shipping should be banned.

We’re shipping humans live. It’s not as if we subject sheep to something we aren’t willing to undertake ourselves.

Citation needed. Last time I tried to ship someone in a container I got 20 years.

Re: Rescuers race to save 14k sheep on capsized cargo ship

#54

Post by soonoutoftime »

adrianN wrote: post #52
LoSboccacc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah, the good old "I can't see why they doing it so they must be wrong" line of thinking. dunno, on top of my head: how much does shipping frozen good costs over short-medium distances? how much does slaughtering cost in either countries? how do you track if food was processed according to that market expectancy and codes? why wendy is so big on touting his beef was never frozen? and there's not even a general rule, s…

Maybe we shouldn't optimize just for cost effectiveness if sentient beings are involved?

Yeah. The tl;dr here is really that some countries just don't care about animal welfare that much, or at all.

Re: Rescuers race to save 14k sheep on capsized cargo ship

#56

Post by netcan »

aivisol wrote: post #32
netcan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pertinent question is "why live?" Live transports are (for example) the biggest animal welfare issue for kiwi sheep.

This might give some clue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhabihah "The slaughter itself must be done by a sane (mentally competent) adult Muslim."

Halal abatoirs are the norm in most Sheep producing parts of Australia/NZ. This is far from unbridgeable.

The immediate reason for live exports now is there there's a premium on live sheep, often in the middle east.

Anyway, either the exporting or importing country can "ban" live shipping, so if origin and destination countries have different opinions that doesn't mean things can't change.

Obviously ban doesn't mean ban, just regulate to the point where transport-to-abatoir doesn't make sense. Obviously breeding stock and such will still travel.

Re: Rescuers race to save 14k sheep on capsized cargo ship

#57

Post by netcan »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #44
zanybear wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming because of the way an animal is sacrificed in order to be considered "halal". It would require a large slaughterhouse with the proper setup, which in an 98% orthodox country is not a easy arrangement.

About 25% of red meat exports from New Zealand are halal, and almost every slaughterhouse is capable of halal slaughter. It's actually not particularly difficult to do halal slaughter, the two main requirements are that it is killed with a cut to the throat (common in non-halal slaughter) by a Muslim.

I'm not sure the muslim is a requirement per se, it's just that in practice there's an overseer. Many/most Muslim clerics accept kosher meat as halal, for example, even though the supervision is not necessarily Muslim.

Re: Rescuers race to save 14k sheep on capsized cargo ship

#58

Post by ruthless_banker »

Lev1a wrote: post #46
netcan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pertinent question is "why live?" Live transports are (for example) the biggest animal welfare issue for kiwi sheep.

Because of religious BS.

Careful, you are dangerously close to hate speech.

Re: Rescuers race to save 14k sheep on capsized cargo ship

#59

Post by henryaj »

pvaldes wrote: post #27
henryaj wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the extraordinary suffering it causes to animals. https://www.ciwf.org.uk/our-campaigns/live-animal-transport/

The same animals walking under the desert sun for months coated in wool without nothing green at sight, does not seem like a totally cruelty-free better alternative necessarily. There is not logical reason to see it as a morally superior alternative. There is bad ways and good ways to transport animals by road.

Where did I suggest we should transport live animals thousands of miles by making them walk the whole way?

Re: Rescuers race to save 14k sheep on capsized cargo ship

#60

Post by pvaldes »

henryaj wrote: post #59
pvaldes wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same animals walking under the desert sun for months coated in wool without nothing green at sight, does not seem like a totally cruelty-free better alternative necessarily. There is not logical reason to see it as a morally superior alternative. There is bad ways and good ways to transport animals by road.

Where did I suggest we should transport live animals thousands of miles by making them walk the whole way?

Ok. Honest question. What do you suggest then? Teleportation?

The "but its cruelty against animals so lets kill them instead!" card is a random and really worn out argument nowadays. We have enough of real problems yet.

Post reply on HN