Live data from Hacker News

Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

erichgrunewald.com

231–240 of 319 posts

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but maybe this is an argument for treating the food animals, rather than ridiculousness of standards for science animals.

Of course, I agree. I hope my comment didn't imply otherwise. Actually I would argue for the wholesale reduction of the category "food animal". Its largely unnecessary, there are very few people (e.g. with unusual medical needs or living in unusual situations) for whom eating other animals is necessary.

We don’t know this.

Our understanding of nutrition is closer to none than to complete.

The more deeply you research this, the more true my statement will seem.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#232

As an academic who isn't directly involved in anything close to animal testing (I'm a physicist) I always find it strange that people working in biology have to jump through incredible hoops relating to how the animals they work with are treated, but then the lunch place in the biology department sells sandwiches with chicken, ham etc in with incredibly minimal oversight for how the animals are treated. The differenc…

Last year of college we could submit our own experiment. I did a physics one so it didn't apply but my peers at the time mostly did biology related experiments.

As a rule of thumb, as our biology professor put it, just make sure the animal you're experimenting on do not look like a baby (big head, big eyes, small mouth, makes squeaking sounds). This is why experiments on fish were ok but "fish embryo" would get much more scrutiny.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#233
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly misleading. I live in a community with ranches and farms. The ranchland looks like nature. Other than cows here and there, it's wildland. Coyotes, mountain lions, hawks, and all sorts of wildlife abound. The farms are manicured flat with row crops, irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. Farming is vastly more destructive to the natural environment. "Land use" measured in abstract square feet is…

I would argue this is incredibly misleading. What percentage of meat or dairy comes from pasture animals? You can't fulfill a country like the US's meat and dairy demand with pasture raised animals. So realistically we are talking about factory farmed animals. If we are talking about factory farmed animals then it goes back to the needing these nature destructing farms you are talking about just to feed animals that…

[deleted]

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moralist principles aren't really my issue here. Its kinda sad that animals suffer but I understand that not many people care about that. My issue is the massive ecological harm done by eating other animals compared to eating plants. Climate change and ecosystem collapse are real, concrete problems that are coming home to roost, and I find it incredibly sad that educated, prosperous people don't do the bare minimum t…

I want the climate to change. Why do you assume things you believe are ‘problems’ are problems to others?

Here's one of many examples https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322

>Around 30% of the world’s population is currently exposed to climatic conditions exceeding this deadly threshold for at least 20 days a year. By 2100, this percentage is projected to increase to ∼48% under a scenario with drastic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and ∼74% under a scenario of growing emissions.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#235

As an academic who isn't directly involved in anything close to animal testing (I'm a physicist) I always find it strange that people working in biology have to jump through incredible hoops relating to how the animals they work with are treated, but then the lunch place in the biology department sells sandwiches with chicken, ham etc in with incredibly minimal oversight for how the animals are treated. The differenc…

> No one really cares if pigs suffer

It's surprising that you don't have any family, friends, or co-workers who do care about that kind of thing. My academic astronomy group has a bunch of vegetarians and vegans. While I have no idea why (it's none of my business), it's my life experience is that a large fraction of them do care if pigs suffer.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#236
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly misleading. I live in a community with ranches and farms. The ranchland looks like nature. Other than cows here and there, it's wildland. Coyotes, mountain lions, hawks, and all sorts of wildlife abound. The farms are manicured flat with row crops, irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. Farming is vastly more destructive to the natural environment. "Land use" measured in abstract square feet is…

I would argue this is incredibly misleading. What percentage of meat or dairy comes from pasture animals? You can't fulfill a country like the US's meat and dairy demand with pasture raised animals. So realistically we are talking about factory farmed animals. If we are talking about factory farmed animals then it goes back to the needing these nature destructing farms you are talking about just to feed animals that…

> What percentage of meat or dairy comes from pasture animals?

Meat and dairy are separate considerations. Even in industrial farming, meat animals and dairy animals are raised separately and often belong to different breeds. They are certainly treated differently.

So for example, where I'm staying, about 80% of the dairy products are made with the milk of sheep and goats in small farms where the animals range freely, in the summer, and eat stored wild grassses as hay in the winter. On the other hand, most of the meat consumed is chicken and pork and of those animals, at least the chicken are kept in large battery operations. I don't know about pig farming. Also, where I stay there are very few cows, most of them raised for dairy, and the country has one of the smallest, if not the smallest number of cattle in Europe. It's in South Europe, but I don't want to say exactly where.

Anyway when you ask questions like the one above, please consider that the conditions you know from the Americas are not the same in all of the rest of the world, and that most of the rest of the world simply does not eat as much meat, of all kids, as Americans (and by "Americans" I mean people in the US, Argentina and Brazil).

> You can't fulfill a country like the US's meat and dairy demand with pasture raised animals.

"Demand", maybe not. But "need"? It seems to me that this can be done perfectly well simply because the amount currently consumed is extravagant. People in the US eat way too much meat, per capita, compared to almost everyone else in the world, including most industrialised nations. My selection below:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-supply-per-person?ta...

Nobody needs to eat that much meat. If there is "demand" for it, that is the matter that should be addressed. Why do people want to eat so much meat? There is something incredibly wrong in the data above, when you look at how the US, Argentina, Spain and Brazil eat, compared to the other industrialised countries in the chart.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly misleading. I live in a community with ranches and farms. The ranchland looks like nature. Other than cows here and there, it's wildland. Coyotes, mountain lions, hawks, and all sorts of wildlife abound. The farms are manicured flat with row crops, irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. Farming is vastly more destructive to the natural environment. "Land use" measured in abstract square feet is…

> The farms are manicured flat with row crops, irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. Farming is vastly more destructive to the natural environment. You might be surprised but 40% of all (cereal) crops are produced to feed animals . That would almost completely go away except a bit to compensate for the loss of meat. See https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cereal-distribution-to-us...

So we'd be left with the other 60% and then we'd have to increase the production to make up for the decrase in production of meat. That's a very slim margin of improvement.

The other thing we could do of course is to avoid feeding animals with crops like soy and corn, and instead let them browse freely and eat the wild grasses and shrubs that they would eat normally, if humans didn't feed them more "efficient" feeds.

Obviously that would mean a significantly reduced number of farmed animals, but that's a feature, not a bug. Perhaps we can all agree on this: the true plague is industrial meat production.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finding high protein / low carbohydrate plants to eat is hard. Many meatless meat products are hyper-processed. Last I looked a huge part of the population is diabetic. They can't eat grains, can eat small servings of nuts, fruits are mostly out, and greens alone aren't sustainable nutrition.

My charitable interpretation is that when someone says "eat plants", they don't really mean "only eat plants" but "don't eat animal products, eat plants + enriched foods + injections/pills/tablet", because we are omnivores and we need some nutrients that are incredibly hard to get naturally from plants, like vitamin b12, so in order to stay healthy, without eating animal products, there's only the enriched foods and/…

So, "don't eat meat, eat supplements"? How does that make any sense?

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, see the Animal Welfare Section on the Wikipedia page for slaughterhouses. There is nothing here sensational, just facts. It's important that those who choose to eat meat understand the contract they sign when financially supporting the industrial animal processing system. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse#Animal_welfar...

Again, these conditions, of industrial farming and slaughtering, are only the norm in some countries in the world. For beef, that's the US, Argentina, Brazil and China, predominantly. In the rest of the world, large scale farming or slaughtering is not the norm. Generally my point in this discussion is that you should not bundle together factory farms and slaughterhouses in the US with, e.g. small dairy farms in the…

> Generally my point in this discussion is that you should not bundle together factory farms and slaughterhouses in the US with, e.g. small dairy farms in the Pyrenees or Austria, or Bantu farmers in Africa, etc. There is one way that people eat meat in the Americas, Australia and China, and quite another in other parts of the world.

The countries which you claim aren’t factory farming are just importing much of their meat from countries which do, see: https://oec.world/en/profile/hs92/poultry-meat

And even if you assume the existence of supposedly “ethical” animal agriculture — which is considerably farcical given the non-consensuality of murder in any case — it’s inherently irrelevant because these niche models of food production don’t scale to feeding the world.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that immoral if I want tasty meat?

Because I believe it’s immoral to cause needless suffering. Effectively all meat is the result of animals being tortured and killed for our ephemeral satisfaction while eating a meal, and not because we need it to survive. Causing that level of suffering because it taste good is wrong imho. I link to a couple videos in this comment section that show what I mean. You should watch them and decide if you think a sentien…

> How is that immoral if I want tasty meat?

> Because I believe it’s immoral to cause needless suffering.

It's immoral for the OP to eat meat because you believe it's immmoral?

Also, if you think that the need for tasty food, or any food, is trivial, you haven't been around animals much. The ones I know, and I don't mean only the humans, go absolutely batshit insane at the thought of food. A few days ago one of the cats over here gave birth and I realised what is that keening noise adult cats make when they beg for food: it's the same noise the kittens make when they want their mother to breastfeed them. The dogs, a solemn matriarch and her huge son start jumping up and down and cry like little puppies when it's time for food. The cats mob us everytime we step out of the house, just on the off chance we'll drop some tasty morsel. The goats used to not come near me and my friend, but then we fed them a couple of times and now they gallop to us when we enter their enclosure. The chickens catapult themselves from their perches and run like little raptor dragsters when we take them scraps to recycle (there's nothing I've seen that looks more awkward than a chicken running). A small, grey-speckled hen that I fed once or twice now runs to me whenever it sees me because it has forever now associated me with food.

Animals are crazy for food. And so are humans, because we, too, are animals and there's no use trying to shame people with facile moralising, humans have bodies that go absolutely nuts for tasty food and that food includes the meat of other animals.

Edit: vegans are no different. Here's three interviews with three ex-vegan "influencers" and writers, who quit because they just couldn't stand it:

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/food/a32211871/vegan-influen...

I have a few friends who were very vocal vegans, who later started eating animal products again. It's always made me wonder just how many vegans switch back to at least vegetarian diets, after a few years. I looked around, but there's not much in the way of good scholarship on the subject. Anyway, every vegan has the option of going back to eating meat whenever they decide it (one can even "take breaks" and enjoy some meat once in a rare while, then go right back to their fierce advocacy of veganism) which to me makes a lot of the claims about moral superiority a little empty. It's very easy to preach, but who knows exactly what vegans actually eat?

Post reply on HN