Live data from Hacker News

Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

erichgrunewald.com

281–290 of 319 posts

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you prove the simulation and organ engineering works? Test it on humans?

You could go a long way with the standard scientific method - make predictions, do measurements, compare.

Compare it to what? Compare it to assumptions? How do you test it? How would you know it's correct?

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#282
post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Meat and dairy are separate considerations. Not everywhere. In the US there is an incredible amount of overlap. For example, Male cows born in the dairy industry end up in the meat industry. But more specifically I don't see how they are separate in the context of this conversation? Aren't we just talking about the inefficiency of raising animals as a food source? >Anyway when you ask questions like the one above, p…

> I thought I was, I honestly wanted to know what the percentage of meat and dairy comes from pasture animals in the world. I guess I should of been more clear about that.

Well, I confess I don't know the actual numbers. But most places on Earth don't have the intensive farming found in the Americas.

> Aren't we just talking about the inefficiency of raising animals as a food source?

Quite the contrary. In a sibling comment I discuss how ruminants are the most efficient way to turn inedible plant matter to food that humans can eat.

The wikipedia page on "ruminant" has some interesting information about the process of rumination. In short, ruminants have four stomachs. In the first two, plant matter is fermented by bacteria, then regurgitated so that it can be re-chewed to hydrate it with saliva, that promotes bacterial development and controls the pH of these stomachs. The third stomach is a kind of filter that absorbs some nutrients and allows only food of certain size to pass to the final, fourth stomach. The fourth stomach is the true stomach that is similar to the one we have in our beliies. So to eat the plants that ruminants are specialised to eat, we'd need to have it first chewed and pre-digested by ruminants. In yet another comment I noted how sheep and cows that range freely eat wild grasses, and goats eat shrub.

As I say in that other comment, factory farmed cows are fed soy and corn, that humans can also eat, rather than wild grasses that humans can't eat. But that is factory farming. It is actually harmful for ruminants to feed them that kind of food and so it's a practice that should absolutely be eliminated, along with the rest of factory farming.

Far as I can tell, nobody has been able to breed goats in factory farms. And sheep are normally not factory farmed. I don't know what it is that makes cows good for that sort of thing, but you can be assured that where farming is primarily of sheep and goats, whatever automation of processes there exists is nowhere near the scale of factory farms with giant, thousand-animal feedlots as in the Americas.

Anyway I think "efficiency" is a red herring. The farming industry is very efficient at producing cheap meat by the thousand-ton. But human bodies are not tuned to a world were food is produced "efficiently". We are predisposed to eat as much as we can as soon as we can, to make up for the difficulty of finding enough nutrients to sustain us "in the wild". Presented with the extravagant amounts of cheap meat produced by industrial farming, we are inevitably drawn to excesses of consumption. These excesses are used by the very industry that caused them in the first place as justification to produce even more meat, throwing even more fuel to the fire, destroying even more of the environment and treating even more hundreds of thousands of animals like garbage. Inevitably, there is a backlash and people swear off meat, when what we should all be swearing at and off is the meat industry, that would happily farm us if it was profitable.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#283
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, in another thread a user of HN who is, I presume, vegan, is arguing that because humans are morally superior, we should not eat meat. I have this sneaking suspicion that human superiority has been used historically by both sides of the debate: one side claims that humans are superior to other animals and so we should treat those other animals in ways that other animals would never treat each other, by…

> So to me it's clear that we're animals that treat other animals like other animals treat other animals I don't think there are many examples of animals farming humans and torturing them for "testing" purposes (the topic of the article), is there?

I don't think so either, but in my comment I'm talking about animals eating other animals, not animals farming humans.

I have many examples of animals torturing other animals, for nothing else but pleasrue. Where I live, there is a small clan of seven cats. I see them playing with their food often. I don't know if you have cats and if you've seen them hunting and seen what they do when they catch their prey, but it's revolting. At least we don't do that to the animals we eat.

I also have examples of animals killing other animals just to kill them, not even to eat them. Ten years ago two dogs sneaked in the chicken coop and killed 40 chickens, piled their corpses high, and didn't eat a single one of them. Four or five years ago, some stray dogs got into the goat enclosure and killed five goats and a few chickens. They left the goats half-dead with their guts streaming out of their bellies, and again didn't eat them. This year, stray dogs snuck in another goat pen and killed three goats, including a young kid.

Humans also kill senselessly, if left to their own devices. But, in modern societies, they are not left to their own devices and there's strict laws against such behaviour. And this behavior is absolutely not the behaviour of farmers.

The humans who own the goats and the chickens in my examples slaughter maybe one or two goats and a dozen chickens a year. Slaughter and eat them. Nobody who raises animals kills them for fun, first because killing an animal is not funny at all, second because animals are valuable and humans who raise animals respect at the very least that value, and many also hold those animals very dear, care for them better than they care for their own children, and respect the fact that those animals die so we can eat their meat.

You will not learn all this from anti-meat eating propaganda.

You will also never see any vegans or animal rights activists going to farms and helping the farmers care for the animals. All the vegans and the animal rights folks care about, is that other humans stop eating meat. What happens to the animals we raise for meat, that never seems to be part of the conversation, unless it is to show images of animals in industrial farms to shock other humans into quitting meat. In vegan and animal rights propaganda, you hear about the atrocities, about the horrors of the slaughterhouses, about fluffy baby bunnies having toxic substances dripped in their eyes- but you never hear about the farmers who stay up all night helping their cows to give birth, or keeping vigil over a sick ewe. Because that is very tricky to portray as torture, and the propaganda is that humans torture animals, always, no matter what. This is a lie, a disgusting lie and it is only serving to put small farmers out of business and leave their land and their animals to the hands of the industry.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is true of battery chickens and of meat and dairy cattle in factory farms, but not for "most animals", like you say, and certainly not the world over. On the contrary, around most of the world, farm animals are among the happiest, healthiest, best-fed and best-cared for animals on the planet. Of course you will not know that if you selectively look at the factory farms with feedlots that are the norm in the US,…

The French AOC [1] regulates what’s allowed to be marketed as Comté etc by stipulating location, breed, population density, etc; however aside from cheese, I’m not aware of a similar set of standards existing for animal products. As someone who has lived in a rural area with much animal agriculture, I can tell you labels like “free range” roughly translate to “Let’s put as many animals as we legally can fit onto this…

It's true like you say that "free range" is mainly an empty label, for the reasons you say.

But I'm not talking about "free range" as a label. In my comment above I've described the animals I've seen, and see around me, right now. Those range freely in the literal sense. They are left to go out on their own and eat what they want, then return to their sheds when they want. I stay in a friend's farm, with goats and chickens on the grounds. Those are not sold anywhere and are not labelled as "free range" by anyone, but they're free range alright. I can assure you. I once made the mistake of cooking one of the farm's chickens as I'd cook a chicken bought at the supermarket. Never again! You basically can't eat the meat of a really free-range chicken unless you boil it for a couple of hours. I chewed and chewed and chewed until my mouth muscles couldn't take it anymore and ate the whole thing because I absolutely didn't want to throw the poor animal away like garbage, but it was painful and unpleasant. Even properly cooked, the meat of really free-range chickens is a dark gray, very unlike the pale white meat of supermarket chickens. Most people would probably not prefer actual "free range" if they had access to it. And I know a good few people who won't eat goat meat because "it stinks".

>> We cannot feed billions more people sustainably on diets heavy in animal products, no matter the method, especially so with the more inefficient methods like free range and hunting. There’s a reason factory farming exists.

The good news is that there is no reason to "feed billions more people ... on diets heavy in animal products". Diets heavy in animal products characterise only certain parts of the world, not coincidentally the same ones where factory farming is the norm. The rest of the world doesn't eat that way, and doesn't need to eat that way. We can feed billions of humans on sustainably grown meat and dairy produced by small scale local farms, like we already do in most of the world.

The trick is to avoid creating an artificial need for even more cheap meat and animal products in the diets of everyone. Just because Americans and some Europeans eat that way doesn't mean that everyone must mimetically do the same.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You don't need to necessarily eat meat (a glass of milk has half the recommended daily intake of vitamin b12), but if you are not willing to eat any animal product, the only viable alternative is something like fortified plant based beverages or over-the-counter supplements, so that's my take, otherwise they would be suggesting a really poor diet for humans.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#286
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a ride, but let’s take it point by point. Firstly, I think it’s immoral for anyone to do it. I don’t think it’s immoral simply because I decided so. I think it’s fundamentally immoral, period. You continue by saying something to the effect of “good food is really important and plays a huge role in our life and animals go to great lengths to acquire good food”. To this, I completely agree. I never said otherwi…

Do you believe animals eating other animals to be immoral as well?

As far as we know, humans are the only animals with moral agency (though there is some debate on this topic). That said, the immoral actions of one person (or animal, or society, etc.) does not absolve others of moral responsibility. Even if animals act immorally, this doesn't provide an excuse for humans to act in the same way.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a ride, but let’s take it point by point. Firstly, I think it’s immoral for anyone to do it. I don’t think it’s immoral simply because I decided so. I think it’s fundamentally immoral, period. You continue by saying something to the effect of “good food is really important and plays a huge role in our life and animals go to great lengths to acquire good food”. To this, I completely agree. I never said otherwi…

The problem is that it's you who thinks it's "fundamentally immoral" to kill another animal to eat it. It's your morality and noone else is obliged to subscribe to it, just because you do. For instance, if I thought it's immoral not to eat meat because an animal died for you to eat its flesh and it's disgusting that you should let it go to waste, would you accept it if I tried to foist my morality upon you? I'm prett…

>You're essentially saying that we're in some sense, better than, superior, to other animals. But, isn't that claimed superiority exactly the argument used to justify killing and even mistreating non-human animals?

You're confusing a certain kind of superiority (superiority in moral reasoning, for instance) with another one (the value of life). Humans are superior in the first respect (this is pretty uncontroversial), and I can't really think of any serious philosopher who argues that animals carry equal moral weight as a human. I'm sure they exist, though.

>Yet you say that "we can make complex decisions", as if those other animals can't? It's confusing. I appreciate I'm not talking to the same vegans all the time, but it's still, yes, confusing.

The evidence (and the interpretation of that evidence by biologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers) would point to the fact that humans are capable of moral reasoning to a higher degree than other animals, the conventional thought being that animals have no moral reasoning, though that's controversial.

The debate on the morality of killing animals for food where not necessary has very strong support for the moral vegetarian case[0], arguing from harm to animals, harm to humans, and harm to the environment; but I'd be interested to see if you have any counter-arguments, or rather, ones that haven't already been replied to.

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vegetarianism/

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can live a completely healthy and nutritionally complete plant based life style though, and without consuming your body weight in anything. So if we don’t _need_ the animals to die for us, killing them is immoral. It’s immoral because it’s unnecessary.

How is that immoral if I want tasty meat?

Morality has nothing to do with whether you want tasty meat or not.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from an ethical perspective, why wouldn’t you want to live in such a way that minimizes suffering?

Animals in the wild die in ways that are orders of magnitude more gruesome than what occurs in a slaughterhouse.

You may be unfamiliar with the activity that takes place in slaughterhouses, then.

The other notable difference is that humans are directly responsible for slaughterhouses, and it's not a nutritional requirement.

We don't lecture lions on any sort of ethics, now do we?

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#290
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a ride, but let’s take it point by point. Firstly, I think it’s immoral for anyone to do it. I don’t think it’s immoral simply because I decided so. I think it’s fundamentally immoral, period. You continue by saying something to the effect of “good food is really important and plays a huge role in our life and animals go to great lengths to acquire good food”. To this, I completely agree. I never said otherwi…

Do you believe animals eating other animals to be immoral as well?

Nope. But if those animals ever develop advanced societies with agriculture, the ability to reason about morality, and ways to live long healthy lives _without_ eating other animals, then I'll expect them to.

Right now, that's only humans, so I only hold humans to this standard.

Post reply on HN