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

Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

erichgrunewald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 319 posts

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#301

Post by cheese_goddess »

sweetheart wrote: post #290
nec4b wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But why is it immoral to eat another animal? Whether or not someone can "reason about morality", the question is what is moral and what is immoral. So why is it immoral to eat another animal?

You say you hold humans to a certain standard (of morality). But why does this standard entail an avoidance of eating meat? What is immoral about eating meat and what is moral about avoiding it?

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#302

Post by filoeleven »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #224
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Most animals" in the world are the animals we raise for meat. Well, mammals anyway. 60% are food animals 36% are we humans 4% are wild animals So there's that.

Numbers please. Where do they come from? Also, it doesn't matter how many food animals we have, what matters is how the majority of them are treated. And the majority are not meat and dairy cows raised in feedlots in the US, because that kind of farm animal is a small proportion of all meat an dairy animals bred the world over. From Our World in Data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-meat-production-by... Yo…

From a 2017 article: “According to the UN, globally [concentrated animal feeding operations] account for 72% of poultry, 42% of egg, and 55% of pork production.”

It’s entirely plausible that most animals live under those conditions by now, or will quite soon without intervention.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/18/rise-of-...

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#303

Post by sweetheart »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #301
sweetheart wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But why is it immoral to eat another animal? Whether or not someone can "reason about morality", the question is what is moral and what is immoral. So why is it immoral to eat another animal? You say you hold humans to a certain standard (of morality). But why does this standard entail an avoidance of eating meat? What is immoral about eating meat and what is moral about avoiding it?

Because it involves causing extreme suffering, and we definitively do not need to do it to live long healthy lives.

Literally just watch Dominion. Watch it to see the suffering I’m talking about. Why do you think animals deserve this so that you can eat a meal? Is that agony they exist in for their whole life worth a hamburger, or a piece of cheese? Vegans say no.

https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#304

Post by cheese_goddess »

sweetheart wrote: post #303
cheese_goddess wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why is it immoral to eat another animal? Whether or not someone can "reason about morality", the question is what is moral and what is immoral. So why is it immoral to eat another animal? You say you hold humans to a certain standard (of morality). But why does this standard entail an avoidance of eating meat? What is immoral about eating meat and what is moral about avoiding it?

Because it involves causing extreme suffering, and we definitively do not need to do it to live long healthy lives. Literally just watch Dominion. Watch it to see the suffering I’m talking about. Why do you think animals deserve this so that you can eat a meal? Is that agony they exist in for their whole life worth a hamburger, or a piece of cheese? Vegans say no. https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko

The images you share are of factory farming that is indeed an atrocity that must be eliminated. There is no justification for treating animals like this.

However, my question was "why is it immoral to eat another animal"? Are you perhaps suggesting that the only way to eat another animal is by causing the extreme suffering undergone by cows in American factory farms?

It should be obvious that this is not the case: people eat meat all over the world, but American factory farms exist only in the Americas and farming in other places does not involve the kind of extreme suffering that you point out. For example, most of the meat I eat is from sheep and goats that graze freely in meadows and hills around the place where I live, in the Eastern Mediterrannean. I know that is true because I see those animals everytime I go out. Some goats live in the farm I'm staying and I can assure you that they are not suffering one bit.

In general, the animals raised by small-scale farmers, in herds of no more than a few dozen animals, are amonng the happiest, healthiest, best fed, best cared for animals the world over, some even better cared than human infants.

Bottom line, it is perfectly possible to eat meat without causing the extreme suffering you are concerned about. To be clear, I absolutely agree with you that causing extreme suffering, of the kind in the video you shared, or of any kind at all, is absolutely morally repugnant. But this extreme suffering is characteristic of factory farmign, not of eating another animal, and so I am not satisfied that I understand why you think that it is immoral to eat another animal.

Edit: I keep rewriting the above to make myself more clear, but everytime I read it, it sounds like something from a high school debate. What I really want to achieve is to understand how you think and maybe help you understand how I think, if that's interesting to you at all. So if something I say sounds completey wrong to you, please let me know and I'll try to make it more clear. I am not looking to score points in a futile internet fight. I'll be happy if we can find some common ground- and I can see that we already have some: I think we're both disgusted by the horrors in the video you shared.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#305

Post by sweetheart »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #304
sweetheart wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it involves causing extreme suffering, and we definitively do not need to do it to live long healthy lives. Literally just watch Dominion. Watch it to see the suffering I’m talking about. Why do you think animals deserve this so that you can eat a meal? Is that agony they exist in for their whole life worth a hamburger, or a piece of cheese? Vegans say no. https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko

The images you share are of factory farming that is indeed an atrocity that must be eliminated. There is no justification for treating animals like this. However, my question was "why is it immoral to eat another animal"? Are you perhaps suggesting that the only way to eat another animal is by causing the extreme suffering undergone by cows in American factory farms? It should be obvious that this is not the case: pe…

Over 99% of all animals killed are killed on factory farms, so pointing out a handle of farms that are NOT factory farms doesn't really do much. If less than 1% of the animals we are talking about are covered by the farms your talking about, its a pretty meaningless statistic.

Also, you clearly didn't watch the film because it doesn't discuss American farms, it clearly focuses on Australian farms. Here is a link to the same practices being done in Britain: https://www.landofhopeandglory.org/

These practices are industry standard across the world, though. Peter Singer writes about this in "Animal Liberation". Let me know if you don't want to or cannot pay for a copy of the book and I'll buy it for you. He discusses at _length_ how these standards exists worldwide.

Besides, even those small farms are deeply unethical. They kill animals a mere fraction into their lifespans, and do so in horrific ways, often inhumanely. Killing an animal that does not want to die, if it doesnt need to, is always wrong.

The onus is now on you to educate yourself. I'm done with this conversation. I've pointed you to many places where you can learn about the problem, both in this thread and others in this comment section. If you choose not to, then you choose to remain ignorant to what is happening around the world, every day.

Here is the most comprehensive list of vegan resources and studies that I know of: https://www.vegancheatsheet.org

I suggest you dig into some of those studies and try tearing them apart. Watch some of those films and find reasons why they are bullshit. Then message me (email is in my profile), and tell me how wrong I am. But only after you've really made an effort to understand the issues. Remember, I was a carnist for almost the first 30 years of my life, so I know how you feel. I'm asking you to challenge yourself and really see the issue from the other side.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#306

Post by _Microft »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #230
_Microft wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only a fraction (and sometimes even tiny fraction ) of the land is needed to supply the same amount of protein and calories when replacing animals sources with plant sources. That means that you actually will not need to convert all these pastures to fields because they are just not needed anymore. Here are charts that compare land use of different foods normalized per calorie / grams of protein: https://ourworldinda…

>> Only a fraction (and sometimes even tiny fraction) of the land is needed to supply the same amount of protein and calories when replacing animals sources with plant sources. That's a quick dodge, but still, a dodge of the OP's point: you can't eat all the plants that animals eat. For example, I eat primarily sheep and goat and their dairy products. The goats eat shrubs and the sheep browse inedible grasses. In fac…

Yes, it is true that we cannot eat all the plants that animals can but it is only "technically true" in the sense that it does not not really matter.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#307

Post by metta2uall »

ghodith wrote: post #263
metta2uall wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just FMRI - what about blood tests looking at gene expression, computational methods, tissue engineering, and stuff that hasn't been invented yet? Regarding ICSS though, I've had a look and I really fail to see how this technique is benefiting humanity..? For example they've discovered more detail about where cocaine affects pleasure/reward neural circuitry - so what?

The point wasn’t FMRI per say, just that it would limit the science to observational studies like FMRI, which cannot reproduce the results of things like ICSS. Also such research may have large implications for understanding and treating addiction. The first step is understanding it.

As far as I know we already understand quite a lot about the neurological basis of addiction. Some treatments already exist but the main problems with them are social & political ones. Discovering better drugs would be really useful, but this can & is being done computationally. In addition, such research may also produce techniques for creating addictions & otherwise more effectively controlling human beings.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#308

Post by cheese_goddess »

sweetheart wrote: post #305
cheese_goddess wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The images you share are of factory farming that is indeed an atrocity that must be eliminated. There is no justification for treating animals like this. However, my question was "why is it immoral to eat another animal"? Are you perhaps suggesting that the only way to eat another animal is by causing the extreme suffering undergone by cows in American factory farms? It should be obvious that this is not the case: pe…

Over 99% of all animals killed are killed on factory farms, so pointing out a handle of farms that are NOT factory farms doesn't really do much. If less than 1% of the animals we are talking about are covered by the farms your talking about, its a pretty meaningless statistic. Also, you clearly didn't watch the film because it doesn't discuss American farms, it clearly focuses on Australian farms. Here is a link to t…

> Over 99% of all animals killed are killed on factory farms, so pointing out a handle of farms that are NOT factory farms doesn't really do much.

That's not true. The majority of farms around the world are small-scale farms with no more than a few dozen animals or so. Factory farms are not the norm.

> Besides, even those small farms are deeply unethical. They kill animals a mere fraction into their lifespans, and do so in horrific ways, often inhumanely.

I'm sorry but this is completely ridiculous. Why would farmers want to kill their animals "in horrific ways"? To achieve what? Hard as it might be for you to believe, farmers are not Jason Voorhees, going around with a machette murdering innocent little lambs for fun. It's obvious to me that despite your interest for animals' welfare you've never talked to a farmer and never been to a farm, looked at the animals and seen how they are treated first hand.

Instead, it seems to me that you take all your information from books and videos like the ones you ask me to "educate myself" with. Surely, you appreciate that those are written by vegans and for vegans, or for the purpose of indoctrinating more people into the vegan ideology? Such books and videos are no reliable source of knowledge for farming. They only show you what they want you to see: the horrors of factory farming. They seem to make the point that because factory farming is a horror, all farming is a horror. This is just a rhetorical trick and it should be easy to see through.

Anyway if you don't want to continue the conversation that's up to you. I don't want to convince you of anything, and I'm not in the habbit of pursuing internet arguments over emai. That sounds... unhygienic. What I was hoping to achieve with this conversation was to have a useful exchange of views. I don't guess this is possible though.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#309

Post by cheese_goddess »

filoeleven wrote: post #302
cheese_goddess wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Numbers please. Where do they come from? Also, it doesn't matter how many food animals we have, what matters is how the majority of them are treated. And the majority are not meat and dairy cows raised in feedlots in the US, because that kind of farm animal is a small proportion of all meat an dairy animals bred the world over. From Our World in Data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-meat-production-by... Yo…

From a 2017 article: “According to the UN, globally [concentrated animal feeding operations] account for 72% of poultry, 42% of egg, and 55% of pork production.” It’s entirely plausible that most animals live under those conditions by now, or will quite soon without intervention. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/18/rise-of-...

Those are not the numbers quoted by the OP, though.

Anyway, yes, it seems like I'm wrong and the majority of chickens are grown in intensive farms. For pigs though, 55% is about half of all animals.

But I don't want to argue over margins. The point I'm making in my comments above and elsewhere in this thread is that in most of the world most farms are not factory farms. This is still the case. Note also the title of the article in your link: "Rise of mega farms: how the US model of intensive farming is invading the world". Again, I made the point that industrial farming is typical to the Americas and not the rest of the world. It's "invading" the world, but it's not how most of the world does farming, it's how Americans do farming.

And yes, this will change without intervention because people the world over are blinded by the prospect of maximising their profits, even if all they achieve in the end is to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs (their animals, that feed them). All those farmers will achieve who give up their small family farms for tin sheds on concrete lots is to make themselves slaves and force their children out of the farming business.

So the intervention should be to protect the small scale farmers from the encroachment of the gigantic corporations that want to take their land, their animals and their businesses. This is the only way to ensure that all farm animals are given the care and respect they deserve, care and respect that is simply not available in industrial farming.

Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective

#310

Post by sweetheart »

cheese_goddess wrote: post #308
sweetheart wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over 99% of all animals killed are killed on factory farms, so pointing out a handle of farms that are NOT factory farms doesn't really do much. If less than 1% of the animals we are talking about are covered by the farms your talking about, its a pretty meaningless statistic. Also, you clearly didn't watch the film because it doesn't discuss American farms, it clearly focuses on Australian farms. Here is a link to t…

> Over 99% of all animals killed are killed on factory farms, so pointing out a handle of farms that are NOT factory farms doesn't really do much. That's not true. The majority of farms around the world are small-scale farms with no more than a few dozen animals or so. Factory farms are not the norm. > Besides, even those small farms are deeply unethical. They kill animals a mere fraction into their lifespans, and do…

https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estima...

Proof that I wasn't lying about the percentage of animals killed in factory farms. Thats USDA data, not some vegan propaganda. Good luck, and reach out if you ever come around to considering a world with less suffering.

Post reply on HN