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

US egg industry kills 350M chicks a year. New tech offers an alternative

tampabay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: US egg industry kills 350M chicks a year. New tech offers an alternative

#61

Post by isubkhankulov »

cbau wrote: post #51
belorn wrote: post #47

This technology has existed for quite a while now, I think well over 10 years. Talking to farmers, they are also well aware of it, but like tangential technology within dairy farming, the main reason they aren't using it is costs. Any added costs would have to be added to the price. Where I live, the highest standard (in term of animal welfare) eggs costs around 40 cent per egg. The lowest standard cost around 10 cen…

For anyone who hasn't been to the grocery store recently, a rotisserie chicken can be had for about $8. That was wild to me when I stopped to think about it for a second: a chicken born and raised to adulthood, slaughtered, and brought to my local market all for under $8.

The rotisserie chicken is a loss leader. Costco has publicly said they are happy to “lose” $30-40M a year on them because it drives people to the store and they make the rest up in higher margin products.

Re: US egg industry kills 350M chicks a year. New tech offers an alternative

#62

Post by emptiestplace »

i_love_retros wrote: post #42
AznHisoka wrote: post #18

If they kill this much chicks, why are people who choose to be vegetarian for moral/religious reasons OK with eating eggs?

Because they are ignorant or don't care as much as they pretend to about animals. Otherwise they'd be vegan.

I'm ready for a vegans against vegetarianism movement. All seven of us can band together and enact real change.

Re: US egg industry kills 350M chicks a year. New tech offers an alternative

#63

Post by WhyOhWhyQ »

emptiestplace wrote: post #13

I am fundamentally opposed to all of this nonsense, but I don't think maceration would cause any pain - it's pretty fast. This feels like a distraction from the real suffering we see in industrial farming. While the culling of male chicks gets a lot of attention because they're babies and that triggers an emotional response, there are much bigger issues in terms of actual suffering endured - like the prolonged confin…

Is there any reason not to believe that humans are so stupid and amoral that they would never support a complete overhaul of the food system which eliminates suffering in one go? Even the moral leader Noam Chomsky has publicly stated that he just doesn't care enough about animal suffering to think about it.

Probably the best animals are going to get are ad hoc reductions to their suffering which are aligned with decreased economic costs, or which target niche markets like vegans.

Re: US egg industry kills 350M chicks a year. New tech offers an alternative

#64

Post by aziaziazi »

emptiestplace wrote: post #41
akudha wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not defending vegetarians (or anyone else) here, but people decide how much morality/ethics they are willing to go for. There are people who don't eat steak/chicken etc, but eat seafood. Some people don't consider fish as meat, some don't consider chicken as meat. I don't claim to understand their logic, but each to their own. There are people who don't eat meat, but drink milk (dairy industry is horrific too) or eat…

I think it is important that we are compassionate to those who haven't yet found their way over, but I draw the line at tolerating defense of vegetarian 'ethics'. > each to their own So while I generally agree with this, is it fair to say it when it doesn't apply equally for all sentient life—or is it just convenient? > There are people who classify honey as an animal product and there are people who disagree. This r…

The way people choose to define and classify is theirs and nobody else. They may be wrong, but they still do it and have the right to do so and to express it in respect the local laws.

In my previous job someone new asked me about my diet. I responded vegan and another colleague exclaimed : YOU’RE NOT VEGAN YOU GOT PETS!! (Two rabbits in whole garden free range with their own-dug-house). I’m not sure if he was right about the definition but fore sure that was correlated: my garden _is_ a (big) cage/prison/limit. However the way he said it triggered my defence mode[0] and it took me months to process the message.

Consider also cobalt associated with slavery. From the view of biologist and most vegans, humans are animals and then cobalt consumption problematic (it’s used in many tech, not just smartphones).

I also occasionally wash my hand in public places with probably animal sourced soap and yes it’s for convenience as for cobalt and my pets.

_Anyone_ allow themselves to slightly bend their ethics to not becoming mad. From the "only-good-meat" eater that don’t restrain for the (probably industrial) delicatessen slice during a wedding cocktail. To the vegan that use electronic devices or feed his cat with animal products.

I’m a rational guy and hate seing those irrational behaviors everywhere including myself, but pointing others wrongness is often inefficient to pass a message, if not counter productive.

[0] Here’s a masterpiece if you don’t know it yet: https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/conflict/media/gibb-defensive...

All those assertions said lol, I’m quite bad at communicating and the best behavior I found is to never ever engage myself a conversation about veganism or ethics, I just wait for questions and respond with neutral and concise terms. Often the interlocutor gets curious and ask more details and I believe there’s more chance he update his opinion by himself than me teaching him.

Re: US egg industry kills 350M chicks a year. New tech offers an alternative

#65

Post by emptiestplace »

aziaziazi wrote: post #64
emptiestplace wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is important that we are compassionate to those who haven't yet found their way over, but I draw the line at tolerating defense of vegetarian 'ethics'. > each to their own So while I generally agree with this, is it fair to say it when it doesn't apply equally for all sentient life—or is it just convenient? > There are people who classify honey as an animal product and there are people who disagree. This r…

The way people choose to define and classify is theirs and nobody else. They may be wrong, but they still do it and have the right to do so and to express it in respect the local laws. In my previous job someone new asked me about my diet. I responded vegan and another colleague exclaimed : YOU’RE NOT VEGAN YOU GOT PETS!! (Two rabbits in whole garden free range with their own-dug-house). I’m not sure if he was right…

I think you've misunderstood my point. I wasn't discussing personal choice in definitions - honey is objectively an animal product, produced by bees. This isn't about how people choose to classify things, but rather about factual reality. Similarly, "each to their own" becomes problematic when there are victims involved - it's not merely a personal choice when it affects others' wellbeing.

Re: US egg industry kills 350M chicks a year. New tech offers an alternative

#66

Post by emptiestplace »

theoreticalmal wrote: post #58
emptiestplace wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this matters because it is not even remotely feasible for 8 billion people to ethically source animal products.

It matters to me and the ~2 other people I make food decisions for.

I recognize that you may be stepping back from this discussion, but I think it's important to address these inconsistencies in your earlier reasoning:

Your logic is inconsistent on multiple levels. You won't eat fish because "it was alive" but accept eggs from an industry that kills hundreds of millions of male chicks. You claim honey and milk are fine as "byproducts," but this ignores how dairy cows must be forcibly impregnated, separated from their calves, and killed when production drops, while honey is literally the bees' food that we take, often killing many in the process. These aren't benign side effects - they're fundamental to how these industries operate.

You claim to only support "ethical" animal products while acknowledging industrial meat production is inhumane, yet fail to recognize that "ethical" animal agriculture is simply not scalable to feed the global population. These distinctions you're making (McD's vs butcher, etc.) are arbitrary moral lines that serve more to make you feel better about your choices than to address the fundamental ethical issues. After sharing your perspective on these broader ethical concerns, falling back to "it works for me and my family" isn't a meaningful response to systemic issues affecting billions of beings.

Re: US egg industry kills 350M chicks a year. New tech offers an alternative

#67

Post by aziaziazi »

emptiestplace wrote: post #65
aziaziazi wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way people choose to define and classify is theirs and nobody else. They may be wrong, but they still do it and have the right to do so and to express it in respect the local laws. In my previous job someone new asked me about my diet. I responded vegan and another colleague exclaimed : YOU’RE NOT VEGAN YOU GOT PETS!! (Two rabbits in whole garden free range with their own-dug-house). I’m not sure if he was right…

I think you've misunderstood my point. I wasn't discussing personal choice in definitions - honey is objectively an animal product, produced by bees. This isn't about how people choose to classify things, but rather about factual reality. Similarly, "each to their own" becomes problematic when there are victims involved - it's not merely a personal choice when it affects others' wellbeing.

I did misinterpreted indeed, probably with:

> but I draw the line at tolerating vegetarian ethics

Which reads for my as not accepting the existence of it, which sounds a bit absurd. Flat earth theory exist even if it’s silly. You may have used tolerate in the sense of approve or consent I guess.

> it's not merely a personal choice when it affects others' wellbeing.

I agree this is problematic for the victims which usually doesn’t get to participate in that choice. It’s not fair. But I believe it is a personal choice, constrained by societal statu quo (or you get trouble) even if irrational, silly or awful. Some countries prefer maximizing freedom or tradition over fairness or minimizing victims.

Re: US egg industry kills 350M chicks a year. New tech offers an alternative

#68

Post by emptiestplace »

aziaziazi wrote: post #67
emptiestplace wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I wasn't discussing personal choice in definitions - honey is objectively an animal product, produced by bees. This isn't about how people choose to classify things, but rather about factual reality. Similarly, "each to their own" becomes problematic when there are victims involved - it's not merely a personal choice when it affects others' wellbeing.

I did misinterpreted indeed, probably with: > but I draw the line at tolerating vegetarian ethics Which reads for my as not accepting the existence of it, which sounds a bit absurd. Flat earth theory exist even if it’s silly. You may have used tolerate in the sense of approve or consent I guess. > it's not merely a personal choice when it affects others' wellbeing. I agree this is problematic for the victims which us…

> Which reads for my as not accepting the existence of it

You should work on that, I guess?

Re: US egg industry kills 350M chicks a year. New tech offers an alternative

#69

Post by i_love_retros »

emptiestplace wrote: post #62
i_love_retros wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are ignorant or don't care as much as they pretend to about animals. Otherwise they'd be vegan.

I'm ready for a vegans against vegetarianism movement. All seven of us can band together and enact real change.

ho ho ho, good one.
Post reply on HN