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

The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 211 posts

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#91

Post by onedognight »

redidas wrote: post #49
timjahn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does the food chain fit in? The idea of certain species and groups of animals being higher and lower on the food chain than others. Do we just ignore that? Genuinely curious.

The animal as people logic doesn't hold up. With this reasoning what do we do about animals that hunt and kill other animals for food. Are they behaving immorally because they must kill to survive?

> The animal as people logic doesn't hold up.

Likewise with slavery and Human Rights. Human's have been enslaving people for eons, why stop now? Power dynamics are inevitable. Who cares if you are enslaved, or eaten for that matter? The logic simply doesn't hold up.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#92

Post by toadkick »

WalterSear wrote: post #37

The opinions on this topic around here are so depressing given how easy, cheap and healthy it is to live without meat, or dairy, for that matter.

Sure, if taste is not at all a factor. But since we're human beings, it is a factor. It's "easy" unless you are someone who is repulsed completely by the taste of most vegetables. There's nothing "easy" about choking down food that tastes like poison to me. I wish I could flip a switch in my brain and suddenly love vegetables, for more reasons than just potential animal cruelty. But I can't. So it will always be "hard" for me to not eat meat.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#93

Post by coldtea »

gambiting wrote: post #71
kaoD wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death? Would it be moral to raise human children, give them a nice childhood and then kill them before they reach adulthood because they're super tasty then? I'm not saying I agree (or don't) with GP, just noting that you missed his point.

I didn't. You equal animal life to human life, hence your statements like "Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death?". I do not find them equal - I find animals worth carrying about, I would like them to have decent lives, but ultimately - they are food and if they are killed quickly and painlessly then I don't have a problem with it.

>Not sure if your argument holds. We're essentially food too, so it'd be okay to kill and eat you.

Only we have laws that prevent you for doing so, and a culture that says it's bad. Otherwise, have a go at it.

Canibals, which lack such laws and culture are totally fine with eating other people.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#94

Post by kaoD »

PetrolMan wrote: post #86
kaoD wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. Would it be moral to kill you if I'd let you live in a decent, stress-free environment before your death? Would it be moral to raise human children, give them a nice childhood and then kill them before they reach adulthood because they're super tasty then? I'm not saying I agree (or don't) with GP, just noting that you missed his point.

Nothing is ever so black and white. I'd argue that there is a difference between killing an insect and killing a human. The difference, in my mind, is that we think an insect lacks the same capacity for experiencing pain. Edit: In the US, a lot of how cruelty is valued is based on how alike the animal is to us. Mammals get more attention than birds, which get more attention than fish. There is a hierarchy and I think…

> we think an insect lacks the same capacity for experiencing pain

Who thinks that? Is it true or you'd just like to think it that way?

It isn't even relevant. We're talking about meat here. Animals made of meat have the same capacity for experiencing pain and self-awareness. Animals want to live and try avoid death. Even mosquitoes.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#95

Post by nine_k »

contextual wrote: post #26

If the suffering of animals matters, then eating meat is morally wrong. Animals are non-human persons who are aware of their own existence and who feel a wide range of emotions, just like we do. Killing animals may still be acceptable in western society, but it's wrong. It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong. Just as hanging, drawing and quartering t…

To soothe you I could say that it's advances in technology that will lead us to eating meat without killing animals. Currently lab-grown meat is ridiculously expensive, but so was everything new, before it got to industrial scale.

When factory-grown meat takes over the shelves of meat departments, cow and chicken population of the world will dwindle significantly. Only milk cows and egg-laying hens will remain, along with a small population grown specifically for slaughter, for those perverts that prefer natural, pasture-grown certified organic meat.

Finally humans' beloved pets, cats and dogs, will stop being animal racists and stop feeding on the suffering of other, less fortunate animals.

The only remaining area of unethical killing will be the pesky wild nature, where merciless foxes eat rabbits, and brutal trouts eat lesser fish, which eats small defenseless crustaceans, which.., etc. But I'm sure that progressive humankind will find a way to sort this out eventually, too.

Irony aside, have you heard about the "first noble truth" of Buddhism? Very short and rather enlightening; google it.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#96

Post by mc32 »

adamb_ wrote: post #66
mc32 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meat in a wold with 6-billion+ will come from the FIC, in the USA or elsewhere. Heard about the horsemeat swap in the EU, or the tainted (with industrial chemicals and or cardboard) meat in China? It's not a US or EU or CN thing. It's a feeding 6-billion+ people on-the-cheap thing.

Meat persists not because it's "cheap", but because it's an ingrained part of society. Consider the feed conversion ratio. [1] There's an high cost to feeding livestock in the form of wasted food calories that could be avoided if humans consumed that "feed" directly. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio

Right, but to ignore that as people have more purchasing power they tend to buy more meats is to ignore a large part of the issue. It's really beside the point. People want meat and they want it cheaply. If you could steer (no pun) them away from meats, that'd help a lot, but in the mean time, there is a demand. Given the large demand, the only way to satisfy it is the FIC.

If the world consisted of 100 million people, and everyone one wanted to eat half a kilo of meat per day, there would be little problem satisfying that need without a FIC.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#97

Post by asciimo »

chollida1 wrote: post #67
contextual wrote: post #26

If the suffering of animals matters, then eating meat is morally wrong. Animals are non-human persons who are aware of their own existence and who feel a wide range of emotions, just like we do. Killing animals may still be acceptable in western society, but it's wrong. It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong. Just as hanging, drawing and quartering t…

> Killing animals may still be acceptable in western society, but it's wrong. It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong. Just as hanging, drawing and quartering to an audience of thousands in Europe was acceptable but wrong. Wow, wait until you watch an animal kingdom video. Your mind is about to be blown but the amount of animal on animal violence you'…

For some animals, killing is necessary for survival. For humans, it is optional. Arguably recreational.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#98

Post by lucideer »

contextual wrote: post #26

If the suffering of animals matters, then eating meat is morally wrong. Animals are non-human persons who are aware of their own existence and who feel a wide range of emotions, just like we do. Killing animals may still be acceptable in western society, but it's wrong. It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong. Just as hanging, drawing and quartering t…

Three questions for you:

1. are carnivorous animals immoral?

2. where do you draw the line in your definition of racism/'speciesism' - homo sapiens -vs- non-homo-sapiens, mammals -vs- non-mammals, mammals/birds/fish/etc. -vs- metazoa/insects/amoeboids/plants/etc./etc./etc.?

3. if suffering of animals as a result of the meat industry is morally wrong, what are your thoughts on suffering of animals caused by non-meat food industries? If grain/crop agriculture killed more animals than the livestock industry what would you do? Stop eating?

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#99

Post by arsenerei »

grecy wrote: post #31

A couple of years ago I moved to the Yukon and had the opportunity to go Moose hunting. I really didn't know if I'd be OK with killing such a large animal and "getting down to it" and have found to experience to be quite powerful. There is a lot of respect for the animal and we treat every square centimeter of edible meat with the utmost care. It's quite a strange sensation to be working so hard (it's extremely heavy…

I have a few questions in regard to your powerful and enlightening experience:

* Will you only cook what you kill?

* If not, will this experience change the type of meat you purchase? (e.g., free range only)

* Have you or will you now cook offal?

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#100

Post by randyrand »

logjam wrote: post #27
randyrand wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that I mean I don't think the United Sates public would (in the foreseeable future) accept that as an alternative to animal cruelty and less about my own opinion.

Oh. Argumentum ad populum. In other words, bullshit. Are you really trying to convince us that because some large number of people want to mindlessly eat meat, nothing can be done?

On the contrary I was suggesting we should take baby steps.
Post reply on HN