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

101–110 of 211 posts

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#101

Post by kaoD »

coldtea wrote: post #89
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.

> No, there's no middle ground. Killing is killing. That's a tautology. It doesn't tell us anything. The real question is, what makes EVERY killing wrong? Are you wrong for taking antibiotics? If not, why not? After all "killing is killing". Are you a murderer for killing a mosquito? Why not? Since, you know, "killing is killing". Should a lion be punished for eating an antelope? Why not? After all, "killing is killi…

Using antibiotics is a defensive reaction against an attack. It's not killing if you're legitimately defending yourself (even law considers this situation).

Indeed, you're a murderer for killing a mosquito without a reason.

About the lion/fishing analogies, bringing law here doesn't make sense. Law is an artificial system. Punishment is essentially arbitrary. Both the lion and the fisher are essentially murderers anyway, regardless of their punishment.

---

After some downvotes I think I have to say this again: I don't hold these views and acknowledge it's a muddy topic, but you can't ignore these facts! These are legitimate points. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

My personal opinion is: the lion would eat you. The mosquito would eat you (if it could). That's just how nature works.

But then again, killing another person is just how nature works too, right? I eat meat and will eat meat forever, though I can't help but feel like such an hypocrite for doing so while condemning murdering people.

Not killing people is just an implicit agreement. I won't kill you if you don't kill me. It's not "morally good" or "morally bad", not killing other people is just convenient! The punishment for murder is just the punishment for breaking this agreement.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#102

Post by jessaustin »

lukifer wrote: post #79
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 take it to the extreme, we can't know for sure that carrots don't experience suffering due to our raising them for food. We have canines for a reason; meat is part of our evolutionary heritage. I respect the moral decision not to eat animals, and the fact that we do not raise livestock more humanely is unforgivable; but eschewing all animal proteins is extremely detrimental to one's health (the poster child being…

We have canines for a reason; meat is part of our evolutionary heritage.

I'm sure that's why horses have canines, as well, but they don't eat much meat!

Of course I agree with the overall point; in fact I shot a delicious young deer a few weeks ago. I sometimes wonder whether the meat-is-murder trolls aren't really just cannibals hoping to mainstream their own predilections.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#103

Post by Jgrubb »

famousactress wrote: post #69
Jgrubb wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Q: How do you know if someone is a vegan? A: THEY'LL TELL YOU. (full disclosure: married to a vegan, I couldn't resist)

FWIW I mentioned it because the conversation is about eating meat, not because I need you to think I'm awesome. In fact, I think the joke has some very relevant truth to it. I think heralding veganism is a ridiculous mission from a practical standpoint, and lots of people and organizations are spinning their wheels converting a tiny fraction of the population to a totally meatless diet when instead it makes so much m…

I totally agree with you on every point, except for the one about heralding veganism being ridiculous. I don't think it's ridiculous at all, especially when I look around at the average morbidly obese guy here in Northern NJ, and then go to Thanksgiving out in Michigan with my wife's family and the meat eaters are in the minority. Everyone at Thanksgiving looks amazing and healthy. I think the greater and more meaningful challenge would just be to get more people to think about what they're eating at all, regardless of what it is. I think reduced meat consumption would happen automatically if people actually mentally connected the animals in this story to the burger they're putting in their mouth. I think veganism is the logical conclusion to becoming truly aware of what you're eating, personally.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#104

Post by tspiteri »

danpat wrote: post #57
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…

This has been my experience almost exactly (s/Yukon/Alberta/). I now hunt yearly and basically don't any meat that I didn't kill myself. One deer is enough for a couple for a year. I found the experience it very self-illuminating, the hypocrisy of will-not-kill-but-will-eat-from-store became much more focused. The experience of hunting wildly varies. I've had one or two gut-wrenching bad shots, hitting the animal in…

If it works for you, fine. But I object to you calling people who eat what they do not kill hypocrites. If someone takes part in a protest against meat products because of animal suffering, and then eats meat or wears leather, they are hypocrites. But if they cannot bring themselves to kill the animal themselves but still eat meat, they are not hypocrites. If they were, people who are queasy when they see blood, but would want a surgeon to care for them or their friends when they are in an accident, would be will-not-doctor-but-will-be-doctored hypocrites.

I think the main problem here is that when some people have an experience they find illuminating, their reaction is to look down on other people who do not share the newly acquired viewpoint.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#105

Post by conductr »

What do we know about these mega-meat companies? 1) they do all this crap for the money 2) they will do whatever it takes to protect that cash flow

If you believe those statements, it stands to reason, the only thing these companies will ever respond to is competition. I think PETA, HSUS, and the over activists need to stop focusing on trying to get these companies to do the right thing because they never will when profit is their motivator.

We also know the demand for meat is going to remain high in perpetuity. What the activists need to focus on is a model which can compete and is humane enough for their standards. Yes, the activists need to turn into farmers or at least partner with farmers willing and able to scale up to the size of these meat companies. They need to put them out of business; or make consumers not want to do business with them, by giving consumers another option (trying to expose them, and shame consumers for eating meat will never scale).

So, start a farm. Innovate on every process so that it's humane and cost effective. Focus on scale, without scale you can never compete or put a meaningful dent in their market share. Maybe it is never as cheap as the other guys, but it's better - and you can sell that. It will be a slow difficult battle, but I think the activists are used to that. Over time, you can create a "PETA approved" meat stamp, market that to consumers, and much like the "organic" movement - a great deal of people will be willing to pay for what is better.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#106

Post by kaoD »

coldtea wrote: post #93
gambiting wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Precisely my point.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#107

Post by swombat »

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'…

Nature is not morally right. In fact, nature is amoral. Pointing to nature and saying "nature does it so it's ok" is a bit like pointing at a landslide and saying "nature does it so it's ok to build my house like this". It's meaningless.

Unlike most animals (as far as we know) we are in the unique position of being moral creatures. We created this morality idea, which was not present in nature before us.

Killing any kind of sentient creature whose death could have been avoided is immoral (whether legal or not). That some countries still apply the barbarous death penalty doesn't make it less immoral. We don't know exactly the level of sentience of the animals we kill and eat, but they are at the very least self-conscious to some extent. Pigs, squids, dolphins, dogs, cats, etc, are all clearly human-like in some ways. Killing such animals is not that far off from killing sentient beings.

I think it's a fair statement to say that killing animals is wrong.

That being said...

The issue is complex. There is a lot of historical baggage that we have to deal with here. And it could be argued that many of those species only exist because we eat them (or at least that most of their numbers exist only because we eat them). Endless such arguments can be contrived. None of them make it right, but they explain why this is not a simple "X is wrong, let's stop doing X" situation.

I say all this above as a meat eater, btw. I eat (a lot of) meat. That I do so while knowing that it's morally wrong is, I guess, just one of those "contradictions" that we humans get to live with.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#108

Post by elif »

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'…

So your counterpoint logic is verbatim the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Cruelty to animals for survival might have some moral justification. However, as vegans prove every day, survival is no-longer a reasonable justification.

Therefore what we're left with is the willful choice to cause suffering for our own pleasure. Please explain to me how that is morally justifiable.

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#109

Post by jessaustin »

judk wrote: post #20
twoodfin wrote: post #3

Infotainment! I know it's considered a failing of hn that commenters tend to attack the style rather than the content, but here the style is aggressively designed to provoke a particular reaction. I find that pretty insulting to the readers: "Don't bother to make up your own mind, let the sounds of dripping shit do it for you!" It's the multimedia equivalent of Taibbi's expletive-laced purple prose.

s/meat/NodeJS/g and it is a rather standard front-page article.

I can't help but think that "NodeJS" is a more appropriate HN topic than "meat".

Re: The Price We Pay for Cheap Meat

#110

Post by asciimo »

lukifer wrote: post #79
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 take it to the extreme, we can't know for sure that carrots don't experience suffering due to our raising them for food. We have canines for a reason; meat is part of our evolutionary heritage. I respect the moral decision not to eat animals, and the fact that we do not raise livestock more humanely is unforgivable; but eschewing all animal proteins is extremely detrimental to one's health (the poster child being…

Are you saying that Steve Jobs died of a plant-based diet? Citation, please.
Post reply on HN