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

French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 145 posts

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#121

Post by astura »

sedachv wrote: post #83
novok wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of them are not farmed in a sustainable cycle that prevents those animals from become endangered species? Or they think of the animals as pet animals. As for fur, I'm guessing it's because a moral panic happened in the 80s and nobody really cared that much about fur, since it was a luxury item for a few, while meat, milk and leather somewhat is something that everyone pretty much still uses today worldwide.

> milk… is something that everyone pretty much still uses today worldwide I don't understand where people come up with this nonsense. Do you just generalize your experience to everyone else? 68% of the world population is lactose intolerant: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28690131/

Lacking enzymes to digest lactose doesn't prevent dairy consumption, as fermenting milk removes lactose. Many cultures have long ago figured this out, even before lactase persistence existed in humans.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/how-can-you-eat-dair...

>In modern Mongolia, for example, traditional herders get more than a third of their calories from dairy products. They milk seven kinds of mammals, yielding diverse cheeses, yogurts, and other fermented milk products, including alcohol made from mare’s milk. “If you can milk it, they do in Mongolia,” Warinner says. And yet 95% of those people are lactose intolerant.

>Modern Mongolians digest dairy by using bacteria to digest lactose for them, turning milk into yogurt and cheese, along with a rich suite of dairy products unknown in the Western diet. Ancient pastoralists may have adopted similar strategies. “Control and manipulation of microbes is core to this whole transformation,” Warinner says. “There’s an intense control of microbes inside and outside their bodies that enables them to have a dairying culture.”

>That disconnect between dairy and DNA isn’t limited to Mongolia. Jessica Hendy, a co-author of the PNAS paper, recently found milk proteins on pots at Çatalhöyük in Turkey, which at 9000 years old dates to the beginnings of domestication, 4 millennia before lactase persistence appears. “There seem to be milk proteins popping up all over the place, and the wonderful cultural evolution we expected to see isn’t happening,” Collins says.

This might be uncommon, but my brother is lactose intolerant and still eats the milk products he wants, he simply doesn't mind the diarrhea that follows.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#122

Post by causasui »

tsimionescu wrote: post #120
causasui wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument makes zero sense. If we didn't breed cows, they wouldn't exist. There are no wild cows.

Either you believe the only moral thing would be to treat cows like cats or dogs, you believe that eradicating the species would be preferable to the current situation, or you must accept that we should compare the condition of cows with similar wild animals in order to decide whether our practices are uniquely cruel. Cows are not so unique among mammals that comparisons with other wild animals to get a feel for what…

> you believe that eradicating the species would be preferable to the current situation

Yup! Cows only exist so we may exploit them. Giving animals a "good life" while we exploit (or before we murder) them is not a preferential alternative to simple non-existence in the first place.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#123

Post by causasui »

tsimionescu wrote: post #119
simias wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a good ethical argument. We decide to birth these animals for our own well being, ergo we are responsible for their suffering. If we only rescued lost cows from the wilderness, giving them shelter and a good life until we decided to quickly end their life to get their meat you might have a point (and even then, I still think it would be a bit shaky IMO) but that's not how it's done. If a cat is bor…

> It's not though, you can't just ignore the woes of industrial farming when that's the vast majority of the meat products that surround us. These animals are for the most part born into horrible living conditions. Reducing animal product consumption is important. But there is no reason to reduce it to 0, that is my main point. And note that you don't have to be extremely loving and caring with farm animals to be bet…

> but just as we don't judge the bear for killing salmon, I don't think it's right to judge a human for killing a cow to eat its flesh

The difference is you, as a human, have a choice. You are capable of living a healthy, full life w/o eating the flesh or excretions of animals. The bear (or lion or tiger) has no such ability to choose.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#124

Post by tsimionescu »

causasui wrote: post #123
tsimionescu wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not though, you can't just ignore the woes of industrial farming when that's the vast majority of the meat products that surround us. These animals are for the most part born into horrible living conditions. Reducing animal product consumption is important. But there is no reason to reduce it to 0, that is my main point. And note that you don't have to be extremely loving and caring with farm animals to be bet…

> but just as we don't judge the bear for killing salmon, I don't think it's right to judge a human for killing a cow to eat its flesh The difference is you, as a human, have a choice. You are capable of living a healthy, full life w/o eating the flesh or excretions of animals. The bear (or lion or tiger) has no such ability to choose.

The bear does as well - it is omnivorous and could survive entirely on berries. We could also decide to provide supplements for bears so that they find it easier to eat less salmon and deer, so I guess we are also morally responsible for every deer or salmon or bee that a bear kills (tigers and lions are a different matter, since they are indeed unable to survive on a non-meat diet).

However, the larger point is that the idea that it is immoral to kill to sustain yourself goes so far against the way nature is organized that I find it ridiculous. While it's true that morality often means going against natural tendencies, in this particular case I find it exceedingly opposed to the regular order.

So, I personally reject the very premise that it is in any way immoral to end the life of anything except members of your own species, as long as you don't do it out of cruelty or greed, and as long as you do not eradicate the entire species through your actions.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#125

Post by bluefirebrand »

seanwilson wrote: post #112
bluefirebrand wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you genuinely not care if people are killing dolphins and whales and eating dogs though No, but I do genuinely not care that people are killing and eating cows and cow products though. I don't really think anything could make me care about that at this point, certainly not enough to give up meat and cheese. So if we are making these things equivalent (which I don't believe they are), then I suppose I shouldn't c…

> So if we are making these things equivalent (which I don't believe they are), then I suppose I shouldn't care about the dolphins, whales and dogs. In order to be consistent. I'm not making anything equivalent, I'm asking you about your beliefs and if they're well founded. Why is it okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not a dog or a whale or a cat? Your beliefs can still be consistent if you've justified the differe…

> I'm not making anything equivalent

Ok you say that, but your question

> Why is it okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not a dog or a whale or a cat?

implies equivalence. Without that equivalence the answer is obvious: Because they are different. It's ok to treat different things differently.

But ok, so let's talk about equivalence. Obviously cows and whales are both mammals. Maybe that's why I should treat them the same.

So is it ok to eat non-mammals? Snakes and lizards and fish? Why? They're still animals.

So let's say it's not ok to eat animals. So we should eat plants.

Why is that ok? They're still alive. They still die when you harvest them.

Okay so it's not ok to kill and eat anything. So we starve.

Obviously this is silly and reductive and does not represent reality. We have to eat. May as well eat cow.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#126

Post by mastazi »

sedachv wrote: post #83
novok wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of them are not farmed in a sustainable cycle that prevents those animals from become endangered species? Or they think of the animals as pet animals. As for fur, I'm guessing it's because a moral panic happened in the 80s and nobody really cared that much about fur, since it was a luxury item for a few, while meat, milk and leather somewhat is something that everyone pretty much still uses today worldwide.

> milk… is something that everyone pretty much still uses today worldwide I don't understand where people come up with this nonsense. Do you just generalize your experience to everyone else? 68% of the world population is lactose intolerant: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28690131/

That doesn't say anything about consumption rates. We don't even know how many of those 68% even know whether or not they are intolerant. My wife is from Thailand where lactose intolerance is statistically very high and yet milk consumption appears to be widespread. They even have milk-based products that are not seen in the West, for example milk-based sodas and soft drinks.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#127

Post by mastazi »

seanwilson wrote: post #112
bluefirebrand wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you genuinely not care if people are killing dolphins and whales and eating dogs though No, but I do genuinely not care that people are killing and eating cows and cow products though. I don't really think anything could make me care about that at this point, certainly not enough to give up meat and cheese. So if we are making these things equivalent (which I don't believe they are), then I suppose I shouldn't c…

> So if we are making these things equivalent (which I don't believe they are), then I suppose I shouldn't care about the dolphins, whales and dogs. In order to be consistent. I'm not making anything equivalent, I'm asking you about your beliefs and if they're well founded. Why is it okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not a dog or a whale or a cat? Your beliefs can still be consistent if you've justified the differe…

> I don't think "because it's traditional" or "because we've been doing it for hundreds of years" are good ethical reasons

Why not? Why the fact that something stood the test of time has no value? I've seen this argument often repeated but never explained in logical terms.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#128

Post by tsimionescu »

causasui wrote: post #122
tsimionescu wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either you believe the only moral thing would be to treat cows like cats or dogs, you believe that eradicating the species would be preferable to the current situation, or you must accept that we should compare the condition of cows with similar wild animals in order to decide whether our practices are uniquely cruel. Cows are not so unique among mammals that comparisons with other wild animals to get a feel for what…

> you believe that eradicating the species would be preferable to the current situation Yup! Cows only exist so we may exploit them. Giving animals a "good life" while we exploit (or before we murder) them is not a preferential alternative to simple non-existence in the first place.

Perpetuating and expanding the species is such a basic goal of any living thing that it holds true for the entirety of the Philogenetic tree, with no exceptions, from prokaryotes to plants and vertebrates and humans. In the natural order, existence and proliferation are not just the most important value, but the only value for which an organism exists. Reproduction is often painful and scary, and many living things stop living as soon as they are certain they have successfuly reproduced.

So, by the only universal standard of value among living beings, cows are one of the most successful vertebrates in history - they have managed to breed to almost unprecedented numbers for vertebrates in general, nevermind for mammals.

Even if the only possible way of life for them was the physical suffering of cows in industrial farms, it would not outweighg this basic drive. To suggest that the imagined human concept of 'being exploited' would outweigh the value of existing and breeding is one of the most bizarre takes I've ever heard.

Even humans, who do feel the psychological damages of exploitation and being owned, in the worse conditions of slavery, have never chosen mass extinction over the simple drive of continued life.

Edit: I'd also add that if you value the abstract evil of 'being exploited' as worse than any concrete qualities of the life lead under exploitation, to the extent that non-existence is preferable to this, then you have no choice but to apply this same logic to all agricultural grown plants, especially those that cant even reproduce without our care like bananas or wheat, and to the many kinds of Bacteria we use to produce drugs. They are just as much the victims of exploitation as cows living on nice farms are.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#129

Post by causasui »

tsimionescu wrote: post #124
causasui wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but just as we don't judge the bear for killing salmon, I don't think it's right to judge a human for killing a cow to eat its flesh The difference is you, as a human, have a choice. You are capable of living a healthy, full life w/o eating the flesh or excretions of animals. The bear (or lion or tiger) has no such ability to choose.

The bear does as well - it is omnivorous and could survive entirely on berries. We could also decide to provide supplements for bears so that they find it easier to eat less salmon and deer, so I guess we are also morally responsible for every deer or salmon or bee that a bear kills (tigers and lions are a different matter, since they are indeed unable to survive on a non-meat diet). However, the larger point is that…

> ...the idea that it is immoral to kill to sustain yourself goes so far against the way nature is organized

This is an appeal to nature.

> ... as long as you don't do it out of... greed

How does "I like the taste of cows and milk" not meet your definition of greed?

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#130

Post by causasui »

tsimionescu wrote: post #128
causasui wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you believe that eradicating the species would be preferable to the current situation Yup! Cows only exist so we may exploit them. Giving animals a "good life" while we exploit (or before we murder) them is not a preferential alternative to simple non-existence in the first place.

Perpetuating and expanding the species is such a basic goal of any living thing that it holds true for the entirety of the Philogenetic tree, with no exceptions, from prokaryotes to plants and vertebrates and humans. In the natural order, existence and proliferation are not just the most important value, but the only value for which an organism exists. Reproduction is often painful and scary, and many living things s…

Exploit: make full use of and derive benefit from a resource.

We breed cows so we can exploit them. There is no air quotes around exploit, that's exactly what cows are to us. Resources for our enrichment.

Of course reproduction is the quintessential drive of all life. But cows are not reproducing in the wild so that point isn't even relevant. They're artificially inseminated to keep them lactating (in the case of dairy cows).

As to your edit, we're not talking about bacteria or plants which lack the physical ability for suffering as we know it. We're talking about bovines, huge mammals w/ a brain and central nervous system.

Post reply on HN