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

New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 236 posts

Re: New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates

#161

Post by blks »

anonym29 wrote: post #98
Insanity wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Farmed animals could live happy, healthy lives and then be culled in a humane way. Breeding animals _specifically for killing them_, no matter how they are killed, is not what I'd consider humane. If we take 'humane' literally, it means to be treated as you would treat a human. I doubt we'd do this to humans. So the only way to be okay with this is adhering to a form of specieism.

Many farm animals aren't bred specifically for killing them. Think egg-laying hens and ducks, milk-producing cows and goats, etc. Not too different from humans in that respect; humans are bred systematically (we have dedicated hormonal supplements, birth facilities, documented birthing procedures, standardized post-birth checklists of forms of vaccination regiments, standardized mass schooling, government-subsidized…

What do you think happens to a cow, when she stops producing milk? She is kept constantly pregnant, what do you think happens to most of her male offsprings? In the end, almost every single cow’s life ends in violence.

Re: New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates

#162

Post by ritlo »

penguin_booze wrote: post #146
ritlo wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Farmed animals could live happy, healthy lives and then be culled in a humane way. > The problem is that it costs slightly more and our society is more concerned with cost than animal suffering. IDK about other livestock, but this definitely doesn't hold for chickens, one of the cheaper meat sources in the US. Switching to breeds that could live more than a very-few weeks(!) before getting too overweight to walk, w…

It's not like chickens chose this way of life. Such breeds were developed for the specific purpose of meat, with no regard for their wellbeing. Don't shame the chickens for what human bastards do.

Oh, sure, our fault, but fact remains that modern meat-chicken breeds are so incredibly fucked up that it’s not really possible to humanely farm them. They’re like that because of what we did, yes, but step one toward comprehensive humane-farming for chickens would have to be “let those breeds entirely die out” regardless of who’s at fault (and it ain’t the chickens).

Re: New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates

#163

Post by greygoo222 »

Capricorn2481 wrote: post #132
greygoo222 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Causing harm to biomes is not the same thing as causing net harm to animals inside biomes. The base rate of harm done to animals inside biomes is immense and horrific.

You're doing crazy gymnastics right now. Eliminating biomes drives animals to extinction. In what world could you argue that doesn't deserve even a little moral consideration? I'm not going to argue with someone who works this hard to be a contrarian.

It's not gymnastics, you just have no background on this topic.

Species are not moral subjects. Individuals are.

Killing an individual animal that could live a worthwhile life for longer is an individually bad act. Insofar as this happens in the process of species going extinct, that's bad. But it's also the default state of nature. Does replacing a forest with a city cause net harm to non-human animals? That's not clear. It might even be net good.

Does that mean we should destroy wilderness on purpose to prevent wild animal suffering? Not yet, we don't have the technology to mitigate knock-on effects, and it should be done a way that does not harm individuals. But I can't get behind viewing biome destruction as some kind of atrocity against the animals within them, at least not as a whole. (Some species have better lives than others).

Re: New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates

#164

Post by Hammershaft »

sosodev wrote: post #58
Havoc wrote: post #22

The sooner we get to true lab grown meat the better Meat is nice but would be better if we can skip the whole suffering thing

This is a false dichotomy. The choice is not lab grown or suffering. Farmed animals could live happy, healthy lives and then be culled in a humane way. The problem is that it costs slightly more and our society is more concerned with cost than animal suffering.

Cost is not a minor thing considering the suffering that poverty creates.

Re: New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates

#165

Post by barbazoo »

hangonhn wrote: post #88
Ancapistani wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In their current implementation, yeah, they’re pretty bad. There is a need for something like it, though. A sow will absolutely lay down on her piglets and suffocate them.

> A sow will absolutely lay down on her piglets and suffocate them. This makes me really curious because that behavior seems very maladaptive for a species. That leads me to wonder if something else, ie. the environment or domestication, is leading to this behavior rather than pigs being really, really prone to wiping out their own species. Does anyone know why they do this in a farm environment?

We're also genetically engineered them to be much heavier than they would be naturally.

Re: New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates

#166

Post by shakna »

hangonhn wrote: post #88
Ancapistani wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In their current implementation, yeah, they’re pretty bad. There is a need for something like it, though. A sow will absolutely lay down on her piglets and suffocate them.

> A sow will absolutely lay down on her piglets and suffocate them. This makes me really curious because that behavior seems very maladaptive for a species. That leads me to wonder if something else, ie. the environment or domestication, is leading to this behavior rather than pigs being really, really prone to wiping out their own species. Does anyone know why they do this in a farm environment?

Pigs are adapted to singular survival. A stressed sow will often eat the piglets. And that stress can be being a mother for the first time.

There are a lot of environmental factors, like snuggling for warmth being unsafe.

But by and large... Pigs give birth in numbers. They can afford for half to die, and still proliferate. They don't need to be 'good parents'.

Re: New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates

#167

Post by shakna »

bananalychee wrote: post #16
nekusar wrote: post #5

Farming practices are already absolutely terrible. And for reasons of arbitrary weight increase, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ractopamine is used in the USA. Doesnt degrade when cooked, so humans also get fat from it amongst other bad side effects. Banned in most countries, but not the USA. This is also why pork export is banned in most countries. I know 1 person who is "allergic to pork". But European pork is fine.…

Ractopamine is authorized in Canada per the article you linked.

Likely due to trade agreement, with a geological neighbour.

Re: New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates

#168

Post by aziaziazi »

danaris wrote: post #157
aziaziazi wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> supplementing with foods that are at least as unethical as factory farming practices That's the first time I ear about supplement being unethical, let alone "compared to factory farming". Stretching the usual arguments, it may be almonds' water or soy in brazil ? I'd be glad you clarify your point.

The harvesting of a number of the common foods used to supplement vegetarian and vegan diets—eg, soy, agave, quinoa—are variously destructive to the environment and based on labor practices exploitative enough that they sometimes verge on slavery.

Oh I understand the confusion: soy, quinoa and agave are not supplements but food. I guess we might agree on "alternative" but the word choice isn’t your point.

Soy is a strange pick at it’s mostly cultivated to feed livestock (77%) and using it instead for humans instead would require substantially less crops.

https://www.deforestationimportee.ecologie.gouv.fr/en/affect...

Agave… is mostly water and glucose, without much minerals or protein. How does vegs requires or tends toward that aliment more than other?

Quinoa original region doesn’t have the same working standards as un US/UE but I’m not aware of a difference with banana, coffee, avocado, cacao, vanilla, coconut, palm oil (or soy)… however Quinoa also grow in other regions: here in France you can find local quinoa at the same price as the one from Bolivia: around 8€/kg (organic). It’s super healthy but not very popular through.

Beans and lentils are more popular I think (self non-scientific estimation) but yeah soy is great and tasty.

Re: New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates

#169

Post by kelipso »

diacritical wrote: post #103
sosodev wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm skeptical of this claim because there's clearly a growing population that hates the idea of putting anything they don't understand in their bodies. Genetically modified vegetables, food dyes, vaccines, etc. I find it hard to believe you could convince a large portion of Americans to eat lab grown meat just to save a buck.

I think that population is shrinking, not growing. They're surely vocal, though. But if lab grown meat is cheaper, some part of the population would buy it. The farms would lose part of their business so economy of scale would help lab grown meat and hurt the farms. I think it would lead to a feedback loop where lab grown meat will get even cheaper and farm meat would get more expensive. With lab grown meat you also…

I think a lot of people will be suspicious of lab grown meat after years of fake meats marketing of substances filled with some unholy combination of seed oils and chemicals (in before some nerd pipes up with a comment about how water is a chemical too kekeke) specifically designed to poison our bodies. Well maybe I exaggerate about specifically designed but fake meats are certainly not healthy for us.

Re: New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates

#170

Post by aristofun »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #155
aristofun wrote: post #137

I can understand and respect no meat people’s position (vegans etc), because it is consistent. Even if I disagree generally. But how can I comprehend people who eat meat and okay with killing animals, but get outraged by so and so practices of growing them? Isn’t it a textbook definition of inconsistency and hypocrisy?

Where is the inconsistency in being ok with killing an animal and eating it and wanting the time leading up to their death to not be misery?

How it can be more miserable than it already is - being animal slave from birth to guaranteed death (don’t tell me animals can’t feel it from adjacent room/building)?
Post reply on HN