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

231–236 of 236 posts

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

#231

Post by mock-possum »

stouset wrote: post #8
mock-possum wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God what an awful prospect. How about when you push the button it only removes the button pushers, so the rest of us are free to continue enjoying our existence.

The point is that continuing to enjoy your existence is inflicting a massive toll of suffering around the world, to both others humans as well as non-humans. I’m not saying I’d be one to push the button, but I think it’s worth trying to understand the mindset of someone who would. It’s very arguable that pushing it would be the ethical thing to do.

That’s an interesting point, but the degree to which enjoying my existence inflicts “a massive toll of suffering around the world” seems negligible, how much harm could I as an individual really be doing?

I’m a very small drop in a very big bucket, and in the already tragically short time I am allotted on this earth, I would like to enjoy myself, thank you very much. I would not dream of asking others to kill themselves so that my existence might be marginally improved.

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

#232

Post by thiagoharry »

akramachamarei wrote: post #223
quesera wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument sounds like a Smithian adaptation of the Brezhnevian "actually existing socialism". Neither system has ever existed in its purest theoretical form -- probably cannot, and even more probably should not. I don't think this is a useful point of argument.

I think you would have more of a point if we were still struggling to achieve a good "capitalist" society, i.e. where property rights are enforced, individual liberty, freedom of contracts.¹ But we've already gotten very far, unlike the many regrettable socialist experiments. If we were still feudal, or still keeping slaves, you might have a point, but in a global sense overall things are better than ever. The Brezhn…

No, the private ownership of the means of production needs to be created and maintained by a state. There is nothing natural about it; if you see it as natural, it is because you naturalize the society you live in. First of all, like any type of property, it is a social construct that must be upheld by laws and instruments of coercion. And speaking of the means of production, to ensure wage labor, a process or arrangement is needed that guarantees one group of people holds ownership while others do not. In the case of land, for example, this requires enclosure, the destruction of the concept of land as something communal.

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

#233

Post by itsanaccount »

greygoo222 wrote: post #163
Capricorn2481 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I think this is a monstrous thought that will never be explained to you.

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

#234

Post by lucyjojo »

adrian_b wrote: post #204
diacritical wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> being a vegetarian/vegan is more expensive than being omnivore. Being vegan is cheaper where I live regardless of whether we factor in the subsidies or not. Beans, chickpeas, lentils and sometimes soy (examples of protein sources) are pretty inexpensive. Peanuts, some other nuts (in the culinary sense of the word) and some of the vegetable oils are also inexpensive. If you factor in foods meant to replace or replic…

Beans, lentils etc. may be inexpensive but you skip over the fact that they and any other kind of plant source contain too little protein in comparison with the amount of energy. Being vegan is easy for someone who does hard physical work, so they have to eat more than 3000 kcal per day. In that case, eating enough proteins that come from plant sources will still leave enough in the energy budget to also eat other fo…

i suspect your "enough protein" is too much.

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

#235

Post by greygoo222 »

itsanaccount wrote: post #233
greygoo222 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I think this is a monstrous thought that will never be explained to you.

What is monstrous is the confusion of the natural with the just.

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

#236

Post by Capricorn2481 »

greygoo222 wrote: post #163
Capricorn2481 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

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

> 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.

Well good luck with the doctorate I guess.

Post reply on HN