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

World's first no-kill eggs go on sale in Berlin (2018)

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 427 posts

Re: World's first no-kill eggs go on sale in Berlin (2018)

#381

Post by kempbellt »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #377
kempbellt wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individuals have all kinds of reasons for doing the things that they do, which is why I wouldn't use the phrase "vegans in general", and why I haven't addressed my comments to vegans at all. Veganism , however, has strong ethical foundations, and any amount of research shows this. Unless we are considering the mental health benefit that comes with feeling ethically superior by being vegan, there are no valid health c…

> There are a lot of great things about it, but it has never held much sway in my mind On the contrary, it feels like veganism holds quite a lot of sway in your mind. Based on my understanding, you have created an imaginary idealised version of veganism, so that you can mentally reject its imperfections, while recognising that this version would still hold some value. All the best.

It holds enough sway that any time a conversation about veganism comes up, I find it easy to point out the flaws, again. Beyond that, it holds incredibly little.

For a short while I dated a vegan, and that was the most veganism has had any impact on my life. Planning meals together required more work to find viable options. I enjoyed the few vegan meals that I ate during that time, but it never changed my personal eating/purchasing habits. Nor have my beliefs been affected by any conversations I've had on the subject.

> you have created an imaginary idealised version of veganism

I'm pointing out glaring holes in its fundamental philosophy. You didn't respond to any points I raised about Nirvana Fallacy being a core part of veganism. Nor have any of my points been debated or addressed in this thread. Just a lot of "Pro veganism! Yay! Shun the non-believer" talk, which does nothing to actually support it.

The olive branch I offer from the other side of this argument is that there are positives to reducing the commodification of animals and animal products. It doesn't mean that I believe it's a solid, effective, or feasible philosophy to live by.

Re: World's first no-kill eggs go on sale in Berlin (2018)

#382

Post by 52-6F-62 »

wcarron wrote: post #302
52-6F-62 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't twist my contributions to being so ill-hearted. We're supposed to respond to each comment with generosity around here—defaulting to sincerity. The discussion began with moralizing about eating other living things.

I agree with mike. You have offered a reductio ad absurdum. This isn't meaningful discussion and it is painfully transparent, as well.

Transparent? How's that?

I was being hyperbolic, yes. That was the point. I think the entire argument over the morality of it is an appeal to absurdity. There are gross assumptions made on every side of the argument and I don't see any clear path to one side of the discussion about whether or not eating animals is immoral being possible.

I'm not anti-vegan. How could one even be anti-vegan? Seems more like a personal conviction to me, and that's, quite frankly, none of my business.

Re: World's first no-kill eggs go on sale in Berlin (2018)

#383

Post by 52-6F-62 »

mike00632 wrote: post #295
52-6F-62 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't twist my contributions to being so ill-hearted. We're supposed to respond to each comment with generosity around here—defaulting to sincerity. The discussion began with moralizing about eating other living things.

You literally proposed killing all humans and now feel unfairly portrayed as "ill-hearted".

I didn't propose anything, Mike—let alone killing all humans. But maybe I made too many assumptions and should have anticipated some might take my comment literally.

I'm an optimist, but I also don't anoint humankind with some divine moral authority—I put us on the level with every other animal on the planet.

Re: World's first no-kill eggs go on sale in Berlin (2018)

#384

Post by dzolob »

kempbellt wrote: post #379
dzolob wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don' see why you have to be rude, but since we are here, if you need citations from a prestigious peer review journal to acknowledge this fact, you need to read more, travel more, hell, just change the channel more. The world bank defines people living below its poverty line as persons living in households where the total income is below 1.9 US dollars, and acknowledge 689 million people living there[0]. "At higher…

I don't find it rude to point out that you asked for citation in this exact thread, and then didn't provide any yourself while making some pretty serious claims. Thank you for the citations. These make a very strong case for showing poor living conditions in your area, and I empathize with that - please don't think that I'm debating this fact. I'm not entirely sure how it relates to my comment which is a nit about ve…

The rudeness was not in the citation request, but in the “I think you don’t know how a citation works” comment. I find hard to believe you really needed/wanted a citation on what I stated just to equiparate my post to a citation request on a sentientness scale on a different comment. I’ve read Hofstader and I know some of the origins of these scales and their are based on all but true scientific method.

That aside, how can we expect to treat animals better than we treat ourselves? And that’s why veganism without ethics is just another form of consumerism. It’s late at night and I will fail to provide citation, but you can google how quinoa prices skyrocketed when became part of the superfood/healthy eating/vegan culture of rich populations, and what this meant for the locals that used to grow it and eat it.

I say the above (the google it part) without trying to be offensive and with an olive branch, looking forward to go deeper in this reflections.

Re: World's first no-kill eggs go on sale in Berlin (2018)

#385

Post by [deleted] »

ac42 wrote: post #371
notatoad wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that droplet would be experiencing the same pressure from the air pushing inward, but also a pressure pushing outward proportional to the amount the egg has contracted. more pressure pushing out than in means fluid comes out.

Why would the egg contract in the first place? It's more likely that the "applied pressure" is simply negative...

[deleted]

Re: World's first no-kill eggs go on sale in Berlin (2018)

#386

Post by 52-6F-62 »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #301
52-6F-62 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that then go further to the point? It's not a matter worth moralizing over—rather a personal preference and pragmatic approach to that end.

> It's not a matter worth moralizing over Why not? We already have some laws against animal cruelty. Thankfully we don't treat that as a matter of personal choice.

That's the eternal question isn't it: Where's the line?

In this case I think the question is something like "is it cruel to eat an animal?"

I'm not a spiritual person, but I like what the general consensus of the tribes around the Great Lakes (and elsewhere) saw of it: we're very much part of the [natural] world, not above or outside of it in any way. And I don't see that as a bad thing. Now, talking scale of consumption and all that is another matter that I didn't gather was at the core of this discussion—at least that is the way I've been framing my comments.

But now I'm getting a bit worried I'm taking this too far off track of the actual linked content and discussion so I think I'll have to leave it at that—but I'm happy to continue to discuss if you wanted to—just fire me an email.

Re: World's first no-kill eggs go on sale in Berlin (2018)

#387

Post by belorn »

kaycebasques wrote: post #345
belorn wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animal agriculture has its list of problem but so does crop agriculture. There are no free lunches here. One can argue about which problems are more harmful than the other, and its pretty clear that there exist some horrible practices in Animal agriculture. However when faced with a list of only the harms from the animal agriculture, I feel forced to mention a bit more facts about the whole picture. For example, fres…

> In quite a few times I have seen studies showing that the lowest carbon emission in any food group would be either shellfish, seaweed, or insects… Vegan would exclude two of those… There's a whole strand of veganism called bivalveganism which supports the usual vegan diet + eating bi-valve creatures like mussles precisely because their cultivation seems to have a lot of positive environmental benefits (or at least,…

It not much of a rebuttal since I agree with it above. A lot of rain forest is burned to make room for crop agriculture, most which get used as feed to animal agriculture. It is generally a good recommendation to avoid food that is created by burning rain forest, and animal products derived from that is the worst offender.

Thus why I go for "the whole picture" approach. Locally produced food with markings for organic and sustainability is usually devoid of burned rain forest. Small producers tend to value sustainability more than large factory farms. Crops in season tend to involve less obscurity and less complex process which can hide ecological crimes. Animal farms with fewer animals tend to care more about individual animals health than larger farms that treat animals as items.

A big reason why organic crops has a rather complex picture comes from the issue that there exist no free lunch. Farmers that do not use chemical fertilizers derived from natural gas will instead use natural fertilizers. What that actually mean from a ecological perspective is that the chemical fertilizers produced from natural gas get put in the ground to produce animal feed, the animal feed get put into animals, and the rest product in form of manure get sold as a natural fertilizers which then is used to produce organic crops. Since organic farmers need to use more manure than non-organic farmers, and the output is lower, the total amount of carbon emissions per product can be argued as higher depending on how one count and attribute emissions. Still I generally prefer organic over non-organic because it does not directly put natural gas into the ground, and I find the cost in increase land use preferable over the other trade-offs.

Re: World's first no-kill eggs go on sale in Berlin (2018)

#388

Post by stickfigure »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #282
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised you noticed the aggression before 6 months. It's actually hard to even identify roosters as roosters in the first few months. They don't develop their physical traits fully for some time. Re: birds and rape, wait til you see ducks... I should note that there are roosters and then there are roosters. We had a really amazing one, a well bred barred rock who was a real gentleman. They have an important rol…

I should also mention another neat role roosters have: they mediate conflict. We got a rooster because our hens were picking on each other. That stopped once we got him. He even used to sit between the conflicting hens on the perch at night. Also a good rooster will find food for the hens, and call them over to it. Ours used to find bugs and then make this cute "coo coo coo" and they'd come running, and eat while he…

Oh, I definitely love having roosters! The crowing makes me happy. But our polish started mounting the most developed hens at 19 weeks, and the other two (silkies, believe it or not) wanted in on the action less than a month later. Too many roosters for the number of hens, and the girls were getting frazzled.

The thing I'm hoping for out of this "no kill" technology is the ability to buy sexed fertile eggs at the ag store. I don't have a problem culling roosters from unsexed breeds, but it would be nice to bypass raising them from chicks and guessing which ones will turn out to be keepers.

Re: World's first no-kill eggs go on sale in Berlin (2018)

#389

Post by names_are_hard »

chrisjarvis wrote: post #329
names_are_hard wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpicking the Hillel quote, the message is correct but to prevent misinformation spreading on the web I feel like correcting. Hillel is quoted in the Mishna[0] as saying, "If I am not for me, who is for me? If I am for myself, what am I? If not now, when?"[1] If Hillel said "if not you, then who?" I have not found a source, but I believe this is a common interpretation of his first sentence. Then again, maybe he was…

I have no idea thanks for the extra information! it’s a quote I’ve always liked. When I googled who said it Hillel came up.

Yeah the internet is awesome at mangling and misattributing quotes. The fact that the original is easily found online doesn't help because it's in a foreign language. Fortunately it's pretty rudimentary Hebrew and it doesn't take an expert to understand, just someone who can read the language. Hillel's saying immediately preceding this one is in Aramaic...good luck dropping that in Google Translate :)

Re: World's first no-kill eggs go on sale in Berlin (2018)

#390

Post by trianglem »

noxer wrote: post #311
trianglem wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn’t it a living chicken after 3 days? 1 day? Immediately after fertilization? Whatever this has been argued ad infinitum.

See answer above. There is no need to argue about facts. Words have meanings and they are not debatable. "Living", "death", "to kill" are rather simple words there is really no place for confusion about what these words mean.

What is the fact? When does life begin? At fertilization or an arbitrary time after that with the chicken egg. It’s a one or two word answer, so when is it?
Post reply on HN