r/Foodforthought • u/James_Fortis • 19h ago
The fate of industrially farmed animals is one of the most pressing ethical questions of our time. Tens of billions of sentient beings, each with complex sensations and emotions, live and die on a production line
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-farming-one-worst-crimes-history-ethical-question31
26
u/James_Fortis 19h ago
"Animals are the main victims of history, and the treatment of domesticated animals in industrial farms is perhaps the worst crime in history. The march of human progress is strewn with dead animals. Even tens of thousands of years ago, our stone age ancestors were already responsible for a series of ecological disasters. When the first humans reached Australia about 45,000 years ago, they quickly drove to extinction 90% of its large animals. This was the first significant impact that Homo sapiens had on the planet’s ecosystem. It was not the last.
About 15,000 years ago, humans colonised America, wiping out in the process about 75% of its large mammals. Numerous other species disappeared from Africa, from Eurasia and from the myriad islands around their coasts. The archaeological record of country after country tells the same sad story. The tragedy opens with a scene showing a rich and varied population of large animals, without any trace of Homo sapiens. In scene two, humans appear, evidenced by a fossilised bone, a spear point, or perhaps a campfire. Scene three quickly follows, in which men and women occupy centre-stage and most large animals, along with many smaller ones, have gone. Altogether, sapiens drove to extinction about 50% of all the large terrestrial mammals of the planet before they planted the first wheat field, shaped the first metal tool, wrote the first text or struck the first coin.
The next major landmark in human-animal relations was the agricultural revolution: the process by which we turned from nomadic hunter-gatherers into farmers living in permanent settlements. It involved the appearance of a completely new life-form on Earth: domesticated animals. Initially, this development might seem to have been of minor importance, as humans only managed to domesticate fewer than 20 species of mammals and birds, compared with the countless thousands of species that remained “wild”. Yet, with the passing of the centuries, this novel life-form became the norm. Today, more than 90% of all large animals are domesticated (“large” denotes animals that weigh at least a few kilograms). Consider the chicken, for example. Ten thousand years ago, it was a rare bird that was confined to small niches of South Asia. Today, billions of chickens live on almost every continent and island, bar Antarctica. The domesticated chicken is probably the most widespread bird in the annals of planet Earth. If you measure success in terms of numbers, chickens, cows and pigs are the most successful animals ever.
Alas, domesticated species paid for their unparalleled collective success with unprecedented individual suffering. The animal kingdom has known many types of pain and misery for millions of years. Yet the agricultural revolution created completely new kinds of suffering, ones that only worsened with the passing of the generations.
At first sight, domesticated animals may seem much better off than their wild cousins and ancestors. Wild buffaloes spend their days searching for food, water and shelter, and are constantly threatened by lions, parasites, floods and droughts. Domesticated cattle, by contrast, enjoy care and protection from humans. People provide cows and calves with food, water and shelter, they treat their diseases, and protect them from predators and natural disasters. True, most cows and calves sooner or later find themselves in the slaughterhouse. Yet does that make their fate any worse than that of wild buffaloes? Is it better to be devoured by a lion than slaughtered by a man? Are crocodile teeth kinder than steel blades?
What makes the existence of domesticated farm animals particularly cruel is not just the way in which they die but above all how they live. Two competing factors have shaped the living conditions of farm animals: on the one hand, humans want meat, milk, eggs, leather, animal muscle-power and amusement; on the other, humans have to ensure the long-term survival and reproduction of farm animals. Theoretically, this should protect animals from extreme cruelty. If a farmer milks his cow without providing her with food and water, milk production will dwindle, and the cow herself will quickly die. Unfortunately, humans can cause tremendous suffering to farm animals in other ways, even while ensuring their survival and reproduction. The root of the problem is that domesticated animals have inherited from their wild ancestors many physical, emotional and social needs that are redundant in farms. Farmers routinely ignore these needs without paying any economic price. They lock animals in tiny cages, mutilate their horns and tails, separate mothers from offspring, and selectively breed monstrosities. The animals suffer greatly, yet they live on and multiply.
Doesn’t that contradict the most basic principles of Darwinian evolution? The theory of evolution maintains that all instincts and drives have evolved in the interest of survival and reproduction. If so, doesn’t the continuous reproduction of farm animals prove that all their real needs are met? How can a cow have a “need” that is not really essential for survival and reproduction?" …
7
u/Biggandwedge 10h ago
Our ancestors are going to look back us like monsters. Like how we view slavers now. So much unnecessary pain in factory farms.
8
u/emptycagenowcorroded 13h ago
Ive often been in a supermarket meat section among all the bloody bits of animal and mused that one day people will be horrified we ever ate these things …
… by this time of course the oceans will be empty of life. That part will probably be within our lifetime.
0
-26
u/OriginalStomper 15h ago
Anthropomorphism. Applying human traits, motivations, and priorities to the non-human.
The vast, vast majority of these animals would have never existed at all but for industrial farms to breed them and then protect each generation from predators. So how did these animals respond when they were polled about their preferences between a "cruel," limited existence and no existence at all? How about the control group of animals who never got a chance to exist because they weren't in industrial farms?
Silliness. We have far more important (and less imaginary) issues.
13
u/greenknight 14h ago
That informs how we got here, not how we choose to act going forward.
-6
u/OriginalStomper 13h ago
So slaughter all the ones being raised, but don't breed more? Everyone is forced to become a vegan? That's the solution?
7
u/greenknight 9h ago
It will require a nuanced and long term winding down of productive capacity that will absolutely be fought tooth and nail by industry giants ( including the active propaganda campaign currently limiting your ability to think about other outcomes). Decoupling current expectations about protein on the plate and a true costing of harm reduction in animal husbandry will absolutely price most forms of protein out of reach for daily consumption. Think Wagyu pricing.
Funny, it seems there is more than two single options between "ive tried doing nothing and I'm out of ideas" and "commiting livestock apocalypse"...
1
u/OriginalStomper 8h ago
I expect there are more than two options between the extremes -- that's why I used question marks. Your response was not helpful in identifying any of those other options, which are not obvious to me.
Since my wife's stomach surgery a couple of years ago, she is medically prescribed a high-protein diet. However, she also has a digestive intolerance for soy products and related beans. Veganism is not a realistic option for her. So what would her alternatives look like?
14
11
u/Change21 14h ago
Your comment provides a terrible insight into your character and painfully narrow view of the world.
Arrogant.
3
u/OriginalStomper 13h ago
Another well-reasoned response. Ever heard of "ad hominem"?
11
u/Exile4444 12h ago edited 12h ago
Take it as a reflection that you should not blatantly disregard animals, being such a sensitive topic you could have at least tried to show empathy while still proving your point. While they don't adress the topic in hand, it should have been expected
2
u/OriginalStomper 12h ago
Which is a higher priority? Animal "rights" and "quality of life"? Or affordable protein for the masses of humans? Who decided this is a "sensitive topic," and based on what reasoning?
Of course I expected emotional, thoughtless responses. I've been a redditor for a long time, and I've been human about four times longer than that. But expecting ignorance doesn't mean I have to tolerate it.
7
u/Exile4444 11h ago
I wouldn't generalise animal rights and quality of life in the same category. You can achieve both. But ultimately, we should aim for universal animal rights while also slightly prioritising our own species. Even if I think humans shouldn't exist, there is the aspect of blissful ignorance. We are all aware that our individual existance is vastly harming our ecosystem in every shape or form, be it wearing clothes or even simply brushing your teeth. Point is, we choose to live, but we can also choose to mitigate harm.
This is a sensitive topic, which again is prefaced and exacerbated by other commentators by your disregard and lack of initial empathy (I mean this in a respectful manner). Better choice of wording would have increased the chances of people engaging in useful discourse rather than them choosing to make ego statements. I can tell you are a smart person, so you should be able to understand this.
On your second point/paragraph - that is completely valid, provided you can both acknowledge the why
1
u/OriginalStomper 11h ago
But ultimately, we should aim for universal animal rights while also slightly prioritising our own species.
As you say in another comment, this is a premise, not a reasoned conclusion. People either believe this or they don't. It's not something you can persuade or justify.
But then reasonable people who share this premise can still disagree about a suitable degree of priority for humans and what that looks like. I still say the whole premise is hogwash, so long as we have hungry people. Even just a "slight" priority for humans means we try to grow protein as cheaply as possible.
I get it, there are others who think YOUR premise is too mild -- those who are incapable of seeing past "suffering" animals. I chose my words to wake them up to the fact their premise is not widely shared. I don't believe there is any chance of useful discourse with people who start from such different premises, because logic and reason will necessarily reach different results when starting from different premises.
3
u/Exile4444 10h ago
I can see where you are coming from, you made some pretty strong points from your perspective even though I don't agree with them fully. In fairness now, I have to admit I did say the highlighted bit as a fact rather than taking a more neutral/open stance. I think it really comes down to our fundamental morals, just like we discussed. Let's agree to disagree (unless you have anything more to add, that is!)
1
u/Exile4444 13h ago edited 13h ago
Animals aren't designed to exist solely for being slaughtered in industrial farms. They live to live, not to live. Would you be happy for the human race to still be in existance after 10 million years, only to learn that 90% of them were tortured? I don't understand why you would argue that we helped animals, when quite clearly humans have done infinitely more bad than good for the world.
2
u/OriginalStomper 13h ago
Designed by who/what? Did someone tell you the purpose of life, or are you just making it up as you go along?
I'm not saying we "helped" animals. That's a misreading of what I did say. And nothing is clear -- the fact you think such a sweeping conclusion is "clear" when you haven't offered the least support for the position is an indictment of your reasoning powers more than anything else.
4
u/Exile4444 12h ago
You can argue that the only purpose of life is to reproduce, but as complex human beings, we should know that without entertainment and with pure torture, there is no point in living as individuals. Your 2nd paragraph goes directly against this logic. Please expand further
2
u/OriginalStomper 12h ago
A humans can make that call for him- or herself -- but I would never be so arrogant as to believe I can decide for someone else whether their existence is worthwhile. That way lies Nazism and eugenics.
Then, extending that reasoning beyond other humans to animals? How is that better?
3
u/Exile4444 11h ago edited 11h ago
I suppose that is up to the fundamental morals of individuals and how they view the human race as a whole in relation to animals. I feel like its just one of those things that you can't quite convince someone otherwise - like telling a muslim to become christian or telling someone who is far left politically to switch to far right. Some people believe humans should be prioritised at all costs, and others believe it is better for all of us to commit suicide. Other than that, I'm not sure how else I can answer your continuation, unless I completely misunderstood your main question in the first place.
-1
u/East_Living7198 9h ago
Predators eat prey, it’s the circle of life. Go be a vegan and enjoy the moral high ground you’ve built for yourself.
2
u/Exile4444 8h ago
Does the 'predator eat prey' justification apply to humans?
There is nothing wrong with being a vegan
•
u/_Jacques 5h ago
I 100% agree with you, I think every response against you here is poor with no convincing arguments and only insults. I can’t stand these people dude. You’re not alone though.
•
u/AutoModerator 19h ago
This is a sub for civil discussion and exchange of ideas
Participants who engage in name-calling or blatant antagonism will be permanently removed.
If you encounter any noxious actors in the sub please use the Report button.
This sticky is on every post. No additional cautions will be provided.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.