ITT: Morally justify why you eat factory farmed meat.

[mrswdk]

I don't even understand how you're still trying to argue this.

ALL HAIL MRSWDK, QUEEN OF THIS THREAD.

[Serbia]

I don't need to feel morally justified when eating my steak, I just need it to be tasty and leave me satisfied.

Until it KILLS YOU.

Perhaps you need to add "and healthy" to that.

Here ... let me help you a little ...

EAT MORE BISON ...
EAT MORE DUCK ...
EAT MORE LAMB ...


Oh and while we are at it ... we have too many deer on Long Island ...

EAT MORE VENISON ...

I have eaten all this in the past year... what's your point?
While you're at it, add goose, rabbit and camel to the list as well.

Bollocks.

[jgordon1111]

Sad truth is most have to because for whatever reason as whole most humans have lost the ability to effectively feed themselves hell most find it too bothersome to even grow a plant and take care of it, much to busy with techno crap, worrying about who said what on Facebook etc. It will be the demise of those who are certain everything they need to know is on the internet or there degrees will mean anything at all if shot hits the fan

[Symmetry]

Sad truth is most have to because for whatever reason as whole most humans have lost the ability to effectively feed themselves hell most find it too bothersome to even grow a plant and take care of it, much to busy with techno crap, worrying about who said what on Facebook etc. It will be the demise of those who are certain everything they need to know is on the internet or there degrees will mean anything at all if shot hits the fan

So, basically you're with Mao on this one?

[tzor]

While you're at it, add goose, rabbit and camel to the list as well.

Goose tends to be too fatty and not enough meat for me.

Rabbit is nice.

Never tried camel.

[Dukasaur]

While you're at it, add goose, rabbit and camel to the list as well.

Goose tends to be too fatty and not enough meat for me.

Rabbit is nice.

Never tried camel.

Heathen! Goose is the king of meats!

[PLAYER57832]

Perhaps you are more idealistic than me but I can't possibly see any system which could function without causing mass suffering while producing the amounts of meat and poultry that are demanded by our current eating habits.

Not idealistic, farm-bred.
A. Define suffering. I recently heard the argument that killing animals period is suffering. Not sure that factory farming is always worse in that regard, despite the peta videos to the contrary. That does happen, but the bigger issue (the more common one) for animals are things like what to do with the massive amounts of manure, the water needs, and often the use of antibiotics to reduce diseases (or to allow the animals to eat corn, etc.) without real need.

B. I never said meat consumption should stay steady. We should eat less meat for a lot of reasons, but this idea that its bad to kill animals is just not one I buy.

Land use for agriculture has already decimated the Amazon, and if we were to give cows more room to roam as you suggest then our consumption would almost certainly have to fall (never mind what happens when countries like China radically up their meat intake). The same is applicable for Pigs and Chickens which often live in horribly cramped conditions.

You have mixed up several distinct issues.

The Amazon -- a unique system that never should have been allowed to become grazing land or even cropland. The argument that this was "necessary" to feed the US, etc food needs is incorrect. The problem was lack of understanding and corporations that encourage quick money rather than a (sometimes only slightly, sometimes significantly) lower level of sustainable production. (that applies to ALL areas, not just agriculture, but is probably most felt in agriculture). The irony is that many of these areas are already pretty well burned out. The same for some areas of the US, though the dynamics differ significantly (saltification, etc.)

The system I suggest has no comparison to the above. Old style multiple faceted agriculture, long touted as "inefficient" is actually quite productive when done properly, it just is more of a steady production requiring a lot of work rather than an investment opportunity for folks sitting at conference tables in big cities. But, that doesn't mean we have to completely throw out all new methods, either. The manure that is nothing but waste to deal with makes excellent fertilizer, just as an example.

When you talk about pigs and chickens and the horrible conditions, then you start talking about real factory farming, a type of farming I abhor. Regulations are coming in, as well as changes in "best management practices" to alter these facets. Its not impossible and the production can be close, if not equal, to the factory farming. Free range does take more space, but it is a trade of quality for quantity.

Which leads to the final point. Having the absolute maximum production is neither necessary nor even possible in the long term.

Even if it were possible to set up a system in which the animals had a good life (say we terraformed Mars and let them live there) that is not our reality and nor will it be any time soon.

And here you make the final error, as have most of those above. You start with the assumption that growing animals is abusive and better than growing crops. This is just plain false, because some of he worst environmental damage is actually from crops. Growing cotton in Central California -- growing cotton just about anywhere, in fact. Etc, etc. Heavy use of pesticides, monoculture, etc, etc.... those are real, serious problems that are not solved by just going vegetarien or even organic. A holistic system does use animals and plants, together. The animals consume the waste, then their waste is , in turn, used by the crops... etc. Together, integrated properly, these things use less water, don't need all the pesticides, etc. Chickens have gotten a bad name recently, because of the bird flu and so forth, but they are effective at keeping down pests -- just as an example.

Also, I am not sure why you think terraforming would be better than here on Earth in the environment to which these animals are accustomed. They are in the perfect place for them already.

Then you have the other extreme.. range. Many dry areas just cannot sustain crops. We irrigate, but that causes many problems. Historically, these areas were used as range, either shepard lands or essentially untended range. In some cases, larger flocks are moved through an area quickly enough to graze without decimating. The hoofs, the manure all provide minor benefits, keep the system going when the land is not overloaded. In other cases, the animals (cows particularly, but also other animals) are left essentially alone. They will generally disperse themselves reasonably, though care has to be taken around some stream courses and such to keep the animals from destroying sections.

[PLAYER57832]

Sad truth is most have to because for whatever reason as whole most humans have lost the ability to effectively feed themselves hell most find it too bothersome to even grow a plant and take care of it, much to busy with techno crap, worrying about who said what on Facebook etc. It will be the demise of those who are certain everything they need to know is on the internet or there degrees will mean anything at all if shot hits the fan

Well, a bunch of those folks seem to think the "answer" is to just "go be vegetarian", as if that would solve everything, utterly ignoring millenia of experience to the contrary.

I find it pretty interesting that few here seem to distinguish between eating meat and factory farming, while utterly ignoring impacts of industrialized crop management.

[Metsfanmax]

And here you make the final error, as have most of those above. You start with the assumption that growing animals is abusive and better than growing crops. This is just plain false, because some of he worst environmental damage is actually from crops. Growing cotton in Central California -- growing cotton just about anywhere, in fact.

OK so your response to the claim that growing crops and eating them is better than growing crops to feed animals and eating the animals is to discuss cotton? Is cotton a staple foodstuff in the part of Pennsylvania you hail from?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I eat meat, but probably 90% I get from the family farm or hunting. The remaining amount is probably fish and stuff purchased that's too difficult to get often. As much as I disliked farming when I was growing up, I empathize with animals and cannot treat them cruelly or allow them to suffer.

Hence, I avoid purchasing meat from large grocery stores. If I do need something but can't get it from home, I'll go to the butcher shops that serve to local farmers.

I'm not sure if that's moral. I certainly see nothing wrong with killing an animal and using the products therefrom in human consumption or manufacturing.

However, a few in this thread have argued that the op's "factory farming" is moral because some combination of human superiority and/or derived pleasure. I'm not sure that's a sound argument, especially the latter. Maybe one can argue that the current large scale meat production, with its frequent mistreatment of animals, is moral, but the pleasure argument cannot support it.

If you believe it is moral for a person to partake of meat derived from the mass producton models (e.g. chickens with beaks and claws removed, etc) because it elicits pleasure or satisfaction in eating, you must also argue that mistreatment of animals for other pleasures (e.g. dog- or cock-fighting, little sicko Johnny cutting up squirrels, etc) is fine and acceptable.

-TG

[mrswdk]

And here you make the final error, as have most of those above. You start with the assumption that growing animals is abusive and better than growing crops. This is just plain false, because some of he worst environmental damage is actually from crops. Growing cotton in Central California -- growing cotton just about anywhere, in fact.

OK so your response to the claim that growing crops and eating them is better than growing crops to feed animals and eating the animals is to discuss cotton? Is cotton a staple foodstuff in the part of Pennsylvania you hail from?

Mets: 'I only entered this thread in order to say something which wasn't on topic'

[Metsfanmax]

And here you make the final error, as have most of those above. You start with the assumption that growing animals is abusive and better than growing crops. This is just plain false, because some of he worst environmental damage is actually from crops. Growing cotton in Central California -- growing cotton just about anywhere, in fact.

OK so your response to the claim that growing crops and eating them is better than growing crops to feed animals and eating the animals is to discuss cotton? Is cotton a staple foodstuff in the part of Pennsylvania you hail from?

Mets: 'I only entered this thread in order to say something which wasn't on topic'

And indeed, I have continued in that vein. I was simply surprised that PLAYER was playing along.

[tzor]

Heathen! Goose is the king of meats!

When I want something large, I prefer a Muscovy duck over a goose, but that's just me.

[mrswdk]

And here you make the final error, as have most of those above. You start with the assumption that growing animals is abusive and better than growing crops. This is just plain false, because some of he worst environmental damage is actually from crops. Growing cotton in Central California -- growing cotton just about anywhere, in fact.

OK so your response to the claim that growing crops and eating them is better than growing crops to feed animals and eating the animals is to discuss cotton? Is cotton a staple foodstuff in the part of Pennsylvania you hail from?

Mets: 'I only entered this thread in order to say something which wasn't on topic'

And indeed, I have continued in that vein. I was simply surprised that PLAYER was playing along.

Yeah, tbh I just skimmed through your and PLAYER's posts and saw the word 'animals'. Having actually read them in full, I feel like such a fool for thinking that PLAYER would have written anything other than a wild tangent.

[pmchugh]

Sorry in advance but since I am back at work I don't have time to read and respond to all you lovely people.

A. Define suffering. I recently heard the argument that killing animals period is suffering. Not sure that factory farming is always worse in that regard, despite the peta videos to the contrary. That does happen, but the bigger issue (the more common one) for animals are things like what to do with the massive amounts of manure, the water needs, and often the use of antibiotics to reduce diseases (or to allow the animals to eat corn, etc.) without real need.

I don't have as much issue of an issue with the killing, which is why I specifically picked out factory farming for this thread rather than just the killing of animals. The main problem is the horrific conditions in which they live and ways in which they are treated. At this point, I am just going to have to throw Earthlings at you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG2-_MQP5CQ because I don't have time to detail the abuses. The documentary is not perfect and is a bit sensationalist, but it should give you a decent range of standard industry practices which any reasonable person would consider abusive. (skip to 28:33 if you want to focus on this)

And here you make the final error, as have most of those above. You start with the assumption that growing animals is abusive and better than growing crops. This is just plain false, because some of he worst environmental damage is actually from crops. Growing cotton in Central California -- growing cotton just about anywhere, in fact. Etc, etc. Heavy use of pesticides, monoculture, etc, etc.... those are real, serious problems that are not solved by just going vegetarien or even organic.

Animals are an inefficient use of food crops. If you replace the animals you are eating with crops, you are actually consuming less crops. As to your last sentence, I am not saying that I have everything sorted out or a perfect harm-free lifestyle. Stopping eating factory farmed meat is just a simple way in which you can have a clear positive impact on society.

When you talk about pigs and chickens and the horrible conditions, then you start talking about real factory farming, a type of farming I abhor.

Perhaps I am being unfair on you. You seem to believe that "real factory farming" as you call it, is wrong and you do genuinely seem to care about animal welfare. I would urge you not to eat meat unless you know it was raised humanely because if you do not make sure of that, then you will almost certainly be complicit in a system which you "abhor".

[pmchugh]

Almost everyone I know does it, and no one I know has ever presented a decent moral argument that supports it.

It is difficult to find a proper alternative. (Not impossible, merely difficult ...)

Going veggie/vegan is a proper alternative.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Stopping eating factory farmed meat is just a simple way in which you can have a clear positive impact on society.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the industry is subsidised, so those animals will be mistreated whether you eat them or not.

[pmchugh]

Morality proper doesn't exist, but I can logically explain why I choose to.

A living being will generally attempt to derive as much benefit possible to itself, this is achieved through flawed mechanisms such as pleasure. A thinking being will also generally try to avoid anything dangerous to itself, and therefor stress or pain. Generally we do not avoid the former unless the retribution of the later is immediate or physiologically trained (therefor morality).

Eating meat derives pleasure, so much so that even herbivores will generally partake opportunistically. Also, since we consume creatures that are of no threat to us, we suffer have no (direct) negative consequence for choosing not to coexist peacefully, unlike other things people disapprove of, such as murder or theft. Factory farming achieves the most reliable and easily obtained method of this pleasure. In order to avoid this most convenient "cruelty", I would need to undertake some personal loss; finances, research time, commute time, new recipe books, etc. for a negligible amount of overall greater difference. Since this is not yet a law or a social more, this would require me to care about someone or something more than I care about myself, as it is not attached to a personal desire nor a personal displeasure.

This attitude may change as society does, or if a mass shortage or price increase occurs, it might depend of the taste of insects.

This is just pure egoism. Bigotry with an in-group of 1. Most people would say that it is wrong to commit murder should one derive pleasure from it, not because there may be reprisals for it (or other negative consequences for oneself) but because the act is wrong in of itself.

It seems that your only defence of eating meat is to exonerate all wrong doing, from rape to genocide; so long as you benefit from it.

[pmchugh]

Stopping eating factory farmed meat is just a simple way in which you can have a clear positive impact on society.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the industry is subsidised, so those animals will be mistreated whether you eat them or not.

I am confident that over my life span, me and the other people who abstain from meat will lead to a reduction in the quantity of animals who would have otherwise experienced mistreatment.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Stopping eating factory farmed meat is just a simple way in which you can have a clear positive impact on society.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the industry is subsidised, so those animals will be mistreated whether you eat them or not.

I am confident that over my life span, me and the other people who abstain from meat will lead to a reduction in the quantity of animals who would have otherwise experienced mistreatment.

A tonne of food is wasted every day, nobody cares. Its awful, but your actions wont make a difference unless you start lobbying for change to system. Supply and demand doesnt work in agriculture/farming. Go talk to Bernie Sanders.

[jimboston]

Almost everyone I know does it, and no one I know has ever presented a decent moral argument that supports it.

Can you?

Why?

Do I have to?

No?

OK... then I won't.

There was another recent thread where we went around and around and around on this.
You presume it's a moral problem. You presume too much.

[pmchugh]

Stopping eating factory farmed meat is just a simple way in which you can have a clear positive impact on society.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the industry is subsidised, so those animals will be mistreated whether you eat them or not.

I am confident that over my life span, me and the other people who abstain from meat will lead to a reduction in the quantity of animals who would have otherwise experienced mistreatment.

A tonne of food is wasted every day, nobody cares. Its awful, but your actions wont make a difference unless you start lobbying for change to system. Supply and demand doesnt work in agriculture/farming. Go talk to Bernie Sanders.

Some crops may be subsidised to the point at which this is true, but I highly doubt that animals cost less to rear than the subsidies the farmers receive. That is a rather large claim and would require evidence for me to believe.

Almost everyone I know does it, and no one I know has ever presented a decent moral argument that supports it.

Can you?

Why?

Do I have to?

No?

OK... then I won't.

There was another recent thread where we went around and around and around on this.
You presume it's a moral problem. You presume too much.

Saying it is not a moral problem is not a good way to avoid answering the question, it actually gives yourself a bigger problem. You now have to explain why it is not a moral problem.

People have went around and around and around on politics, religion and everything else. It is called debate and if you don't want to partake in it then don't hit the submit button. Simples.

[Army of GOD]

can I eat factory farmed Brittons instead?

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Some crops may be subsidised to the point at which this is true, but I highly doubt that animals cost less to rear than the subsidies the farmers receive. That is a rather large claim and would require evidence for me to believe.

Dont believe it then, I'm not the one pretending to have a moral backbone.

Ignorance wont make your efforts any more worthy.

No AoG

[Army of GOD]

Some crops may be subsidised to the point at which this is true, but I highly doubt that animals cost less to rear than the subsidies the farmers receive. That is a rather large claim and would require evidence for me to believe.

Dont believe it then, I'm not the one pretending to have a moral backbone.

Ignorance wont make your efforts any more worthy.

No AoG

at least the Irish then?