28
votes
Eating someone: Farmed animals have personalities, smarts, even a sense of agency. Why then do we saddle them with lives of utter despair?
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Face it: a farmed animal is someone, not something - Lori Marino | Aeon Essays
- Published
- May 8 2019
- Word count
- 2954 words
Your points here make sense to me but I’m trying to understand what makes you so heated about it.
Aren’t articles like these expressing the viewpoint of a shifting society? Articles like these change minds and the zeitgeist moves further toward what you’re describing.
Are folks not supposed to talk about it simply because some change is happening? Knowledge and opinions on these things isn’t uniform.
(I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another fwiw, I eat meat but feel some guilt about it occasionally.)
Ah, I hear this now and agree with you!
The idea that humans should have some kind of inherent dignity to their lives is a pretty new thing (and still isn't universally accepted).
It's crazy how heated people get when it's suggested that we treat animals with dignity. I wouldn't have thought on tildes I would see the "huuuuh meat is tasty, oh did i mention it's good??" stuff, but here we are. The article was clearly written to say "hey, maybe factory farming isn't the way to go because these animals are perceiving the world in a way that is comparable to the way we do" and even goes as far as to suggests eating less meat, rather than abolishing it. Meat is so ingrained in our culture as a "main dish" it's crazy when you take a step back and look at how weird that is given the amount of choices we have today. The cognitive dissonance is STRONG when bringing this sort of stuff up.
I don't people think treating animals with dignity is a bad idea.
I disagree. Or, if it was, it was poorly written. It makes some really strange points (what is up with the "pearls before swine" comment?), and doesn't provide a solution: "What if humans weren't so stupid and selfish".
But meat is tasty, vegetarian options are not as good (to me, anyway, and most meat-eaters). What do you propose to do about it?
The reason the whole "yeah...but steak" response is lazy is because it dismisses the fact that most food we eat is vegetarian and there are many, many, many meals and recipes you most likely have not considered. Also without going too much down this rabbit hole, the fact that alternatives are not as good to you may have less to do with taste and more to do with addiction.
I've been both a meat eater and vegetarian and can confirm "alternatives" exist and are plentiful. There are lots of things in this world that taste good but aren't good for you. I am not the type of person to give people shit for eating meat. I think eating less meat is the more realistic alternative for most people until we have safe, tasty alternatives (ie lab grown.) I propose that you take a look into how detrimental factory farming is for the environment and maybe limit your meat eating to a day or two a week.
I liked this article because it was well cited and focused on animals (which is why I cut out meat) but I can understand this is not a point of contention for most people. If articles like this don't convince you, I would highly suggest looking into the environmental and socio-economic impacts of factory farming and "big meat".
The link you provided had absolutely zero evidence that meat is an addiction. Literally the only thing he bothers to say to prove it is his assertion "I believe that over-consumption of meat is a direct result of psychological conditioning."
Sorry, wasn't trying to link something that was evidence for that assertion, just an introduction to the idea. Like I said, I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, it never fails to devolve into an argument. But if you're actually interested, I'd suggest checking out this book.
In spite of a hundred different arguements popping up in my head right now, I realize I don't really want to argue about it either. So instead I will ask you if you have any sources I can follow that don't require me to pay for them? The book isn't available in my library.
Here is an interview with the author that links a good amount of articles/videos/books that cover the psychology behind eating meat. I wouldn't expect this sort of thing to change anyone's mind, I believe the environmental impact of mass meat consumption should be enough for that. I mentioned it only because it's definitely interesting how fiercely people will react when it's suggested they should eat less meat.
Because meat tastes fucking incredible, is one of the easiest sources of protein there is, and did I mention the taste?
I also do not consider individuality to be an inherent marker for sapience. There are individual quirks to rocks.
Not really. I do strength training, but macro management in the age of the smartphone is easy as pie, and I don't even remember the last time I had to actually react to my diet, I just log it.
The taste is a matter of what you're used to. Since I cut down on the amount of meat I eat (roughly once a week now) I found that I enjoy non-meat meals much more than before and I vastly expanded my horizons in terms of dishes I like. I still love a good steak, but I honestly can't say it tastes better to me than for example spaghetti aglio e olio. But just 5-6 years ago, when I was still an avid carnivore, that would have seemed impossible to me.
I don't need my horizons expanded, they are plenty wide as it is - I don't dislike veggie dishes, I just recognise the supremacy of meat dishes.
Not eating meat would be a reduction of horizons. Broaden yours!
It's like saying you made things more diverse by going from (1,2, 3) to (3, 4, 5, 6). Sure, but (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) is even MORE diverse. And having tried both meat and not meat I can conclusively say meat is definitely tastier.
The thing is that it is generally the opposite: nobody's really disrespecting anybody's choice to avoid meat, but there's constant preaching of different sorts of veganism to those do not abstain from meat. Even the title here is doing that.
I'm curious about something.
If the meat was coming from cultured cells in-vitro, rather than from living animals, would you still take issue with eating it? I don't mean a veggie burger, I mean identical in taste and texture and physical matter to real animals, minus all forms of contaminants and imperfections... and likely marinated while it was growing, so likely to taste better than anything made from actual animals.
I only ask because in about thirty years, that'll be how most meat is produced, and animal husbandry will be a very dead art form. This method of production is one hundred percent green, as well - zero environmental impact.
Amen. I just want the cultured meat to take off so we can ban industrial animal husbandry and fishing in the oceans. Get the hell off nature's back and give her some time to recover.
I'm with you, but let's be realistic. Do you think we can really change enough people's eating habits to make an appreciable difference? I'm a bit skeptical about that. I mean, we could tax meat, but to do that you've got to get past the meat lobby, and that's no small task.
I think the tech will get there before the law/tax/society does. I wish it were otherwise.
I have. I just wonder how you'll get joe sixpack in arizona on board, in the millions. I think the best shot there is getting these burgers out cheaply to fast food restaurants and supermarket chains.
I don't think there is anything that stops a meat eater from experimenting. Over the past year, I've tried hundreds of dishes, both vegetarian and meat on them, with different ways to cook ingredients. Meat can supply a source of oils and texture to many dishes that would taste bland otherwise if you know how to properly add it to a dish. There is also more meats than just cow/pig/chicken. Boar and Deer are a very interesting (if expensive) change from normal that I've tried a few years ago!
I even pull a few of my experiments together by appropriating a vegan or vegetarian recipe, often replacing texture components with meat. Or the other way round; I#ve made vegetarian variants of meat dishes too. It's all about how much you experiment, not about your diet!
I'm not sure what you mean by broadening my horizons. I made changes in my diet which made me appreciate more meals. I still eat meat. I never suggested you should not eat meat.
What do we do about animals eating each other?
yeah. genuinely what relevance is weird line of criticism about animals eating each other ergo veganism is wrong or whatever have to do with an article about the ethics and conditions of industrial level animal farming and how it could potentially be an ethical quandary which is worth talking about given the science surrounding animal intelligence and the priority and rights we give to certain other animals? some of the discussion in this thread has been pretty good, but some of it also really feels like people didn't even bother to read the article before pontificating on their Objectively Correct takes on eating meat or knocking down weird strawmen animal advocates, vegans, and vegetarians, and it's kinda irritating.
So are you telling me that veganism does not oppose an ethical omnivorous diet?
From a totally subjective viewpoint, I do not consume much meat, and prefer lighter meals, with seafood, dairy products, plants and fruits. But I don't think that we're omnivorous animals is inherently immoral. I'd totally agree about the abuse, and we could definitely cut down on the amount of consumption. But I do hold the view that an ethical omnivorous diet is possible, and lots of vegan rhetoric I encounter is condemning rather than convincing, and fundamental rather than progressive.
I must admit that my response was rather snarky, but it is not devoid of content either: is an omnivorous diet morally wrong? If we ensure a non-abusive way of consuming meat products, is that acceptable to veganism? And if eating the quick is immoral, why can't we extend that argument to other species, especially if we're already extending certain rather human traits to them already?
I guess @alyaza would be interested in this too.
not really, no. my qualms are more with people getting out of this almost circlejerk-like mindset of rejecting every effort to start a discussion on whether or not it's ethical to engage in the practices we use to produce the necessary amount of meat we as humans currently eat because some vegans and vegetarians are dumb shitheads. i have literally no issue with eating meat and make no claims of being vegetarian or vegan or anything of the sort; i just find the conversation interesting and find it irritating that people here at times seem more willing to pontificate on how they have a god given right to eat meat or to go down reddit-esque cliches of what they think constitutes veganism and vegetarianism than try and converse any of the points the article make like you'd expect of a tildes discussion on something else. there are genuinely interesting discussions to be had on this issue, but only about half of this thread is really on what the article gets at so far, and it kinda defeats the point of the article being posted in the first place.
Frankly I'm having a hard time to interpret your stance here. Yes at least two of the toplevel comments---one being mine---was rather snarky, but I wouldn't really write of the discussion altogether because of those.
Still, I think many times bad discussion is kicked off by bad framing and/or bad packaging: the first two words of the title puts readers that do consume meat in a horrible position, and it is no surprise that people react, and approach the article with a foul taste in their palates already. Cannibalism is one of the biggest taboo, and---according to Levy-Strauss, for example---is considered a disgusting chore even among people groups that do practice it. Starting out with such a suggestion will never lead to good discussion. I'd say we're lucky that the thread is as good as it is.
i haven't done that at any point in this conversation, though?
this reads like an excuse for people to continue to be reactionary to me. people need to honestly learn to stop being so reactionary based on the title like they were on reddit, and we need to stop making excuses for their reactionary behavior when it does happen and push them to be better. there is literally no reason for us to accept people making snap judgments because of the title like has apparently happened in this thread and in other threads before it--this isn't reddit, and it's trying to build a community in part by excising people of the bad behaviors that reddit's shitty mechanics and features hammered into their minds. we don't get anything as a community from saying "oh, well sometimes the title is bad and that means bad discussion sometimes" and absolving people of their behavior because of that. sure, things like that can influence people and it's understandable, but it doesn't mean we should accept that as inevitable. we're striving to be more than just Reddit but Better, and part of that is going to mean snapping people out of behaviors like what i'm talking about, in spite of things like bad titles or whatever else.
I'm sorry for misunderstanding, then!
I don't really disagree with you on that, but however careful you are, handling sharp edges you do end up cutting your hand at times. Also, people are the way they are, the most experienced of speakers fail, the most experienced politicians shoot themselves in the foot. While I'm all for higher standards, I'd say it is good practice to not bait ourselves like this, because, we do fall for it. IMHO it is a game of balance, and nobody is totally immune to failing at it.
Isn't this the great trouble of our age tho? The commoditisation of every single thing out there is the blessing and the damnation of our world, including us. On the one hand it is increasingly making everything more accessible, cheaper and more standardised, but on the other it is also consuming the world, abusing many people and other beings, and killing all the nuance and variation and character of everything.
I had read this AmA on /r/italy where an eggs farmer was receiving questions. His account of free-range was that, in many places the conditions of free-range farms were worst than the caged chickens: they'd live in dirt and mud, filthy, overcrowded, hungry. Now of course the guy was biased at least to a degree, because he was farming them caged, but still, this suggests something: given our economic models, even things built with best intentions are commoditised and cannibalised with capitalist incentives. So maybe rather than factory farming itself, the biggest problem in this space is how we incentivise the production of goods and how we distribute them? If we did not have to exchange them with a resource very limited for most people---money---, our livestock would be better off, as well as our crops, because localised production would be possible. As it is, the evil that is best at concealing their shitshow with sugar coating always prevails. Because most people can't afford things that are not mass-produced by a network of abuse, for it is way too expensive.
Sorry for wandering rather off-topic, the above was a wordy way of explaining that I do agree almost all of what you wrote.
I am not convinced this should matter. The whole article is based on assumption that "well, animals do have feelings, therefore...", but I never see any rational argument that goes from animals having feelings to the reason not to eat them. Literally any animal on this planet is only concerned with it's own species and it's propagation, and I don't think humans should be an exclusion. The only reason we need to eat animals, even if it's completely unnecessary (and I'm not saying it is unnecessary, just entertaining the possibility) is that we like eating them and it brings us joy. The reason why we developed the morals that the author of this article tries to apply to animals is because having them benefits us as a collective. There is nothing to gain from stopping farming animals, apart from environmental impact, and if that's your argument - I can talk about that, but unless cowkind or chickenkind can also act morally towards humankind that is not a fair exchange and there is nothing to gain from it.
None, that's the point. In fact, if a chicken or a cow was carnivorous it would've happily eaten me or you.
What justifies "the right thing"?
Well sentient is a fleeting concept, and most people would find out that sentient to them means more of a "human-like" than "have an awereness of its surroundings" or something like that. And why should it matter to me? Human suffering certainly has no bearing on animals.
At species boundary of course. Ethics developed in our brains because they are beneficial to our species, and applying them to animals is nothing but a misuse of them. Especially since animals have no ethics to offer to humans. Consider this - humans tend to anthropomorphize every single thing, and that's a byproduct of our abstract thinking. But is there any practical reason to apply these ethics meant to benefit our species to other species? We only have something to loose in exchange for nothing.
And would it give you any piece of mind if we would apply genetic engineering to make farm animals even dumber than they are? Say, a cockroach level of intelligence, or even lower. Or would a lobotomy at a very young age for farm animals make a difference maybe? I think it's all pretty pointless, because these animals should not concern us - in time we'll be able to get meat even more efficiently anyway, that's clearly where the market is going.
It is possible to recognize that animals feel pain along with many other feelings without disputing the fact that they’re inferior to humans and frequently delicious. They should be treated as well as possible but I still want them in my plate.