Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 10:09 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The ethics if factory farming
#61
RE: The ethics if factory farming
Hi Natachan. For me it is an issue. I'm a vegetarian who is mostly vegan. One of the reasons for the veganism is that intensive farming is now spreading to dairy farming. Cows in 'super dairies' never go outside. If I can help reduce needless suffering and exploitation of animals then I will (and I'm not sentimental about this; I spent many years in pharmaceutical R&D personally involved in research using animals).
Reply
#62
RE: The ethics if factory farming
(August 14, 2014 at 12:00 am)bennyboy Wrote: In the former, there's a net loss in the quality of the species. In the latter, there's a net gain-- the suffering of the individuals is compensated by the advantage to the survival of the species overall.
As our livestock operations -are- their environment (and more broadly an earth dominated in many ways by our species is the overall environment for -all- forms of life), anything that makes the population more amenable to food production and domesticity - is an "improvement" in that species (if we simply insist upon using such terms). Being "strong", "fast, or "intelligent" confers no advantage. Therefore, predation by wolves or cougars could not be said to improve their "quality". Their suffering, in the livestock model,confers survival advantages - and those advantages seem to be overwhelming, for example, there are no Aurochs left.

Domesticated cattle outplayed them in the game of life. As dogs outplayed wolves, and cats outplayed....well...other stronger, faster cats.
(it helps to remember that we are just as much an agent of natural selection as any other predator, and possibly much more so, as we are also capable of vastly altering the environment in which -all- must play the game)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#63
RE: The ethics if factory farming
Also, we all live "naturally". The idea that something is artificial (especially regarding biology) is not that it is "not natural"- though admittedly we use the word this way constantly, but that it is "artifice" - made by humans. The distinction is in whether or not human beings made it, not whether or not it is fundamentally or intrinsically "not-natural". It's subtle, but important. It's also a distinction which serves to highlight our own opinions of ourselves more than anything objectively present, or some sort of attribute divorced from those opinions, in the world around us. If there was a word for things that wolves made, then it would be conceptually similar to the word artificial, and wolves could be said to be engaging in "wolficial" selection - as opposed to the "natural selection" that would occur in their absence (or in the absence of their efforts).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#64
RE: The ethics if factory farming
(August 14, 2014 at 1:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote:
(August 14, 2014 at 12:00 am)bennyboy Wrote: In the former, there's a net loss in the quality of the species. In the latter, there's a net gain-- the suffering of the individuals is compensated by the advantage to the survival of the species overall.
As our livestock operations -are- their environment (and more broadly an earth dominated in many ways by our species is the overall environment for -all- forms of life), anything that makes the population more amenable to food production and domesticity - is an "improvement" in that species (if we simply insist upon using such terms).
The caveat is that we were talking about coyotes 'n' sich, and animals living natural lives. If you want to define humans as animals and say that living in factories is therefore part of natural life, okay. But I don't think it's a good definition.


Quote: Being "strong", "fast, or "intelligent" confers no advantage. Therefore, predation by wolves or cougars could not be said to improve their "quality". Their suffering, in the livestock model,confers survival advantages - and those advantages seem to be overwhelming, for example, there are no Aurochs left.

Domesticated cattle outplayed them in the game of life. As dogs outplayed wolves, and cats outplayed....well...other stronger, faster cats.
(it helps to remember that we are just as much an agent of natural selection as any other predator, and possibly much more so, as we are also capable of vastly altering the environment in which -all- must play the game)
Yes, this is kind of the point. We've created species that probably are no longer even viable. But to say their continued existence is a special reward for their selective interaction with hungry humans is pretty unreasonable. Existing for no other purpose than guaranteed confinement, separation from mates and offspring, and death with not even a slight statistical chance of successfully escaping, is hardly a plus-- even if there are many millions of the species in existence.

(August 14, 2014 at 1:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Also, we all live "naturally". The idea that something is artificial (especially regarding biology) is not that it is "not natural"- though admittedly we use the word this way constantly, but that it is "artifice" - made by humans. The distinction is in whether or not human beings made it, not whether or not it is fundamentally or intrinsically "not-natural". It's subtle, but important. It's also a distinction which serves to highlight our own opinions of ourselves more than anything objectively present, or some sort of attribute divorced from those opinions, in the world around us. If there was a word for things that wolves made, then it would be conceptually similar to the word artificial, and wolves could be said to be engaging in "wolficial" selection - as opposed to the "natural selection" that would occur in their absence (or in the absence of their efforts).
I think this is a distraction. It doesn't really matter what semantic lines we draw-- the fact is that for wild animals, their behavior matters. They can engage with their environment meaningfully-- attempting to fight, or to flee, or to mate. You can say that bovines are "evolving" to match the "human environment," but while there is some chance involved (meatier bulls being chosen as sires, for example), there's really no chance for the animal to interact meaningfully with its environment.

This ability to interact with the environment is found on any list of the defining features of life-- therefore if anything is robbed of this ability, it cannot really be said to be living a life. Zombie cows are bad, and creating zombie cows on purpose is pretty evil (and I define evil as anything which corrupts a living organism to the point that it cannot be said to be meaningfully alive).
Reply
#65
RE: The ethics if factory farming
(August 14, 2014 at 2:00 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The caveat is that we were talking about coyotes 'n' sich, and animals living natural lives. If you want to define humans as animals and say that living in factories is therefore part of natural life, okay. But I don't think it's a good definition.
Why isn't it? If I told you that it was okay to kill livestock but not human beings - that we are somehow special and different and so our suffering matters and theirs does not - you would chide me for drawing a self serving line in the sand, eh? Well, here's your line - are we being consistent?

Quote:Yes, this is kind of the point. We've created species that probably are no longer even viable.
They are more viable than their "wild" counterparts are - and this is because they are suited to the current environment. If the environment changed - they wouldn't be (and that's what happened to the Aurochs). Such is life.

Quote: But to say their continued existence is a special reward for their selective interaction with hungry humans is pretty unreasonable.
There are no rewards, special or not. They are simply better suited to the current environment than their predeccsors and many other existing species (which are currently dropping like flies while they thrive).

Quote: Existing for no other purpose than guaranteed confinement, separation from mates and offspring, and death with not even a slight statistical chance of successfully escaping, is hardly a plus-- even if there are many millions of the species in existence.
There is no "purpose" - we're talking selection here.

Quote:They can engage with their environment meaningfully-- attempting to fight, or to flee, or to mate
If they attempted to fight or flee they would not be (and are not) granted the opportunity to mate. This would be mal-adaptive behavior, and that's a selective pressure.

Quote:You can say that bovines are "evolving" to match the "human environment," but while there is some chance involved (meatier bulls being chosen as sires, for example), there's really no chance for the animal to interact meaningfully with its environment.
Their behavior also determines their access to mating opportunity. We want them docile - and we want them to be over-eaters. A beefy, well marbled cow that is a docile eating machine will have progeny almost beyond number.

Quote:This ability to interact with the environment is found on any list of the defining features of life-- therefore if anything is robbed of this ability, it cannot really be said to be living a life. Zombie cows are bad, and creating zombie cows on purpose is pretty evil (and I define evil as anything which corrupts a living organism to the point that it cannot be said to be meaningfully alive).
You don't like their lives - that doesn't mean they aren't living their lives. The buffalo being chased by wolves probably doesn't like it's life either. Why are zombie cows bad (and there goes the idea of creating brainless cattle to remove any moral argument, eh)? Wtf is "corruption" in the context of biology or selection? Adaptation and selection -just is-, it;s not a ladder with rungs whereas the bottom is a "corrupted cow" and the top is the "highest ideal of a cow".
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#66
RE: The ethics if factory farming
(August 14, 2014 at 12:33 pm)Michael Wrote: Hi Natachan. For me it is an issue. I'm a vegetarian who is mostly vegan. One of the reasons for the veganism is that intensive farming is now spreading to dairy farming. Cows in 'super dairies' never go outside. If I can help reduce needless suffering and exploitation of animals then I will (and I'm not sentimental about this; I spent many years in pharmaceutical R&D personally involved in research using animals).

I completely support this. Commercial dairies are obscene affairs. If you ever but milk check to make sure it's free of RGhB. If you can research the dairy to see what their production methods are. I used to live in an area where I got local free range milk, now I have to spend time looking up the dairies that give milk to this area.
Reply
#67
RE: The ethics if factory farming
Believe that the FDA's stance on this (assuming you're talking about mastitis) is that the risk of mastitis as a consequence of their use is much smaller than the risk associated with environment and milking procedures (all of which can be managed). Alot of this stuff is, frankly, ad copy for producers who want to differentiate their product in a way that might con you into buying from them rather than from some other (more reasonably priced) competitor.

Here's something that might interest you as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2442129/
Quote:Fossil fuel consumption raises two major environmental concerns: atmospheric pollution and resource sustainability (31). As a consequence of the reduced herd population and total feed requirement from rbST supplementation of one million cows, the energy required from fossil fuels (cropping only) and electricity for milk production is decreased by 729 × 106 MJ per year and 156 × 106 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year, respectively (Table 2). To put these figures into context, the savings in gasoline alone would be sufficient to power ≈1,550 passenger cars, each traveling an average of 12,500 miles per year (32). Furthermore, the total fossil fuel British thermal units (BTU) and electricity savings would provide sufficient annual heat and electricity for ≈16,000 and 15,000 households, respectively (33).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#68
RE: The ethics if factory farming
(August 14, 2014 at 2:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote:
(August 14, 2014 at 2:00 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The caveat is that we were talking about coyotes 'n' sich, and animals living natural lives. If you want to define humans as animals and say that living in factories is therefore part of natural life, okay. But I don't think it's a good definition.
Why isn't it? If I told you that it was okay to kill livestock but not human beings - that we are somehow special and different and so our suffering matters and theirs does not - you would chide me for drawing a self serving line in the sand, eh? Well, here's your line - are we being consistent?
No. You're not. You haven't demonstrated that humans have any special quality that makes them deserving of special moral consideration or recognition. But I do know of one source which asserts such a special quality-- the Bible. The idea that there is something intrinsically special, in a moral sense, about people is a Biblical one, supported by ideas about the human soul, the will of God, etc., and not supported by any rational ideas about suffering or its relationship to morality.

Quote:
Quote:You can say that bovines are "evolving" to match the "human environment," but while there is some chance involved (meatier bulls being chosen as sires, for example), there's really no chance for the animal to interact meaningfully with its environment.
Their behavior also determines their access to mating opportunity. We want them docile - and we want them to be over-eaters. A beefy, well marbled cow that is a docile eating machine will have progeny almost beyond number.
You're saying what I just said. But that is not a meaningful interaction. Don't believe me? What if aliens had a "herd" of humans, and arbitrarily chose humans based on certain physical or personality traits? Yes, they might choose the healthiest and mate them, or choose less aggressive males based on specific moments of behavior-- but that doesn't mean the animal has any control over its fate. It cannot decide "I want that particular female, and I'm going to fight that particular male to do it," and have any statistical chance to succeed.

Quote:
Quote:This ability to interact with the environment is found on any list of the defining features of life-- therefore if anything is robbed of this ability, it cannot really be said to be living a life. Zombie cows are bad, and creating zombie cows on purpose is pretty evil (and I define evil as anything which corrupts a living organism to the point that it cannot be said to be meaningfully alive).
You don't like their lives - that doesn't mean they aren't living their lives. The buffalo being chased by wolves probably doesn't like it's life either.
I'm not talking about the hedonic state of the animal. I'm talking about the capacity to meaningfully interact with the environment as one of the defining features of life. The buffalo being chased still has a statistical chance of survival. It might be slightly smarter, or slightly tougher, than others, and it has the chance to apply these attributes in a statistical contest against real animals.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ethics of Neutrality John 6IX Breezy 16 1131 November 20, 2023 at 8:40 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Ethics of Fashion John 6IX Breezy 60 3677 August 9, 2022 at 3:11 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  [Serious] Ethics Disagreeable 44 3821 March 23, 2022 at 7:09 pm
Last Post: deepend
  Machine Intelligence and Human Ethics BrianSoddingBoru4 24 1818 May 28, 2019 at 1:23 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  What is the point of multiple types of ethics? Macoleco 12 1100 October 2, 2018 at 12:35 pm
Last Post: robvalue
  Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics vulcanlogician 150 17805 January 30, 2018 at 11:01 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  (LONG) "I Don't Know" as a Good Answer in Ethics vulcanlogician 69 8379 November 27, 2017 at 1:10 am
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  what are you ethics based on justin 50 16317 February 24, 2017 at 8:30 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  The Compatibility Of Three Approachs To Ethics Edwardo Piet 18 3125 October 2, 2016 at 5:23 am
Last Post: Kernel Sohcahtoa
  Utilitarianism and Population Ethics Edwardo Piet 10 1713 April 24, 2016 at 3:45 am
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)