Please buy Free Range animal products!

[Mr Flibble]

I'm on board with the free-range deal.

Having seen battery farmed chickens, I would never want to eat something produced in that way. They are disease ridden, they spend all day walking around in a pit of faeces and amonia from their urine. I remember seeing the hens being inspected, their feet were badly damaged and they had pock marks on their undersides. I don't want to eat that or anything from that.

I also dislike the idea of eating meat that has been grown artificially quickly with hormone injections. Again, I simply don't want to eat that. I don't think we can -really- claim humane reasons when we are, after all, rearing these animals for food, but I don't support overt cruelty or messed-up foods.
(GM vegetables, by the way, are fine, they're just specially bred.)

Having said that, I would defend the choice of people to eat intensively farmed products because not everyone can afford to make such luxurious, decadent, wasteful choices about food as I just have.

[Stupot]

All that is true Flibble, and we are constantly reminded of bomarded with these facts every day.  But what I choose to eat is my decision and I don't wan't the guilt-trip brigade trying to put me off my dinner.  It's out of order.  The thing is, the meat has never done me any harm and while I might feel a twang of sadness for the little hens all couped up like that, it frankly isn't enough to stop me from eating it.

I shouldn't have to apologise to the moralists for my eating habits. Leave me alone!

[RickJ]

On a side note this whole discussion may become irrelevant in the future when meat is grown in vitro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat
http://www.google.com/search?q=in-vitro+meats

[Nikolas]

Problem is, as always, the price ascociated with free range animal meat. I do support it, because I think it tastes better, it's 'safer' for my kids and I'm well off enough to do something like this to an extend. Do keep in mind that organic food (not what we're talking about here), is very much undergrown here in Greece, and very very pricey, compaired to London or the whole of the UK, so it's completely out of reach!

It is a dichotomy to ask someone to pay more and only that. It can be a problem, no matter the ascociations, since not everyone is so active towards fair animal treating, etc...

[space boy]

On a side note this whole discussion may become irrelevant in the future when meat is grown in vitro.

I dont think that will end the discussion. There will be people who argue that in vitro meat has a "soul" or that growing meat that way is playing god, or against nature or causes diseases and what not. Someone will always be offended.

[Meowster]

Hey I'm on my iPhone so this reply will be short...

To say that 'if it ends up on the plate what does it matter whAt it's life is like prior to that' is, in a word, dumb. All people end up 6 feet under, but of course it matters what their quality of life is like prior to that!

'at least domestic animals have a roof over their heads' - so did the Jews in concentration camps. Okay, a severe example admittedly but I'm trying to point out that that is a null thing to say.

I rescued animals from intensive farming when I was younger and when you witness first hand how cruel it is, it is hard to have the same selfish 'I don't care where it came from so long as it's on my plate' attitude. When I rescued my turkeys they were initially frightened, covered in lice, couldn't walk because they were so weak... Within a few weeks their plummage was shiny, they were outgoing and friendly and you know what, they even pestered to be allowed sit on my lap

People SHOULD eat less meat. We all eat far too much. Look how disgustingly fat so many people are, yet continue to gorge themselves on the flesh of animals who have led miserable lives with the attitude that 'can't afford a few £s more....burp'

I'm really disappointed by the attitudes of so many people here. If you have a real reason to buy cheaply produced meat, whatever that may be, fine. But most of you just can't be bothered to pay a little extra. For shame.

[Mr Flibble]

Ahh, the inevitable comparison to the Nazis.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

but of course it matters what their quality of life is like prior to that!

To whom is the issue here.  To whom does it matter when a person dies and is buried?  Their family?  Their friends and colleagues?  People who reflect (both internally and externally) about their memories with the deceased, good and bad?

Okay, now seriously and rationally apply that argument to animals.  Do you honestly think animal siblings think about how well their now-dead sibling lived?  

Oh, and please don't approach an argument from the roundabout direction.  People aren't fat because they eat meat; they are fat because they eat too much garbage, like chocolate, crisps, batter fried candy bars, and just generally too much food for their metabolism altogether, so 'eat less meat because you're fat' does not hold any weight as an argument.

Why should people pay more money to ease your conscience?  If people find no wrong in eating animals they kill with a gun (or see killed with a gun, or butchered), what right is it of yours to try and make them feel guilt for it?  The world heaps enough guilt on people for virtually everything we do.  When is it ever enough?  

[Stupot]

Not being able to afford a few £s more for happier meat isn't an attitude. It's a fact of some people's financial situation.  Especially in the currant economic climate.  I'm not aiming this at you specifically Meowster, but it really cheeses me off when people start preaching from the moral highground about one subject without thinking about everything else around them... look around your home and all its contents...

Ask yourself... How many habitats have been destroyed, how many hungry people have been paid a pittance, how many fat cats are getting rich all in order to make the items in you take for granted every day? I bet even you haven't managed to avoid every morally questionable product in existence.  

[Khris]

I've recently discovered that there's a word for the approach I instinctively chose a long time ago towards such moral dilemmas - utilitarianism.
My point being: if I stopped eating intensively farmed animal products today, nothing would change except the amount of money I personally can spend on other things. Sure, I'd have a less guilty conscience, but frankly, what is the actual benefit of that (except maybe being able to brag about what a moral person I am)?
As long as I don't act as some kind of example for other people and thus manage to actually change something, I do what's best: choose what's right for me and shut the hell up.

IMO, utilitarianism is just another word for realism; and I'm glad that there are so many idealists who sometimes actually can make a change, but as long as they don't die out, I'll stay in the real world, thanks.

[voh]

I'm a vegetarian and I can honestly say that I don't care what other people eat. It's THEIR choice.

If a majority of people feel that the bio industry is doing something wrong, the majority of people should change their ways to reflect that, and hopefully the industry can be changed that way.

If, however, the majority of people don't really care enough about what the bio industry is doing (as seems to be the case right now), the majority of people don't have to change their ways and equally hopefully, nothing changes.

There's a very angry and irrational minority trying to change things to suit them.

I say screw them. I'm not saying anyone in this topic is like this, I'm primarily talking about meat nazis, of which I know a couple and they piss me the hell off.

What you stuff your face with is your choice. If it's good for you, hey, right on! If it's bad for you, don't complain if you made that choice yourself. If it's good for another, hey, that's awesome. But it doesn't mean you've got the right to tell others what they should or shouldn't do.

edit: I can't let it slide.

'at least domestic animals have a roof over their heads' - so did the Jews in concentration camps.

Really? You're comparing animals being used for food with the genocide of millions of humans? Fucking really? Way to invalidate your own point by going for shock value, Meowster, nicely done.

[MoodyBlues]

Buying free range is a nice idea; while I have no problem with eating animals, I don't want them to suffer beforehand.  However, as others have pointed out, it's just too expensive for some people, and the "free range" label doesn't guarantee that the animals didn't suffer.  Cages aren't the only things that can hurt an animal.

I buy cage-free eggs, but that's about it.  And I'm not going to raise a ruckus if somebody doesn't want to pay $2.00 more for brown eggs and an eased conscience.

By the way... sea kittens?  I knew PETA was nuts, but WTHCK.

[Meowster]

I'm a vegetarian and I can honestly say that I don't care what other people eat. It's THEIR choice.

If a majority of people feel that the bio industry is doing something wrong, the majority of people should change their ways to reflect that, and hopefully the industry can be changed that way.

If, however, the majority of people don't really care enough about what the bio industry is doing (as seems to be the case right now), the majority of people don't have to change their ways and equally hopefully, nothing changes.

There's a very angry and irrational minority trying to change things to suit them.

I say screw them. I'm not saying anyone in this topic is like this, I'm primarily talking about meat nazis, of which I know a couple and they piss me the hell off.

What you stuff your face with is your choice. If it's good for you, hey, right on! If it's bad for you, don't complain if you made that choice yourself. If it's good for another, hey, that's awesome. But it doesn't mean you've got the right to tell others what they should or shouldn't do.

edit: I can't let it slide.

'at least domestic animals have a roof over their heads' - so did the Jews in concentration camps.

Really? You're comparing animals being used for food with the genocide of millions of humans? Fucking really? Way to invalidate your own point by going for shock value, Meowster, nicely done.

I knew someone would leap to take offence at this. The point I'm making is that people at the time of concentration camps, people 1) turned a blind eye to the suffering because it wasn't them suffering so they didn't care and 2) the assumption that just because someone or something has forcefully had a roof put over its head makes it somehow automatically better off. I'm not comparing animals being used for food to the genocide of millions of humans, I'm using the attitudes of that time to compare the attitudes now of the abuse of millions of animals. Whether you like it or not they're similar attitudes and it's a comparison worth pointing out. 

The treatment of Jews and other minority groups during WWII was appalling, both in terms of how it happened and how people allowed it to happen - it was massive, and of course people are going to use that to compare to things that occur today or have occured in the past. It's not a bad thing, and people certainly shouldn't become insta-offended when it happens.

I'm not saying that it's on the same level or anything, so stop panicking and jumping on the defensive.

I'm gonna stop posting in this thread now... I've strayed too far from the original point. it was originally supposed to encourage people who'd never put much thought into it before to choose their meat with animal welfare in mind. I'm still shocked at the overwhelming majority of amazingly selfish responses which is what caused me to argue, and I shouldn't have because let's face it - someone who says they don't care how the animal was treated before it ended up on their plate has already made a decision and isn't going to change it just because I say so. Although to those people I'd still ask you to read about where your meat is coming from - sometimes the harsh reality is far worse than what you imagine.

But back to the original point of the thread, I would ask anyone who can reasonably afford it to a) eat less meat for the sake of the environment amongst other things and 2) when choosing your meat, choose free-range whenever you can. That's all. Ciao! Bye!

[loominous]

Voh:

If, however, the majority of people don't really care enough about what the bio industry is doing (as seems to be the case right now), the majority of people don't have to change their ways and equally hopefully, nothing changes.

So, everything is moral as long as the majority condones it? Blacks being mistreated in the US south was fine and should have stayed that way? Gays being executed in Iran is something that "hopefully" never change?

All significant human rights movement have started as minority movements which annoyed the establishment, but was later adopted.

Putting up with annoying idealists seems like a small price to pay.


KhrisMUC:

My point being: if I stopped eating intensively farmed animal products today, nothing would change except the amount of money I personally can spend on other things. Sure, I'd have a less guilty conscience, but frankly, what is the actual benefit of that (except maybe being able to brag about what a moral person I am)?

I understand your reasoning, but it's not an election, where one vote more or less truly doesn't matter except in rare cases. Your local store stocks up as much meat as they think they can sell. If you stop buying regular meat, and ask for FR, then particularly in smaller stores, they'll sooner or later retune their supply. It's a small difference but it's a difference.


ProgZmax:

but of course it matters what their quality of life is like prior to that!

To whom is the issue here.  To whom does it matter when a person dies and is buried?  Their family?  Their friends and colleagues?  People who reflect (both internally and externally) about their memories with the deceased, good and bad?

So the immorality of taking a life or mistreating someone is based on the anguish it causes to their near and dear of the deceased?

Wouldn't that make killing or mistreating a traveling bum without any social ties fine? Or does your argument rely on the concept of an anthropocentric, punishing god?

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

My reply was directed at Meowster's inference that it's important that an animal has quality of life before it is slaughtered because it's important that people have quality of life before they die.

To say that 'if it ends up on the plate what does it matter whAt it's life is like prior to that' is, in a word, dumb. All people end up 6 feet under, but of course it matters what their quality of life is like prior to that!

My question still is, to whom does it matter?  If your sole use as an organism is to be food to another, does it (and more importantly, should it) matter how comfortably you lived before you were eaten?  It may be important to the individual, but who else will care when all is said and done?  The argument is an interesting one, but I see it as wasted energy and money to worry about the fate of animals destined to be someone's dinner (beyond maintaining their physical health), since the act of killing them is in itself a form of survival that some see as barbaric.

Wouldn't that make killing or mistreating a traveling bum without any social ties fine? Or does your argument rely on the concept of an anthropocentric, punishing god?

This is a fallacy because you are attempting a comparison between two dissimilar things, a bum and animals we use as a food source, and you do not need to believe in religion to place Man at the peak of Earth's evolutionary scale.


You can argue 'but why be more cruel than necessary?', but when it comes down to it you can also argue it's cruel to treat these animals exceptionally well just to slaughter them.  You can also argue that it's not cruel to keep them healthy but to otherwise treat them as a food source and not attribute human feelings and thoughts to things that are not human -- which is the argument I support.

[Aljoho]

I'm also a vegetarian (lifelong) so whilst I am probably pretty biased on the topic I'm totally on board with a free-er range concept for other meat eaters (although of course personally I'm involved in neither but animal cruelty is a part of why I am a vegetarian) Yes they are only 'animals' but I think the extreme cases (such as chickens with so little space that their legs begin to dissolve in their own faeces/urine) are shocking (althoughI'm sure everyone has heard that story and its nothing new to you whichever side of the fence you are on) But this would stop if consumers said No. again I doubt I'm telling anybody anything they dont already know - your all smart people - and many people just don't care or have made some other decision.

Concider this. We only consider animals 'inferior' because of a lack of certainty that they don't feel/think as we do. Image some Alien race herding us like cattle and treating us the same way- farfetched but run with it for the moment - would you consider it okay for them to confine your family up into a confined space to suffer just because they are 'better' than us.

As you can tell I'm very opinionated and I don't actually expect this argument to convince people to suddenly stop eating factory farmed meat, if you are so inclined, but thats my take on it. I think we can't make such a bold decision as to let something suffer based on an assumption (with very little evidence, conclusive evidence at least) that is is less 'valuable' then us. How can you judge value? we have hardly been kind to the universe - squabbling, destroying habitats and lots of other soppy crap that environmentalists get so riled up about (that said I do agree with some of it). I accept that people will probably always eat meat, but I also believe survival imperitive - even the fact that it just tries its best to run away from danger - means you have to feel at least something.

Another point, wouldn't being confined to small quarters and bad conditions produce lower quality meat? Just think about how when humans get stressed/upset/angry for a moderate period of time our immune system becomes weaker and so we are more susceptible to disease, which has to tamper with the taste/quality of the meat and is just waiting for something to go wrong or spread an epidemic (disease has to be more rampant in factory farms than on free range farms)

Would you buy a pair of shoes if you knew that a kid in Africa's parents were murdered to put him into slave labour to create? i'm sure very little of this happens in modern times, but having conversed with a teacher of mine who spent a 5 month tour of duty in Afghanistan, I really wouldn't be surprised (this is on topic) Life (human) is worthless there and whether or not you kill someone is determined by whether or not they are worth the bullet. He visited a school where all the teachers had been slaughtered simply because the taliban weren't happy what they were teaching (and yes these hundred or so kids were utterly alone in the middle of nowhere, with only a short supply of food, many of whom were 10 year old or less, until his squadron came). I realize how lucky we are in our respective countries (Britain, USA, Europe or wherever you hail from) and I've never been convinced the world was full of rainbows and butterflies and people dancing in the streets (not since i was 5 at least) but this really shocked me.

I personally consider this kind of insanity akin to animal cruelty. Sure they are going to be eaten anyway, but that is (to me at least) like saying 'Oh you are going to die one day, so I might as well destroy both your legs and let you live in your own faeces, whip you daily, feed you crap and make you susceptible to disease until then. Oh and FYI I will also shoot you in the if you become to ill or useless to me.' Obviously with people who don't consider non-sentient life 'important' none of this has any impact (a viewpoint that -I- just don't get. but hey if we were all the same then the world wouldn't run at all... or perhaps it would...) anyway i digress

I'm probably going to piss a few people off with at least one thing I have said (after all people with geeky interests - surely most of us - tend to be very opinionated and no trouble speaking their mind when angered) but that is my personal take on factory farming and animal cruelty and it will take a Hell of a lot to change them!

[Trent R]

To say that 'if it ends up on the plate what does it matter whAt it's life is like prior to that' is, in a word, dumb. All people end up 6 feet under, but of course it matters what their quality of life is like prior to that!

Does it matter to the worms that will eat my decaying body that I lead a life with a good job and wife and kids?

No.


~Trent

[loominous]

This is a fallacy because you are attempting a comparison between two dissimilar things, a bum and animals we use as a food source, and you do not need to believe in religion to place Man at the peak of Earth's evolutionary scale.

So being higher on the evolutionary scale gives a being it the moral right to treat lower in whatever way they wish?

Is it right for a genius to mistreat/kill an extremely retarded homeless person without any social ties then? What about people who become "vegetables" after accidents, or are born that way?

This sounds awfully much like the way that both slavekeepers justified keeping slaves - the blacks were after all a lower race, almost animals - or, to go there, Hitler deeming arians to be a super race, which gave them their moral authority.

If your sole use as an organism is to be food to another

So what's our use as humans?

It seems to me that your line of reasoning sooner or later comes down to the fact that humans are special creatures with a purpose given by god, but I could be mistaken.

[Meowster]

Bah, what the heck, I'll argue

To say that 'if it ends up on the plate what does it matter whAt it's life is like prior to that' is, in a word, dumb. All people end up 6 feet under, but of course it matters what their quality of life is like prior to that!

Does it matter to the worms that will eat my decaying body that I lead a life with a good job and wife and kids?

No.


~Trent

You're missing the point entirely, please read and understand what people say before commenting.

The attitude that "if it ends up on your plate it doesn't matter what life it had before because it only ended up as food anyway"... that's what I'm pointing out as being a very wrong attitude to have. The assumption that it's alright to mistreat animals 'meant' for food because they all end up dead anyway. It is the equivelent of arguing that nobodys happiness or wellbeing matters as everything ends up dead ultimately - so why bother leading a happy life or making sure that others do?

Prog Z

"My reply was directed at Meowster's inference that it's important that an animal has quality of life before it is slaughtered because it's important that people have quality of life before they die."

Again, this is not what I said, please read and make sure you understand the point being made before you comment. I never said that it's important they have a quality of life because it's important that people have a quality of life.

My point was (as I said above) their life is not pointless and void just because they ultimately end up dead on a plate. This is the equivelent of saying that human life is worthless and we might as well all lead unhappy and violent lives, simply because we all end up dead anyway so what's the point? Why shouldn't I beat up people weaker than me if they all end up dead in the end anyway?

You can argue 'but why be more cruel than necessary?', but when it comes down to it you can also argue it's cruel to treat these animals exceptionally well just to slaughter them.

Do you think this is more cruel than treating them horrifically badly just to slaughter them?

[LimpingFish]

The argument has become directed towards our perceived moral right to eat animals, which is a whole different kettle of offal than debating whether an animal bred for consumption has the right to a pain-free existence before fulfilling it's destiny as somebody's dinner. I feel that it does.

Empathy is one of the factors that separates us from the animal world. Should a person's empathic response be extended to animals? Clearly it's a debate in itself.

A  large part of the situation is social conditioning. In many peoples eyes a cow is a means to end; that end being tasty steaks and such. But substitute a dog for a cow and said people may react in horror. The fact that dog is still consumed in parts of the world means little to a society that treats the domestic dog almost like a family member.

Here's an idea: Kick your dog in the balls to see if he feels pain. Then go to kick him in the balls again and see if he reacts in fear. The fact that an animal, any animal, can experience both pain and fear is enough to tell me that arguments over the validity of moral and humane reasoning towards animals is little more than gum-flapping of the most pedantic kind.

We, as a conscious reasoning mind, have the ability to choose whether we need or desire to inflict pain on another living creature, regardless of that creature's place in nature.

How we use that ability is up to the individual.