PDA

View Full Version : Pain-free food animals?



WhiteFox
September 6th, 2009, 11:15 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327243.400-painfree-animals-could-take-suffering-out-of-farming.html?page=1

Take away the physical pain, and factory farming becomes all fine and dandy?

Leeds
September 6th, 2009, 11:25 PM
I cant stand people today. They have every option and oppurtunity in the world and they whimper and wine about how they get things. People in other countries would kill just to have meat in general. How spoiled we are! Its nature. Nature is not kind. As long as we are not going out of the way to harm the animals I think we are OK.

Its also cheaper to not delicately handle all the animals. When you have to feed the masses, speed and convenience come before morals and expensive practices on animals that are just going to be devoured anyway.

I personally love the organic and cage free meat but not because the animal is happier. I buy that stuff because it tastes and looks better. And without the hormones it is also significantly better for me.

They claim that people are becoming desensitized when in actually they seem unable to handle natural practices in life.

WhiteFox
September 7th, 2009, 12:04 AM
Its also cheaper to not delicately handle all the animals. When you have to feed the masses, speed and convenience come before morals and expensive practices on animals that are just going to be devoured anyway.

Arguably, it's not cheaper at all. Making it convenient and cheap in the short-term results in greater long-term expenses, such as with health and environmental costs.

MoonShadow
September 7th, 2009, 02:36 PM
I was gonna make a thread for this a long time ago, but since you're bringing up such subjects guess it wouldn't hurt to post it now.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142&ei=_1w6ScCQHaGI-gH0jfmsCQ&q=earthlings#

That's the craziest video I've ever seen, very informative and minimal "scare tactics" are used (such as to prove their points) they just show what they record.

I personally still have no problem eating meat, I'd feel much more comfortable raising my own cattle to butcher my self so that I know what they go through and how they die and all that. But where others watch that movie and go "Ugh how could Anybody eat meat after watching That!" they're usually the ones that would hate the thought of humans being slaughtered and really, I find it sick that they go hunt off a tiger because it got hungry and ended up killing a local villager, it should go both ways *shrugs*

Crazy about that other thread you posted as well with the man trying to make carnivores herbavores *rolls eyes*

Agita
September 7th, 2009, 02:59 PM
You know, I'd love to eat free-range this and organic that, but in reality I can't afford it and if I don't buy it someone else will anyway. You may say that's a defeatist attitude but it's the same one I have towards eating meat.

I am a wolf, I eat meat
I love the tase of it, I eat meat
I need my protein, I eat meat

There are plenty of meat replacements and not every carnivore therian on here actually eats meat, but not buying he product will not ultimately stop the whole of the human population slaughtering animals for meat by whatever means.

Not supporting the drug and fur trade is a different matter of course, you can actually destroy the market for that with enough participation ^^

If it's already dead and hitting the supermarket shelf, I'll eat it.
However, if it's still alive and I have the choice to kill it or not, I'm not ashamed to say I don't think I could kill it, simply because I'm unused to the practise.

Some wolf I am, lol. Anyway, so what I'm trying to say is, there's nothing we can do about it, and ultimately all the animals farmed for meat meet the same end. In an ideal world they would all be tenderly hand reared and feel no fear or pain upon slaughter. Unfortunately, that's not really possible, practical or affordable- so, why waste this meat and not eat it in protest? Just eat it and make that animal's life (however miserable it may have been) worth a little something.

You can still support animals rights groups though, don't get me wrong!

GestaltZe
September 7th, 2009, 05:15 PM
This is not a matter of omnivore vs. herbivore, so I don't know why the responses so far have been in defense of eating meat.
This seems disgusting to me. I am opposed to this kind of genetic modification overall. It is not okay to play God.
It seems as though we have just recently acknowledged that the animals we kill for meat DO feel pain, and our first reaction is to try to change a beneficial natural response to negative stimuli and prevent the animals from feeling that pain.

Eating meat is one thing. Eating meat is 'natural', yes. But factory farms are not, and taking away another animal's ability to feel pain is not okay either.

Granamyr
September 7th, 2009, 06:31 PM
No. Non-human animals should not have a property status. Raising/breeding them for food and companions is to label them as such. Their lives having meaning to them apart from any use or benefit to us. We should stop breeding animals for such purposes since we have no need for them. Yes, take care of the one's we've brought into being, but end the practice.

Everyone should be free.
Go vegan and support animal abolition.

Night
September 7th, 2009, 10:50 PM
--------------------------

Dakota
September 8th, 2009, 10:20 AM
The thing is, even if they cannot feel physical pain doesn't mean they don't feel anxiety or fear. There are people who cannot feel physical pain, but they can still feel emotions. And if a cow lives a shitty life, they can still suffer. When they see their fellows hanging upside down, and smell the smell of blood, they can still be afraid. So lack of physical pain does not make it "okay," though I suppose it would make it less horrible.

I'm not against hunting or eating meat, but the factory farm conditions I've seen in videos is disgusting. If they can live out their lives in peace, with plenty of room to graze and are treated nicely until they are finally slaughtered at some point, fine. But if people stuff animals into tiny cages, do not treat their diseases/wounds and let them suffer, or push them around enough to break their bones, THEN I have a problem with how we get the meat. So it's not really the killing of the animal I'm opposed to, it's how they lived before they died. And talking about needing to do this to satisfy the masses' taste for meat is not an excuse. Americans eat too much meat anyway (obesity, pollution, deforestation...), so if we have to cut down on our portions in order to ensure the welfare of animals, I think that we should sacrifice.

DragonicWolf
September 8th, 2009, 10:56 AM
The thing is, even if they cannot feel physical pain doesn't mean they don't feel anxiety or fear. There are people who cannot feel physical pain, but they can still feel emotions. And if a cow lives a shitty life, they can still suffer. When they see their fellows hanging upside down, and smell the smell of blood, they can still be afraid. So lack of physical pain does not make it "okay," though I suppose it would make it less horrible.

Naturally, prey animals feel fear in the wild almost all the time, its survival of the fittest baby.

WhiteFox
September 8th, 2009, 06:49 PM
Americans eat too much meat anyway (obesity, pollution, deforestation...), so if we have to cut down on our portions in order to ensure the welfare of animals, I think that we should sacrifice.
Reply With Quote

Deforestation and environmental destruction comes with mass plant farming too, which may or may not be grown as food to feed the food animals that are then used to feed the masses.

While it's a lot think about, moderation of practically everything regarding humans (including population numbers) seems to be called for.

The downside of human rights.

MoonShadow
September 9th, 2009, 09:09 AM
Shoot did I miss that part??? Are they saying they'll take away the pain an animal feels through genetic modification? Yeah...not sure how I feel on that either. Because it is indeed not natural. If anything they should learn to just give them swift deaths (most are Suppose to)...

I say it like that because we all know that humans aren't going to just stop depending on slaughterhouses to do the dirty work they can't do themselves out of laziness or a selfish lifestyle (or one that can't be changed so easy)

...I especially like how "kosher" animals are treated in that video I posted *rolls eyes* they're nearly treated the worse! They get their bodies thrown about while they're still alive (in a machine) and it's suppose to be humane? Arrrgh..I should stop, I can ramble on about that stuff forever.

NikitaDarkstar
September 9th, 2009, 11:14 AM
No this would not make it more ok to eat meat. The animals just get more likely to injure themselves because they don't experience pain in the way nature intended them to (the rat example in the article proves this in my opinion.) and they still feel the emotional and psychological pain and distress.

Something like this isn't really meant to ease the suffering of the animals, it's meant to ease peoples minds. But honestly I think that if you're going to eat something you didn't hunt for yourself or raised on your own you should feel abit bad about it in the end, especially if you know the conditions the animal most likely lived and died in.
And yes I am a meat eater, I love my meat, but at the same time I'm to squeamish to get a hunting license and go out and kill my own food, but I do still from time to time feel bad about how the meat in the store ended up there, but thats the price I pay for wanting meat but being to lazy and to squeamish to get on my own.

Akai
September 9th, 2009, 12:51 PM
While it's a lot think about, moderation of practically everything regarding humans (including population numbers) seems to be called for.

The downside of human rights.
I agree with the moderation of practically everything human. As far as I can tell, our actions always seem radicals to one way or the other. Some people cried out to end world hunger. Technically, we already did that long ago. Result? Our populations exploded and now we yet again have more people than ability to feed. We really do need to hold back.

As for relating it to human rights, I never thought about that. Should there be such a thing as human rights, then? Or perhaps, what we call rights, universal or otherwise, should be changed to accommodate modern times.

Yenot
September 9th, 2009, 09:06 PM
Shoot did I miss that part??? Are they saying they'll take away the pain an animal feels through genetic modification? Yeah...not sure how I feel on that either. Because it is indeed not natural.

To be fair, it's not natural that these animals are being mass-bred for the purpose of being killed.

I wish you all would quit saying that 'it's just part of life' for these animals to die. We are creating them to kill them. That's not right. I've said it before and I'll say it again, these animals would not exist in such mass numbers and they would not be the dumbed-down versions of their predecessors if we hadn't done this to them. Being bred and created as a product, especially involving a living creature, is WRONG and NOT natural. So could we all please stop using it as an excuse?

Pinkfluff
September 9th, 2009, 09:58 PM
I don't think genetic manipulation is the way to go. Looking past any unknown harmful effects it may cause in the meat, it will also make the animals more likely to hurt themselves and each other. Then the industry will just pump them with even more unhealthy chemicals to keep them alive long enough to butcher and their meat just safe enough to pass the test on the day the federal inspector arrives. I'm not against meat entirely, I like my meat too. The animals just need to be treated better. I'd buy only free-range, organic-fed meat if it was both available and affordable to me, but right now it isn't. I agree with the above post that says that this idea is really about what people think than really caring about the animals. Just yet another example of putting politics ahead of what really matters.

Dawns_Nightmare
September 9th, 2009, 10:42 PM
I am a wolf, I eat meat
I love the taste of it, I eat meat
I need my protein, I eat meat

pretty much. i dnt condone in the torturing of animals or anything but no video out there will change my mind, if its clean ill eat it. nature isnt pretty

DragonicWolf
September 10th, 2009, 04:35 AM
To be fair, it's not natural that these animals are being mass-bred for the purpose of being killed.

I wish you all would quit saying that 'it's just part of life' for these animals to die. We are creating them to kill them. That's not right. I've said it before and I'll say it again, these animals would not exist in such mass numbers and they would not be the dumbed-down versions of their predecessors if we hadn't done this to them. Being bred and created as a product, especially involving a living creature, is WRONG and NOT natural. So could we all please stop using it as an excuse?

This is true. It is not natural, as almost everything else that humans do. But as I have said many times before, there is nothing we can do about it at this point, and we have to live with it along with the other unnatural things like computers, refrigerators and the domestic dog.

Sonne_Spiritwind
September 10th, 2009, 06:53 AM
This is another example of the use of the terms "natural" and "unnatural" that just baffles me when I stop to think about those terms and how they are being used. Honestly, anymore I think they are used to the point of denoting them as near meaningless in most contexts. There are numerous very good reasons and arguments to make about why factory farming is bad, and I don't think "natural vs. unnatural" has to, let alone should, be a part of those arguments. Humans, straight out, are not separate from or outside of nature, therefore I sometimes wonder why special exceptions are made that "if no other animal (or organism) does X thing that humans do, then X thing is unnatural". I used to find more logic in that line of thought; I'm not really finding much in it anymore (and that means outside of this thread, too).

I just think, as far as making points and trying to hopefully get someone to understand one's particular stance on something, like in this case factory farming, that the person should make clear points with better reasoning than a rather misused and misconceived concept of "natural things vs. unnatural things"--such might help deliver the points better to others. Though if we are going to take the plunge to agree that "factory farming is unnatural", we still have to wonder about how much meaning that has in regards to changing factory farming considering, as DragonicWolf noted, the so many other things that people do that would equally fall under the "unnatural" category, at least seemingly by the criteria being used to classify factory farming as such.

That's a sort of critique about making points and reasoning against (or even for) factory farming, among various other things in which a similar "natural"-based reasoning is used, because such can strengthen a person's argument.

WhiteFox
September 10th, 2009, 09:52 PM
as almost everything else that humans do

Wrong. We maybe more (arguably) complicated in our actions, and the results may be "unnatural" in terms of modifying objects into things like machines or artificial selection not found in wild nature, but the reasons for doing so are no less natural than any other species.

And again, we are a part of Nature, we can't be outside or above it.


As for relating it to human rights, I never thought about that. Should there be such a thing as human rights, then? Or perhaps, what we call rights, universal or otherwise, should be changed to accommodate modern times.

I dunno. It seems like one of those things are nice on paper, but hard to enforce. Because one way or another, someone's gonna get screwed over. Sure, maybe being killed or imprisoned without reason or whatever is a violation of those rights, but the terms don't matter much because they're still getting screwed.

DragonicWolf
September 11th, 2009, 02:25 AM
Wrong. We maybe more (arguably) complicated in our actions, and the results may be "unnatural" in terms of modifying objects into things like machines or artificial selection not found in wild nature, but the reasons for doing so are no less natural than any other species.

And again, we are a part of Nature, we can't be outside or above it.

I am not wrong, in MY opinion, but I may be wrong within another persons eyes. I don't believe in 'right and wrong' in this case, it just depends on the mindset of the judge, which is every single individual on earth. And in MY opinion, the things that the majority of humans do now are very foreign compared to what creatures on earth have done since life started. These things all have negative effects to the earth. There have been COUNTLESS problems since humans started to become what we are now.



And again, we are a part of Nature, we can't be outside or above it.


Humans cant be/not supposed to be, but the majority of them THINK that they are outside or above nature, and thus the results are things that ARE outside/above/harmful to nature.

Oblivian
September 11th, 2009, 08:35 AM
Happy animals taste better. I don't think it's right (or natural) for mass-breeding (like pigs in denmark being held in horrible conditions, like.. stacked. So when one pig shits/pees it ends up on the pig below) to treat animals like things. I think everything has the right to, at the very least, be able to run aroud, kick, dance and play.
Thus, we've started buying ecological meat, more specifically from a local breeder we are able to investigate personally.

I could live with eating less meat. I could live with only eating meat twice/week, but then it'd be high-quality, if it helped mother nature. I don't care if my meat was aware of it's death when it was executed, but I do think that a humane, quick death is better and as I said, a happy life should be offered from the beginning until the end of said animals life.

I eat meat, I need meat, and I'm willing to pay the somewhat more expensive price for "happy meat".
I'm willing to learn to hunt for myself, but how does that help the animals that aren't given at least some extent of natural, "free" life?

WhiteFox
September 11th, 2009, 02:40 PM
I am not wrong, in MY opinion, but I may be wrong within another persons eyes. I don't believe in 'right and wrong' in this case, it just depends on the mindset of the judge, which is every single individual on earth. And in MY opinion, the things that the majority of humans do now are very foreign compared to what creatures on earth have done since life started. These things all have negative effects to the earth. There have been COUNTLESS problems since humans started to become what we are now.

Fine, it is an opinion, I'll give you that. However, humans doing things not found or done by other animals does not equate to being unnatural, as demonstrated in biology. Additionally, far worst things have happened in the past than what we're doing now. The Earth has a very brutal history.


but the majority of them THINK that they are outside or above nature

Many existing cultures do not agree with this viewpoint, and even within cultures that DO think this way are many people that do not agree or feel that this notion is right, like you and me.


thus the results are things that ARE outside/above/harmful to nature.

Please name one thing that humans have created or done that is outside or above of nature. The only thing I've found that does so is the idea or definition of some deities (like the traditional Western God), because being outside of Creation (which is Nature) is a part of their definition. As far as tangible things go, I see nothing.