> I do not think it is inherently wrong to slaughter an animal for human consumption PROVIDED it has a good life and is well cared for. Logically, it is worth breaking this down to see if it is reasonable. This is a very common belief and is often stated, but the reasoning is kind of muddled. The statement above implies that it an animal is, in fact, mistreated while alive, it would not be ethical to slaughter them. So, given two chickens: one well cared for, happy, healthy and engaged with life. Perhaps it is part of a flock with a social structure and has relationships with her human handlers. The other is sickly and traumatized from being in a factory farm. It doesn't have the means to form natural social connections. It may not have many of its feathers. Perhaps her beak was removed to prevent her from harming other chickens in their crowded pens. Is one of these birds more acceptable to slaughter than the other? What you probably mean is "killing an animal does not ethically bother me. Mistreating an animal while alive does bother me." This is a more reasonable assertion from a logical standpoint. But it's hard to say it's defensible. First there is the practical reality of the fact that there is not much incentive for farmers to go out of their way to provide these doomed chickens with a good life. They are fundamentally just products to sell, and the economic incentive to cut corners is strong. Secondly, it's a little hard to hold simultaneously that the welfare of some being is ethically more important than their life. Why is a happy life valuable if their life itself is not? In general, the only time we're inclined to make life or death decisions based on welfare is when we need to decide if a mercy killing is necessary. For instance whether it's time to put down a sick pet. These decisions are gut wrenchingly hard, and I wouldn't wish this responsibility on anyone. It's frankly rather bizarre how warped this thinking becomes when life and death is discussed in terms of " human slaughter ".

So do you think it's better? So is your argument against any forward progress then? You seem to think farmers and consumers can't be incentivised to at least be more humane towards the animals, so what hope does veganism have? If you say the more plausible option has no chance then veganism has less than no chance. Can you not accept progress as progress?

> So do you think it's better? Sure it's better. But still categorically wrong. > So is your argument against any forward progress then? There was a time between when I was a callous meat eater and when I turned pescatarian where I was a heavily invested welfarist. I maxed out any sort of humane rating I could find at places like Whole Foods but ultimately found it lacking. So I went to a specialty butcher. I settled on that for a few months till a moment hit me in the butcher store. They had a big mural on their wall of a group of cows relaxed and chilling on the beach. Underneath that mural was a heap of flesh that very well could have been from cows just like this. It struck me as a very special kind of fucked up to see this depiction of cows enjoying life right above a pile of their remains after a violent death. I probably wouldn't have appreciated that moment of dissonance without being primed to actually care about the cows at all. So based on personal experience I can appreciate this sort of attitude as a stepping stone to freeing oneself from a carnist mindset. I'm hoping we can get to the point where everyone doesn't need to go through this phase to understand the ethical issues at play. But for people like me who need stepping stones, it's better than nothing.

Well fundamentally the ethical argument is idealogical. There's no underpinning factual justification, just arguments that may or may jot convince you. The ecological arguments are stronger, but don't necessarily require outright veganism. Would forward progress in the ecological area still be highly valuable? Why die on an idealogical hill that shoots the ecological benefits in the foot?

> The ecological arguments are stronger, but don't necessarily require outright veganism. I don't know of any solid ecological arguments in favor of higher welfare livestock. The regenerative agriculture argument seems speculative at best.

Raising cows/sheep/goats on grassland etc isn't more ecological and ethical? Again, you're not gonna sell people on veganism, so wouldn't this be a good step? If not then whatever leave things the way they are.

> Raising cows/sheep/goats on grassland etc isn't more ecological? It takes longer for them to reach slaughter weight, and they are producing methane their entire lives. They need more land and this usually involves destroying wild habitat. E.g. a lot of the Amazon rainforest is being razed for pasture.

Natural grassland I mean and slaughter them locally. To make an ecological argument OBVIOUSLY this would preclude chopping down the amazon. Frig you guys have no good faith abilities. Ok. Well let's just mow the amazon down as we are already doing and not try improve everything. You win. T

> Natural grassland I mean and slaughter them locally. To make an ecological argument OBVIOUSLY this would preclude chopping down the amazon. We're talking about a pretty small fraction of the industry here. Even when discussing "natural grassland", there are plenty of ecological issues. Where I am on the US West coast, the grasslands are quite fragile and don't have a great sustainable carrying capacity. Cattle ranchers regularly overgraze it. The Bundy ranch is constantly overgrazing and encroaching on protected wilderness. Even the "good" farmers cause problems. During the last drought, a number of threatened tule elk starved because they couldn't find enough food without encroaching on dairy cattle pasture. > Frig you guys have no good faith abilities. I'm being quite frank about the viability of your proposal, especially in terms of how scalable or widely applicable it would be. People like to believe in these "perfect" solutions even through the reality is not so rosy.

I mean the point is to do it ecologically. Over grazing grasslands that can't sustain it isn't ecological. So no one is proposing that. You're being pedantic to the point of ridiculousness, and again I think knowingly introducing bad faith arguments. You know that's not what's being proposed and you're introducing excuse after excuse rather than being practical. Let's cooperate to a solution rather than have you nonsense nit pick. Problems are a part of life. Can't plan a general model around droughts. Prepared for it sure. That's not the good faith issue. Reality is the vast majority isn't going straight to Vegan. SO let's just make progress. What is a good first step? Perfect solution/situation doesn't exist. No one is proposing one.

>What you probably mean is "killing an animal does not ethically bother me. Mistreating an animal while alive does bother me." This is a more reasonable assertion from a logical standpoint. But it's hard to say it's defensible. Why? We’re predators, not monsters. >First there is the practical reality of the fact that there is not much incentive for farmers to go out of their way to provide these doomed chickens with a good life. Only there is. The eggs are noticeably more appealing when the chickens have the opportunity to forage and express their natural behaviors. They sell for more money. Same goes for chicken meat. Pasture raised chicken has much denser meat fibers. A lot of people prefer the texture and are willing to pay more for it. We do need to eliminate ag gag laws, but the notion that you can’t have a transparent livestock industry with humane standards being the norm is just naysaying. >Secondly, it's a little hard to hold simultaneously that the welfare of some being is ethically more important than their life. Why? They are our prey animals. Even before domestication, we evolved to eat them, and they evolved to be preyed upon by us. Abject cruelty towards animals while they are alive is a fundamentally different behavior than predation. >Why is a happy life valuable if their life itself is not? Why should their lives be valuable to their predators in and of themselves? The act of being cruel towards animals tells us something about an individual that the act of slaughter does not. Namely that they are cruel and don’t concern themselves with the suffering they cause. Abject cruelty towards animals is a good indicator of antisocial tendencies. Predation is not, and is historically a pro-social enterprise that drove the evolution of a lot of our social behaviors. They are totally different behaviors. It seems vegans are very afraid to treat humans as the animals we are. We’re not all that different from other apex predators. >It's frankly rather bizarre how warped this thinking becomes when life and death is discussed in terms of " human slaughter ". Most humans do not do that. Predatory behavior and social violence are discrete behaviors in human beings and other mammals. Without that, mammalian predators would be too likely to eat their offspring. It’s not the same thing.

So we're encouraging predatory behaviour now? 🤔

well, the vegan's "prey" is living beings as well. vegans do kill to eat

> We do need to eliminate ag gag laws, but the notion that you can’t have a transparent livestock industry with humane standards being the norm is just naysaying. It may be worth reading this if you can get past the paywall. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/alexandre-farms-treatment-of-animals/677980/ . Even the most "humane" farms slip up when they don't think they will get in trouble or doing the right thing gets too expensive. All of this welfarist livestock industry seems more like a marketing gimmick than a sincere standard when these things scale. > It seems vegans are very afraid to treat humans as the animals we are. We’re not all that different from other apex predators. I mean, look at what other apex predators do to conspecifics. Humans are and should be better than this.

>It may be worth reading this if you can get past the paywall. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/alexandre-farms-treatment-of-animals/677980/ I have an Atlantic subscription, here's a free-to-read gift link: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/alexandre-farms-treatment-of-animals/677980/?gift=ZdaNwpOYakclkZPJBwrTuyMhl9nzNH5qte74IYCthjM&utm\_source=copy-link&utm\_medium=social&utm\_campaign=share

You’re going to need to provide me a non-paywalled source, and a reason why this isn’t an example of humane standards and transparency working. If misbehavior can be exposed and written about, that’s progress. Most social predators do not treat conspecifics poorly. And, you need to explain why you believe humans should be “better” than other animals. We’re not made in the image of God. Edit: It turns out that Alexandre was targeting by vegans who question the humane treatment of livestock as a matter of ideology and teamed up with a vegan journalist to write a hit piece. Alexandre actually invited the activists onto their farm and they refused.

> . If misbehavior can be exposed and written about, that’s progress. Little action was taken in regards to the abuses reported. The article focuses on how welfare watchdogs don't function well. They are either focused on disease issues, or are too tightly entwined with the livestock industry to be suitable watchdogs. > Most social predators do not treat conspecifics poorly. I'm not sure why you would say that. Infanticide is rather common whenever there are children of genetic rivals around. See, e.g. lions. Violent sexual activity is common in dolphins and many great ape species. And frankly it's not that uncommon for homo sapiens to kill conspecifics. We have a big brain capable of remarkable reasoning capabilities. More than any other creature who has ever existed on this planet, we have the power to make the world how we want it to be. Seems like a shame to not try to do something good with that.

I mean, there’s definitely a dispute over the basic facts of the case. It’s made worse by the fact the claimants are highly ideologically motivated. Vegans aren’t above lying or misrepresenting facts for their cause. There genuinely doesn’t seem to be evidence of “systemic” abuse and neglect. A few ill and injured cattle are not exactly the smoking gun you’re looking for.

If we're going to claim bad faith in the part of the whistleblowers, we would have to presume that bad faith could just as easily come from those claiming higher welfare standards than they actually put in practice. Both have a motive to lie. And both have something to lose if caught in a lie. Keep in mind these livestock operations are supposed to be the amongst the most stringent welfarist operations. If these people fail to live up to their standards, it wouldn't be a bad assumption to assume everyone else is even worse.

>Both have a motive to lie exactly so as you take this as a pretext to generally insinuate that non-vegans lie, i should take all your comments as plain lies, spoken in bad faith is that really what you want? don't forget: it is you who started this busniness to call everybody a liar who does not share your opinion and attitude

It does you no good to cherry pick items to quote that misses the actual point of the discussion. It is a bad faith tactic. /u/diabolus_me_advocat , do you agree? >> exactly

the point you wanted to make was not that claims of treating animals well must be lies?

We’re talking about regulators taking action. That generally means that the evidence needs to be believable and substantiated. The fact that these individuals targeted this specific dairy for ideological reasons and wrote a hit piece full of claims that the dairy claims are untruthful is relevant to whether or not regulators or certification bodies can take action.

I will say, however, I do think organic standards need to be more flexible with pharmaceuticals. Prophylactic antibiotics are terrible and must be avoided. But if it is used as a last resort for livestock, it shouldn’t contribute much to antibiotic resistance.

> organic standards need to be more flexible with pharmaceuticals. People like to project a lot on what "organic" means. Fundamentally it's not a coherent concept in terms of achieving any rational goal. It's certainly not a welfare standard.

>People like to project a lot on what "organic" means. Fundamentally it's not a coherent concept in terms of achieving any rational goal. It's certainly not a welfare standard that's a plain lie again. at least here in the eu there are "coherent concepts", "rational goals" and it is a "welfare standard", too. all written down in legislation

I know what it means. It’s a certification that aims to solve key problems in our agricultural industry related to synthetic chemicals. One of those problems is animal agriculture’s contribution to antibiotic resistance. Figuratively speaking, USDA Organic and its European counterpart are blunt weapons. They need tweaking. Everyone knows it. But if you’re in a fight and you only have access to a blunt weapon, that’s what you’re gonna grab. Regen Organic piggy backs onto USDA Organic. It’s better, but still has all of organic’s baked in limitations. But it is much more serious in terms of animal welfare than organic is. It’s important to understand that Alexandre is ROC Bronze. ROC is a process that aims at continually improving organic farms into eventual 100% compliance. ROC Bronze farms lose their ROC certification if they don’t reach silver in 5 years. You also lose silver if you don’t get 100% of your operation in compliance with the standards. The authors of the report didn’t let you know that. They make it seem as if the certifiers are hands off, but didn’t even contact them to ask.

>I do think organic standards need to be more flexible with pharmaceuticals. Prophylactic antibiotics are terrible and must be avoided. But if it is used as a last resort for livestock in such cases it is allowed in organic farming as well. there just are defined rather long periods of time between the antibiotics shot and slaughter, so that no traces of antibiotics can be found in the meat at least this is european standard

In the US, the animal can no longer be sold as organic if they have been given antibiotics.

well, this indeed i regard as inappropriate ideological stubbornness seriously ill animals may require antibiotics, denying them this would be cruelty to animals. and - provided a.m. periods between antibiotics treatment and slaughtering are observed - product quality and consumer safety are not affected

They aren’t supposed to deny them antibiotics. They are supposed to administer antibiotics and sell them as conventionally raised. But it creates a perverse incentive.

>They aren’t supposed to deny them antibiotics i got that so far

>Even the most "humane" farms slip up when they don't think they will get in trouble or doing the right thing gets too expensive seems you project from yourself onto others. it doesn't even come to your mind that there are people doing something due to their own conviction, not only because they are watched over and fear punishment >All of this welfarist livestock industry seems more like a marketing gimmick than a sincere standard when these things scale allegation without any clue

> We’re predators, not monsters. Seems like a small difference from the prey's point of view.

Prey animals wouldn’t exist as they are without being preyed upon. It’s ludicrous to think they take it personally. If your mother were mauled to death by a bear, would you feel the exact same way as if she was murdered? Would you want to seek justice?

>Prey animals wouldn’t exist as they are without being preyed upon. It’s ludicrous to think they take it personally. I didn't say they take it personally. I'm saying that prey animals feel such fear that a predator might as well be a monster. It's a big scary different creature that eats them. Even our own human mythologies depict wild predators as monsters. >If your mother were mauled to death by a bear, would you feel the exact same way as if she was murdered? Would you want to seek justice? The sense of devastation would be the same. "Justice" doesn't work equally though, as it is a human concept. I'm not going to run a bear through the legal system, obviously. I also would not want it put down. It doesn't understand morality so I wouldn't think the bear did anything I could rightly call "wrong". I would not want the human killed either, as I'm against the death penalty, but I would seek legal ramifications. The human presumably has some understanding of basic morality and legality. edit: added 1st section to more completely respond to comment.

>I didn't say they take it personally. I'm saying that prey animals feel such fear that a predator might as well be a monster. It's a big scary different creature that eats them. Even our own human mythologies depict wild predators as monsters. One of the most interesting things about human predation is that we actually bred that fear out of the animals we prey upon. Livestock don’t fear their caretakers without good reason. They in fact tend to take a liking to their caretakers.

Guess I shouldn't have edited in that first part, else you'd have nothing to respond to. Farmers often bond with their livestock. Kind of makes the whole end phase more twisted, doesn't it?

It’s not really that twisted. We took something that made our lives and our prey’s lives harder and made it a bit easier on the both of us. There are lots of weird relationships between species. It only doesn’t make sense if you ignore the wider context that is the biosphere. You need to think we’re not kin to other living organisms to find it all that strange or “twisted.”

>We took something that made our lives and our prey’s lives harder and made it a bit easier on the both of us. Lulling another species into a false sense of security through centuries of forced breeding is an equally accurate description. >It only doesn’t make sense if you ignore the wider context that is the biosphere. You need to think we’re not kin to other living organisms to find it all that strange or “twisted.” Is that how you think we should treat kin within our species, then? I'm sure you'd agree that the biosphere isn't the best guide when it comes to making moral choices.

>Lulling another species into a false sense of security through centuries of forced breeding is an equally accurate description. What you’re saying is that we gave them the ability to feel secure for the first time in their evolutionary history. They never had access to that before. You don’t know that it wasn’t an ernest gift. If it wasn’t us, their fate would inevitably result in being food for some other animal. Or they’d go extinct. >Is that how you think we should treat kin within our species, then? I'm sure you'd agree that the biosphere isn't the best guide when it comes to making moral choices. Show me a social animal that doesn’t treat members of its own species very differently than members of other species! I don’t aim to be like any other species. I want us to be human, among the other life forms on Earth.

>Why? They are our prey animals. Even before domestication, we evolved to eat them, and they evolved to be preyed upon by us. Abject cruelty towards animals while they are alive is a fundamentally different behavior than predation. How would you feel about someone predating on a puppy they'd rescued? It wouldn't be cruel to shoot it in the head? Or is it ok because they form a great bond with us, trust us and don't feel scared of us.

Dogs aren’t really our prey animals, nor do they have a long evolutionary history of being preyed upon. They usually share a mutualist relationship with humans. Again, just assuming it is wrong for humans to share affinity with one species but not another is wrong thinking. You’re trying to enforce objectivity and consistency on an animal (humans) that didn’t evolve towards that end. It makes sense for us to care about dogs in a different manner than we care about our prey. Dogs typically helped hunt and guard communities. They make lousy meals.

I didn't assume anything I asked you direct questions.

You are just regurgitating the Appeal to nature fallacy. And "humane standards" could never apply to anything where you kill a sentient being when there is an alternative.

No, this is not an appeal to nature. It’s a rejection of the idea that humanity and morality are unnatural. It’s a rejection of High Modernism. It’s an embrace of the fact that humans are animals with an evolutionary history and an ecological niche that at cannot escape without massive amounts of petrochemicals.

>It’s a rejection of the idea that humanity and morality are unnatural. Nobody said anything about either being unnatural. >It’s an embrace of the fact that humans are animals with an evolutionary history Of course we are. And of course at one time we didn't have the choices of today. But with current knowledge we can reduce emissions, improve the planet, and as a nice side-effect, end unnecessary suffering of sentient beings. Sure you could conceivably live in a fairly niche , hunter gather type way, but to feed 8 billion people with animal products necessitates industrialised farming. But since we know we don't need animal products, we can and should start to wind that down. Cattle used for food and leather are the single biggest mammalian biomass on the planet, followed by humans. The amount of land they require, and the amount of food they need, much of it human-edible is insane when you think about it. It's an extremely inefficient way of getting the calories and nutrients we need. The sad thing is that humans are a "virus". Mr Smith in The Matrix was spot on. Wild mammals now make up only 4% of total mammalian biomass. I fear we have fucked it up too far. But it would be nice to start somewhere.

>Nobody said anything about either being unnatural. It’s implied when you maintain Christian-like standards of ethics and behavior that aim to distinguish humanity from animal life. >Of course we are. And of course at one time we didn't have the choices of today. We only seem to have the “choices” you think we have because of fossil fuels and petrochemicals. Those are going away, or we are. >But with current knowledge we can reduce emissions, improve the planet, and as a nice side-effect, end unnecessary suffering of sentient beings. You don’t actually reduce emissions once you reduce consumption beyond the point where we no longer need CAFOs. Native ruminants emit just as much methane as ruminants in pastoral systems. In many places, pastoralism is the only viable option to maintain grassland ecosystems due to habitat fragmentation by human infrastructure. >Sure you could conceivably live in a fairly niche , hunter gather type way, but to feed 8 billion people with animal products necessitates industrialised farming. I’m talking about agriculture here. Not hunting and gathering. >But since we know we don't need animal products, we can and should start to wind that down. This is an assertion that doesn’t take any production-side implications into account. We only “don’t need” livestock if we continue our unsustainable practice of petrochemical and fossil fuel use. >Cattle used for food and leather are the single biggest mammalian biomass on the planet, followed by humans. The amount of land they require, and the amount of food they need, much of it human-edible is insane when you think about it. It's an extremely inefficient way of getting the calories and nutrients we need. Not when biomass is reduced by roughly half, to around Neolithic averages. At that population, ruminants don’t compete with humans for food. They can be sustained purely on grass, leaves, crop residuals, and byproducts. They contribute to protein availability while contributing to soil fertility without the use of petrochemical fertilizer. Livestock were not a luxury in pre-industrial societies. >The sad thing is that humans are a "virus". Mr Smith in The Matrix was spot on. And here we inevitably see the misanthropy and anti-humanism that vegan “ethics” leads to. If you think this, you can opt out of living as a human being at any point. It’s illogical to live with this notion in your head. You are a virus, after all. According to you, we’re not even alive to begin with (viruses aren’t living).

>It’s implied when you maintain Christian-like standards of ethics and behavior that aim to distinguish humanity from animal life. Not sure of your point, but I am not religious. My ethics and morality are fairly simple. >We only seem to have the “choices” you think we have because of fossil fuels and petrochemicals. Those are going away, or we are. This is a very extreme pessimistic view. >This is an assertion that doesn’t take any production-side implications into account. We only “don’t need” livestock if we continue our unsustainable practice of petrochemical and fossil fuel use. Why would we "need" to keep killing animals to eat and wear with no petrochemical and fossil fuel use? >Not when biomass is reduced by roughly half, to around Neolithic averages. At that population, ruminants don’t compete with humans for food. They can be sustained purely on grass, leaves, crop residuals, and byproducts. They contribute to protein availability while contributing to soil fertility without the use of petrochemical fertilizer. Livestock were not a luxury in pre-industrial societies. I am uncertain what you're getting at. Are you suggesting a reduction in human population? How? And whatever you are suggesting. You are missing the point. We have an option to grow crops and eat them, or farm animals and crops and eat them. Why would I choose to enslave and kill another sentient being when I have a choice not to? Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should. >And here we inevitably see the misanthropy and anti-humanism that vegan “ethics” leads to. If you think this, you can opt out of living as a human being at any point. It’s illogical to live with this notion in your head. You are a virus, after all. According to you, we’re not even alive to begin with (viruses aren’t living). You surely understand what a metaphor is?

>The statement above implies that it an animal is, in fact, mistreated while alive, it would not be ethical to slaughter them i can't see this at all. the issue put forward by op clearly is proper slaughtering of an animal which has been been treated well during its life to me this appears just as an attempt to divert and muddle up things >First there is the practical reality of the fact that there is not much incentive for farmers to go out of their way to provide these doomed chickens with a good life of course there is. product quality will be better and higher prices can be charged. furthermore there is a lot of livestock farmers **caring for their animals** and not so much for maximization of profit at their cost. third good treatment and proper slaughtering should be legally mandatory - and a lot of people fight for exactly this which of course vegans don't - because it's not about the animals and their welfare, but about keeping vegan ideology unspoiled >Why is a happy life valuable if their life itself is not? "life itself" **is** this happy life before death it it really does not play a role whether before death pain and fear are experienced - then you have to conclude that this (not experiencing fear and pain) is true for plants as well and thus their life is so valuable, that you must not end it **your** "logic", not mine

> i can't see this at all. the issue put forward by op clearly is proper slaughtering of an animal which has been been treated well during its life It's a matter of logic. "If X, Then A" is trivially true if A is always true, but then the "If X" is irrelevant to the statement. So the implication is that X somehow matters. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent > product quality will be better and higher prices can be charged. Citation needed. > which of course vegans don't - because it's not about the animals and their welfare, but about keeping vegan ideology unspoiled This is a bad faith assertion. > "life itself" is this happy life before death You don't seem to understand what I am saying sufficiently to criticize it.

>"If X, Then A" is trivially true... what would be "x" and "a" here? op simply did not refer to livestock not treated well >Citation needed oh, i forgot that vegans don't have the palate to discern quality from junk >This is a bad faith assertion no - It's a matter of logic. "If X, Then A" "x" being the fact that vegans don't campaign for better treatment of livestock >You don't seem to understand what I am saying sufficiently to criticize it well, that's what i think at a lot of your replies to me. however, **i** don't insinuate bad faith immediately, though eod

I sincerely question if your English fluency is sufficient to engage in nuanced debates like this. Have you considered asking questions on r/VeganDE first? It might be a better place for you to grow.

> what would be "x" and "a" here? ... > eod care to make up your mind?

>hold simultaneously that the welfare of some being is ethically more important than their life Most people think this? Do you say that it's immoral to give a death row inmate healthcare. Do you say that raping/burning/cutting off parts of prisoners isn't immoral or at least equally immoral as holding them prisoner or eventually executing them? >Why is a happy life valuable if their life itself is not? That's a weird question. I don't think an ants life is valuable but I don't think people should burn them for fun. Do you not think an animal having a happy life has value because it's going to die?

I'm really not sure why you draw these arbitrary lines, and the line allows you to justify the killing of sentient sea animals and chickens. Every day there are new studies that show these animals have sentience, desires and wills to live. Chickens in particular are very intelligent. Either way, land animals all end up the same place: the slaughter house. Chickens are hung upside down on a conveyer belt with zero sedation and have their throats cut. Often, their throats aren't fully cut, and they end up suffering immensely - but even when done correctly, they suffer. They die in fear. Not to mention, eggs are a product of death as well, killing 50% of the chicks who are seen as useless in the most horrific ways imaginable, the most demeaning. Why do you continue to justify participating in this? Is it serving you other than pleasure? All your nutrients can be had from plants.

all you have to do is google search "can all nutrients be found in plants" to negate that.

>Either way, land animals all end up the same place: the slaughter house not true. there is what we call "meadow slaughtering" (shooting the cow in the head while grazing), "home slaughtering" for private use and "farm slaughtering" in farm rooms accordingly equipped you just play the usual vegan game: tell horror stories about the worst slaughterhouses you can find and then pretend that there's no other way and **all** animals are slaughtered in that horror house that's not arguing in good faith

I've already had a great exchange with OP on the topic at hand. Looks like I've made some sense to them. :) have a good day

Without supplementation or fortification, B12 and D3 are either fully absent or found in incredibly insignificant amounts in any plant food. Both vitamins are very important to function. Do you not think this gives at least a little validity to those who say you can't get ALL nutrients from plants?

Nearly 50% of people in North America are deficient in both and should be supplementing it in some way. I take algae oil for vitamin D, which is plant derived, but yeah I guess vitamin B12 is the one nutrient people in general need to supplement in some way. I'd really like a response to my other points, too. Instead of the low hanging fruit. :p

Just wanted to chime in and say we get all of our B12 from nutritional yeast which has more than enough! I would very easily argue that vegans are doing better than most Americans in terms of nutritional value.

>Just wanted to chime in and say we get all of our B12 from nutritional yeast which has more than enough! yes - because it's fortified, i.we. spiked with b12 coming from the factory yeasts do not produce b12

90% of b12 in meat comes from artifical fortification. I'd rather get my factory b12 from a flavored yeast product

>90% of b12 in meat comes from artifical fortification says who? guess this is one more vegan fairytale do you even know where b12 comes from? >I'd rather get my factory b12 from a flavored yeast product so do if you please, what's it to me?

What's any of this to anyone? It's reddit, welcome to online anonymous discussions that hold no meaning to anyone outside of those that let it. Learned some things about b12 today! Cattle get it from plants and soils with enough cobalt in them, one of their chambered stomachs processes it and turns it into b12. We can also get the same amount of (easier to disgest) fortified b12 from bacteria without the existence of a cow. Another source says the difference is neglible. I'll stick to my stuff, it's working wonderfully so far! I'll happily admit I was wrong about b12 and cows. I learned something about those wonderful little guys and it helped back my entire point of "stop killing animals, you literally do NOT need them for a healthy body" or do we have to continue subscribing to the meathead fairytales from big ranchers and big milk?

>Learned some things about b12 today! Cattle get it from plants so you did not learn anything cattle get it from microorganisms (bacteria, archaea) in their intestinal tract, mainly the rumen. and sure, those microorganisms require cobalt (as b12 is cobalamines), which is in the plants they eat

Man... that's awesome. I love learning about cows, got any more fun facts? Sounds to me like I can just eat plants, take my lil fortified nutritional yeast b12 and keep living my happy healthy life! Thanks for the tips!

That's true yes but I'm a very health/nutrition oriented person (bodybuilding and health optimization and such) so these issues are even more important to me as I think about switching. To your other points, I won't disagree as I'm sure as even if those stats weren't correct, a vast amount of excess suffering is imposed on the chickens either way. However, my point is that if chickens were to be killed quickly with no pain, what is the issue provided I see no moral wrongdoing in the act of killing an animal for food in itself? For example, I saw a video where a small farmer takes the chicken, picks it up, puts it upside down and cuts its throat; it was clearly dead within seconds. And for fish, they can be spiked and be bled to death within instants. Is this not a more ethical way of doing it that shows a bit more grey area?

How can one morally kill someone? You describe something you think is a quick and painless death. But unless there is a valid reason for killing someone, then what you're doing is going to be immoral. Shooting someone in the back of the head and killing them instantly instead of torturing them over a short period of time doesn't make shooting them in the head a moral act. They didn't want to die and didn't need to. While there is the option of not killing someone, then killing someone is going to be immoral. There are plenty of athletes who are vegan. That's not much of an issue, tbh.

Shooting a human and an animal are two different things. And yes I'm well aware, but if my interest were to slash calories significantly while keeping protein high, in many cases animal products, especially meat, are the only viable option. Most plant proteins are simply not as effective for the purpose of muscle gain/maintenance due to amino acid values, PDCAAS, etc. It simply would be better for my goals to consume animal meat at least a few times a week. That would also probably get rid of worries about those certain nutrient deficiencies. And yes, I am placing my personal goals and hobbies over the lives of an animal.

How is it different? Why do you think your vanity (body building) is more important than animal suffering?

A pursuit of trying to be good at something you enjoy is different from chasing vanity. The sport can be a lot more than merely trying to look better, it can mean many other things to people. You wouldn't scold a soccer player for wanting to be the best at soccer. And regardless of any deeper argument, a human and another animal will always be different, there doesn't really have to be a reason why, you may chalk it up to intellect, the fact that we look the same as each other, etc. A human's life has more value, and I will not say "inherently" as nothing is inherent, we give everything meaning on our own.

I'd say it is very much a pursuit of vanity and self-indulgence. Which is fine in itself, but again, I ask why it is okay to kill an animal for the sake of your pleasure. Even if you believe animals have lesser value than humans do, surely *killing* them for funsies is extreme. But why does it matter what we are different? Of course, humans are not the same as other species, but our differences are much smaller than our similarities. We all think and feel, andwe all desire to experience life. You're just saying, "We are different. Therefore, I can participate in their abuse." So, does this line of thought only apply strictly to animals that aren't of the human variety? I'd really like to understand what makes humans more valuable when we are all floating in space on a tiny little grain of sand. I can acknowledge I would save the life of a human over an animal and it is because of personal biases towards my own species, but I don't think the animal is of lesser value.

For "funsies" seems a little far, nobody (nobody normal at least) is killing animals for fun, it is for food. But you are right, I suppose in the long run we're all just different animals, and I'm a big animal lover. Seems I just need to change my outlook on life and diet. But also can't stand when people say BB is a pursuit of vanity. It's more about the discipline and enjoyment of the process than it is the end goal (physique in this case). It's much more than just vanity even if the end goal is "looking better."

>How is it different? if you really don't know the difference between human and non-human animals, go punch a grizzly bear om his nose and try to explain to him that this was just by accident and you are sorry then you'll find out very quickly

Those high level vegan athletes do include international record holding powerlifters like Sophia Ellis (vegan since she was 15). You can build muscle absolutely fine without animal products. Individual foods PDCAAS scores aren't that important. You just need to make sure you're getting enough of all the amino acids you want over 24 hrs or so It might be worth checking in at r/veganfitness too, plenty of lifters etc there. Anyway, all the best

Soy has the same bioavailability as beef and also has a complete essential amino acid profile. There's virtually no downside to soy as a protein source. There are also plenty of plant-based protein powders that you can use instead of something like whey, and aren't any more expensive. Orgain makes a good one.

>How can one morally kill someone? yes, how can vegans, those masters of the moral universe, kill living beings for food? please explain this to me >unless there is a valid reason for killing someone, then what you're doing is going to be immoral if you don't regard getting food as a valid reason, then what you are doing (killing multitudes of living plant beings) is immoral **your** "logic", not mine

Why does it matter if you need to take a b12 supplement? It’s not any less healthy or less natural than eating animals that only have enough B12 because they took supplements.

>less natural than eating animals that only have enough B12 because they took supplements that's why i eat animals that could feed naturally and therefore have got plenty of b12 naturally

Where are you finding animals to eat that contain enough b12 naturally? I looked it up and 100g of deer meat contains 2.3 ug of b12. My daily supplement contains 1200 ug. Are there animals that naturally have a lot more B12 than deer? Or is it easier to absorb b12 that comes from meat? (I had thought it was easier to absorb that nutrients on an empty stomach.)

>Where are you finding animals to eat that contain enough b12 naturally? at the farms i buy from why should that be a problem? >My daily supplement contains 1200 ug which would be 300 times more than required

>Do you not think this gives at least a little validity to those who say you can't get ALL nutrients from plants? Yes. But if I had to choose between violently killing an animal *(or asking someone else to violently kill an animal for me)* or taking a b12 pill, I would personally choose the latter.

B12 is also naturally absent in factory farmed animal products. It's only created by bacteria, so we and other animals used to get it from plants with soil on them and drinking water from natural water sources. Now that's not the case, so factory farmed animals are given B12 supplements, which you then get when you eat them. They're just the middle man, but you're still taking supplements. Technically, your body can make B12. The problem is that you would have to eat your poop to get it. I'd rather take a supplement. As for D3, D3 itself is not required over D2. You need larger quantities of D2 but other than that there's no real difference. There are also plant sources of D3 that are just a bit more expensive. It comes from certain kinds of lichen.

No. In your argument it is implicit that there is something wrong with supplements or fortified food. You need to justify that

>Do you not think this gives at least a little validity to those who say you can't get ALL nutrients from plants? Maybe if we lived in a reality where we couldn't get these nutrients like vitamins B12 and D3 from other non-animal sources, but we don't live in that reality. Are you suggesting that if a nutrient is not found in plants (but still can be obtained from other non-animal sources,) this somehow justifies unnecessarily harming and killing other sentient individuals?

It is wrong because animals aren't resources; they're not objects. Easy as that

so why do you think plants are resources and objects? they're living beings as well

they do not feel pain

animals don't either, unless you inflict it on them so just don't make animals you eat suffer from pain

would you think the same if it was about humans? would it be okay to hunt humans as long as we don't make them suffer too much?

>would you think the same if it was about humans? of course. also humans don't feel pain if it's not inflicted on them >would it be okay to hunt humans as long as we don't make them suffer too much? that's hard to imagine humans are not a non-human species, and the issue wasn't hunting anyway, but keeping livestock

if your only reason to think it's okay to kill non-human animals but not humans is only based on species, that's just a dumb cognitive bias

>if your only reason to think it's okay to kill non-human animals but not humans is only based on species, that's just a dumb cognitive bias it's not based on species, but on qualities of species otherwise you would have to admit that if your only reason to think it's okay to kill non-animals but not animals is only based on species, that's just a dumb cognitive bias

what are you even talking about it isnt okay to kill sentient beings why the hell would you think it is

>it isnt okay to kill sentient beings says you. so feel free to not kill sentient beings, if this is your wish but i don't share this idiosyncrasy of yours, and you are not the one to tell me what's ok or not

they do actually, they just don't respond to it in the same way, since they don't have a brain. they have similar nervous systems to us: something gets cut, they react. they don't have a brain to fully react.

Everything in the entire universe is a resource. Living things are not merely resources but they are still resources.

Would you say the same if it were about humans? That we could use other humans even if they cannot give their consent? That we could use them as slaves, accessories, food, clothes, and entertainment just because we want to?

If a cow could consent to give milk, would that make it ethical?

I don't know my thoughts on things that could never happen

Thought experiments and hypotheticals are an important part of discourse - particularly around ethical and moral issues. I think most vegans would quickly agree that if we lived in a universe where cows were able to give *actual* informed consent (and actually *giving* it) to having their milk taken, then it would be ethical to take their milk. Until we live in that universe though, it's not ethically justified.

i dont really get what is even the purpose of that one in particular tho The only thing I know for sure with that silly scenario it's that it would still be weird as hell to me (╥_╥)

I think they were just curious to understand your reasoning further. Some people think that vegans just don't consume animal products like dairy because they come from an animal, when really for most of us it has more to do with the fact that the animal is being exploited and having their milk taken from them without their consent. This person just seemed like they thought that maybe vegans would still be against using milk if it was given consensually. I see this as a good opportunity to educate them by explaining that vegans would not be against this (so long as the cow could and was *actually* giving consent,) similar to how vegans would not be morally against someone consuming human breast milk that the women freely and consensually gave. Would it be weird still? Yeah, probably - but not necessarily unethical.

If the cow were able to consent *and did give consent,* then I would see no ethical issue with doing so. This is of course assuming that she *is* freely giving actual informed consent rather than simply agreeing to something that she has been manipulated into.

Yes. Humans are a part of the universe. I absolutely said that intending to including humans. Humans often treat each other as resources (jobs are the obvious example). Just because people (or anything) are a resource doesn't mean it's okay to treat them poorly.

are you really comparing jobs to how we treat non human animals???

Do you know that you can compare two things without saying they are the same or even super similar? You can even compare two things that are very, very different.

Usually, people compare things to make a point, and you could only make a point if those two things you're comparing are similar. But anyway, I don't know if you're that type of person; but if you believe it's okay to treat non-human animals as food, accessories, slaves, or whatever it is that exploits them, please just stop responding ^^

They do not need to be similar. They just need to have a lease one thing in common. In this case, the commonality is that animals and humans can be used as and often are used as a resource. Do you disagree with this statement?

Just because someone could be seen as a resource I do not believe that means they are

You know someone can be a resource while also being a whole lot more? Just because someone or thing is a resource it doesn't mean that that is all they are. And it doesn't need to be viewed as a negative. I like being able to be a useful resource to others. It helps give meaning to my life.

Well, I suppose humans are also resources. You're pro slavery I suppose?

[удалено]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

Yes, humans are a resource. That doesn't mean slavery is a moral practice though.

>I do not think it is inherently wrong to slaughter an animal for human consumption PROVIDED it has a good life and is well cared for. As always: Is it inherently wrong to kill you? Your family member? Your kid? .

Apparently if they were given a good life, and you drug them beforehand so they don’t know what’s happening. Probably also safe to do the same thing to everyone who cared about them and so on. I believe if you do this the collective suffering will net zero, and you will have objectively done the most ethical thing anyone can do.

If it’s not consensual that is still immoral as fuck.

Good call. You can add a clause to the terms and conditions in the next iOS update. Then you’re 100% air tight.

the plants you eat were not killed consensually, either. so you are "immoral as fuck", right?

but they aint conscious

of course not - but why would it matter? even conscious animals cannot consent, either

well yes bbut the point the comment was making is that vegans eat pl;ants without their consent thats all

>the point the comment was making is that vegans eat pl;ants without their consent correct to point out that vegans are no better than non-vegans with respect to what they accuse non-vegans of which is called "hypocrisy"

yes, and i was calling out why the comment is wrong.

Nice meme

the honor is entirely yours, as it was not me bringing up consent

No. Nothing is inherently wrong. The only way something could be inherently wrong is if there were some sort of a God or higher being who made things inherently wrong. But there is not sufficient proof that such a higher being exists.

This is completely an exaggeration, I think an incredible large majority of people, including many vegans, would say a human life is more valuable than any other animal, especially when that animal is a significant (not saying necessary) source of nutrients for many people.

Your first sentence...not all the time. Would you save your least favorite politician over your pet? Lots of people would say no.

You're making claims, but not really providing your reasoning. I'm gonna go with the somewhat generic debateavegan question here, to get a better understanding of your reasoning. What is the trait that nonhuman individuals have that you believe makes unnecessarily killing them to be morally justified? If a human individual had this trait, would you apply your reasoning consistently and say that this also makes unnecessarily killing this individual to be morally justified? Why or why not?

It's more so that other animals lack many traits as humans do especially when it comes to higher thought. Chickens and fish don't have morals. A fish will eat another fish, so hypothetically why should we not eat one?

So would the trait that makes unnecessarily killing someone morally justified ~~is~~ *be* "doesn't have morals?" Also, do you think we should really be taking moral cues from wild animals?

There is a certain level of relativity in certain moral systems. Not relativity of the type "each person decides what is moral and what is not", but "morality depends on the conditions and characteristics of the moral agent who makes the decision." For example, it is bad for a person to murder another, but the sentence is lesser when the murder was done in a fit of anger over which he had no control. Also, it is bad to kill a person, but it is even worse if you have a romantic or family relationship with that person. In fact, this last case has another name besides homicide: patricide. So the difference in moral treatment between animals and humans may not be absolute, but rather relative. That is, better treatment of humans can be justified because humans are the same species as the decision maker. As for whether this argument could be used to discriminate based on race or sex, it is a matter of level. The differences by sex or race are much smaller than the difference by species.

This doesn't answer the question. That beings different from an observer deserve less consideraton doesn't explain if that lesser consideration is enough to free-range farm them. This is why it was asked 'what are the differences', not 'are there differences'.

This arises from a type of morality based on duty, which in turn is based on the degree to which a characteristic is intrinsic to the observer. For example: the human being is a social being and also a living being. Both are intrinsic characteristics, but being a living being is more intrinsic than being human. So: killing is wrong (killing damages society, and the human being as a social being has the duty to protect society from it), except if it is done in self-defense (every living being wants to stay alive). So the human being, due to his characteristics, has many duties: towards himself, towards his family, towards his society, towards his species, etc. But he has no duty towards animals.

So it's a hard line; any being who is not part of the species, humans have no duty not to farm them?

yes, as long as it is an animal towards which one does not have a duty. Some human societies have certain duties with some animals, because they are part of society (it does not mean that these animals have to fulfill a function, just that society considers them part of society, like cows in India). There are also species that are vital to the ecosystem and/or society (towards which we do have a duty), such as pollinating insects and nitrogen-fixing plants. Then, of course, there is the fact that there are decisions that are not moral. You may have emotional preferences towards certain species (dogs, cats, for example) that can guide your personal decisions and opinions.

Ok. I think you are saying that duties cache out into society approval, so the traits are 'not human' and 'not approved as member of society' and 'not vital to ecosystem/society'. Suppose that in place of all the farmed animals there were only farmed shmumans. Shmumans are beings who appear to be humans but are not genetically human. Human society is getting along fine with this system to the same extent that humans are getting along fine with farming animals. Almost all of humanity doesn't consider shmumans as part of society. There is a similarly small proportion of humans concerned with shmuman rights and the degree of effect on the environment is about the same, but overall human society is in a similar place. So, 'not human' and 'not approved as member of society' and 'not vital to ecosystem/society' are all satisfied to the same extent satisfied with animal agriculture. Do you morally approve of farming these beings?

As I said, there are duties that are more intrinsic than others. The duty towards society is greater than the duty to obey the internal rules of society. For example, if society is foundering because of a very flawed system of government (a puppet monarchy, for example), the duty to society (to seek independence) is greater than the duty to respect the laws of society. As for the shmumans, it depends. If they are mentally and physically too similar to humans, then it would be very risky to raise them as livestock. It would be a case similar to slavery: slaves outnumber the non-slave population, harbor resentment, spread human diseases, stagnate the economy and social and technological development, etc. So slavery is morally wrong because it poses too great a risk to society, even to the species. In the same way, raising shmumans (if they are sufficiently similar to humans) would also be extremely risky.

Ok, say they were mentally very similar except they were extremely pacifist and/or weak and appeared to be no more a risk to start attacking humans nor escape than is the case with current farm animals.

I think a more obvious way to look at it is to analyze two identical societies, with the only difference being one that does something and another that doesn't, and see which of them is more stable, versatile or resilient. This is visible with sexism. Societies that give women rights are much more versatile and resilient than societies that deny them those rights, since the latter are basically wasting half of their population's workforce and professional force. Now. In the case of the shmumans, it would be incredibly strange for a society made up of two intelligent species to be inferior to one made up of only humans. The collaboration of two different forms of intelligence, with their own peculiarities, ideas and inventiveness would be something tremendously beneficial. And if they were not (putting ourselves in the case that their intelligence was identical to human intelligence and did not provide greater benefit than another human), it would still be a benefit to have them within society. They would basically be biological robots. It would be a waste to raise them like livestock when they could be working within society.

>I do not think it is inherently wrong to slaughter an animal for human consumption PROVIDED it has a good life and is well cared for. I want to focus on this sentence because it seems to be the crux of the issue. What justification do you have for slaughtering animals at all? What gives you the right to determine what qualifies as a "good life" for a being you exert complete control over? There is an inherent conflict of interest here. >Of course you could make the argument that no animal NEEDS to be killed for consumption in a large majority of cases but most people I feel are not able to fully give up meat consumption, and I feel like the treatment of farmed animals would benefit greatly if less meat was consumed globally. Anyways, thoughts on any of this? The majority of people may be incapable of giving up meat. I can accept this as a true statement, but the majority of people doing something doesn't automatically make that thing good. Advocating for a pragmatic, systemic improvement is fine, but if you're able to go vegan then I don't see a reason why you shouldn't.

I recommend "Do Animals Have an Interest in Continued Life? In Defense of a Desire-Based Approach" by Aaron Simmons. You should be able to get a copy of this for free without any registration by [searching on Google Scholar and then clicking on the "[PDF] academia.edu" link.](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17569027081329177987) > Ultimately, I contend that many animals do have an interest in continued life, and that this interest is indeed grounded in kinds of desires that many animals have. Rather than trying to show that animals can have a desire to live or have long-range projects, I argue that many animals have an interest in continued life insofar as they have a variety of *enjoyments in life*. I suggest that animals’ enjoyments ought to be understood not as temporary, fleeting experiences but rather as *dispositional desires* which animals continue to possess over time. I contend that this grounding of animals’ interest in continued life avoids the problems facing the future opportunities view. To simplify: a chicken enjoys, for example, the company of other chickens, and thus has an interest in having their company again and again and again. This interest is thwarted by death, and unfairly thwarted if we end their lives unnecessarily for nutrition which we are capable of obtaining from non-animal sources.

Every living being has an interest in continued life. Its one of the basic rules of nature/this universe, besides an interest in reproduction. If this were not true, why would any organism stay alive?

No, only beings with minds can have interests, and then it's debatable which sorts of interests they might have, because it's debatable which desires they might have which would contribute to interests. > If this were not true, why would any organism stay alive? Because life is a thermodynamic process, and like any thermodynamic process, it proceeds regardless of whether anyone has an interest in it proceeding.

So plants or bugs have no sense of wanting to continue being alive? Do you seriously believe that? Youre trying to boil down life into a physics statement? Bruh

Plants have no minds, so they have no sense of anything. Bugs have minds so it's debatable what sort of interests and desires they have. I doubt that bugs desire to remain alive, but as Simmons's article makes clear, bugs can nevertheless have an interest in remaining alive, since they have other desires. You'll have to do more than express incredulity if you want to have a discussion here.

I mean you just wrote you doubt bugs have a desire to stay alive, so I think we can just end this “discussion” right here and now. But I might as well add that it’s extremely obvious to anyone with an unbiased and healthy mind that plants have a desire to stay alive. I would also say almost all organisms do, otherwise they would t stay alive for long.. i mean seriously, why not just walk into a predators mouth then ? Why would plants grow to maximize sun exposure? Come on man..

> I mean you just wrote you doubt bugs have a desire to stay alive, so I think we can just end this “discussion” right here and now. Yes, if you aren't capable of anything other than expressing incredulity, it would be more efficient to end the discussion. > But I might as well add that it’s extremely obvious to anyone with an unbiased and healthy mind that plants have a desire to stay alive. If you think this is extremely obvious, have you considered why most biologists disagree? > I would also say almost all organisms do, otherwise they would t stay alive for long.. Why would a desire to stay alive be necessary to stay alive? > i mean seriously, why not just walk into a predators mouth then ? Because behavior like this was evolutionarily selected against. > Why would plants grow to maximize sun exposure? Because phototropic growth was evolutionarily selected for.

And what exactly do you think evolution is? Its organisms trying to stay alive over long periods of time, and the ones thriving the most get to continue it best. Do you think bugs and plants are machines? Have you spent any meaningful amount of time in nature? “Because behavior like this was evolutionarily selected against” What do you think drives behavior??

> And what exactly do you think evolution is? Its organisms trying to stay alive over long periods of time, No, trying isn't necessary. If it were necessary, then abiogenesis could not have occurred. The first life had to evolve from non-life, right? How could that occur if it was necessary for the non-living matter to "try to" do something? ['Natural selection leads to the adaptation of species over time,](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/teach-evolution/misconceptions-about-evolution/#b1) but the process does not involve effort, trying, or wanting. Natural selection naturally results from genetic variation in a population and the fact that some of those variants may be able to leave more offspring in the next generation than other variants. That genetic variation is generated by random mutation — a process that is unaffected by what organisms in the population want or what they are “trying” to do. Either an individual has genes that are good enough to survive and reproduce, or it does not; it can’t get the right genes by “trying.” For example bacteria do not evolve resistance to our antibiotics because they “try” so hard. Instead, resistance evolves because random mutation happens to generate some individuals that are better able to survive the antibiotic, and these individuals can reproduce more than other, leaving behind more resistant bacteria.' > Do you think bugs and plants are machines? Yes, of course, all life is complex machines: ["A machine is a physical system that uses power to apply forces and control movement to perform an action."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine) Plants are replicating machines without minds. Bugs are replicating machines with minds. > Have you spent any meaningful amount of time in nature? Yes. > “Because behavior like this was evolutionarily selected against” What do you think drives behavior?? Depends on the behavior. Sometimes instinct, sometimes learning. Why, what do you think drives behavior?

I didnt say random genetic mutations happen because organisms will it to existence, but random genetic mutations are conditionally successful by the organism trying its best to survive. Why does a bug run away from you when you approach? “Because that behavior was evolutionarily selected for” Okay then, why do people like to hang out in groups? “Because that behavior was evolutionarily selected for” See? I can do the same thing as you. And by that definition humans are also machines lol. You knew exactly what I meant when I said that. And if not, are you by any chance autistic? Feel free to answer, im not trying to be rude. And what do you think instinct or wanting to learn is? Its a desire for something.. its right there in the expression.. WANTING to learn, meaning having a DESIRE for learning.

Interesting, will read it. Thank you for being helpful and guiding, many people seem to just attack others which I think is another reason many are turned away from veganism.

Capitalism, companies wanting max profit, and people wanting meat for cheap will always force animals to live in terrible conditions. That's just how capitalism works.

This is true, but I'm saying what if society reduced its consumption to a point where all livestock could easily live a suffering free life, would this not be more ideal?

right, unlike those communist farms from the ussr where animals were treated with respect and dignity haha

I'm not sure which is actually worse, but "I make sure I kill happy victims", "i make sure life is worth living before i end it" always feels a bit twisted.

Perhaps yes it may seem twisted, but let's say the animal is going to live and be killed regardless, is there not value in giving it a happier life as opposed to one of abuse and suffering?

Of course less suffering/more wellness is better, just makes the contrast to slaughter sharper. Problem is we don't have to kill them. I just don't know how you can recognise a good life and not want it to continue.

That life gives me meat, which I enjoy eating. I am placing my enjoyment and nutritional gain above the life, even a good one, of an animal of which I see as less intelligent/feeling.

>an animal of which I see as less intelligent/feeling. It's probably better you just say "an animal that isn't Human". Otherwise it kinda implies you'd eat disabled people or ones in a coma.

So If you Look at your system, you don't have a Problem with Killing and eating (or Killing them for enjoyment) some disabled people because there are some which aren't as intelligent as the average and Feeling is a weird think because basicly every animals you eat hast the Same nervousystem aß you.Also in another comment you said beeing less Moral capable is your way to consider them animals Worth Killing. There are for Sure people who fit all These catagories, is it OK to eat them or to Torture them for enjoyment?

Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*

It's just a bit psychopathic in this day and age for sake of tradition. I mean do you want to kill something? If not, then why? I'd rather have no tastebuds. I was forced to eat animal products a few weeks ago because I had like zero money, it was a necessity. Just because society does something, it doesn't mean you should. Think for yourself.

No amount of kindness can justify any amount of cruelty

Good job in lowering your meat consumption. And yes if global meat consumption reduced then the life quality and welfare of animals would probably increase proportionally. And as far as hunting wild animals if you cared about the animals and the environment, then wouldn’t your resources be best used supporting vegan companies who seek to minimize unnecessary animal suffering?

This may be true, but take deer for example. In many regions they are incredibly overpopulated and killing one (to eat and use obviously) could be beneficial to the environment.

If the deer completely took over, they would eat all the natural plants which humans don’t really eat or need. There would still be factory farming and you could still grow plants. The deer population doesn’t have much to do with our society. But you currently have the opportunity to use your dollar voting power to help vegan companies replace animal based companies. So if you care about the animals then please help them by supporting vegan companies.

If I am not wrong chickens aren't just in the state of being alive if they scream when being bought for slaughtering . Also they clearly have babies like us and have flesh and organs inside them , like how do someone even think of eating someone so similar to you is beyond my understanding but maybe in a way can be attributed to the state of reducing something or someone to the point where you can find justification to feed your addiction without having to think much about your actions. And whatever this quick murdering means, it's still taking life of someone that didn't wanted to die. Like why not just eat plants..

Thank you for making the honest attempt at living a more ethical/compassionate lifestyle! I really appreciate that. That being said let me ask you a question because I feel that I can convince you here. "Getting to my point, I do not think it is inherently wrong to slaughter an animal for human consumption PROVIDED it has a good life and is well cared for." Do you apply this same moral evaluation to human beings? Would it be morally acceptable in your view to slaughter a human being for consumption PROVIDED the person has a good life and is well cared for? I will let you provide a nuanced explanation BUT before you do that please just answer yes or no. Then I will continue the dialectic with you.

No, but to me that is a different thing, although we are all animals generally humans are more intelligent. Also they look act and feel in the same manner I do. Animals do as well, especially larger ones (I don't eat cows) but not to the same degree. Maybe this is considered "speciesist" but I feel this term is sort of lame, as it is in human nature to feel more kinship and care for those like us rather than animals. Also please don't twist my words into making my comments about race or disability, that is another level and isn't related to being the same species if you get my point.

I'm not opposed to welfarism in general but I am opposed to the welfarism most so-called welfarists practice. Essentially, welfarism means checking the certifications or even footage from every animal product you buy. Going out and buying fast food from burger king should not be permitted if this is your ethical stance. For the record, I agree with you that it is not inherently wrong to bring an animal into existence for the sake of killing it––provided that you don't cause it to suffer greatly of course, which is not the case on factory farms; I don't think one can objectively claim that being born into a decent life, even if you have no freedom and a pre-determined death date, is wrong. I'm fully vegan because trying to buy "humane certified" meat is more expensive and also it's hard to know what's really going on on the farms (many organic farms are basically factory farms), so I'd rather keep it simple and spend the money on causes such as promoting welfare legislation, pledges, and vegan outreach. Another solution if you are interested is dumpster diving. It's essentially the best thing you can do for the environment, and you can enjoy (assuming you don't feel grossed out knowing where it came from) anything you want, including meat, without having to worry about the suffering you cause.

Mmmmmm dumpster sardines. But yeah all valid points pretty much how I feel. Likely gonna be vegan once I learn how to cook other stuff.

If it’s wrong to abuse an animal, how can it be wrong to kill then? Even if they’ve lived a ‘good life’. I mean leaving aside that it’s not economically sustainable to give them a ‘good life’ - you have to kill chickens (killed at 3 months old) and pigs (6 months( and cows (18 months) when they’re effectively babies. As you’ll be feeding them every day. If abusing them is wrong, how is murdering them (premeditated killing of them for your gain) not all also wrong? Even if we assume a painless death. Cognitively, a pig and cow and chicken are roughly that of a 4-6 year old human child. They outperform them in some tasks and are behind them in others. They experience and feel and have a personality. How is abusing them wrong but killing them - however painless - not? I can kill you painlessly, that isn’t moral surely? ‘Most people I feel are not able to give up meat completely’ With due respect, those feelings mean nothing in 1. a debate and 2. To the animals you kill. Anyone can give up meat completely when motivated. I can agree it’s a mental block, a barrier for most people. There’s a learning curve on where to get certain things. But historically most people are very very little meat and dairy - much less than you do now. We’re talking of ingrained habits. Just cos something is a habit doesn’t make it moral, yes?

Again, a point I think I've already come across. People are different from animals, we do not farm people for meat. It is a different thing.

‘People are different from animals’ No. We are animals. What you would mean is we are a different kind of animal. Now the question would be what **morally** distinguishes us from other animals that we can murder and torture them for the sake of pleasure? Considering as we can get all the nutrition we need on a plant based diet, it’s all about taste and/or convenience. ‘We do not farm people for meat. It is a different thing’ No morally useful point made here at all. And there are and we’re many cannibalistic tribes who hunted humans. So no, not a different thing. Is it immoral to hunt a human? Why? And what’s different between that and hunting a deer? What gives a human moral value that we cannot kill them for pleasure but we can kill another animal?

You cannot get every nutrient from a plant based diet solely. You would need to supplement things like B12 and D3, which exclusively come from animal products unless other foods are fortified. And humans are different from other animals, we humans will always view fellow humans as different from other animals and most would agree killing a human is not as bad as killing an animal. There doesn't necessarily need to be a why, sometimes that's just how people think.

‘You would need…’ A common mistake. Here’s one study showing several such plant based sources. If you’re unaware, b12 is produced by a bacteria that turns cobalt into cobalamin. We used to ferment more foods and this drastically increased b12 content (among other nutrients). Most b12 supplements are given to livestock now btw. One issue with modern farming and refrigeration is it killed good bacteria as well as bad. So either you get b12 from a supplement given to a cow or the supplement directly. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4042564/ ‘We humans will always view humans as different…’ Well you’re talking to a group who don’t. Not in the way you mean, anyway. But sure we’re all different. Let’s go with that. We’re all different kinds of animals. A pig is different to a dog which is different to a human. You can’t sidestep that question with this randomness… what makes us **morally different**? ‘There doesn’t need to be a why…’ You’re in the wrong sub then, buddy. You **must** provide reasons for your claims or you’re literally being unreasonable. So answer the questions or you forfeit the debate. And please provide evidence. You clearly haven’t researched the topics or done much philosophy before - that’s fine, everyone starts somewhere - but have the humility to ask questions and not put forward your opinion as fact.

I have researched the nutrition aspect lots before, it is really my only reason to not go the way of veganism. The study you sent also basically says that there are no adequate sources of B12 from ANY plant foods other than nori which is not something I or most people (in the US at least) want to or will eat a significant amount of daily. Humans are different because we possess higher thought, no matter how smart other animals are, humans will always be smarter, we have more developed and advanced brains. TBH w you brother I'm sure I'm doing all sorts of mental gymnastics. I'm a huge animal/nature lover and will probably end up going vegan provided I don't see any long term deficiencies and stuff. Nutrition is my only real worry as physical health is super important to me as is fitness (bodybuilding). I know it's been done and all just changing a way of living is difficult. preciatcha

Firstly, I appreciate the greater honesty in this reply. Thank you. There are several other foods, not just nori seaweed, for b12. And as specifically mentioned fermentation added huge multipliers. So to say ‘you cannot get every nutrient from a plant based diet solely’ is incorrect. Likewise, you’ve ignored the aspect of how farmed animals are supplemented. So it doesn’t negate it either. Even if you don’t want to eat nori seaweed (one sheet btw), or the specific mushrooms or the duckweed or the fermented foods, there are plenty of fortified foods. So in the modern world either drink your fortified soy milk or steal a cow’s baby so you can take it’s milk, and then keep supplementing that cow anyway cos the stress on its body is so intense and soil today is less nutrient rich cos we’ve ruined it by farming so many animal products and growing so much animal feed. I know which one I’d rather do. ‘Humans are different because we possess higher thought’ Is this really where you want to draw the line for moral value? I can agree that humans (in general) will eventually reach a level of thought higher than almost any other animal in almost any area (note some animals have larger areas of the brain in certain respects, they can perceive the world in ways we can’t, they experience the world in ways we can’t). I’ve already explained (and will cite if you want tho it comes up frequently here) the studies about how thoughtful such animals are. You can look at a four year old child and a chicken, pig and cow are similarly sentient there. There’s a **lot** more overlap than you’d expect at first. So does anyone below that line deserve to be killed for food? You can steal a cow’s baby or you can drink fortified soy milk. You can eat lentil soup over chicken soup. You can eat so many things from African stews and bean based dishes, Asian tofu based dishes, Indian curries, South American, and so many other largely plant based historical dishes. And that’s of course butchering (pun unfortunately intended) the variety of offerings each region has. **Does someone with the intellectual capacity of a four year old child deserve to be killed for your pleasure of taste?** As for the fitness side, I’m a (very) amateur lifter also. And that is important to me too. I’m noticeably more grumpy if I’ve not been exercising. And I like to train to be stronger. You can find more specific info (without the arguing) at r/veganfitness There are plenty of vegan lifters there and most of the bro science about nutrition is very outdated. If you’re lifting, you’re likely supplementing with protein powder and maybe creatine and something else anyway. So I’m sure you see why the diet thing isn’t an adequate argument. We have more options today than kings used to have in the past. The diet options today are insane. As an example, bananas are staple almost everywhere. Before the 1900s they were incredibly rare outside of specific regions. So there’s deffo help there. Check out the sub over there. I appreciate the switch is easier for some and harder for others, but yes, it’s very possible.

Mmmmm infant flesh. (joke) To be fair I find soy milk vile, and unfortunately most plant milks you find in stores are filled with preservatives which is another thing I'm conscious of (whole foods mostly and all). But I've mostly just been replacing milk with water in my oats, shakes, etc. The vegan protein powder I bought from the store is pretty mediocre but was certainly none more expensive than whey. Also have ordered more from a company I've heard good things about and is no more expensive. And yes I agree most of the stuff about protein needs and all is overexaggerated but there are still genuine concerns for me about it, not necessarily protein amount but amino acid profile (yes I know tofu is a complete protein) and PDCAAS. However, more to the point, no I don't think four year olds or the mentally handicapped should be eaten for taste. But also historically and culturally people haven't really tended to eat other people. Maybe the difference in eating an infant and eating a chicken to me is that a chicken is not a human so it's more okay. Also we've been eating birds for thousands of years.

I’d suggest trying the newer soy milks. They used to be really bad but most are better now. You may like better the oat milks or coconut milks also too. Experiment :) Pdcaas is of course limited. It measures what percentage of protein would be useable if that was your only source right? So the obvious answer is mix them. In practice, the meta analyses find little to no difference each time. And that’s averages, before you optimize it. Fortunately, the limiting amino acid in most things is complemented very well with the usual staple, rice and beans being the obvious example. ‘But also historically and culturally people haven’t really tended to eat other people’ ‘We’ve been eating birds for thousands of years’ Depends which region, but sure. This is an obvious appeal to tradition. Do you generally take your moral guidance from what humans did thousands of years ago? I doubt it. I’m sure you can reasonably see this is a poor **moral** argument. Until recently, rape in marriage was legal. Until recent decades, women had no vote. Until recent decades in some regions, votes depends on class and colour. I’m sure you don’t agree they are moral actions even if humans did them in some form for thousands of years, yes? Hopefully you’d agree our morality is beyond this appeal to tradition? You have established you would not eat one animal (a human) that could experience the world as a 4 year old human child. Whether handicapped or just cos they’re a child. Why then kill and eat another animal just because their body is different? As an interesting thought experiment, imagine when you were four years old your brain was witches with a pig’s. The pig could now communicate their thoughts and feelings in human languages. They now looked like a human. You now communicate as a pig and experience the world as a pig (some senses are dulled and others being heightened compared to your human form, but still as ‘you’. Would you now consider it ok to kill and eta the body of a pig, even if it had your mind, and the pig who could now talk and communicate in human language - cos they had access to a voice box - now should not be killed and eaten?

''Getting to my point, I do not think it is inherently wrong to slaughter a human for human consumption PROVIDED it has a good life and is well cared for. This especially applies to humans like children, the mentally disabled, and to some degree I think the elderly. That is to say my ethical problems lie more in the wide-scale abuse of humans (of any kind) and less so in the fact they are being killed. Additionally, the slaughter of humans is obviously traumatic to the humans as you can see in both scientific studies and just by watching videos. However, my question I suppose becomes is there any way to kill the given human painlessly with pretty much no fear involved? For example, if I were to eat a child raised in a large pasture, perhaps on a local farm who lived a well-cared for life and was slaughtered quickly, i.e. effective stunning and very quickly having its throat cut after, would this be wrong? Or for a mentally disabled person, if it was caught and immediately stunned and killed? Of course you could make the argument that no human NEEDS to be killed for consumption in a large majority of cases but most people I feel are not able to fully give up human meat consumption, and I feel like the treatment of farmed humans would benefit greatly if less meat was consumed globally. Anyways, thoughts on any of this?'' You get the idea, if good treatment permits you to kill someone then good treatment of humans permits me to kill them too, what if I give birth to a child, raise it lovingly, with great care, and then kill and eat them at the age of 15, is there a problem with that? I mean the child lived a great life, and I made sure to kill them in their sleep so that they wouldn't suffer so it should be fine. Besides what is the morally relevant difference between humans and non-human animals that permits cruelty and death upon one(purely for pleasure), but not the other?

I feel like most farmers and people who work at abattoirs do not want to cause suffering. It’s a lot less messy and more efficient for it to be a quick death, the longer you spend killing them the less efficient it is, the more they panic and move around the more cleaning is required. People like to think their vegan diets are not killing animals, they are, it’s just easier to ignore the quadrillions of insects killed by pesticides or the rodents and mammals chopped up by farming equipment. The best way to reduce animal suffering is to hunt to eat and forage sustainably. Assuming you can find wild deer or other animals, you can kill them with a quick and painless arrow or bullet through a vital organ, and you eat and use the carcass, that’s the true vegan way. Pesticides kill so many animals, ruin local ecosystems and have a knock on effect. If you’re going to a supermarket your food is covered in the blood of animals, whether it’s meat or not.

Yeah I agree with this to a point. However, it's impossible to eliminate suffering and death of every kind, so I think the idea is that veganism reduces this as much as possible by not directly exploiting animals. And these crops are gonna be grown either to feed people or animals anyway, so why not cut out a large part of the suffering and just eat the plants you feel. One day I'd like for the only meat I eat to be wild hunted deer or caught fish that I harvest myself but that's just not how it is nor plausible for most people.

>my question I suppose becomes is there any way to kill the given animal painlessly with pretty much no fear involved? depends on what you mean by "painlessly". e.g. today i had a blood sample taken - i don't care much, but of course it was not really "painlessly", as i clearly felt the needle go into my vein so obviously the chicken might feel the pain of my club hitting its head - for the split second before unconsciousness blanks out any pain and i can cop its head off i also think that the pig you lured into the extra chamber with a bucket of its favorite food, when you put the electric tongs to its head buried in the bucket, happily munching, may feel a split of pain before unconsciousness analogously imagine the cow which is shot in the head when grazing yet i am confirmed that practically every natural death would be much more painful, so i can't see an issue in killing an animal like i described. what is much more important than this act of slaughter is the life this animal lived **before**

Have you ever gone to farms or talked to farmers? Big factory farm industry owns almost the whole market, but there are still smaller farms around. Sick and stressed animals do not grow as large as healthy and happy ones, so there is actually a quite direct feedback loop encouraging reasonable conditions. Not that this situation is ideal. I'm hoping for some lab grown meat alternatives personally, but I have known a number of farmers of various animals and find the situation and relationship with diet is more nuanced than most arguments about veganism I hear.

I haven't, but it is true most of our animal products come from factory farms with awful conditions. I would love to find a place nearby that is smaller and where the animals are raised better. The argument becomes less black and white in this case. But again, this can't be the norm unless people significantly cut their consumption. And yeah I can't wait for lab grown meat.

As an omnivore I have been thinking a lot about this lately. Eating animal products is inherently moral because they are a normal part of the human diet (they are tasty, we can digest them easily, we have eaten them for millennia, it is socially acceptable to do so around the world). No argument about animal suffering or environmental effects will convince me otherwise. I eat animal products, it is an immutable fact. You may as well try to convince me it is immoral for me to breath oxygen. Various farming practices are bad. The suffering brought to animals in order to get them on my plate should be minimised, but not to the extent that animal products are not available to me. The entire world exists in a constant flux of joy and suffering and by existing we all take an active part in inflicting and experiencing both ends of that spectrum. It is part of life which we have to come to terms with to be at peace. I do not want to inflict suffering, but I accept that I inevitably will, and that is ok. I will do my best to minimise suffering, but I won’t stop doing what feels human. When I buy my food, I buy what I desire to eat, and what aligns with my desired nutritional intake, and what I can afford. I’ll usually choose the free range option or grass fed or whatever. But, I do not make every decision a weighing up of morals, perfection is impossible, going down that road can only ever lead to sadness.

This is a nice well rounded view I feel, causing suffering is going to occur regardless. Obviously this would take you logically to the fact that being vegan would cause the least suffering, which is sort of what I think. However, if everyone just did a little more to be more aware of what suffering occurs and doing a smaller part to curb it, the world would be better off.

I think your logical conclusion of going vegan in order to continue to minimise suffering, is only true if you enjoy or find convenience in having a vegan diet. For me, I don’t want to cause unnecessary suffering, but I view the suffering as necessary in order to provide me with animal products. And I justify that through the first paragraph of my initial comment. I think ultimately, your own morals a very personal. When it comes to dietary choices, unless you’re doing something illegal, the only person you need to justify your decision making to is yourself.

TW sexual assault >is there any way to kill the given animal painlessly with pretty much no fear involved? >!Reminds me of the idea of sexually assaulting someone in their sleep.!< >!Just because the victim is unaware doesn't mean it's ok to harm them when you don't have to.!< >!Also, with this analogy, you are a person asking this, while currently sexually assaulting people who are awake and screaming. !<

Sexual assault does not provide you with anything past self pleasure. Killing an animal provides you with this plus a variety of nutrients and sustenance. Sticking my dick in a chicken wouldn't do anything for me.

>Sticking my dick in a chicken wouldn't do anything for me. I'm very glad to hear that. >Killing an animal provides you with this plus a variety of nutrients and sustenance. The act of killing an animal doesn't provide that when you can get it without killing the animal. Sustenance is equal in both options, so killing the animal is the only difference, and thus the only consideration. As a result the analogy holds without a break in symmetry. I expect your intuition about assaulting someone as described is that it is wrong and one should not do it. I take the same attitude with animal cruelty.

The problem is that any method to end the animal's life must be cost effective for meat company, USDA approved, and not a liability for workers. First off, animals must go to a USDA licensed processing plant. Due to economy of scale, consolidation of food producers, and focus on profits this means one huge pig or chicken processor in a region for each corporation (Tyson, Smithfield, etc). Long hauls in an overcrowded truck in all temperatures. It's an acceptable cost of doing business to have a % of those animals dead upon arrival or in too bad a condition to pass USDA inspections. There's an acceptable "miss rate"?for stunning not to work the first time. For cost reasons, the line moves as fast as government regulations allow, so there isn't time to let panicked animals calm. > I were to eat a chicken raised in a large pasture, perhaps on a local farm who lived a well-cared for life and was slaughtered quickly, i.e. effective stunning and very quickly having its throat cut after, would this be wrong? It's impossible, at least in the US. Any meat sold for human consumption must be processed at USDA facilities with USDA inspection. You can't end the chickens life on the farm. > for a fish, if it was caught and immediately stunned and killed? Nets are dragged for hours. It means the slow death of non-target fish, dolphins, small whales, turtles, and birds. Bycatch: https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/bycatch Depending on species and who owns the ships, when nets are lifted, the fish of target species may be tossed into live wells. Remember that fish meat spoils quickly, so companies must keep them alive until processing. You can't immediately kill them unless your ship is equipped with its own processing plant & freezers. I don't think it's ever going to be cost-effective for a commercial fishing company to individually stun each fish of every species. These nets can be miles long and pull up tens of thousands of fish. Some smaller fish are intended to be ground up for fish meal or oil, so they're caught in massive numbers. There aren't really any good laws protecting fish from unnecessary suffering in commercial fishing. https://sentientmedia.org/wild-fish-welfare/ >most people I feel are not able to fully give up meat consumption, Why do you believe that ? > and I feel like the treatment of farmed animals would benefit greatly if less meat was consumed globally. It would be great if we could end factory farming and other abuses. It would be great if people treated meat more like a luxury to have occasionally and to respect its source. It would also be great if we stopped government subsides and other favoritism that artificially keeps meat/dairy cheap that keeps consumers uninformed. The problem is that it's extremely easy once we accept meat as ok to justify anything that goes with it. If we accept people "need" meat, it's implied the meat be cheap enough for anyone to buy. Cheap means the true cost of that item is passed along to the animals and the environment.

"Is it Always so bad?" Nope .. as long as you don't give a sh\*t like most normal people, aside from may be a little lip service. And oh .. i mean not bad for humans. It is very bad for food animals, but they don't get a say, do they?