> — I'd far rather take a well-constructed bullet to the boiler room and quickly fade out than
I'd want the same.
> The point of fully exploiting the carcass is recognizing that a life was taken, regardless of suffering, and choosing to make as much use of it as possible
While economically that makes sense, that is a money/efficiency issue not an ethical one. So I agree fiscally but say that has no ethical bearing.
> While economically that makes sense, that is a money/efficiency issue not an ethical one. So I agree fiscally but say that has no ethical bearing.
All else equal, extracting the maximum food products from an animal should reduce the number we have to slaughter. It would be absurd, but if we only processed half the animal, we would need to slaughter twice as many to provide the same amount of meat.
In reality, I think it's not that simple because more efficient processes lower the cost of meat which increases demand.
jesus. Nobody. I said 'if'
> Modern slaughterhouses minimize this possibility (Grandin's legacy),
EXACTLY MY POINT IN THE ORIGINAL POST! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33657818
> — I'd far rather take a well-constructed bullet to the boiler room and quickly fade out than
I'd want the same.
> The point of fully exploiting the carcass is recognizing that a life was taken, regardless of suffering, and choosing to make as much use of it as possible
While economically that makes sense, that is a money/efficiency issue not an ethical one. So I agree fiscally but say that has no ethical bearing.