Your statement seems to imply that the concept of livestock experiencing suffering or deserving ethical treatment is based on 'absurd premises'. This seems to stem from a viewpoint that animals are fundamentally different from humans in terms of consciousness, emotions or the capacity to suffer. However, numerous scientific studies have shown that many animals, including those we commonly categorize as livestock, do indeed exhibit complex behaviors, show signs of consciousness, and display clear responses to pain and stress, indicating a capacity for suffering. This is particularly true for mammals like cows, pigs, and chickens.
The concept of treating livestock ethically is not about equating animals to humans, but about acknowledging these capacities and adjusting our behaviors and systems accordingly. It's about understanding that, while they may not experience the world exactly as we do, they do have experiences that matter to them. It's not an 'absurd premise' but a logical conclusion based on observed evidence.
"Suffering" is a nonsense word. It can't be measured or detected. There is no scientific theory of what it is, or even how we might go about somehow detecting its presence or absence some day. I mean, the word might have some use in poetry, but otherwise it could be stricken from vocabulary without any real loss.
> This seems to stem from a viewpoint that animals are fundamentally different from humans
There is a fundamental difference. Humans are humans, and non-humans aren't. And being the practical organism I am, I (along with most others for the last few ten thousand years) have decided that it is socially and politically convenient for me to treat other humans well. When I do, you all agree to chase down my murderer, for instance, to the best of your ability and punish him. That deterrence effect is valuable to me. You agree that there are some basic inviolable rights. Etc. The reciprocity required on my part is a bargain for the value I get in exchange.
Non-humans are incapable of the reciprocity. I get nothing for extending any of these courtesies to a chicken. I (and most others) have therefor not extended these courtesies to chickens. Or cows, or hogs. Or, for that matter, any other non-human species. You don't get to re-negotiate these things unilaterally either, it would require the some super-majority of humanity, of human cultures, to extend this to a non-human species. Maybe you should start a petition.
Do you even know why you believe the absurd things you do? Can you trace the meme back to whom and whence it originated from? Do you even know why you accept it as true? Do you understand its implications, really?
> show signs of consciousness,
What's that, exactly? There is no such thing as consciousness. Not even in humans. It's the secular word for "soul", I think. At least "soul" is more honest. There is no such thing though, no matter what word you use.
> The concept of treating livestock ethically is not about equating animals to humans
Funny. You just spent your entire comment doing that. You told me they weren't different when it came to consciousness, emotions, or suffering. You claimed "numerous scientific studies" that they have complex behaviors similar to humans, that they experience pain and stress as we do. I mean, it's like just 1 or 2 sentences above this claim. Did you lose track?
> but about acknowledging these
I can't acknowledge that which isn't real. If at some point in the future you manage to prove empirically that these invisible, imaginary qualities are real, I can acknowledge them then... but I won't hold my breath. Or pretend with you in the meantime.
> It's not an 'absurd premise' but a logical conclusion
Nothing you've said indicates you are familiar with logic.
Please note that if torture pigs made the bacon even 3% tastier, I'd be calling my senator right this minute to demand that he allow farm workers to tasering them for shits and giggles. Their pain has no moral weight whatsoever. You should rejoice that you live in a universe where it actually ruins the flavor.
If the only reason you are kind to humans is because it's practically useful to you, I can understand why you don't care about animals. While I'm sad I have to exist on the same planet as this kind of thinking, I'm glad someone is at least saying the quiet implied bits of the human-centric mindset out loud.
(Just in case you edit/delete your comment later... my current favorite quote is "Please note that if torture pigs made the bacon even 3% tastier, I'd be calling my senator right this minute to demand that he allow farm workers to tasering them for shits and giggles.")
Why would I edit it? Do you believe yourself to have supernatural powers of shaming or something?
You're the one that is dangerous, the one people should be worried to share a planet with. When your only principle is whether you feel something is a person or not, then nothing stops you from just suddenly no longer feeling the rest of us to be people.
Unfortunately I've spent time on Reddit, where people in a controversial conversation would sometimes drastically edit or delete their messages (or mods would delete them), making the conversation unreadable. I hope your comment stays up; it doesn't seem like HN has the same problem.
Theoretically, even if I gave up on the entire project of ethics, there would still be self-interested reasons to be kind to humans. That's what your previous comment was pointing out, right? If I stopped caring about my current ethics, you'd only have to get along with another person with similar thoughts.
Also, as a side note, I don't particularly care whether something is a person or not. I only care whether it's capable of feeling pain. Even if we somehow "discovered" that plants were people, I have zero moral feelings about plants since (as far as I'm aware) they are incapable of pain. I don't think mice are people, but I care about them because I think there's a reasonable chance they can experience pain.
10 million dogs and four million cats are slaughtered for their meat on the mainland each year. Many are beaten to death because the promoters believe this method makes the meat more tender and tastier
"Typically they suffer a death that is far from efficient. They are snared around the neck with metal hooks and dragged from their cages. Then they are either bludgeoned or stabbed in the neck or groin to be “bled out”. Other methods of killing including being hanged or electrocuted. This happens dog by dog so other dogs are likely to witness multiple deaths ahead of their own. This further spreads panic."
"Even if they do, who gives a fuck bruh? You eat pigs which are filthy to Muslims and Jews, and cows which are sacred to Hindus, and eggs from female chickens whose male siblings are crushed to death by grinders because they're commercially useless, and venison from deer that display empathy and mourn and bury their dead, and lobsters that you know have been boiled alive because they taste better that way than when they're killed outright, and sushi in authentic Japanese restaurants which for all you know could be sourced from super-intelligent whales and dolphins that are going extinct, and fish which are extracted by modern fishing vessels dragging huge nets across the bottom of the ocean for a monstrous catch. The vessels then throw out the least valuable fish, which are already dead and just rot in the water."
""Suffering" is a nonsense word. It can't be measured or detected."
Hypothetically, if someone would put you into a small box, too small to get up and you may sleep where you shit, do you think, you would suffer a little bit in it?
Your hypothetical makes little sense and is difficult to parse. It first supposes that there are any similarities or the moral sort between myself and livestock such that substituting one for the other is a comparison worth exploring.
What if you put a slab of granite in that box? Or a helium balloon that yearns to be free? Can they suffer as well?
