What do you mean? It sounds like torture to me: “Chickens raised for meat have been genetically selected for rapid growth. They typically reach market weight 6–7 weeks after hatching and grow so fast that their organs and bones often cannot keep up. As a result, many die from heart failure or other ailments, and countless more suffer from broken bones, lameness, and ruptured organs.”
Many more kinds of torture are documented by this and many other sources that are easy to find.
in torture, the point is to cause pain. in farming, pain is incidental. if it could be done at the same cost and entirely painlessly, i’m sure that method would prevail.
Sure, assuming you have the rifle, the training and the hunting rights, and assuming your time doesn’t count as value.
I’m definitely more pro hunting than pro factory farming!
But I don’t really know of any poor people in industrialized countries who get their meat from hunting, especially not ones that eat meat every day. Maybe some special cases in very rural places? And it’s hardly scalable.
Is this really an argument for a non-meat diet being too expensive?
Imagine the effort, time and risk involved in hunting and killing a rabbit or deer with a rock, and subsequent slaughtering and storing of meat. Doesn’t that represent much more value than the money you would pay for an equivalent amount of nutrition from non-meat sources? At least in an industrialised nation?
Go ahead.
What do you mean? It sounds like torture to me: “Chickens raised for meat have been genetically selected for rapid growth. They typically reach market weight 6–7 weeks after hatching and grow so fast that their organs and bones often cannot keep up. As a result, many die from heart failure or other ailments, and countless more suffer from broken bones, lameness, and ruptured organs.”
Many more kinds of torture are documented by this and many other sources that are easy to find.
Here’s the data.
this data is based on bad science. in particular, it relies on poore-nemecek 2018, which misuses LCA data by combining disparately methodized studies.
Do you have a different study that you prefer?
as I said, I don’t know that you can prove your claim
in torture, the point is to cause pain. in farming, pain is incidental. if it could be done at the same cost and entirely painlessly, i’m sure that method would prevail.
Sure. I’d be down with calling them “extreme pain and suffering for cheaper food” farms if you prefer.
I just want you to stop trying to use sophistry to convert people to your ideology. surely the plain-spoken facts are sufficient.
hunting can yield hundreds of pounds of meat for just a few dollars.
Sure, assuming you have the rifle, the training and the hunting rights, and assuming your time doesn’t count as value.
I’m definitely more pro hunting than pro factory farming!
But I don’t really know of any poor people in industrialized countries who get their meat from hunting, especially not ones that eat meat every day. Maybe some special cases in very rural places? And it’s hardly scalable.
You don’t need that to hunt.
A crude selfmade bow and arrow is enough. Even a rock will do.
That is how they did it for thousands of years.
Is this really an argument for a non-meat diet being too expensive?
Imagine the effort, time and risk involved in hunting and killing a rabbit or deer with a rock, and subsequent slaughtering and storing of meat. Doesn’t that represent much more value than the money you would pay for an equivalent amount of nutrition from non-meat sources? At least in an industrialised nation?
you are moving the goal posts. I provided the only counter example needed to disprove your claim