The possible future of Chicken Farms

[NeptuneUK]

I, for one, would welcome our new lobotomised chicken overlords.

 

[JUL3]

This just emphasizes how ****ed up this race is. I will continue being a vegetarian and in full support of equal animal rights. **** anybody who chooses to ignore a moral dilemma this monstrous.

The solution to an animal's suffering is not this, this makes the entire concept x10 worse, not only is it cutting a defenseless animal's life short, it's cheating them from life in the first place. I agree with whomever said before that this guy a psychopath.

 

[15357]

I'm not sure, but I think you just offended the vast majority of the human race.

But anyway, AFAIK, ever since 1910, meat has been way cheaper than other protein alternatives. Without factory meat, a proportion of the population, even in developed countries, will not receive enough nutrition -- and perhaps may starve. I'm pretty certain that starvation and malnutrition of human beings should be avoided as well.

So, three choices:
1. Good-bye factory meat, and a good chunk of the economy.
2. The Chicktrix
3. The Status Quo

I'm pretty sure #2 is more logical.

 

[ríomhaire]

Relevant: Cow meat grown directly from stem cells on the horizon: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/19/first-test-tube-hamburger-to-be-produced-this-year/

The world’s first “test-tube” meat, a hamburger made from a cow’s stem cells, will be produced this fall, Dutch scientist Mark Post told a major science conference on Sunday.

Post’s aim is to invent an efficient way to produce skeletal muscle tissue in a laboratory that exactly mimics meat, and eventually replace the entire meat-animal industry.

[...]

Post, chair of physiology at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, said his project is funded with 250,000 euros from an anonymous private investor motivated by “care for the environment, food for the world, and interest in life-transforming technologies.”

[...]

Both scientists said no companies in the existing meat industry have expressed interest.

 

[Vegeta897]

Now that sounds a lot more ideal, even though I don't have much problem with the OP stuff.

 

[Eejit]

Vat-grown meat isn't going to be economically viable for a very, very long time. The entire process has to be kept at a high level of sterility, the growth media has to be precisely formulated and is usually full of antibiotics and antifungals. Lobotomised chickens would still have their own skin, immune system etc. avoiding those particular problems.

 

[ríomhaire]

Is there no way to grow vat meat that has its own immune system?

 

[JUL3]

I'm not sure, but I think you just offended the vast majority of the human race.

But anyway, AFAIK, ever since 1910, meat has been way cheaper than other protein alternatives. Without factory meat, a proportion of the population, even in developed countries, will not receive enough nutrition -- and perhaps may starve. I'm pretty certain that starvation and malnutrition of human beings should be avoided as well.

Excellent, that's exactly what I was going for.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like bullshit. We can't survive without meat? How do you suppose all the vegetarians/vegans of the world have survived?

 

[Eejit]

Is there no way to grow vat meat that has its own immune system?

They're still struggling to grow vat meat with its own circulatory system. It becomes more difficult the more tissue types you're trying to grow as they don't necessarily come from the same stem cell lineages and if they do you still need to force differentiation in multiple directions.

 

[Stylo]

We can't survive without meat? How do you suppose all the vegetarians/vegans of the world have survived?

We're humans, man. We're actually designed so that we can eat meat, it's an important source of protein. Some people might not like it but short of attempting to force the rest of the population to be veggies, there are always going to be issues surrounding the way we consume meat.

The current method we have of mass chicken farming is to cram them like f*ck into the tiniest spaces we can possibly cram them into and let them suffer in there until they die.

Frankly, I would much rather they were raised oblivious and pain-free. It's kind of weird and creepy, yes, but I think it's less horrific than what we do right now. Like everyone else has said, it'd be nice if we could just grow meat and cut out the raising of the animal and debating the issues surrounding its life altogether but it's not going to be a viable alternative to our current method for a long time and it's not a method that has been perfected yet.

 

[Tagaziel]

Excellent, that's exactly what I was going for.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like bullshit. We can't survive without meat? How do you suppose all the vegetarians/vegans of the world have survived?

Seriously, stop posting, you're making all vegetarians (including me) look like stuck-up idiots.

Vegetarian diet is expensive. Meat is currently the cheapest and least environment-heavy source of nutrition across the world and without the mass production of meat factories around the world, starvation would be much more likely. He isn't pointing out that people can't survive without meat; he's pointing out that without cheap meat from meat factories there'd be much less food in circulation, resulting in famine being a much mor elikely threat.

 

[JUL3]

We're humans, man. We're actually designed so that we can eat meat, it's an important source of protein. Some people might not like it but short of attempting to force the rest of the population to be veggies, there are always going to be issues surrounding the way we consume meat.

True enough, you raise a valid point.

But humans also have the intellectual capacity to evolve. We're "designed to eat meat"? Then how do we get by equally as well, if not better off in some cases, by not eating meat?

The solution to the 'animal cruelty makes me uncomfortable vs. but I do enjoy eating their flesh' dilemma isn't thinking up some new messed up way to raise the animals for slaughter. It is either A) No one eats meat - yes it's an extremely unlikely Utopia, but I can dream. Or B) Meat is not a public service: you want it, you kill it yourself - This at least would cut out the hypocrites who only experience the tasty end of industrialized meat. Of course B has its own set of problems re animal cruelty, but still.

But to digress from that... the problem with this is simply how far are our ethics going to stretch before people comprehend the simplicity of it. Not eating meat is viable solution, it is that simple. With this supposed 'solution', I know I'm not the only person who cringed when reading his attitude about animals. "Agricultural products"? F*ck off, they are a living organism no matter which way you look at.

I'm kinda all over the place here, I'm pretty tired, but hopefully my point is getting across.


TL;DR Doing this is a totally unnecessary way to combat a problem for which the solution is decently simple. For f*ck sake humans.

 

[Eejit]

"Agricultural products"? F*ck off, they are a living organism no matter which way you look at.

So are plants

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Let's not forget yeast. I'm tired of yeast genocide.

 

[morgs]

Read somert in the news the other day saying battery chickens will be abolished in NZ within a year or something along those lines.

 

[Stylo]

But humans also have the intellectual capacity to evolve. We're "designed to eat meat"? Then how do we get by equally as well, if not better off in some cases, by not eating meat?

Well, what I mean to say is that we have evolved as meat eaters. I know that people CAN get by without eating meat but it's an extremely efficient source of particular nutrients. Your solutions may seem simple to you but I don't think they are as simple to the wider meat consuming society. The whole 'you want it, you kill it yourself thing' is pretty abstract in my opinion.

The whole point is efficiency, in day to day life, people have jobs and capitalism is everywhere. We've built our own concrete jungles over everything and that's the way Humans live. It would be pretty backwards to suggest that we somehow regress society back to hunting their own food.

I can completely understand the people having problems with ethical issues surrounding this, really I can. But to me, it's simply a progression in the way we do things. If it were me being reared to be consumed, I know that I would personally choose to lead a painless and oblivious existence instead of suffering my whole life just to be killed. It seems like a lesser of the evils really. Other species are inevitably going to be killed in order to ensure our species continues to live efficiently and caters for its population.

I'm all for treating animals fairly but to me, it has to be done in the fairest way possible without sacrificing our own basic needs. I, as an individual, have more of a problem with battery farms than I would with this system, as right now, it seems like one of the best directions we can go in whilst still allowing the mass consumption of meat - which IS necessary as it's pretty much inconceivable to make Humankind stop eating meat altogether.

When we can practically and efficiently turn to an alternative method like lab grown meat, I'm sure we will. We've begun testing it out already, which proves that we ARE looking for more ethical ways to mass produce meat in an efficient manner and that we're not completely a bunch of cold, murdering barbarians.

 

[NeptuneUK]

More relevant. Pictures

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...on_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline

 

[Yuri]

I'm thoroughly enjoying JUL3's completely rational and respectable posts over here.

 

[Tagaziel]

I was lucky to avoid Vegenazis so far. Well, there's a first time for everything.

Meat is an essential source of protein in developing countries. Sure, you can sit in your comfy armchair, eating delicious tofu, sipping latte with soya milk and argue how inhumane and unethical it is to eat meat, but really, that only makes you an inconsiderate ass of jacks. The impoverished milions across the world need meat to survive and avoid malnutrition and hunger. It's either animal meat or starvation. Sure, you can argue about tofu and soya and a variety of other plant-based replacements for animal protein, but you forget that these are luxury goods. And that makes you a Vegenazi.

 

[mechanicallizard]

You seem to be very reasonable for a vegetarian. Most people I know fall under your 'Vegenazi' category.

 

[CptStern]

I was lucky to avoid Vegenazis so far. Well, there's a first time for everything.

Meat is an essential source of protein in developing countries. Sure, you can sit in your comfy armchair, eating delicious tofu, sipping latte with soya milk and argue how inhumane and unethical it is to eat meat, but really, that only makes you an inconsiderate ass of jacks. The impoverished milions across the world need meat to survive and avoid malnutrition and hunger. It's either animal meat or starvation. Sure, you can argue about tofu and soya and a variety of other plant-based replacements for animal protein, but you forget that these are luxury goods. And that makes you a Vegenazi.

lol I'm sure the world's poor eat meat every day. steaks on the BBQ, briskets for dinner, filet mignon on sundays


I mean just look at all that meat

 

[Yuri]

guys, stern posted two pictures of foreign people with vegetables, i think he is being sarcastic!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NeptuneUK]

This. Just this.

 

[CptStern]

guys, stern posted two pictures of foreign people with vegetables, i think he is being sarcastic!!!!!!!!!!!

I can always count on you to say something stupid.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5005952

average consumption by average families. but thanks again for contributing absolutely nothing to this thread. keep on keeping on troll dude

 

[NeptuneUK]

I saw that list in the newspaper some time back, it was rather interesting actually.

 

[Krynn72]

I don't see why we don't just start eating human meat. Grow some humans specifically for eating, and then we've solved everyone's problem. Animals are being treated equally, and we all get to eat delicious meats.

 

[mechanicallizard]

I don't see why we don't just start eating human meat. Grow some humans specifically for eating, and then we've solved everyone's problem.

A good idea you may think. But eventually someone will escape and become 'The One'. This foolish individual will revert back to the old ways and consume animal flesh.

 

[Maestro]

I was lucky to avoid Vegenazis so far. Well, there's a first time for everything.

Meat is an essential source of protein in developing countries. Sure, you can sit in your comfy armchair, eating delicious tofu, sipping latte with soya milk and argue how inhumane and unethical it is to eat meat, but really, that only makes you an inconsiderate ass of jacks. The impoverished milions across the world need meat to survive and avoid malnutrition and hunger. It's either animal meat or starvation. Sure, you can argue about tofu and soya and a variety of other plant-based replacements for animal protein, but you forget that these are luxury goods. And that makes you a Vegenazi.

This is a good point: poor countries do not eat nearly as much meat, but it (along with dairy and eggs) is an essential method of nutrient intake. We have sharp teeth for a reason. Don't even get me started on all the shit tofu and other soy-products do to your endocrine system, not to mention the fact that in developing countries animals often inhabit and consume from places that otherwise would produce no food. It's not like the US or Europe where cornfed beef is common; chickens, goats, pigs, sheep, and yes even cows all survive off of the grasses and other things that just grow in the environment.

It's not the meat that's the problem, it's the scale on which we want it and how we're producing it that causes the issue.

 

[JUL3]

I'm thoroughly enjoying JUL3's completely rational and respectable posts over here.

Oh aren't you all high and mighty? Shut up.

you can argue about tofu and soya and a variety of other plant-based replacements for animal protein, but you forget that these are luxury goods.

Maybe so. But not necessarily, if we can put meat into such massive mass-production why can't we do the same with tofu? It's highly unlikely, yes, but it's not irrational.

 

[15357]

You can. At least places like here where there is actually a demand for it.

But understand that people usually don't like the taste -- I only like it within stews or perhaps slightly fried. More importantly:

Cost of 400g of Tofu: 3,200 Won
Cost of 500g of Pork (non-canned): 3,300 Won
Cost of 550g of Chicken (Whole): 4,000 Won

Even over here, Tofu is more expensive. I've been eating Tofu all my life, and my Tofu consumption is many more times my meat consumption. But I have absolutely no idea why anyone would choose Tofu over meat. I don't see the demand for meat products going down anytime soon, and therefore, you have 3 choices:
1. Status Quo
2. The Chicktrix
3. Expensive meat for everyone! And also skyrocketing prices for other protein alternatives!

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

It's not the meat that's the problem, it's the scale on which we want it and how we're producing it that causes the issue.

Very well said.

There is such a thing as conscientious meat eating, you know? Other than basic moderation: being selective in your buying practices, investigate local food joints, pick out free range, organic and cageless products at grocery stores, etc.

...but if this is a debate of ethics you have to bring in the cruelty of the dairy, egg and animal byproduct industries. And the fact that vegan diets are largely reserved for the wealthy and educated. Even if you do manage to avoid all animal products--in buying other foodstuffs you may be supporting companies like ConAggra and Monsanto who regularly utilize animal torture, neglect their laborers and have terrible business practices supported by monstrous government subsidies which turn into monstrous lobbying dollars to influence our congress and lawmakers.

I'd like to think that it's more important to emphasize equitable and sustainable food choices altogether. It's easy to get into the hyperbolic culture war of meat eater vs. non-meat eater, a debate that rests more on media pulp and a culture of misinformation and poor education. Pitting these two arbitrary dietary decisions against one another circumnavigates what would be revelatory investigations on the food industry as a whole, something our societies lack.

The "vegetarian/vegan vs. meat-eater" dichotomy is a circular and droll debate, it's frustratingly pervasive and almost entirely unproductive. Now I'll shut up before I start venting about organizations like P.E.T.A.

 

[Yuri]

I can always count on you to say something stupid.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5005952

average consumption by average families. but thanks again for contributing absolutely nothing to this thread. keep on keeping on troll dude

my post was actually about how you are, once again, posting something completely irrelevant to what was being debated in an effort to annoy somebody

Tagaziel was saying that being vegan is a luxury not available to many poor people around the world because they do not have the ability to sustain such diets, and that JUL3's bizarre rants are therefore presumptuous and unfounded. how the fact that some countries eat less meat, eggs and dairy on average than others has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Oh aren't you all high and mighty? Shut up.

the irony is killing me

 

[CptStern]

my post was actually about how you are, once again, posting something completely irrelevant to what was being debated in an effort to annoy somebody

wasnt your follow up post exactly the same thing? hypocrite much? I at least stayed on topic

Tagaziel was saying that being vegan is a luxury not available to many poor people around the world because they do not have the ability to sustain such diets, and that JUL3's bizarre rants are therefore presumptuous and unfounded. how the fact that some countries eat less meat, eggs and dairy on average than others has absolutely nothing to do with that.

way to read Yuri. it's not whether some countries eat less meat or eggs but rather that the average meals in impoverished countries contain little to no meat due to how poor they are. on topic; not my fault you cant be bothered to read the article posted

 

[KiplingsCat]

if we can put meat into such massive mass-production why can't we do the same with tofu?

Cos tofu is gross, that's why.

I wouldn't be for cloned meat myself, because I just don't think it'd be as nice. The nicest steaks are from happy cows that lived outside in a field and frolicked and ate grass. That stuff really does affect how the meat tastes.

 

[NeptuneUK]

My food needs to have experienced the appropriate amount of pain and suffering during it's development to REALLY add flavour.
This is why KFC tastes so much better than celery *SCIENCE*

 

[Stylo]

Cos tofu is gross, that's why.

Crudely put But this does raise a point. Tofu isn't in a production like meat is because there's not as much demand for it.

It may annoy you, Jul3 but most people just aren't vegetarian/vegan and well, they don't want to be either. They want meat. Pure and simps.

They want it fast, they want it efficient and a lot want it as ethically produced as is possible so they can get their proteins and not feel as bad that
an animal died for their dietary needs as they would if it was put through hell before it ended up on their plate. That and they like the taste.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Soy beans are picky ****ing crops, they require a lot of energy and irrigation to sustain. That's not arguing against or for any particular point--just freely associating.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

You've been more concise and sarcastic lately, kinda Maureen Dowdesque, yo. Refreshing change of pace, you seem less bitter. Good on you, I could learn a thing or two from your tone there.

Warning: BHC disconnected and long-winded diatribe skipping from issue to issue at random. Don't say I didn't warn you.

------------------------------------------------------ line of no return: I'm tired, pissed off, and feel like venting before I quit my shit job tomorrow.

As far as meat, food, ethics, that stuff--I'm notoriously uncaring despite my knowledge of the industry. I fluctuate sometimes by the month, day or mood, etc. I wish more people at least knew the ethics and inner workings of massive farming operations.

I grew up around them whenever we'd visit my grandparents. After a while, it just seemed normal. No, the operations didn't belong to my family--rather the town itself was sustained by a subsidized cattle/chicken concentration camp (can't remember the proper word here, been up too many days).

This is how the families stayed afloat, working there, taking government money and supplying The Man. I'd kill thousands of animals if it meant the well-being of my family, I had no right to cast judgement--but I did express discomfort.

Those operations went unquestioned because they allowed the townspeople to pay the bills, provided jobs and just enough for their the rents and the capacity to feed their kids. Hence my focus on rudimentary education and emphasis on policy change.

We can't just dismantle these sorts of industries, no matter how cruel their history and slanderous the law behind them are, there's always collateral. In lieu of that the supposedly progressive idea that we can just magically legalize marijuana is equally appalling.

A lot of poor folk would lose their well being, the DEA and police agencies having to layoff so much staff would tear families apart and take away much needed high-benefit government provided jobs--not to mention agricultural conglomerates would take control of the industry to provide gas station dispensaries, and provide the cheapest most destructive solution to provide product.

Using some cliched scenarios here but I don't think the majority of even the most educated folks realize the amount of work it requires to reverse a system as backwards as our food industry without creating massive collateral damage to our economy and lower class. And at this point, I highly doubt anything would pass in the way of spending money to actually remploying folks with jobs emphasizing rehabilitation and social assistance.

One simple internship as a paper-pusher for a congress person or state legislator will shed light on this. On how hard it is to change even the most simple of policies in a nearly cryptic bureaucracy written for folks who speak the language of the privileged. Then you do get something stamped into law, but without any attention to replacing the structures which said politician dismantled.

We must understand the politic to change it, teach the language of policy change and how to generally reconstruct and think out sweeping changes to law. These "evil" animal killing corporations put roofs over the head of so many people--roofs that won't be replaced with a simple over-ruling. Despite how easy it is to propose fair policy change as impossible--and that collateral is necessary, because so much of it is not.

What if Charlie Wilson rebuilt the education system and paid attention to whom he was arming in Afghanistan? What if we actually gave that 30 acres and a mule after the Emancipation. What if lawmakers had acknowledged the turbulence in South America that led to the utterly ignored white-collar coke boom and cartel murders across Miami and the southern coasts.

What if the law had a statute to protect the poor black neighborhoods from crack by, at the very least, giving them the same treatment of the Wall Street kill-sniffers. It took four decades of cycling poor minorities into prisons for addiction instead of rehabilitating them. We hire thugs instead of counselors, we built, and build cruel prisons instead of rehab facilities that turn small time dealers into gang members.

Gradual, thoughtful change always gets forgotten in our nation of consumption.

There's policy and legislation stamped into law in this country that permits war crimes, murder and this kind of treatment towards human beings. I guess I'm the dude eating McNuggets in one hand and writing papers on the wrongness of renewing the National Defense Authorization act, big corn lobbies/subsidies, etc.

A hypocrite in my own right, but everyone picks their convictions.

The least cruel way to live, that I can imagine, is in a self-sustaining and powered farming commune wearing clothes crafted from hemp/cotton grown on location, soap and shampoo made from materials and herbs gardened by my nuclear family, etc--replacing Wal-Mart with dirtied bloody knuckles and willpower.

But you also have to throw some advocacy in there, right--because you're an insane hardworking mother****er? So every Tuesday you get booth picket sign and find your favorite town square, playground or college campus and promote your agenda loud and proud. With proper educational materials and opportunities for the young and poor.

This hypothetical person is actual my awesome cousin, and I really admire the sacrifices he's made to live almost entirely self-sustained, barring medical emergencies or need for police help.

He visited my house once and the hair care products and soaps were actually ****ing awesome. Minty hemp bodywash and soap made from animal fats of free grazing livestock with scented herbs.

Zeke is also part a mix of White/Black and a large part American Indian. He's a hero of mine. Went to school for botany and got his B.A. and just stood behind every word he argued in class. ****ing sticking to your laurels is hard. I realize this isn't a lifestyle just anyone can adopt, but if even the few that do make an enormous difference after a couple of years.

Hell, a great deal of those who've posted in this thread impress me compared to the folk I see at work on a daily basis.

We can't just "undo" what we consider cruel legislation without having policy to rebuild communities built upon "cruel" industry. Restructuring must occur to provide for those who lose everything so our over-represented rich can't merely walk away with the illusion of having done justice--when in actuality they've created the same "whackjobs" you slander the next week at the dinner table--fundamentalists who lost their jobs, plunged into poverty and desperately clung to the radicalism that once kept them afloat.

I think I know one congressperson who actually took the time to read bills and set his sights on reconstruction in my lifetime, Russ Fiengold--he maintained a level head opposing the patriot act and supposing more reasonable support for our armed forces, he supported campaign finance reform--taking note not to detract from grass roots efforts (now mindlessly reversed by our reactionary Senate). He left when we lost the majority. Nancy Pelosi similarly investigates instead of merely reacting--but she's just that loud obnoxious minority leader to our lawmakers now.

So after that huge digression here's the next shit I randomly thought about, bitches:

No party should believe themselves guilt free for simply advocating the reversion of law. We should not be content and derive pride in the belief that we've helped folks that we don't glance back towards after the nightly cable news ends.

 

[Dandan]

Chickens Stacked to the Moon?

that would be even more exciting

 

[JUL3]

the irony is killing me

Jesus could you be any more up your own ass? I swear at least 80% of threads in The Lounge consist of you having an opinion and defending it vigorously. And now, on one of the rare occasions something pops up I actually give a shit about, you take the spectator 'look at me I'm so awesome because none of this bothers me olol' stance and attempt to belittle me? Oh look you even did the same to Stern.

No one thinks its funny when you sit on your high horse and rag on other members for doing what they do. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I find it downright annoying, even when it's not aimed at me. So either post something relevant, or again, shut up.

It may annoy you, Jul3 but most people just aren't vegetarian/vegan and well, they don't want to be either. They want meat. Pure and simps.

They want it fast, they want it efficient and a lot want it as ethically produced as is possible so they can get their proteins and not feel as bad that
an animal died for their dietary needs as they would if it was put through hell before it ended up on their plate. That and they like the taste.

You're right of course. All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be like this, and that's what annoys me.

I personally believe it's wrong to eat the flesh of a once-sentient being, if it's not the only available option, however. But that's more for personal reasons than anything else. That's what I was saying about the 'you want it - you kill it' idea, because that at least would cut out the hypocrites who get all icky at the thought of raw meat, much less the appalling savagery that is associated with the industry, but sure do feel warm and fuzzy just thinking about that roast sitting in the oven. I think a quote from Homer Simpson applies here: "Lisa, this is Lamb. Not a lamb."

All I can say is that I find it disappointing that so many, in first-world nations, can turn a blind-eye to the suffering and hardship of fellow, living beings. I'll admit, ever living in a non-meat eating society is an extremely unlikely dream, but farming practice needs to, and even potentially could, change. Which actually loops back to the topic at-hand, but obviously my stance on that is clear too: it's unnecessary, and creepily psychopathic.


BHC, I can't really think of anything to accept your challenge. But that was a damn good read, I think your cousin just became my hero too.
I too have similar insight into the industry, I have grown up and still live on a farm. When Dad was still alive we had our own cattle, of which we sold when their time was up. I'd say it's because of this that I feel extra strongly about animal rights, it's a horrible feeling knowing where your meat may have come from, but it's worse knowing that you also partly responsible for their being there. Anyway, not really that interesting, but thought it might be worth sharing.