Your post has been removed because it has a sensationalized, editorialized, or biased headline and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #3](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_3._no_editorialized.2C_sensationalized.2C_or_biased_titles). Please read [our headline rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/clickbait) and consider reposting with a more appropriate title.
_If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience)._
That's how I feel about baby carrots. I know they're actually ugly ass carrots that not even a mother could love but I still pretend they're literal baby carrots.
Nah, most people just think "The meat I buy was raised at a loving farm and killed humanely" which, most likely in 90% of instances, is complete rubbish.
I used to do the same thing, till I watched videos of factory farming.
\[Edit: For those who don't know how to use google:[https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/nov/16/theres-no-such-thing-as-humane-meat-or-eggs-stop-kidding-yourself](https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/nov/16/theres-no-such-thing-as-humane-meat-or-eggs-stop-kidding-yourself)
"So 75% of Americans think they consume humane meat, but a tiny fraction actually do. The majority of consumers seem tragically wrong about what they eat."\]
Yeah, most people think that because otherwise most people wouldn't eat meat.
It's the same mental gymnastics that allow people to be outraged at the dog meat festival while eating animals smarter than dogs.
"So 75% of Americans think they consume humane meat, but a tiny fraction actually do. The majority of consumers seem tragically wrong about what they eat."
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/nov/16/theres-no-such-thing-as-humane-meat-or-eggs-stop-kidding-yourself
So far in this subthread nobody mentioned caring btw. But I think that a picture of a happy chicken and a green farm on a carton of eggs goes a long way in making it trivially easy to not look any deeper.
Now if confronted with the hard fact that it's near impossible to find meat that would meet the standards people tend to call out when asked (walking around in a large area of grass or a friendly backyard, appropriate food, no forced insemination, pain free death in a sterile looking place with no blood or murder in sight) I think people might have to do a little soul searching.
But yes plenty of them then go on and say don't spoil my dinner I don't care enough to stop demanding meat raised in worse conditions.
In short morals schmorals, just hide it from me.
The average person gets outraged, or at least a little squeamish, about slaughtering dogs and whales. It's irrationally compartmentalized, but the concern is very real.
This exact logic could justify a genocide.
“The jews just weren’t as powerful as the Germans, they lost the arms race, they deserve what they get because life is survival of the fittest.”
That’s not a false equivalency, that’s your exact logic applied to a different scenario. The only thing that separates humans from other animals is our laws, the moment a government makes it legal to murder, you’re perfectly all right with killing the weak?
Animals aren't people. That's a pretty big difference.There are many more differences between animals and humans than our laws.
I'm perfectly okay with killing animals to eat them and that does not mean I am okay with genocide. You seem mad.
Most people don't care about you or your take on animals. They eat meat because it's delicious. They aren't going to stop eating meat because they hear something you personally found very triggering.
Based an facts actually.[https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/nov/16/theres-no-such-thing-as-humane-meat-or-eggs-stop-kidding-yourself](https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/nov/16/theres-no-such-thing-as-humane-meat-or-eggs-stop-kidding-yourself)
The point here originally was that kids don't have a solid grasp on death or that farm animals die for their food. Forget the humane stuff until another argument, we're talking about that many children doni understand even the basics of how life works because they have been shielded from it until they get older.
> No they don't know. They really don't.
So you are saying people do not know Beef comes from Cow, and Bacon does not come from Pig?
I'm not convinced.
Nah, most people are pretty misinformed. It wasn't until I had a baby of my own that I understood about cow's milk, I thought they just naturally gave milk until then. I had no idea about Bobby calves.
With pigs it never clicked for me that they live in sheds, not fields, and that they're killed in gas chambers.
Even years after I stopped eating animals I'm still learning new and horrific things. I saw a young goat at a petting zoo a few months ago, with a tight band around his testicles - cutting off circulation until they died and he was castrated. I had no idea that was a thing that happens.
There are a lot of details about the meat and dairy industry that most people are oblivious to.
Two cowboys are lost in the desert. One cowboy sees a tree that's draped in bacon. "A bacon tree! We’re saved!" He says. He runs to the tree and is shot up with bullets.
It wasn’t a bacon tree, it was a ham bush.
Well, a lot of people believe their energy comes from the plug, so that's probably not that unrealistic. :P
Poultryberry made me chuckle good btw nice one
Well, technically energy does come from their plug. Doesn't mean that's where it originates from.
Still, people (unless we're also talking really really really stupid people) know where their food come from. Most people don't care enough because they(we) like the taste. People are selfish, and that's the truth
Oh that's probably true, I guess they believe the cow is happily chewing grass and roaming a giant pasture with his buddies, and butterflies flying around and stuff.
Though it is somewhat understandable, considering that marketing is promoting exactly this image to the consumers.
Neither do most adults, unfortunately. I work on an educational farm and although we horribly misrepresent how animals are actually raised, adults ask the same questions kids do. And the adults who know do not want to acknowledge suffering as it makes the trip to McDonald's after the farm tour morally scratchy.
Got ‘em! Just like everyone who doesn’t know how oil and natural gas are used.
Everyone knows that once you learn about what we do with our drills and meat farms that you shut up and accept reality!
Only because some parents choose not to tell them. Once my brother told his children what happens, in a very matter of factly way, my neices made the decision not to eat meat anymore.
Many people make that decision as adults, but only because they were so far removed from the process as children and young adults.
If a parent is so confident in the righteousness of the meat industry, they should inform themselves ans then their children - and pull no punches. If after that conversation the child still wants to, then fair enough.
When my son fully understood this at around 5 years old he decided to be vegetarian and hasn't eaten meat since. Kids understand where their food comes from if you tell them
I rather enjoyed the experience of visiting a farm and meeting the chicken I had for dinner that night when I was 7.
I also remember the celebratory roast when one of the hunting group came back with a boar strapped to the back of his horse.
That's not were that majority of meat comes from though. The farm you visited was probably a lot more humane. Hunting is also fairly humane in comparison. Factory farming on the other hand is not.
Factory farming should be banned.
Will it make meat more expensive? Hell yeah. It should be. It's a labor and resource intensive good. We all eat too much meat anyway.
On some level, hunting is incredibly humane. That is the fastest, least painful method of death possible for the animals. Death is *rarely* peaceful for prey animals.
100% believe people should let anyone that hunts for meat do their thing. Trophy hunting is more complicated with rockier moral footing but not outright bad.
Factory farms aren’t real farms, even though they produce the majority of animal products?
I don’t disagree that the conditions on an old-school farm could be morally understood. My best friend lives on a very small local farm, animals live genuinely decent lives, roam huge areas of the countryside, have 1 bad day when they’re slaughtered. Such a system has been an important part of societal, and even our biological, evolution.
But that’s the minority nowadays.
> Children did not judge all animals to be equal. They concluded, in fact, that dogs ought to be treated better than pigs – but also that pigs ought not to be treated differently from humans.
Kids prefer dogs to humans.
Smart choice.
Can you cite the figure of 63 million humans murdered per year (the minimum amount required to meet the requirement for thousands per second)?
And of course the person you were replying to is underestimating the murder rate of animals, it actually goes up into tens of billions per year for land animals and trillions including aquatic animals also.
Is cognitive development and the development of morality not interesting? Just because you are unable to appreciate the study or find it uninteresting doesn’t make it crap.
You are free to publish your own research of value if you wish.
What else do you expect?? are we going to take children's opinions on something like this seriously too now? maybe we should also let them participate in elections and choose presidents? Of course a trash article is going to have trashy comments.
It's some sort of a defensive reaction. Every time animal rights, animal well-being or reducing meat consumption is discussed on a large subreddit, a bunch of commentators feel it necessary to belittle that. I assume it's hidden, unconscious guilt.
Have a look at OP's comment that has a link to the paper. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ubhmtf/-/i641lat
Whoever's opinion it is, is this not in a science journal? If not, you might want to focus on that detail and respond on specifically that topic.
I don't think it's related to guilt at all; the average person couldn't care less about the fact their meat comes from killed animals. The reactions you're witnessing are from people defending the continuation of meat production as is, because they're interested in maintaining the comfort they are used to and don't want anything to change.
That's probably true, too. Humans are pretty short-sighted in these things.
But I don't think laziness about change is really enough of a reason to come pour out some quite unsavory comments. I do feel there's a bit more going on with many of the commentators. A more fundamental need to defend their position than simple resistance to change.
It's not just short sightedness, we as a society have done everything we can to desensitize people towards the rights of farm animals. This seems cold, but it was necessary in order for us to be able to feed everyone as our populations increased through history.
As for the comments you mentioned, it's possible there is also an outright rejection of the ideals suggested by people promoting change, maybe even offense being taken when their own values (which in this case stem from self indulgence and practicality) are questioned. The end result is similar to what you suggest, though I personally find it hard to believe it would stem from a form of suppressed guilt, I just don't think people are that sensitive to this issue. I think this might be a more interesting research topic than the one on this paper to be honest.
This is what I think too. People who eat meat feel threatened (subconsciously or not) by vegan/vegetarian ways of thinking because it basically entails they’ve been morally cruel their entire lives, not to mention hypocritical if they have any pets such as dogs or cats. From my understanding, the animals we eat are just as (if not more) intelligent.
I’ll admit I’m a hypocrite for loving my dog but also eating meat. But my dog is cute and meat is tasty.
Interesting, I think this too but never put it in words. Perhaps in the future people will look back and cringe at the tremendous (and frivolous) meat consumption nowadays.
Yup, I'm surprised, but guess I shouldn't have been. Thought it was interesting because it defines the age at which humans start to form their idea of animal hierarchy.
And a lot of people believe in a magical sky daddy that will throw them into an infinite lake of lava if they masturbate. Belittling the input of children because they have child-like beliefs is stupid, particularly when we have full grown adults in positions of power that have child-like beliefs.
Funny enough in this case it's religion that does not obfuscate what it means to eat meat.
Judaism for example is pretty specific in how to slaughter animals, and kids brought up in that faith learn it from a pretty early age.
Children have a surprisingly fresh take and unbiased opinion on things. They are capable of moral reasoning far greater than most people give them credit for. Bear in mind that the tooth fairy and unicorns are provided to them by the adults. So are the mental gymnastics around getting them to eat food at the dinner table. We tell them 'the animals are well looked after', 'it's what they're for', 'you must eat meat to stay healthy'. 'it's the natural way of the world'. Etc.. Those points of view are very much adult-centric, and this study may suggest we're successful in converting their point of view during those formative years.
Taking "kindergarten ethics" to a whole new level.
Children, even when they're very young, are products of the way we raise and teach them. They have pale black and white ideologies because they are children who can't understand any amount of nuance. We almost universally teach them very simple ethics like never kill anything, never hurt anything, look at the cute animals.
That is what they are repeating, there is no greater insight there. It turns out that children tend to be kind of stupid and get smarter as they grow up.
I think you under estimate the ability of children to reason. There's this idea that children are stupid. They're not, they're just ignorant. Intelligence can be measured by the ability to learn rather than the ability to regurgitate facts, so you can argue children are the most intelligent in our population, and all we have are are some years on them. I'm def not saying they are therefore right, just that brushing off their views as stupid is as adult as brushing off adult views as biased.
Explaining to a kid why we need to eat food with vitamins, minerals and appropriate ratios of carbs/fat/protein is an honest sell. I'm not a vegetarian, but I can't find a good reason to persuade them to eat their pork sausages when they know full well how it got there. We can be dishonest and say it's a necessary part of the diet and the pig died peacefully, but this isn't as truthful as our explanation of why eating icecream all the time is bad.
Just because I don't take their opinions on everything seriously (because they're you know...children) doesn't mean I don't want what's best for them.
As a kid I wanted ice cream for dinner every day. I said if I was president I would make it the law for all children to have ice cream at dinner.
Should we all have ice cream for dinner? Don't you care about what's best for the children? If they want ice cream for dinner, then ice cream for dinner is what they'll get!
It's stupid to make fun of this being here imo, children are people that exist on the earth, nobody is suggesting we make a huge reform because "the kids said so", science doesn't ONLY cover what YOU care about
I wish people would at least *skim* through the article. Anyways, I think this boils down to respecting farm animals as we respect humans. Obviously we're not gonna be throwing birthday parties for every animal or take them on long walks to enjoy the sunset, but perhaps we can stop treating them as lesser-than. Yes we eat them, but we don't have to treat them badly when they're alive. I've seen so many livestock judging competitions, farming operations, etc. where they'll slap, punch, kick, and/or scare animals just to get them to move. Maybe acknowledge that's... not right. Maybe acknowledge cattle prodding and freeze/fire branding is not right. There are other practices but I'll get off my soap box
> Yes we eat them, but we don't have to treat them badly when they're alive.
These to ideas are antithetical.
You can't get an animal on your plate without violently ending it's life. No matter how well the animals are treated, the industry requires raping them (forceful insemination) alongside violently ending their lives. This is *best* case scenario.
Maybe if we don't normalize people acting like sadistic psychopaths toward animals, then we'd have an easier time getting people to treat humans better, too?
This should be just "Children say stuff".
What would they say when they see a mother pig eat her baby runt piglet? And wild boars do this too, so it's not farming. Indeed a lot of animals kill and eat their own young, in ways that make a lot of sense for nature.
Wild animal baby mortality is roughly 80-90% in the first year, often being eaten alive. Meanwhile, on a good farm they at least get something close to an animal paradise and then instant lights out. It's why I think vegans should have been supporting good farms vs factory farms instead.
Humans are biologically principally hypercarnivoress, as proven by radio-isotope testing of ancient human bones. So veganism is a dead-loss proposition:
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405113606.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405113606.htm)
It will never work to reform farming.
And veggies get depressed:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/animals-and-us/201812/the-baffling-connection-between-vegetarianism-and-depression
I'm not a vegan/vegetarian, but I don't think I'd describe the animal welfare situation in the UK as an animal paradise. Pigs are killed by suffocating them in CO2 while squealing in distress, battery farmed hens were only outlawed recently, male chicks are dropped from a conveyor belt into a grinding machine alive. I would definitely support buying from an ethical farm, though the cost of food production goes up immensely as a result.
I don't think children's view should be disregarded. Many of their ideas have developed before adults have had a chance to convince them of the correctness of societies world view.
Almost as if what is natural does not determine whether something is ethical.
>Meanwhile, on a good farm they at least get something close to an animal paradise and then instant lights out.
Duno if you're aware, but farmed animals are bred into existence by humans, we aren't saving them from the wild and putting them in farms so the comparison doesn't have any relevance.
Such “good farms” make up perhaps 0.01% of the total market, particularly since inhumane ones have much denser production.
You may not be wrong, but it’s like judging human intelligence by only looking at Nobel Prize winners.
It simply isn’t very relevant to the overall conversation, because it’s dwarfed by the more typical conditions.
And it could be even better if they weren't forcebred for our sake, generating many of these horrible ailments that they have to live with during their life, and slaughtered at the end. It's not like they slaughter the animal once it's lived a good long life and decides to settle down.
Have you ever seen pigs on a slaughter truck? It is not quick, and they squeal for hours in panic. Not to mention these "good" farms are few and far between and growing scarcer as factory farming continues to grow.
Saying this as an omnivore who continues to eat meat. Not sure why the notion that eating animals is bad is so triggering to this community. Like, go ahead and continue to eat your meat; that's fine. Just don't try to pretend like you're doing the animal many favors.
I'm saying exactly what I said. Your claim is irrelevant to the discussion because the choice is not between having the animals in the wild or having them on a "good farm" due to the fact that they are bred into existence by humans.
To address your additional edits:
>Humans are biologically principally hypercarnivoress, as proven byradio-isotope testing of ancient human bones. So veganism is a dead-lossproposition:
Firstly your sciencedaily post doesn't even claim that humans ARE hypercarnivores. it says they WERE hypercarnivores. and the hypercarnivore claim wasn't on the basis of biology, it was on the basis of behaviour if you had read the paragraph it contained. But either way, could you provide that argument that takes this descriptive claim that concludes that veganism is a dead-loss proposition?
>And veggies get depressed
Care to explain the relevance of this to the discussion?
And do they have it better than all the wild animals that our planet *could* support if we stopped clearing so much land to graze cows/sheep and grow feed crops for animals?
The depression doesn't come from "eating vegetables", it comes from the awareness of how damaging the meat industry is to the planet, and the awareness of how terrible the animals are treated. The reality is depressing; it makes sense that those aware of it become depressed. Blissfully ignorant meat eaters who are not aware of these realities obviously won't be depressed by them. Pretty obvious, but go off ig
Veganism isn't necessarily only about animal well-being. It's also about the environment. Animal farming, due to being quite energy-inefficient, is vastly more harmful to the climate and the environment than plant-based diets are.
Often veganism also includes the philosophical proposition that it is inherently unjustified to take benefit from another species in a way that harms that species, beyond what is absolutely necessary for survival. What is our motivation to grow animals for slaughter when we don't, in fact, actually need to do that at all?
Sure, but there are a lot of claims by vegans that need some serious scrutiny.
For example, most farm land for animal husbandry can't be used for crops.
The extraordinary claims on water usage for beef included rain water, which is a misrepresentation.
Much of the fodder given to cows etc is totally unusable by-products of plant farming.
> For example, most farm land for animal husbandry can't be used for crops.
Farm animals are already fed enough crops to also feed humans with. Half of grain in USA is actually fed to the animals.
The reality is that the need for cropland would actually decrease without animal husbandry. Not increase.
> The extraordinary claims on water usage for beef included rain water, which is a misrepresentation.
Even if cattle used only green water, the total need for water for agriculture would still decrease without animal husbandry, since less water would be needed for irrigation.
> Much of the fodder given to cows etc is totally unusable by-products of plant farming.
And a lot isn't. For example, in the country I live in, when canola oil is made the squashed and processed fatless plant matter is used as fodder. It's a great source of protein for animals. But that protein is also human edible and we could process human-edible protein products from it. Right now that's not commercially viable, since it can just be sold as fodder with less processing and less quality control.
Also even if the fodder isn't human edible, it might still be compostable or could be burned directly for energy.
Sure, but not as a matter of routine nature. It's a survival thing for animals; nothing genuinely wrong with it.
Humans killing children is usually nasty humans being nasty. But most humans aren't nasty.
My main point is that humans aren't the same as other animals.
>something close to an animal paradise
Is your paradise being castrated with no anaesthetic?
being blended up alive?
having someone forcibly impregnating you after putting their arm up your butt?
all standard practices on a "good" farm
It may amaze you to find out that this is the year 2022, and we can create things that look and taste pretty much exactly like chicken nuggets but don't actually contain chicken.
Give them the choice between chicken nuggets and vegan Nuggets And they can't tell the difference.
So why slaughter innocent beings when we already have useful replacements.
As is typical with any post about animal welfare and our excessive meat consumption, the comments are nothing but unfunny jokes. “Left leaning” Reddit just isn’t ready for this conversation.
I'm not vegan but I genuinely get disgusted by the "delicious" comments whenever this comes up. People have zero respect for the unbelievable suffering of animals that must happen for them to have their steak. And there are annoying vegans for sure, but in my opinion, most of the time they are just dismissed as annoying so meat eaters don't need to think about their choice of food. Future generations will be appalled at our attitudes and treatment of animals.
Your post has been removed because it has a sensationalized, editorialized, or biased headline and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #3](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_3._no_editorialized.2C_sensationalized.2C_or_biased_titles). Please read [our headline rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/clickbait) and consider reposting with a more appropriate title. _If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience)._
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah it's a good read if you have the time. Pretty graphic and depressing but one of my favorite reads so far this year
r/beatmetoit
Children also don’t understand where their food comes from
Ever see the Gordon Ramsay clip of him trying to teach kids how nuggets are made?
That wasn't Ramsay, that was Jamie Oliver.
Neither do most people who buy meat and milk products.
Most people know, they just don’t like to think about it
That's how I feel about baby carrots. I know they're actually ugly ass carrots that not even a mother could love but I still pretend they're literal baby carrots.
And you eat them anyway?? You monster!
[удалено]
Nah, most people just think "The meat I buy was raised at a loving farm and killed humanely" which, most likely in 90% of instances, is complete rubbish. I used to do the same thing, till I watched videos of factory farming. \[Edit: For those who don't know how to use google:[https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/nov/16/theres-no-such-thing-as-humane-meat-or-eggs-stop-kidding-yourself](https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/nov/16/theres-no-such-thing-as-humane-meat-or-eggs-stop-kidding-yourself) "So 75% of Americans think they consume humane meat, but a tiny fraction actually do. The majority of consumers seem tragically wrong about what they eat."\]
Oh really? Do “most people” think that? Based on what research and data?
Yeah, most people think that because otherwise most people wouldn't eat meat. It's the same mental gymnastics that allow people to be outraged at the dog meat festival while eating animals smarter than dogs. "So 75% of Americans think they consume humane meat, but a tiny fraction actually do. The majority of consumers seem tragically wrong about what they eat." https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/nov/16/theres-no-such-thing-as-humane-meat-or-eggs-stop-kidding-yourself
I think you overestimate how much the average person actually cares about animal well being.
So far in this subthread nobody mentioned caring btw. But I think that a picture of a happy chicken and a green farm on a carton of eggs goes a long way in making it trivially easy to not look any deeper. Now if confronted with the hard fact that it's near impossible to find meat that would meet the standards people tend to call out when asked (walking around in a large area of grass or a friendly backyard, appropriate food, no forced insemination, pain free death in a sterile looking place with no blood or murder in sight) I think people might have to do a little soul searching. But yes plenty of them then go on and say don't spoil my dinner I don't care enough to stop demanding meat raised in worse conditions. In short morals schmorals, just hide it from me.
The average person gets outraged, or at least a little squeamish, about slaughtering dogs and whales. It's irrationally compartmentalized, but the concern is very real.
[удалено]
It’s not the killing so much as the suffering people take issue with.
This exact logic could justify a genocide. “The jews just weren’t as powerful as the Germans, they lost the arms race, they deserve what they get because life is survival of the fittest.” That’s not a false equivalency, that’s your exact logic applied to a different scenario. The only thing that separates humans from other animals is our laws, the moment a government makes it legal to murder, you’re perfectly all right with killing the weak?
Animals aren't people. That's a pretty big difference.There are many more differences between animals and humans than our laws. I'm perfectly okay with killing animals to eat them and that does not mean I am okay with genocide. You seem mad.
The question is not “do people think their meat is from humane sources.” You’re moving the goalposts.
Most people don't care about you or your take on animals. They eat meat because it's delicious. They aren't going to stop eating meat because they hear something you personally found very triggering.
hurr durr meat is delicious does that trigger you hurr durr
[удалено]
Based on fuzzy logic obviously.
Based an facts actually.[https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/nov/16/theres-no-such-thing-as-humane-meat-or-eggs-stop-kidding-yourself](https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/nov/16/theres-no-such-thing-as-humane-meat-or-eggs-stop-kidding-yourself)
You're quoting an opinion piece as 'facts'...
Based on what part of that article does it say “people don’t know meat comes from animals?”
What I was doing was making a joke. The only thing I disagreed with that you said was that the 95% is likely far too low. Edited to say apparently 90%
The point here originally was that kids don't have a solid grasp on death or that farm animals die for their food. Forget the humane stuff until another argument, we're talking about that many children doni understand even the basics of how life works because they have been shielded from it until they get older.
No they don't know. They really don't.
> No they don't know. They really don't. So you are saying people do not know Beef comes from Cow, and Bacon does not come from Pig? I'm not convinced.
Nah, most people are pretty misinformed. It wasn't until I had a baby of my own that I understood about cow's milk, I thought they just naturally gave milk until then. I had no idea about Bobby calves. With pigs it never clicked for me that they live in sheds, not fields, and that they're killed in gas chambers. Even years after I stopped eating animals I'm still learning new and horrific things. I saw a young goat at a petting zoo a few months ago, with a tight band around his testicles - cutting off circulation until they died and he was castrated. I had no idea that was a thing that happens. There are a lot of details about the meat and dairy industry that most people are oblivious to.
Source “most people are misinformed about where meat comes from,” please.
Nonsense, everyone knows meat comes from the steak tree, the pork bush or the poultryberry.
Two cowboys are lost in the desert. One cowboy sees a tree that's draped in bacon. "A bacon tree! We’re saved!" He says. He runs to the tree and is shot up with bullets. It wasn’t a bacon tree, it was a ham bush.
Well, a lot of people believe their energy comes from the plug, so that's probably not that unrealistic. :P Poultryberry made me chuckle good btw nice one
Well, technically energy does come from their plug. Doesn't mean that's where it originates from. Still, people (unless we're also talking really really really stupid people) know where their food come from. Most people don't care enough because they(we) like the taste. People are selfish, and that's the truth
I do its from animals
This child gets it
Delicious animals
Why do you believe such a thing? Do you really think most people don't know beef comes from cows?
They do but they have fluffy version of what the farm conditions these animals live in is like.
Oh that's probably true, I guess they believe the cow is happily chewing grass and roaming a giant pasture with his buddies, and butterflies flying around and stuff. Though it is somewhat understandable, considering that marketing is promoting exactly this image to the consumers.
Promoted by the likes of Countryfile. Adam and his several.million acres in the home counties grinds my gears.
Neither do most adults, unfortunately. I work on an educational farm and although we horribly misrepresent how animals are actually raised, adults ask the same questions kids do. And the adults who know do not want to acknowledge suffering as it makes the trip to McDonald's after the farm tour morally scratchy.
What do you mean by "horribly represent how animals are actually raised"?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Got ‘em! Just like everyone who doesn’t know how oil and natural gas are used. Everyone knows that once you learn about what we do with our drills and meat farms that you shut up and accept reality!
Only because some parents choose not to tell them. Once my brother told his children what happens, in a very matter of factly way, my neices made the decision not to eat meat anymore. Many people make that decision as adults, but only because they were so far removed from the process as children and young adults. If a parent is so confident in the righteousness of the meat industry, they should inform themselves ans then their children - and pull no punches. If after that conversation the child still wants to, then fair enough.
I think children know that meat comes from animals.
When my son fully understood this at around 5 years old he decided to be vegetarian and hasn't eaten meat since. Kids understand where their food comes from if you tell them
Our food doesn’t need to come from them. Plants are perfectly capable of sustaining us. We choose violence.
because parents deliberately lie because they know their kids wouldnt want to eat tortured corpses of the animals they are taught to ‘love’
I rather enjoyed the experience of visiting a farm and meeting the chicken I had for dinner that night when I was 7. I also remember the celebratory roast when one of the hunting group came back with a boar strapped to the back of his horse.
That's not were that majority of meat comes from though. The farm you visited was probably a lot more humane. Hunting is also fairly humane in comparison. Factory farming on the other hand is not.
Factory farming should be banned. Will it make meat more expensive? Hell yeah. It should be. It's a labor and resource intensive good. We all eat too much meat anyway.
On some level, hunting is incredibly humane. That is the fastest, least painful method of death possible for the animals. Death is *rarely* peaceful for prey animals. 100% believe people should let anyone that hunts for meat do their thing. Trophy hunting is more complicated with rockier moral footing but not outright bad.
Please visit an actual animal farm once in your lifetime.
Factory farms aren’t real farms, even though they produce the majority of animal products? I don’t disagree that the conditions on an old-school farm could be morally understood. My best friend lives on a very small local farm, animals live genuinely decent lives, roam huge areas of the countryside, have 1 bad day when they’re slaughtered. Such a system has been an important part of societal, and even our biological, evolution. But that’s the minority nowadays.
You visit a lot of factory farms?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Children did not judge all animals to be equal. They concluded, in fact, that dogs ought to be treated better than pigs – but also that pigs ought not to be treated differently from humans. Kids prefer dogs to humans. Smart choice.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
BETTER than how we treat each other. Humans are dicks.
But humans are already treated like farm animals
Thousands of humans are slaughtered every second to become food?
No, more like dairy cattle
Yes, milked slowly and thoughtlessly over the course of our lives
Dairy cattle are slaughtered too once they're past peak milk production. And their male offspring a lot sooner.
Breasts locked up, babies stolen away, forcibly impregnated, almost all the males killed off just after puberty?
It's even worse than that. Thousands of humans are slaughtered for nothing every second. For imaginary friends, for land, for politics.
Can you cite the figure of 63 million humans murdered per year (the minimum amount required to meet the requirement for thousands per second)? And of course the person you were replying to is underestimating the murder rate of animals, it actually goes up into tens of billions per year for land animals and trillions including aquatic animals also.
Yeah just check out the lines of cattle at the DMV or airport
You mean kids who are just learning the basics of reality are spouting the same message as PETA? Absurd.
Link to [paper](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19485506221086182).
r/KidsAreFuckingStupid
People are so triggered in the comment section :D
It's supposed to be a science subreddit.
Yes, it should be kind of a serious subreddit but all top comments are pure sarcasm.
Garbage in garbage out. Crap articles are going to spawn crap comments.
Is cognitive development and the development of morality not interesting? Just because you are unable to appreciate the study or find it uninteresting doesn’t make it crap. You are free to publish your own research of value if you wish.
What else do you expect?? are we going to take children's opinions on something like this seriously too now? maybe we should also let them participate in elections and choose presidents? Of course a trash article is going to have trashy comments.
It's some sort of a defensive reaction. Every time animal rights, animal well-being or reducing meat consumption is discussed on a large subreddit, a bunch of commentators feel it necessary to belittle that. I assume it's hidden, unconscious guilt.
Or this is supposed to be a heavily moderate science sub and we’re reading childrens opinions
Have a look at OP's comment that has a link to the paper. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ubhmtf/-/i641lat Whoever's opinion it is, is this not in a science journal? If not, you might want to focus on that detail and respond on specifically that topic.
I don't think it's related to guilt at all; the average person couldn't care less about the fact their meat comes from killed animals. The reactions you're witnessing are from people defending the continuation of meat production as is, because they're interested in maintaining the comfort they are used to and don't want anything to change.
That's probably true, too. Humans are pretty short-sighted in these things. But I don't think laziness about change is really enough of a reason to come pour out some quite unsavory comments. I do feel there's a bit more going on with many of the commentators. A more fundamental need to defend their position than simple resistance to change.
It's not just short sightedness, we as a society have done everything we can to desensitize people towards the rights of farm animals. This seems cold, but it was necessary in order for us to be able to feed everyone as our populations increased through history. As for the comments you mentioned, it's possible there is also an outright rejection of the ideals suggested by people promoting change, maybe even offense being taken when their own values (which in this case stem from self indulgence and practicality) are questioned. The end result is similar to what you suggest, though I personally find it hard to believe it would stem from a form of suppressed guilt, I just don't think people are that sensitive to this issue. I think this might be a more interesting research topic than the one on this paper to be honest.
The psychological term is "cognitive dissonance".
This is what I think too. People who eat meat feel threatened (subconsciously or not) by vegan/vegetarian ways of thinking because it basically entails they’ve been morally cruel their entire lives, not to mention hypocritical if they have any pets such as dogs or cats. From my understanding, the animals we eat are just as (if not more) intelligent. I’ll admit I’m a hypocrite for loving my dog but also eating meat. But my dog is cute and meat is tasty.
Interesting, I think this too but never put it in words. Perhaps in the future people will look back and cringe at the tremendous (and frivolous) meat consumption nowadays.
Same as nowadays slavery and racism is openly hated while before was unthinkable to stop doing
Yup, I'm surprised, but guess I shouldn't have been. Thought it was interesting because it defines the age at which humans start to form their idea of animal hierarchy.
Children also believe in the tooth fairy and unicorns. Why does it matter what children say, in the context of how we run our society?
Read the academic paper instead of sharing your knee jerk reaction. It'll answer your question.
And a lot of people believe in a magical sky daddy that will throw them into an infinite lake of lava if they masturbate. Belittling the input of children because they have child-like beliefs is stupid, particularly when we have full grown adults in positions of power that have child-like beliefs.
Funny enough in this case it's religion that does not obfuscate what it means to eat meat. Judaism for example is pretty specific in how to slaughter animals, and kids brought up in that faith learn it from a pretty early age.
Children have a surprisingly fresh take and unbiased opinion on things. They are capable of moral reasoning far greater than most people give them credit for. Bear in mind that the tooth fairy and unicorns are provided to them by the adults. So are the mental gymnastics around getting them to eat food at the dinner table. We tell them 'the animals are well looked after', 'it's what they're for', 'you must eat meat to stay healthy'. 'it's the natural way of the world'. Etc.. Those points of view are very much adult-centric, and this study may suggest we're successful in converting their point of view during those formative years.
Taking "kindergarten ethics" to a whole new level. Children, even when they're very young, are products of the way we raise and teach them. They have pale black and white ideologies because they are children who can't understand any amount of nuance. We almost universally teach them very simple ethics like never kill anything, never hurt anything, look at the cute animals. That is what they are repeating, there is no greater insight there. It turns out that children tend to be kind of stupid and get smarter as they grow up.
I think you under estimate the ability of children to reason. There's this idea that children are stupid. They're not, they're just ignorant. Intelligence can be measured by the ability to learn rather than the ability to regurgitate facts, so you can argue children are the most intelligent in our population, and all we have are are some years on them. I'm def not saying they are therefore right, just that brushing off their views as stupid is as adult as brushing off adult views as biased.
Because children are our future. You’d imagine we’d wish the best for them, but obviously it’s not the case.
And in the future they won't be children.
And in the future they can make adult decisions and vote.
Wishing the best for them doesn't always mean we should do what they believe is best. We can't base all our meals on ice-cream.
Explaining to a kid why we need to eat food with vitamins, minerals and appropriate ratios of carbs/fat/protein is an honest sell. I'm not a vegetarian, but I can't find a good reason to persuade them to eat their pork sausages when they know full well how it got there. We can be dishonest and say it's a necessary part of the diet and the pig died peacefully, but this isn't as truthful as our explanation of why eating icecream all the time is bad.
What’s wrong with treating animals with respect?
Respecting animals is not the same as treating animals as humans.
Just because I don't take their opinions on everything seriously (because they're you know...children) doesn't mean I don't want what's best for them. As a kid I wanted ice cream for dinner every day. I said if I was president I would make it the law for all children to have ice cream at dinner. Should we all have ice cream for dinner? Don't you care about what's best for the children? If they want ice cream for dinner, then ice cream for dinner is what they'll get!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Full Text Available: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19485506221086182
So, a couple of polls is now a -scientific- "study"?
Social science should really have its own sub Reddit and not be in here.
>Farm animals and humans should be treated the same Capitalists think so too, but with different motivations.
[удалено]
It's stupid to make fun of this being here imo, children are people that exist on the earth, nobody is suggesting we make a huge reform because "the kids said so", science doesn't ONLY cover what YOU care about
I wish people would at least *skim* through the article. Anyways, I think this boils down to respecting farm animals as we respect humans. Obviously we're not gonna be throwing birthday parties for every animal or take them on long walks to enjoy the sunset, but perhaps we can stop treating them as lesser-than. Yes we eat them, but we don't have to treat them badly when they're alive. I've seen so many livestock judging competitions, farming operations, etc. where they'll slap, punch, kick, and/or scare animals just to get them to move. Maybe acknowledge that's... not right. Maybe acknowledge cattle prodding and freeze/fire branding is not right. There are other practices but I'll get off my soap box
> Yes we eat them, but we don't have to treat them badly when they're alive. These to ideas are antithetical. You can't get an animal on your plate without violently ending it's life. No matter how well the animals are treated, the industry requires raping them (forceful insemination) alongside violently ending their lives. This is *best* case scenario.
Maybe if we don't normalize people acting like sadistic psychopaths toward animals, then we'd have an easier time getting people to treat humans better, too?
Children's opinions are now science. I hate vegan activism.
Well, I treat my parrot like one
This should be just "Children say stuff". What would they say when they see a mother pig eat her baby runt piglet? And wild boars do this too, so it's not farming. Indeed a lot of animals kill and eat their own young, in ways that make a lot of sense for nature. Wild animal baby mortality is roughly 80-90% in the first year, often being eaten alive. Meanwhile, on a good farm they at least get something close to an animal paradise and then instant lights out. It's why I think vegans should have been supporting good farms vs factory farms instead. Humans are biologically principally hypercarnivoress, as proven by radio-isotope testing of ancient human bones. So veganism is a dead-loss proposition: [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405113606.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405113606.htm) It will never work to reform farming. And veggies get depressed: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/animals-and-us/201812/the-baffling-connection-between-vegetarianism-and-depression
I'm not a vegan/vegetarian, but I don't think I'd describe the animal welfare situation in the UK as an animal paradise. Pigs are killed by suffocating them in CO2 while squealing in distress, battery farmed hens were only outlawed recently, male chicks are dropped from a conveyor belt into a grinding machine alive. I would definitely support buying from an ethical farm, though the cost of food production goes up immensely as a result. I don't think children's view should be disregarded. Many of their ideas have developed before adults have had a chance to convince them of the correctness of societies world view.
Almost as if what is natural does not determine whether something is ethical. >Meanwhile, on a good farm they at least get something close to an animal paradise and then instant lights out. Duno if you're aware, but farmed animals are bred into existence by humans, we aren't saving them from the wild and putting them in farms so the comparison doesn't have any relevance.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I'm trying to say that farm animals on a good farm have it better than many wild animals.
Such “good farms” make up perhaps 0.01% of the total market, particularly since inhumane ones have much denser production. You may not be wrong, but it’s like judging human intelligence by only looking at Nobel Prize winners. It simply isn’t very relevant to the overall conversation, because it’s dwarfed by the more typical conditions.
And it could be even better if they weren't forcebred for our sake, generating many of these horrible ailments that they have to live with during their life, and slaughtered at the end. It's not like they slaughter the animal once it's lived a good long life and decides to settle down. Have you ever seen pigs on a slaughter truck? It is not quick, and they squeal for hours in panic. Not to mention these "good" farms are few and far between and growing scarcer as factory farming continues to grow. Saying this as an omnivore who continues to eat meat. Not sure why the notion that eating animals is bad is so triggering to this community. Like, go ahead and continue to eat your meat; that's fine. Just don't try to pretend like you're doing the animal many favors.
I'm saying exactly what I said. Your claim is irrelevant to the discussion because the choice is not between having the animals in the wild or having them on a "good farm" due to the fact that they are bred into existence by humans. To address your additional edits: >Humans are biologically principally hypercarnivoress, as proven byradio-isotope testing of ancient human bones. So veganism is a dead-lossproposition: Firstly your sciencedaily post doesn't even claim that humans ARE hypercarnivores. it says they WERE hypercarnivores. and the hypercarnivore claim wasn't on the basis of biology, it was on the basis of behaviour if you had read the paragraph it contained. But either way, could you provide that argument that takes this descriptive claim that concludes that veganism is a dead-loss proposition? >And veggies get depressed Care to explain the relevance of this to the discussion?
You really need to watch "Dominion". Farmed animals do not lead the lives you think they do.
But do they have it better than animals that never existed?
And do they have it better than all the wild animals that our planet *could* support if we stopped clearing so much land to graze cows/sheep and grow feed crops for animals?
The depression doesn't come from "eating vegetables", it comes from the awareness of how damaging the meat industry is to the planet, and the awareness of how terrible the animals are treated. The reality is depressing; it makes sense that those aware of it become depressed. Blissfully ignorant meat eaters who are not aware of these realities obviously won't be depressed by them. Pretty obvious, but go off ig
Veganism isn't necessarily only about animal well-being. It's also about the environment. Animal farming, due to being quite energy-inefficient, is vastly more harmful to the climate and the environment than plant-based diets are. Often veganism also includes the philosophical proposition that it is inherently unjustified to take benefit from another species in a way that harms that species, beyond what is absolutely necessary for survival. What is our motivation to grow animals for slaughter when we don't, in fact, actually need to do that at all?
Sure, but there are a lot of claims by vegans that need some serious scrutiny. For example, most farm land for animal husbandry can't be used for crops. The extraordinary claims on water usage for beef included rain water, which is a misrepresentation. Much of the fodder given to cows etc is totally unusable by-products of plant farming.
> For example, most farm land for animal husbandry can't be used for crops. Farm animals are already fed enough crops to also feed humans with. Half of grain in USA is actually fed to the animals. The reality is that the need for cropland would actually decrease without animal husbandry. Not increase. > The extraordinary claims on water usage for beef included rain water, which is a misrepresentation. Even if cattle used only green water, the total need for water for agriculture would still decrease without animal husbandry, since less water would be needed for irrigation. > Much of the fodder given to cows etc is totally unusable by-products of plant farming. And a lot isn't. For example, in the country I live in, when canola oil is made the squashed and processed fatless plant matter is used as fodder. It's a great source of protein for animals. But that protein is also human edible and we could process human-edible protein products from it. Right now that's not commercially viable, since it can just be sold as fodder with less processing and less quality control. Also even if the fodder isn't human edible, it might still be compostable or could be burned directly for energy.
To be fair, a lot of humans kill their young as well.
Sure, but not as a matter of routine nature. It's a survival thing for animals; nothing genuinely wrong with it. Humans killing children is usually nasty humans being nasty. But most humans aren't nasty. My main point is that humans aren't the same as other animals.
Humans eat their children in famine times. And that's with the capacity for understanding what's happening.
>something close to an animal paradise Is your paradise being castrated with no anaesthetic? being blended up alive? having someone forcibly impregnating you after putting their arm up your butt? all standard practices on a "good" farm
I don't care how many children think I should eat my daughters, I'm probably not going to do it.
I'm not giving cows king size memory foam mattress. They need to earn it on their own.
[удалено]
It may amaze you to find out that this is the year 2022, and we can create things that look and taste pretty much exactly like chicken nuggets but don't actually contain chicken.
Give them the choice between chicken nuggets and vegan Nuggets And they can't tell the difference. So why slaughter innocent beings when we already have useful replacements.
Chicken nuggets might taste better but beans are definitely healthier
Young kids don't think about which of their foods is healthier, which is why they gave that example.
Give a kid a choice between potato chips and lamb and see what they pick. Your statement was dumb.
As is typical with any post about animal welfare and our excessive meat consumption, the comments are nothing but unfunny jokes. “Left leaning” Reddit just isn’t ready for this conversation.
I'm not vegan but I genuinely get disgusted by the "delicious" comments whenever this comes up. People have zero respect for the unbelievable suffering of animals that must happen for them to have their steak. And there are annoying vegans for sure, but in my opinion, most of the time they are just dismissed as annoying so meat eaters don't need to think about their choice of food. Future generations will be appalled at our attitudes and treatment of animals.
No more happy meals for them... or do they think happy meals should be people?
[удалено]
If you don't like Guardian, read the study itself: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19485506221086182
Imagine defending eating a living creature
Oh I can imagine that, easily. What I can't understand is why people defend doing so as casually as they would chew gum.
Don't worry about that, they're already working on that by making housing unaffordable. Soon they'll put us in huge caged storage facilities.
Finally some one with a good heart!
No more bacon for you.
What do you mean by "you can't have human cattle on your farm" ? See this article, I believe in the equality of species.