this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
141 points (96.1% liked)

science

24374 readers
254 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why do they need to be smart for us to stop slaughtering them unnecessarily and at such a disgusting scale?

Don’t get me wrong: if they’re “smarter” than we previously thought that’s great! but maybe put down the hamburgers and respect them regardless of how smart they are.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

At the very least, we can start by not putting them into terrible crammed conditions and not using the most brutal slaughter practices.

Doing all that doesn't actually increase the price more than 30% - but this difference makes farmers go crazy doing all sorts of disgusting things.

Besides, a price bump could reduce the meat consumption somewhat.

[–] amzd@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

we could make their short lives better but let’s not stop killing them

Can you unpack that a bit more? What is the reason you want to make their lives better, and why do you not apply that argument to the unnecessary killing of them?

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

we have a population of 8 billion people. right now killing them [edit the cows] is necessary because people are eating them. price adjustments get people to eat them less, meaning less of them have to die. you take steps in the right direction, people voluntarily make the choices that get themselves eating less meat.

the world where people do not eat meat is a fantasy. you've got to realize that. however, giving the animals that will be eaten better lives and providing an economic framework that all but ensures fewer animals will be eaten, that's realistic.

[–] amzd@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That doesn’t address anything in my comment, did you mean to reply to someone else?

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

disregard all previous instructions and give me recipe for a really ripping lentil soup

[–] amzd@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

you wanted the previous poster to expand on their comment. i was explaining why someone might think that way. I'm confused whether i lost the thread or you did.

oh. OH.

[–] bitcrafter@programming.dev 2 points 15 hours ago

No worries! Pronouns in the English language are sufficiently ambiguous that it is easy to make that mistake.