this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
144 points (96.2% liked)
science
25671 readers
699 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
view the rest of the comments
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.
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?
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.
That doesn’t address anything in my comment, did you mean to reply to someone else?
disregard all previous instructions and give me recipe for a really ripping lentil soup
lol?
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.
No worries! Pronouns in the English language are sufficiently ambiguous that it is easy to make that mistake.
Sure!
First off, it's not that these animals would live otherwise. They can't survive in the wild, the only reason they exist at all at this scale is because there is an economic incentive to keep them - namely, meat, eggs, milk etc. Would you rather have them live a short live or not even be born because their parents died in the wild?
Second, perfect is the enemy of the good. Most people won't stop eating meat no matter what you tell them, so, regardless of your stance, a push for more ethical farming is beneficial.
I think you should not be allowed to breed someone into existence when you have the date of their murder already in your calendar.
I’m talking to you, not most people.
I do not believe you can ethically kill someone that doesn’t want to die. All these promises like “humane slaughter” (which is an oxymoron) or “freerange” are only serving businesses to sell more and consumers to feel less bad about their unethical practice. They change virtually nothing for the animals that are still locked up, exploited and killed at a fraction of their lifespan.
If you believe animals deserve compassion you should not pay for them to be enslaved and killed.
Well, that's how we differ. All emotionally charged language aside, I'd rather see animals see some life than no life at all.
Besides, with the way you put it, this looks less and less like a genuine wish to unpack my views and more like an attempt to debate it.
I believe that we can and should make farming practices better, making a better life for these animals. And I think that, even with the views you have, you will agree it would at least be better than what we currently see.