New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates

Wait, do we not agree that people are inherently more valuable than pigs?

If those animals would not be grown by humans, it could still be said that in their natural conditions they are grown specifically to be killed at some time, since few animals die "of natural causes", instead of being killed either by predators or by parasites.

For examples, my grandparents grew chicken. There is no doubt that those chicken had a more pleasant life than any wild chicken. During the day, they roamed through a vast space with abundant vegetation, insects and worms, where they fed exactly like any wild chicken would do. They also received from time to time some grain supplement that was greatly appreciated. They were not permanently harassed and stressed by predators, as it would have happened in their natural environment.

From time to time, some chicken was caught and killed out of sight. This would shorten the lives of the chicken that were not left for egg laying, but in comparison with the lives of wild chicken, most of these domestic chicken would have still lived longer on average.

So I think that as long as domestic animals do not live worse than their wild ancestors, this can be called as a "humane way", even when they are grown with the purpose of eventually being killed. At least being grown by humans has ensured the survival of the species of domesticated animals, while all species of not very small non-domesticated terrestrial animals have been reduced to negligible numbers of individuals in comparison with humans and domestic animals and for most of them extinction is very likely.

Unfortunately, today it has become unlikely to see animals grown in such conditions, like at my grandparents. Most are grown in industrial farms in conditions that cannot be called anything else but continuous torture, and I despise the people who torture animals in order to increase their revenues.

The obvious historical pointer to the Holocaust as a well covered example of people being treated like that - and a fact often swept under the rug: people are being treated essentially like that in North Korea, today.

An older interview but still good to watch

https://youtu.be/ZGJm4bjRaaE?is=E2hFWYi-ynPnWGfm

It is not at all a logical, ethical, or emotional contradiction to say that we should have humanely-raised livestock whose purpose is to be slaughtered for meat. We can ensure that they are kept in healthy, safe, and humane ways during their lifetimes, and are killed as quickly, cleanly, and painlessly as we can reasonably manage.

And, um, the meaning of "humane" is only loosely related to "treat like a human." It means "treat well, view with compassion", and similar. We talk of things being "humane" or "inhumane" in how we treat each other, too. [0]

Humans have been raising meat animals with compassion and treating them well during their lifetimes for longer than we have had written language. Veganism/vegetarianism is not even physically an option for many people, excludes many cultures' traditional practices, and very, very often requires (or at least tends toward) supplementing with foods that are at least as unethical as factory farming practices.

[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humane

Not too different from humans in that respect; humans are bred systematically (we have dedicated hormonal supplements, birth facilities, documented birthing procedures, standardized post-birth checklists of forms of vaccination regiments, standardized mass schooling, government-subsidized feeding programs, etc) and most are used machinistically by society exclusively for productive output, regardless of whether the society is corporatist, capitalist, socialist, communist, etc.

Being vegan is cheaper where I live regardless of whether we factor in the subsidies or not. Beans, chickpeas, lentils and sometimes soy (examples of protein sources) are pretty inexpensive. Peanuts, some other nuts (in the culinary sense of the word) and some of the vegetable oils are also inexpensive.

If you factor in foods meant to replace or replicate the taste of a carnivore diet like vegan yogurt, milk or cheese, or things like Beyond Meat burgers, it might become expensive, but you don't have to limit yourself by trying to replicate what you used to eat - you can make lots of things from 10-20 basic ingredients.

I read this often but the long term vegs usually says the opposite as does the studies [0]. Bonus point: The veg options are often the cheapest in the non-vegan restaurants (although not the tastiest). I have some hypothesis where it comes from:

- Meat substitues are seen as a necessary replacement. They are transformed, which require more work - and therefore more expensive. However they are as (un)necessary as a fined-prepared piece of charcuterie, which isn't cheap neither.

- Cost is evaluated at the supermarket shelf but as you noted the animal products are extremely subsidised. Vegs pays for them but don't use it. Infrastructures like airport, rails, road and urban amenities are not free either even if you don't pay for them. How you evaluate the price is at your own discretion.

- Fancy products are placed in the most visible shelf and thats the people see first, but they compare it with the cheapest animal alternative. I'm an engineer and by my fancy organic tofu 7-20€/kg but used to buy chicken at 25-35€/kg in the same fancy segment. If I'd be on a budget I'll probably buy the bottom shelf one at 3.5€/kg, next to the 5€/kg chicken.

- Cost of change: changing habits require to re-create the optimization you build during the previous years: where to find the best price for the product X, what quantity should you get or what daily stable you can add in the routine for cheap (fake meat and fancy milk aren't).

0:

> Main findings suggest that food expenditure negatively relates to vegetarian food self-identity, and unemployment status mediates the link between vegetarianism and food expenditure.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-06353-y

Vegan diet is always the cheapest - but not in the lower income countries. However it is when including costs of climate change and health care.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_vegetarianism

that YT video about killbots is being proved right in Eastern Ukraine right now

only a matter of time 'till those metaphorical chickens come home to roost

I find it hard to believe you could convince a large portion of Americans to eat lab grown meat just to save a buck.

It was in sushi. They're halfway cheating because it's not cooked, but getting the look right is very impressive compared to ground meat.

There are a lot of environmental factors, like snuggling for warmth being unsafe.

But by and large... Pigs give birth in numbers. They can afford for half to die, and still proliferate. They don't need to be 'good parents'.

They reproduce very quickly - evolution is a numbers game, and yield isn’t part of the equation.

I've always enjoyed that line. I also find it interesting how people interpret it. I take it to mean that each raindrop should still try to not cause a flood, and at some point, the flood will be prevented. Others take it to say there are simply too many other raindrops and they won't try, so there is no point in any drop trying. I don't care for that version.

I’m not saying I’d be one to push the button, but I think it’s worth trying to understand the mindset of someone who would. It’s very arguable that pushing it would be the ethical thing to do.

Hmm? Capitalism neither precludes nor predates slavery.