Can we end factory farming?

[Synobun]

It's not so much a 'put off', as a being skeptical as a solution. We will see, right? I mean, all I am saying is that it will not change what I deem to be the optimal choice for me, today, to take. I am not specifically concerned about energy, because I view 'energy usage' to be a good thing. It's fossil carbon and environmental degradation that I care about more. We currently destroy fuel in order to get food, this won't change. And 'energy' will be a factor in its cost, so ehn, that will be a function of pricing.

Oh, okay. That's fair. In-vitro meat isn't a possibility for consumers today.

 

[Broken_Erika]

If we end factory farming then how are we supposed to grow factories?

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, okay. That's fair. In-vitro meat isn't a possibility for consumers today.

Yes, and don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a waste of either charity or investor dollars, either. Unless I have a specific objection to the intended outcome, I usually don't discourage charitable efforts. If someone asks me to weight one effort vs. another, I can certainly do so. I do for myself, because I have a limited charity budget. But many people will drastically reduce their total charity when asked to pivot what they give to. For most, it's not my "Bed nets or Alzheimer's?" that they struggle with. It's "animal shelter or popcorn at the theatre?"

 

[The_J]

Are you sure that this talk was last year? The $100k burger was a few years ago. Verstrate's burger (at Maastrich) formula is, I believe, geared for a 2020 release at less than $20/pound for production. That's an old estimate though and I could not find a more recent one. Granted, his burger is a minced-meat alternative instead of a genuine steak cut. 50 years is probably accurate for specialty cuts.

mmhh...I do not precisely remember, maybe he was talking about the original costs.
The 20$/pound sounds overly ambitious, I'd say. Not that I have any deep insights, but going from the scientific development to industrial grade production...that normally takes a while.

 

[Ryika]

I see what the issue is. You're taking a question with regards to the evolutionary force behind it, "which way will evolution go?", but then using that to supplant motivations onto the chicken itself. Except, motivation is a cognitive question.

It's not about chicken "motivation", it's about cause and effect of the evolutionary system.

If you have a group of 100 chickens that are mostly the same, but has 50 who have the instinct to make a lot of little baby chickens, and 50 who have not, then the genes of the 50 that have not, will inevitably fall to the wayside, as the genes that make the 50 other chickens breed like crazy, start dominating the group. Hence, animals always end up wanting to have little child animals. Not because that's the "motivation", but because that's what has worked in the past, and what worked best in the past, is the status quo of today.

If you have a group of 100 chickens, all of whom want to make little baby chickens, but 50 of which are willing to do so if it means slightly worse living conditions, and 50 who are not willing to do so, then the genes of those not willing to do so, will fall to the wayside, and in time, all chickens will be willing to suffer if it means they can have off-spring. That of course has its limits, and it might very well be the case that factory farms are going way beyond what chickens would "be willing to tolerate" if they had a say in it, but that's exactly why I'm not making a judgement on which perspective is ultimately "better" or "right".

I'm just saying: Here's a perspective that you have not considered. Your perspective does not line up with what animals evolve towards and is instead a result of culture and (mostly western) Civilization.

Bonus argument: Every mother who has ever intentionally gotten pregnant to give birth to a child has chosen a life with extra suffering but genetic offspring over an easier life. After all, if it were just about "adding a child to the family", they could have just adopted one, and in the process would have helped make the life of a child better, instead of creating a new one, while there already so many - often very young - children who are in need for new parents. Clearly even we value our genetic lines of descent rather highly, and often without really understanding why. Whether it's my own child or not should really not make that much of a difference, should it? Even when we rationally agree with that statement, there's still that bad feeling that comes with it. Sometimes we overcome that feeling and are able to make the choice that is clearly better for the world, but most of the time, that voice that tells us that we want genetic offspring just wins. That's the result of evolution right there.

 

[Synobun]

mmhh...I do not precisely remember, maybe he was talking about the original costs.
The 20$/pound sounds overly ambitious, I'd say. Not that I have any deep insights, but going from the scientific development to industrial grade production...that normally takes a while.

It's my understanding that the cost ratio is for production and for exclusive sales. The actual consumer cost would be higher, likely in part due to needing to fund more research, and because I imagine actual costs would increase with scaling up while the technology is in its infancy.

I haven't heard anything about it, though. I'm not sure if they're still pushing for a 2020 release. If they are, they're not doing a good job of exposing it. The company site hasn't really been updated either.

You could probably pop in for a chat if you were so inclined. MosaMeat's offices are in Maastricht.

 

[BenitoChavez]

Likely the end of factory farming would be a good thing for diodiversity, since instead of using only the most profitable lines of chickens, people will go back to having local species as pets or just for eggs.

If you're concerned about maintaining biodiversity then factory farming isn't a solution, it's a problem.

I would assume the figures in those graphs are the result of the entirety of human activities, not just factory farming. If factory farming is the main cause, then what specifically is the reason factory farming results in reduced biodiversity?

The second is regarding sapience (mentioned above). There is no doubt that chickens are sentient. They can experience stress, fear, pleasure, pain, terror, anger. They even have a system of short-term and long-term thinking. So, if they deserve moral consideration, they absolutely deserve it on this scale. Hurting a chicken is immoral. It's immoral because it feels pain. If someone hurts a chicken, then we then engage in the complex moral calculation as to whether it's 'worth it'. Importantly, it's almost never 'worth it' from the chicken's perspective.

There's also really insufficient reason to think that they're sapient. This is a ginormous difference, the ability to consider their personhood in a metacognitive way. I am non-expert on this front (as mentioned), but I have a strong background in neuroscience, neuroanatomy, and (partially) psychology. Not Gladwell's 10,000 hours, but sufficient to be a professional in two of those fields and damned useful in the third. Because it's not clear that they're sapient, we actually don't know how they value their future, except insofar as it is measured on a scale involving sentience. We know that chickens will cognitively value future pleasure or future pain. They will take steps to avoid pain and seek pleasure that they can predict. They will even engage in trade-off ratios. But we cannot say that they value future existence. And especially not their future genetic lineage.

It's not a function of scale. Unlike with people, or maybe other animals (I am waiting for more data on apes and cetaceans, but I hold it as a strong possibility), you literally cannot ask "would you prefer to take these slipping pills and die, rather than continue in these conditions?" From the non-sapient's condition, it's a meaningless question. "What's South of the South pole?", type of meaningless.

They would prefer to not suffer. Every time we ask, the answer is clear. They would prefer to not suffer. And so we spend a ferocious amount of subsidy and environmental degradation (with its concomitant poverty and future poverty) maximizing the number of entities that experience this suffering, because we're a combination of 'needing food' and 'callous'. Nearly everyone here is on the wrong side of this scale.

While we may not be able ask chickens if they want their species to continue, we can "ask" them if they want to reproduce and raise offspring. If left to their own devices they almost all prefer to do so. So how do we balance that with needs of all other sentient and/or sapient species? Should chickens be the sacrificial species so that all others can thrive?

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm just saying: Here's a perspective that you have not considered. Your perspective does not line up with what animals evolve towards and is instead a result of culture and (mostly western) Civilization.

I considered your perspective, and I answered it. Whatever choice we make, it's optimal for some species at the expense of another's. With regards to 'evolutionary success' (from the metric you are using), the most significant question is whether Terra becomes interstellar or not. From this perspective, I am going to suggest that reducing factory farming is more likely to achieve success than refusing to.

What you have done is ascribe moral weight to 'chicken existence', but then answered your question from only that perspective. Why are we beholden to destroy our resources in order to help 'chickendom'?

While we may not be able ask chickens if they want their species to continue, we can "ask" them if they want to reproduce and raise offspring. If left to their own devices they almost all prefer to do so. So how do we balance that with needs of all other sentient and/or sapient species? Should chickens be the sacrificial species so that all others can thrive?

No, we don't "ask" them if they want to reproduce. We put them into conditions where their hormones change so that they then want to engage in reproductive behaviour. And then we place them into conditions where they then want to raise offspring. We're the architects of their future wants. One chosen behaviour follows the conditions imposed upon the animal previously.

It's non-sensical. I could capture you and force you into conditions where you would willingly eat feces in order to get your next shot of heroin. But this is a process of molding, of creating the condition where you then express your wants according to the outcome that I proscribe. But, even if I do this a million times, it's not correct to say "people want to be rewarded for feces eating with heroin".

The moral weight isn't "existence of non-sapient X or Y species". Making that a moral consideration would mean that eating probiotics or taking antibiotics a paralysed dilemma. There are a bazillion number of hypothetical species, and the existence of one over another is going to be in the form of opportunity cost.

Your perspective does not line up with what animals evolve towards and is instead a result of culture and (mostly western) Civilization.

So, bullcrap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Religious_context

I value sentience and future sentience in my moral weighting. I cannot discern what you value.

 

[Synobun]

I would assume the figures in those graphs are the result of the entirety of human activities, not just factory farming. If factory farming is the main cause, then what specifically is the reason factory farming results in reduced biodiversity?

Acreage requirement will play a significant role in this. Biodiversity in livestock-dominated areas is lacking because it damages the economic bottom line. They maintain strict habitats to ensure consistent growth and expectation across different pastures/factories/farms.

If you have 15,000 acres dedicated to livestock and then replace a significant portion of this space with natural wild growth, biodiversity in the region increases.

 

[Ryika]

I considered your perspective, and I answered it.

Yes, you did indeed - and with a very fair breakdown of the pros and cons of the perspective, I might add - but I was talking about the initial situation in which I presented the perspective.

Whatever choice we make, it's optimal for some species at the expense of another's. With regards to 'evolutionary success' (from the metric you are using), the most significant question is whether Terra becomes interstellar or not. From this perspective, I am going to suggest that reducing factory farming is more likely to achieve success than refusing to.

What you have done is ascribe moral weight to 'chicken existence', but then answered your question from only that perspective. Why are we beholden to destroy our resources in order to help 'chickendom'?

True, and I think there are a number of other valid arguments that can be made against it. Anything that boils down to "Just because it's status quo doesn't mean it's ideal. <Here's an outcome that I think is better>" basically does that.

But the point of my argument was still to show that for there is case that can be made that for chickens, happiness is not everything, it was not meant to do anything more than that.

 

[El_Machinae]

But the point of my argument was still to show that for there is case that can be made that for chickens, happiness is not everything, it was not meant to do anything more than that.

Happiness is not everything, but it's close. Here's the main difference between sentience and sapience ... it's unlikely that the chicken 'wants' to be alive. Unlike you, it cannot value its existence compared to its non-existence. It will avoid pain that it can predict. It will remove itself from painful circumstances. It will seek pleasure. But that's about it is.

There is no evidence that a chicken that is inseminated wants to lay eggs. It will absolutely engage in egg-laying behavior because it is beholden to its biology. It will avoid scenarios that its biology can predict will lead to an abortion. But the placing of viable eggs is not the chicken's goal. They're not sapient. If it could predict the least painful way of removing the pain in its uterus, it would give no weighting to the planting of a living egg.

 

[Ryika]

There is no evidence that a chicken that is inseminated wants to lay eggs. It will absolutely engage in egg-laying behavior because it is beholden to its biology. It will avoid scenarios that its biology can predict will lead to an abortion. But the placing of viable eggs is not the chicken's goal. They're not sapient. If it could predict the least painful way of removing the pain in its uterus, it would give no weighting to the planting of a living egg.

But there's no evidence that chickens would "want" to make the pain stop if it means the end of their genetic heritage. Sure, if you gave them the ability to get rid of the pain, they'd probably make use of it, but that's an uninformed decision, a chicken does not have the understanding of what that means, it does not realize that it's giving up one thing for the other.

 

[El_Machinae]

You're close, but not quite there. There's no evidence they value their genetic heritage. You're currently positing a fiction. "What would chickens choose if they were sapient?" They're not. It's like posing the question "What would a rock say about a hammer?", it's a non-sensical question.

 

[Ryika]

No, I already explained earlier why this does not matter for my argument. It's not about the chicken's "will", or "intention", it's purely about the things that are necessary for them in an evolution-driven system. Do they need to live happy lives with no suffering to pass on their genes? No. Do they need to reproduce to pass on their genes? Yes. (Or at least someone in their close family has to, the will to reproduce must be "in the genes") Therefor, focusing only on chicken well-being is presumptive. If you do, then you're making a decision for them that they cannot possibly make for themselves - and would likely not make if they had the capacity to decide, although that would probably depend on the state of the factory farm.

 

[El_Machinae]

Do they need to reproduce to pass on their genes? Yes. (Or at least someone in their close family has to, the will to reproduce must be "in the genes") Therefor, focusing only on chicken well-being is presumptive. If you do, then you're making a decision for them that they cannot possibly make for themselves - and would likely not make if they had the capacity to decide, although that would probably depend on the state of the factory farm

Their genes are passed on as soon as their genome is decoded and stored digitally.
And, again, you're asking a non-sensical question. What would a rock say to a hammer?

 

[BenitoChavez]

Acreage requirement will play a significant role in this. Biodiversity in livestock-dominated areas is lacking because it damages the economic bottom line. They maintain strict habitats to ensure consistent growth and expectation across different pastures/factories/farms.

If you have 15,000 acres dedicated to livestock and then replace a significant portion of this space with natural wild growth, biodiversity in the region increases.

That's what I figured but I wanted to make sure. Although it seems to me humans wouldn't let all the land grow wild again. It is more likely that we would re-purpose it to some other human based activity. Humans tend to view previously occupied lands and wilderness as either "waste" or "potential".

No, we don't "ask" them if they want to reproduce. We put them into conditions where their hormones change so that they then want to engage in reproductive behaviour. And then we place them into conditions where they then want to raise offspring. We're the architects of their future wants. One chosen behaviour follows the conditions imposed upon the animal previously.

It's non-sensical. I could capture you and force you into conditions where you would willingly eat feces in order to get your next shot of heroin. But this is a process of molding, of creating the condition where you then express your wants according to the outcome that I proscribe. But, even if I do this a million times, it's not correct to say "people want to be rewarded for feces eating with heroin".

What I was trying to get at was that chickens, away from farms or labs, without human coercion will mate and raise chickenlings. If they didn't then how did we get chickens in the first place?

The moral weight isn't "existence of non-sapient X or Y species". Making that a moral consideration would mean that eating probiotics or taking antibiotics a paralysed dilemma. There are a bazillion number of hypothetical species, and the existence of one over another is going to be in the form of opportunity cost.

From your earlier post it seems like you were saying morally speaking sapient species > non-sapient but sentient species > non-sapient, non-sentient species which is how we justify our treatment of other forms of life. Did I get that wrong?

And for factory farming there is an opportunity cost. This thread has basically gone like this: livestock has horrible conditions in factory farms -> lets get rid of these farms -> what happens to all the currently alive livestock? -> kill them for food, or just prevent them from breeding -> now there is more room other species to occupy the existing land. Basically chicken lives vs the amorphous blob that is "wildlife".

 

[Synobun]

That's what I figured but I wanted to make sure. Although it seems to me humans wouldn't let all the land grow wild again. It is more likely that we would re-purpose it to some other human based activity. Humans tend to view previously occupied lands and wilderness as either "waste" or "potential".

That's true, although factory farming takes up an inordinate amount of land. I'd be surprised if societies could reasonably replace the land with urban developments, at least right away. Even if only a quarter of the land gets reclaimed by nature, that's still a significant boost for the environment especially if the land that gets reclaimed is already adjacent to preexisting nature.

 

[El_Machinae]

The underlying point about distinguishing sapient from sentient from null is that they're analyzed using different criteria. It's an error to overlap the moral reasons from on to another.

 

[Yeekim]

I'm not trolling, you're just so fixated on your perspective of well-being and suffering that you can't fathom that there might be other perspectives from which we can look at the situation.

If not, you're making a very poor argument at least.
If you insist on asking "what would a rock say to a hammer?" or "what would the chicken want?", be my guest.

What would you prefer from the following two options?
a) To be locked into a basement in miserable conditions, force-fed you till you're fat enough, then consumed for food.
b) Same as a), but bred first to ensure your progeny continues to be used similarly across generations.
You are welcome to factor into the decision the chance of (some of) your descendants somehow escaping and finding a better life, if you can figure out what that chance is for a factory-farmed chick. I'm guessing... somewhere around millionth of a percent?

 

[innonimatu]

The one problem I see with factory farming is that the quality of the product is low. Where it can be avoided, it should. But let us not be blind to the causes, it is a product of increased urbanization. In a world where most people refuse to give up eating stuff imported from the otehr side of the world, or prefer to buy something slightly cheaper online than from some local store, it's not going to be reversed. The world would have to change first. Can it?