The Value of a Human Life

[Snerk]

Please explain to me how you are not seeing these comments as referring to the same thing.

Edit: Oh right, you seem to be fixating on my use of "just" in the next sentence. Replace it with "merely" or something.

I can but I'll be repeating myself. Your stated distinction was purely on the motivation of the hunter. My distinction was on a meaningful or not meaningful use of the quarry or catch, regardless of motivation. If you've misunderstood me I apologies and will try to be even clearer in the future.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well okay, but how is my distinction based on the motivation of the hunter not a reply to your "who cares about the motivation of the hunter" question? I care. People care. I'm not going to think highly of anyone who takes pleasure from the act of killing an animal, regardless of what use they put the carcass to afterwards. But from a practical point of view it's not always going to be easy to divine what goes on in the head of someone who kills an animal and then eats it. Maybe they got some insane thrill out of it, maybe they didn't. However, if they kill purely for sport then you know that must be their motivation, so judging them negatively is a pretty safe bet. Plus you know they must also like it to quite a high degree to go to the trouble of doing it if they get no other benefit from it.

 

[Ryika]

but when you see cows/sheep hanging around in fields, chewing grass, sitting around etc

Sure, if that were the reality of today's animal farming.

Meanwhile...

(spoilered for image size, I've avoided graphic images)

Spoiler :

 

[Snerk]

Well okay, but how is my distinction based on the motivation of the hunter not a reply to your "who cares about the motivation of the hunter" question? I care. People care. I'm not going to think highly of anyone who takes pleasure from the act of killing an animal, regardless of what use they put the carcass to afterwards. But from a practical point of view it's not always going to be easy to divine what goes on in the head of someone who kills an animal and then eats it. Maybe they got some insane thrill out of it, maybe they didn't. However, if they kill purely for sport then you know that must be their motivation, so judging them negatively is a pretty safe bet. Plus you know they must also like it to quite a high degree to go to the trouble of doing it if they get no other benefit from it.

I think this is a much more nuanced and interesting reflection on the matter. I understand how some people balk at what is essentially killing for a hobby, be it fishing or hunting. Though I find it rather shortsighted. I have a low meat diet, but I'm not a vegetarian or vegan and will probably never be. So my diet involves the death of fish and animals either way. So why judge me when I chose a path that involves the least suffering for the animals I eat? As for the catch of a fish or the shooting of fowl involving a thrill that is more than the mere consequences of having supplied some food, well I think it's a primal thing. Something deep within from times of hunter-gathering. I don't see why I should try to quell or hide that, as long as I otherwise act and behave rationally.

edit: And as for your last point I agree that it's a potential problem. This is why proper regulation and control is essential. And that's perfectly doable.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Sure, if that were the reality of today's animal farming.

Well it's certainly something I see quite regularly.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

As for the catch of a fish or the shooting of fowl involving a thrill that is more than the mere consequences of having supplied some food, well I think it's a primal thing. Something deep within from times of hunter-gathering. I don't see why I should try to quell or hide that, as long as I otherwise act and behave rationally.

Well we quell and hide primal instincts all the time. It's part of being civilised. I'm not going to judge fishermen or fowl-shooters too harshly I don't think, unless they openly revel in some aspect of it that makes me think they're just not very nice people. But if I see someone with a Bengal tiger slung around is neck or whatever, then I'm not going to think he is anything other than a "see-you-next-tuesday" frankly.

 

[Kyriakos]

There have been a great many scandals in the eu about breeding animals in poor conditions and feeding them literally garbage, so as to make a bigger profit. Eg the infamous cases in Belgium, Britain and (iirc) Netherlands. Not sure about Germany, cause they have a different love for animals there.

 

[Hrothbern]

keepong your cows all the time in stables, feeding them with grain, corn, fishmeal, whatever, purchased from cattle food giants + a good share of separately harvested grass for better ruminant digestion, is the most cost effective way to get meat and milk.
however the meat from grassfed, especially wild grasses with herbs, tastes better and has say 30% of the amount of fat, and fat of better quality in terms of health.
and butter from grassfed contains more carotenes (yellow), far more omega-3, some other health fatty acids.
So this can be sold at a premium price, limited by the market size for such premium quality.

all in all, the stable cows are dominating because of the lower production price, IF the farmer can get the capital for the higher investments needed, the size of the farm is big enough (now minimum 100 cows for milk cows, and treshold still increasing),
and local traditions do not hinder such a rationalised farming.

 

[Hrothbern]

There have been a great many scandals in the eu about breeding animals in poor conditions and feeding them literally garbage, so as to make a bigger profit. Eg the infamous cases in Belgium, Britain and (iirc) Netherlands. Not sure about Germany, cause they have a different love for animals there.

We had this year a scandal with chickens, which was caused by a malicious supplier (outside the netherlands that complicated the investigation) and a slow reaction of the authorities, with as excuse that their intention to build up a better case for criminal persecution, delayed unresponsibily the speed to protect human health.

The last one before that iirc was 2002 with a doubtfull hormone MPA, that was really bad for human health. Only 50,000 pigs were killed, but as later investigations found, according to health regulations, we should have killed 3,000,000 pigs, being 50% of the pig stock in the netherlands.

Too many of our inspectors are somehow too much related with the business they should inspect, perhaps because most of them are coming from a farmer family ? IDK.

 

[Bugfatty300]

In my late teens I worked in an industrial poultry plant doing all kinds of jobs. I remember feeling bad when I first saw how the chickens we processed lived their whole lives inside crowded "broiler" pens.

But then I saw how the chickens had no other concern other than eating, sleeping and clucking. They weren't upset, or distressed, they don't mind the stench...they were pretty much as calm and content as chickens can get. If the chickens required anything more than what they're given then I'd doubt they'be be as healthy and peckish as ours tended to be and obviously there is a monetary incentive for farmers to raise healthy normal stock.

The worst thing by far were the occasional pure scum workers who would kick and abuse live chickens for fun. It was hard to get them fired unless they were clearly caught on a security cam. Although if you complained enough then at least they'd be transferred to different job where they wouldn't be around live animals. That's definitely one thing that should be addressed, but I didn't really find the practice of industrial chicken farming in itself to be inhumane. Though I can't really personally speak for raising other animals in a similar fashion.

Obviously kitten and puppy farms have a clear and demonstrable harmful effect on those animals.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Then there's the case of Mike the Headless Wonder Chicken.

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

 

[Lexicus]

But if I see someone with a Bengal tiger slung around is neck or whatever, then I'm not going to think he is anything other than a "see-you-next-tuesday" frankly.

My position is that people who hunt for sport should be hunted for sport.

 

[Snerk]

My position is that people who hunt for sport should be hunted for sport.

But who should do the hunting? Wouldn't they necessarily have to be hunted too? Sounds like a logistical nightmare.

 

[Lexicus]

But who should do the hunting? Wouldn't they necessarily have to be hunted too? Sounds like a logistical nightmare.

As a compromise, we could send everyone who hunts for sport to an island without any food, and force them to hunt and eat each other.

 

[Berzerker]

they can have food, they just cant get off the island without a kill

sounds like a movie script

 

[Ryika]

Let's put Nazis on one side, and Hunters on the other, then we have a game shop format that's almost guaranteed to be a success.

 

[Lexicus]

There's a short story called The Most Dangerous Game where a sports hunter is hunted for sport after being marooned on a tropical island.

 

[onejayhawk]

View attachment 481183
View attachment 481184

If you look at the two graphs above, it can be seen clearly that there is hardly any wild animal biomass left in todays world.

So why sacrificing that last <1% wild animal life in order to carry 1% or so more humans ?

Clearly bogus.

Mother Jones estimated there are 200-400 Billion birds on the planet. That's about 50-1 to humans. Even if humans average 100 times the mass, it's clear birds are excluded from the picture. You can do the same things with rodents and other small animals. This does not even take oceans into account.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/03/how-many-birds/

J

 

[Berzerker]

cant argue with that logic

 

[Lexicus]

Mother Jones estimated there are 200-400 Billion birds on the planet. That's about 50-1 to humans. Even if humans average 100 times the mass, it's clear birds are excluded from the picture. You can do the same things with rodents and other small animals. This does not even take oceans into account.

>doesn't take oceans into account
>terrestrial biomass
>land mammals