You must log in or register to comment.
As thought emporium pointed out, egg based artificial meat is a pretty good idea.
It’s funny the amount of downvotes every single comment on this thread has.
There are still religious folks on Lemmy, I imagine.
iTs A pErSoN!
All right I’m convinced, we should be eating fetuses
Ye an unborn chick and an unfertilised egg is practically the same thing nutrition-wise anyway
/s?
Atheist here, we apparently love to eat babies. tune in Tuesday for recipes.
Why did they forget to put in the bullet of them both being delicious?
Laws preventing all forms of chick culling exist in Germany, France, and Luxembourg. Switzerland and Austria forbid shredding but allowing gasing male chicks (Austrians really love their gas chambers). There are ongoing discussions about forbidding the practice in most of Western Europe (AFAIK only the UK doesn’t have ongoing discussions).
Is that really a good thing for the animals though? Instead of being killed right away, they will suffer a short miserable life, then be killed.
In Germany the eggs are tested early on the incubation period and if they are male, they are never hatched.
Ideally, these male chicks could be taken to an animal sanctuaries. With the scale of the industry and the rarity of farmed animal sanctuaries, it wouldn’t be possible for all of them. For the ones that can be rescued, life on a sanctuary is much better than in the wild or on a farm in a dark shed.
I think one of the problems is that you basically can’t keep many roosters together (I’m not even sure you can keep two roosters together). That means that for a sanctuary you need huge space so that the roosters don’t kill each other. So while I also buy eggs that guarantee that the male chicks will be raised, I wonder how this is supposed to work if I pay only like 50 cents per egg and half of the hatched eggs are male.
(Note that my knowledge on rooster farming comes from a German or possibly German-French documentary on that, so I might be talking out of my ass here.)
(I think I just remember that 2€/egg was the price calculated in the documentary for ethical farming without losses for the farmers. This was some years ago. To be fair - I’d totally pay that for an egg. Egg as an ingredient can be easily substituted and as a standalone dish it can be something special that I’m willing to pay for. )
You need about 5 hens per rooster, unless you only have a single one, then you can get away with less. More than 5 of course doesn’t hurt, but usually 5 hens per rooster is enough to prevent them from killing each other.
Source: I keep chickens
So they can theoretically be held together? Like, 3 roosters 15 chicken in one group?
Also, and I am sorry if this sounds dumb, but is there any kind of birth control for chicken? Or do you just eat fresh eggs with 1 day old embryos inside all the time? Can you castrate a rooster?
(Wait isn’t there even a dish with a castrated rooster? I think it was in a play by Bertold Brecht)
So they can theoretically be held together? Like, 3 roosters 15 chicken in one group?
Yes
Also, and I am sorry if this sounds dumb, but is there any kind of birth control for chicken?
No, hens don’t immediately start hatching their eggs when they lay them, they try to collect about 8 before they do so. There are no embryos inside the fertilized eggs when you eat them
Can you castrate a rooster?
No, because their scrotum is not outside of their body
Capons are a thing. It’s not common to castrate roosters, because it’s extra effort, but the taste is different so people do it.
I saw this German documentary about the egg industry.
They ship the males out of country where they are raised in sheds, then sold to Africa.
I think the best solution is to not buy eggs. A good replacement is mung bean flour. It has similar nutrition and flavor, can be obtained cheaply, and spares chickens from being exploited by humans.
whether you buy eggs or not, the industry doesn’t change
It does, its called a “boycott”
what is your plan to get enough people to boycott eggs to stop there industrial production?
Austrians really love their gas chambers
They’re like Alabama, Arizona, California, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wyoming in that aspect.
Technically, California hasn’t used that method of execution since 1993, but that’s still a lot more recent than your Austrian with the funny moustache 🤷
While I absolutely agree with the sentiment here, I doubt it’d convince anyone remotely “pro-life” - because one’s “just a chicken”, and the other’s human.
I mean Christ, if you can’t get them to sympathise with the life carrying the fetus, you’re not gonna succeed with a random chicken’s.
Memes like these exist not to change anyone’s mind, but for pseudo intellectuals to stroke each other over.
Unless you account for them thinking of the carrier as just that. A means to an end.
Which is what it’s about. It’s 100% about controlling and punishing women. Everyone’s posting that Satre quote about anti-semites, but not understanding that it’s always applied to this debate too. A pro-life position motivated by tender feelings about embryos is rare; it is that pregnancy gives men power over women. (Weren’t some of the Southern states suing the government due to falling birth rates because teenage mothers are becoming rare? Teenage pregnancy is the way to control the entire course of a women’s life.)
Yeah, I get the impression that the thing that drives most pro-lifers is religion (or their twisted interpretation thereof), not compassion. And as far as I’m aware, their religion doesn’t consider animals to even have souls but rather sees them as tools for humankind to use, provided to us.
Yeah, but the fetus can eventually be used for slave labor, including the production of more slaves. The male chicks are more useful being shredded for cheap slave fodder. If we generate enough value for our masters in this way, they’ll let us join them. Blessed be the fruit.
be used for slave labor, including the production of more slaves.
That’s the theory they had. Turns out humans don’t breed that well in captivity. In practice the birth rate keeps dropping and is now way below replacement rates.
I know you’re going for the joke, but it’s way to close to why a lot of these people want to outlaw reproductive healthcare.
In reality, humans have more children in bad circumstances, and less when we’re educated, have life options, don’t need children to work as labor for the family, don’t need them to provide for us when we get old, and have confidence that they’ll survive.
In bad times we have a lot of children for better odds and more hands to do work, and in good times we have fewer to concentrate our resources on.
It’s why they want to ban reproductive healthcare and tank the economy: in 20 years there’ll be a wave of economic demand and labor supply. That the individual will be broke, have no future, and no education is irrelevant.
In bad times we have a lot of children for better odds and more hands to do work,
That used to be true until children were not allowed to work anymore. They’re quietly trying to roll that child labor of course.
in 20 years there’ll be a wave of economic demand and labor supply.
By that time, people are competing against humanoid robots and office AI to see who can do the job the cheapest. Humans are in the end not going to win that race. Robots and AI are a bit silly now but are getting better and cheaper quickly. There will buy a lot of labor supply, but with most people in a trailer park trash existence there won’t be that much demand.
We do still actually see that lower income households tend to have the highest birth rates, even in places where child labor is outlawed.
And I’m gonna disagree about the demand thing. People have demands from the base act of existing. Lower income people have proportionally higher demands. Their entire income is consumed and goes to other people. If you’re looking for people to do economic activity and whatever tasks you need done by a human, low income people are usually incapable of seeking a life elsewhere, and quickly return any compensation they get to circulation near where they are.
Lower income households also have the highest mortality rates and shorter lifespan.
I´d argue higher income people spend money a lot more money on other things than the basics, like apparel, entertainment, travel, starbucks coffee, … Entire industries disappear when people can´t afford the products or services. In times of crisis, people stop certain spending and you get all the restaurants, hotels, amusement parks, fancy shops and so on crying they don´t get as much business anymore and slowly start to go bust.
Turns out humans don’t breed that well in captivity.
Depends on how broad your definition of captivity is 🤷
In terms of economic system, they got us by the balls and are squeezing hard.
Yup, that’s pretty much what I was alluding to.
When all of the things you need in order to live is made artificially scarce by a system you can’t opt out of, that’s a form of captivity if you ask me. And even if you don’t.
the earth is our cage, so pretty broad
animals kant have rights
I don’t personally believe in rights at all. they’re absolutely unnecessary for right behavior or a just society.
How do you define a “just society” without having any concept of rights?
equality and freedom
How do you define freedom without rights?
easily. I just remove the word “right” from my vocabulary.
Are you absolutely nuts?
How should people guide their behavior in society?
there’s a whole field of ethics that tries to answer this question.
Removed by mod
What’s a just society?
A fantasy apparently.
I define it as one where everyone is equal and free. opinions may vary though.
How can you have a society where everyone is equal and free if you don’t define the right of individuals to be equal and free? There are always people and organizations who would give preference to their tribe, whether for well-intentioned or nefarious reasons.
How can you have a society where everyone is equal and free if you don’t define the right of individuals to be equal and free
it seems pretty obvious that we can just observe whether everybody is equal and free, and if somebody is preventing somebody else from being equal or free, tell them to knock it off.
and if somebody is preventing somebody else from being equal or free, tell them to knock it off.
That’s what rights are.
no, “rights” are an enlightenment era fiction created by people who were supposedly interested in empiricism, but never bothered to question whether rights exist.
Rights are things that as a society we agree people should be allowed to do. And if they’re prevented from doing them, we tell the people preventing them to knock it off.
When people are told to change their behavior, sometimes their response is just to say fuck off. How could we possibly expect compliance without codifying what they should comply with? How would you deal with conflicting values? As much as governments are the single largest cause of mass murders and deaths, this is the one thing they are good for: defining parameters.
How could we possibly expect compliance without codifying what they should comply with?
none of this necessitates rights
There are always people and organizations who would give preference to their tribe, whether for well-intentioned or nefarious reasons.
you can’t prove this
Has there ever been anywhere in recorded human history where this wasn’t true?
this question is not proof.
Why do you want that?
it sounds nice to me
Ok, then why does that sound nice? You gotta see where I’m going with this.
I don’t care for your interrogative style. say what you want.
I want you to understand how your concept of a just society ultimately depends on natural rights, whether or not we call them rights.
Why do you want everyone to be equal and free, why would that be nice? Why should we care?
oh my god this is why we lose all the goddamn time. why do pro choice people have to make the fucking worst arguments? this comparison is dumb for multiple reasons. viability is arbitrary and irrelevant, and most importantly could be subject to change. some people talk about the fetus technically being a parasite; that makes you sound psychotic.
there’s one argument here: freedom over your own body. you shouldn’t be legally forced to undergo an operation for someone else’s benefit. yes even if the fetus is a person, it’s viable, can feel pain, whatever. there’s literally no other situation where that is even remotely legal. you can’t be forced to donate an organ or blood to your own child. the only reason one is forced and one isn’t is because of the general idea that men will be in one of those situations.
there’s no reason to accept their framing on any of this and try to beat them in some sort of logical trap. they’ll move the goalpost. they’re not serious about any of this. this is and has always been about controlling the woman, and the counter therefore should be about the woman.
everything about the fetus is just bullshit. if they cared about the fetus they’d argue for its wellbeing literally at any point after the first moment of its birth but they don’t. THEY DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANY BABY. why would they care about a goddamn chick? no it’s always only about women. the baby stuff is a smokescreen to get you to argue mind numbingly stupid shit like this.
oh my god if I were arguing with an anti choice moron and someone “on my side” would butt in with “but we kill chicks though” I would smack them across the face. stop being weird.
why do pro choice people have to make the fucking worst arguments?
It’s an ongoing struggle and essentially everybody hates you when you point out just how many pro-choice arguments are either just fucking dumb and ineffective or try to argue for being pro-choice as an application of a broader principle that doesn’t get treated as half as important in most other cases where it’s application would be controversial.
It’s even worse when you yourself are pro-choice and it’s just pointing out that bad or inconsistent arguments are bad or inconsistent.
there’s one argument here: freedom over your own body. you shouldn’t be legally forced to undergo an operation for someone else’s benefit. yes even if the fetus is a person, it’s viable, can feel pain, whatever. there’s literally no other situation where that is even remotely legal.
Freedom over your own body is really only sold as some kind of highest principle specifically in pro-choice arguments and blood and tissue donations. Usually the counter arguments rely on the notion that there’s a point where you’ve agreed to the thing and can’t demand it be undone (you can’t for example donate a kidney and then demand it back), which for pregnancy brings it back around to things like whether or not a human being in the earliest stages of its life counts as a person that you’ve presumably consented to create by engaging in the reproductive act.
Also, by all appearances the line for when the bodily autonomy argument is seen as acceptable is specifically when the process involved is wholly biological - the moment it can be abstracted from that even a little bit suddenly bodily autonomy no longer applies.
A fun hypothetical to throw out there is this - artificial wombs are currently in development for agricultural use because they could potentially increase yields and reduce emissions (once the tech is mature, it’s hypothetically cheaper and cleaner to run an artificial womb than maintain a whole cow per head of beef per season). This tech could probably be adapted for human use. So, in a hypothetical where artificial wombs are perfected for human use, would you support banning abortion in favor of transplanting to an artificial womb if the prognosis for the woman was the same, knowing that she will of course be responsible for the resulting child? If no, are you really arguing from bodily autonomy since the part involving the woman’s body has been removed from the equation?
it’s fine; I was expecting dumb fucks who make dumb arguments all the time to not read into all that. most of the downvotes probably assume I’m pro life despite the fact that I’m pro choice. not only that but I support abortion without restrictions. don’t care about viability as I think it’s a weak basis, I don’t care if it’s the tenth month.
I don’t think your example removes the woman from the equation. the transfer is still related to bodily autonomy. the fetus is part of the mother, and forcing someone to transfer it and keep it alive is still against that. you can’t force me to ejaculate into a cup, what makes it ok to force someone to transfer their fetus anywhere?
nah maybe if you’d have the baby conceived inside the artificial womb from the start…?
then you’d have other questions like is it ok to force a baby to be born without any parents in their life… whole other can of worms which is about the baby’s welfare, which is why this hypothetical will never be discussed by anti choice people because they don’t give a shit about the baby and aren’t the least bit interested in what would happen to them if you remove the woman from the equation.
Excuse me what? Chicken take 21 days to hatch?
They mean a day old chicken that has hatched. They are comparing a human embryo to a live chick.
If it is a male chicken that is not going to lay eggs, it will get shredded
To my knowledge they do not have an inexpensive way, let’s be honest any way that costs any money is probably not going to be used unlessed forced, to find the sex of the chicken before it is hatched.
It’s called chick culling if your interested in reading about how 7 billion male chick’s get shredded each year worldwide.
Yup. Though if you’ve ever seen the shredders, it’s just about the most humane way to die. It’s absolutely brutal, but they’re dead before they even know the shredder has been turned on. It’s so startlingly fast that an onlooker wouldn’t even have time to react.
Thats not what the word humane means. Its not humane to kill a fresh born chick because it won’t lay eggs. You made the chick, deal with it in a real humane way by not immediately killing it.
Also, just personally, I would not want to die by macerator. I didnt find the videos comforting in that way like you did, I wouldnt euthanize a loved one by macerator.
*21 day old chick
Came here to say the same thing, but you got it covered. 🫡
Shredding alive for… Eggs? 🤔
Edit: appreciate the replies! I actually already knew that, I think the verbage just threw me off. Poor chickies
Basically, male chicks are worthless on egg farms. They all get put into a macerator to be disposed of. The rate at which they do this is unfathomable at a single farm alone.
And that’s how mcnuggets are made
Male chicks are largely considered a waste-product of the poultry industry, you don’t need many males to maintain the population. It’s cheaper and easier to identify them once they hatch, at which point they have no economic value and so are killed.
Male chicks get shredded because they do not lay eggs.
Yes. Half the eggs you get in the supermarket actually come from splitting open the males rather than waiting for them to grow old enough to lay them.
Is true I think. Overstated a bit possibly?
IDK I don’t work on a farm etc
Quick tip for everyone: if you have no idea, don’t present something as fact!
The person you’re replying to didn’t present anything as a fact they asked a question
“I heard you fucked a goat? I don’t know, I wasn’t around.”
That’s your takeaway with somebody asking if something is exaggerated or not?
So far all you’ve done is respond to someone who is basically asking about sources and tell them that they are wrong for asking and then respond to me with a false equivalency. What exactly are you contributing here? You haven’t added anything other than saying everyone is wrong not providing any information and then acting combative.
You could have said why they are wrong, but you don’t want to. You want to misrepresent what I said entirely so I don’t know apparently you don’t want to read either
Overstated how? Worldwide, around 7 billion male chicks are culled each year in the egg industry.
Chickens are not even a millionth the value of a human life. Im pro choice but chill out.
Idk about that, with even just a few chickens you could feed a family of humans reliably. A creature’s “value” ist not based on whether or not they’re as smart or capable as humans. When I was growing up we had some chickens and they fed us with eggs for my entire childhood. That’s some value right there.
On the other hand, we humans are devaluing their lives by mass-producing and mass-killing them before they’re even grown up and able to show their value.
Meanwhile, I’m pretty sure my value is negative. I don’t contribute anything to society, I simply consume and pollute.
It’s all relative.
What’s the value of a human to a chicken? Perhaps mankind should just take one small step back for once. Would be about time by now.
If you say chickens are only valuable because they feed humans, you are admitting they do not have any intrinsic value.
You are misunderstanding the meaning of the word “value” in this context, you almost use it like monetary value, but this is not accurate.
Also, we are not talking about value for someone, but value for itself. A human is valuable not because he is useful, but for himself. Even Aristotle said that the difference between a free man and a slave is that a free man exists for himself while a slave exists for others. By that rationale, not recognising intrinsic value within oneself but instead viewing ones value in terms of your worth to society is slave mentality.
First day on the food chain? I guess ALL of us aren’t apex predators. …
Wait until you find out humans aren’t apex predators.
Haha oh really, did the fucking lion kingdom develop guns and bombs? Ohhhh nooo
Humans are more destructive than any other creature but we’re not apex predators; you still need to watch out for bears in the woods.
That’s their habitat, not ours
An apex predator is top of the food chain in their environment/habitat/area
We fit that bill
We exist everywhere outside the sea, but I don’t let facts stop your anthro-superiority circlejerk.
Says a human. Precius.
Removed by mod
Every vegan meme I see on here just further convinces me it’s an elaborate joke.
I’m not a vegan but you’ve lost me. Explain your thought process.
The vast majority of aborted fetuses are not sentient. Sentience is the ability to know oneself exists through feeling. Yet in the US, there are laws protecting insensate biological material but not sentient male chicks ground up alive in the egg industry. I see the moral value of a day old chick as far more than a 14 week fetus since the male chick has sentience and can feel pain while a 14 week old fetus cannot.
Sentience is the ability to know oneself exists through feeling.
no, it’s the ability to feel (especially pain)
The idea that animals are on the same level as humans is laughable.
The idea that a human fetus is on the same level as humans is also laughable 🤷♂️
It’s still orders of magnitude above a chicken, and comparing the two is a joke. I’m a fetus deletus caster, just so we don’t have a confusion on my stance on that part.
It’s still orders of magnitude above a chicken
Disagree
comparing the two is a joke
Agree. Not sure why you keep insisting on doing so
piss off dude
You are prey.
ok
…yeah
Humans are animals. Why doesn’t it make sense to protect the rights of beings that can feel and know they exist over biological material that can’t feel or know it exists?
Will someone please teach the mean old foxes that eating chickens is morally reprehensible, too? All animals are equal, after all.
Nobody gives a shit about wild animals. If a farmer brings an animal into the world for agriculture, they are responsible for that life. Thats what people are talking about. Lions and tigers can eat all they want who gives a fuck.
So animal rights only apply to certain animals who are deemed special by those in power. Where have I heard that before?
Your own head?
Do you base your moral code on what animals do to each other? That would allow a lot of fucked up things.
you just want to argue or are brain damaged wtf does a predator hunting an animal for food have to do with unthinking killing of billions of chicks for no reason other than $$$.
In many ways, no they’re not. The average chicken/pig/cow isn’t on the same intelligence level as the average human, for instance.
That being said, you’re not going to convince me that those differences are great enough to justify enslaving and killing them by the billions when alternatives exist.
And you’re not going to convince me that you can enslave an animal.
Subjugate, exploit, confine against their will… We can argue semantics all day but the result is the same.
confine against their will
they don’t know what’s good for them. protecting them from the elements and predators and starvation is good.
Not breeding them into existence just to kill them at a fraction of their natural lifespan is much better.
Removed by mod
What makes one animal on a different level than another animal?
It being the same species as me. There’s no objective reason I’m “better” than a chicken since value is a subjective measure.
Since it’s subjective though, it’s not unreasonable to say that as humans, we value humans more than chickens.
We’ll never escape the subjective nature of value judgements, but as long as we’re honest about their subjectivity we can work with it.A moral system that requires me to pretend that when you, my child, and a chicken are trapped in a burning building that I’ll be unconcerned about who gets rescued first is a non-starter. Likewise, when it’s me, your child, and a chicken it’s a non-starter to assume you’ll have the same priorities as me.
That’s a straw man, though. That’s not what the argument is.
It’s not about whether or not other animals have the same moral value as us. It’s about whether or not they have sufficient moral value to not be killed for a moment of sensory pleasure, when other options exist.
I’m not sure I see how it’s a strawman. I haven’t misrepresented what anyone was claiming. I immediately agreed that there’s no objective measure of value that makes a human on a “different level” than a chicken.
Pretty sure the conversation that I was responding to was about if they have the same moral value.It seems like you want to have a different conversation, which is fine, but don’t pretend the conversation you want to be having is the one that was and everyone else is a jerk for not knowing that.
Perhaps I misunderstood, so let’s back up a step.
Do you think veganism entails a “moral system that requires [you] to pretend that when [your child] and a chicken are trapped in a burning building that [you’ll] be unconcerned about who gets rescued”?
values are subjective
Ok, so if someone else just decides your life isn’t of value, then that’s OK since your moral worth is subjective? Am I understanding your argument properly?
“I can excuse abortion, but I draw the line on animal cruelty.”
It’s “I can excuse animal cruelty, but I draw the line on abortion”
You got the joke!
Correct.
Reasonable take yeah.
Yes.
Carnism and patriarchy are both foundations of fascism.
[citation needed]
