this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2025
881 points (99.1% liked)

World News

51476 readers
3122 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Boiling lobsters while they are alive and conscious will be banned as part of a government strategy to improve animal welfare in England.

Government ministers say that “live boiling is not an acceptable killing method” for crustaceans and alternative guidance will be published.

The practice is already illegal in Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand. Animal welfare charities say that stunning lobsters with an electric gun or chilling them in cold air or ice before boiling them is more humane.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So, what is your proposal? This is not a rhetorical question, I've thought and read about it for a while and it seems to me like the least bad practical option, because the others are:

  • Kill them directly (way more suffering, seems worse)
  • Release them into the wild, ensuring most die from hunger or predators and destroy entire ecosystems (seems worse to me as well)
  • Keep them in the same hellhole farms where they already are, but stop insemination and ensure sex separation (seems the same as sterilization but with another way to remove autonomy)
  • Magically build shelters for them and let them reproduce freely while providing them with food. This is (1) pretty much impossible economically, (2) clearly not sustainable because it will just result in an explosion in their numbers, without a clear plan to provide food for them long-term.
[–] Coleslaw4145@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Increase the price of animal products so that farm animals live in better conditions and not in torture camps.

Coincidentally, Kurzgesagt have a video that perfectly explains what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sVfTPaxRwk

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So, keep the cycle of exploitation and murder going, but with slightly less shitty conditions? It's an improvement for sure, but doesn't solve the fundamental issue with murdering animals.

[–] Coleslaw4145@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

but doesn't solve the fundamental issue with murdering animals.

Neither does yours. Your solution is essentially murder all the animals until there are none left to murder.

At least this way the animals wouldn't be wiped off the face of the Earth.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My solution involves murdering exactly 0 animals.

Letting animals live out their lives until peaceful death is the opposite of murder.

Your solution involves a continuous cycle of exploitation and murder with no feasible end in sight.

[–] Coleslaw4145@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Your solution involves extinction.

Extinction = murder.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, it literally isn't?

Murder is the process of intentionally killing a living being.

The entire species is not a living being. Extinction of a species can come from murder of all its individuals, but it doesn't have to. I'm literally proposing a solution under which there is no murder happening at all, and all individuals live out their lives happily until peaceful death, more or less.

Extinction of a species is not a problem by itself, especially when the members of that species don't have the necessary mental abilities to understand the concepts of species or extinction. It can be a problem if it causes ecosystem failure, which then results in unnecessary suffering and death. But it's not a problem by itself.

What you are proposing (keeping the animal farming industry going) will involve a lot of murder of animals, whichever way you structure it, or however many "animal welfare" stickers you put on the end products.

[–] Coleslaw4145@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Murder is the process of intentionally killing a living being.

It literally isnt.

The definition of murder is when one human being kills another human being. It has nothing to do with animals.

So if you're going to make up your own meaning for it and apply the term loosely to make your argument sound more dramatic then I can too.