this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
168 points (67.1% liked)
memes
22044 readers
2822 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As much as I find chickens, and all avians in general, cute and I find it sickening the way they are treated... I do love eggs, they're tasty, versatile, easy to cook, and unbelievably healthy.
I think the differential we have to identify is one thing, and that is scale.
I am not a vegan, I do not believe it is wrong to consume animals or animal-sourced products, however I do support animal welfare and believe that if we are to raise livestock for consumption they should be treated as the sentient, thinking, feeling creatures that they are and cared for accordingly.
Imagine instead of human and animal rights we just had "sentient rights", for example.
Being able to test for sentience is a topic in and of itself, and out of scope for my argument.
I think there is no harm done in, a hypothetical world where people had the space to do such a thing, raising our own livestock, limited to individual homesteads or the immediate settlement (a local town market, for example).
The line where it becomes unethical is quite obvious really, are the animals treated as living things, or machines to simply fuel and feed to grow them for slaughter and harvest? Yes, in my example of fair treatment the goal may be to raise them for eventual slaughter, but its their lifelong treatment where this applies, not the overall objective.
The better treatment balloons costs by requiring more land and more care, which significantly inflates the cost of the final products. This could be an effective measure for reducing meat consumption by people buying less to save money, many people would be against those increases.
Its just like mass produced clothing. Since they dont see the abuse and destruction, they are satisfied with the lower prices at the store.
Again, scale.
How much of the meat produced is actually eaten? What’s the chance for each garment produced to actually be worn more than once?
The current system can downsize significantly without needing to raise prices, as we’re already in a significant surplus.
The point at which products are no longer guaranteed due to demand is when the prices have to go up.
That surplus is factored in to the companies making money and providing consistant demand. Prices will increase if the treatment gets better because the capitalists and oligarchs will not willingly take a profits cut. The surplus waste in the current system could be utilized better, for example fast freezing and being provided to food banks or soup kitchens.
No matter how you cut it, if labor and land demand increases, the price will increase.
Obviously if treatment got better, the capitalists and oligarchs would no longer be a problem.
Guillotines
I don’t really disagree with you, but land area isn’t actually a significant factor. When you consider how much land is used to produce feed for the pigs, it’s clear that the stables themselves take up very little space.
The land use would be significantly higher if the pigs were pasture fed instead of crop fed.
Sure, but we don't have to go all pasture fed. Maybe just 10x more space for them in their stables could be a start. Would it be more expensive, absolutely, but either people will have to eat less meat, consumption has almost doubled the past 70-ish years, or they'll have to pay more for it.
I'm not saying people shouldn't get to eat meat, I'm just saying it's rediculously cheap for what it is, and really not needed in the amounts people eat.
this is a contradiction in itself.
from https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/humane-meat
I don't even eat meat and I disagree completely with that lol. There is nothing wrong or unnatural about killing animals for food. There is something wrong and unnatural about abusing the lives of those animals and treating them with no respect.
care to give a reason why? Why do you think hurting animals is bad?
The "natural life" of all animals bred for meat ends with their slaughter, by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't exist? Their purpose is not to die of old age, that itself would be a horribly cruel existence past the point when slaughter would normally occur.
None of these creatures exist in nature. If they're going to exist at all, why not give the best life and fulfillment of purpose if you can?
you have an incredibly bleak outlook on the "purpose" of a life. The slave is bred for the purpose of toiling for their master their entire life, does that justify anything? Hell the only reason the worker gets a wage is so they can work for the capitalist. The only reason people get maternity leave etc. is to breed more workers, that's your purpose in life.
Only the oppressor has a free choice in their lifes purpose. Well, somehow they always choose to oppress more so who knows. At least we have that old debate finally sorted.
Your examples are false equivalences from where I stand. Slavery, capitalism...these are human systems. Of course the people inside have their own goals and desires. Much of agriculture is wontonly bleak, but not by definition. People still exist without slavery, it is not the same for a meat chicken. They really shouldn't exist, and ideally they wouldn't, but they're not going away anytime soon.
That's fundamentally what I'm doing. My girlfriend also loves chickens and ducks so we bought a couple, build a big, nice coop for them (with fucking floor heating because why not lmao), also dug a pond for the ducks and now we have plenty of eggs and my girlfriend can just sit in the chicken enclose when depression kicks and the chickens and ducks take care of that. Best decision we made so far.
Btw, veganism is really about just minimizing the harm you cause to the world. Don’t let any puritans tell you otherwise. What you have described is a form of veganism! Admittedly, it’s a little bit minimalistic, but it’s still something!
From thevegansociety.com, emphasis mine. I'd argue strongly and vehemently that what is described above is not "as far as is possible and practicable" at all! It's firmly within "as long as it doesn't really inconvenience me" territory
I'm not a perfect vegan, I do my best, and I'm getting better. The expectation of perfection is self defeating. Ideally, though, I would have zero captive slaughtered animals in the world.
Right, I'm explicitly talking about "as far as is practicable and possible". For instance I have to take a certain medication in order to function but there is no vegan derivative, they all contain gelatin. It is impossible for me to "exclude all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals". But I do it "as far as is possible" which (at least initially) went far beyond what I considered comfortable.
And that's the distinction I'm trying to make, if you are sure it is impossible, if it is not practicable (as in, not possible to be put into practice no matter how you twist or turn it), then sure it is what it is. what can you do. No ethical consumption under capitalism. But if you still have holdouts because you aren't "ready" to give up certain treats or comforts then you aren't (yet?) vegan.
Not being able to reach perfection is no excuse to not get as close as possible to it.
I don't know that there's any one thing that veganism is "all about", per se. There are a ton of good reasons to eat fewer animal products, and everyone can cut out some level of extra saturated fat in their diets. The ability to cull and harvest a disgusting level of animal meat is the reason heart disease is the number one killer of modern humans
And none of those reasons are veganism. Veganism provides a singular reason to not exploit animals any more than we need to for survival.
Just because your vegan doesn't mean you don't eat saturated fats. Coconut oil exists and I use way too much of that shit.
I'm not even fully vegan, I just eat animal fats in heavy moderation and balance them with lots of plants and exercise. I'm not perfect, I like eggs, but eggs aren't fucking healthy in any context. And that's only one of the several phenomenal reasons to eat way fewer animal products and more plant based & home-cooked.