Some consumers may choose veganism, or a pescatarian diet, but meat, eggs and milk, offer crucial sources of much-needed nutrients which cannot easily be obtained from plant-based foods, a new report issued on Tuesday by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization says.
People who hate animal cruelty don't pay people to commit animal cruelty
deleted by creator
I don't care what you find "nice and effective" if you're an animal abuser
deleted by creator
Then don't get offended on behalf of animal abusers
deleted by creator
You're vegan?
deleted by creator
Great, now just stop trying to be "one of the good ones" because that's fucking pathetic
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
there is no hope arguing it because your argument is "i want to kill animals and not feel bad about it"
Removed by mod
The dairy industry is the meat industry so that is no excuse.
Uh oh here comes "lifestyle-ism." In that case if you live in the west then that's no excuse. You contribute in one way or another to the system so "no excuse"
I feel like you've forgotten your own previous point and are now just doing mental gymnastics.
I was responding to someone who accused me of eating meat. That in no way detracts from my point about lifestyle-ism. Jesus I'm dealing with some Ben-Shapiro level sophistry here. smfh
No, you were responding to this: "there is no hope arguing it because your argument is “i want to kill animals and not feel bad about it”"
It says nothing about eating meat. It was actually you who injected that idea, as part of referring to yourself as vegetarian. I then pointed out that vegetarianism does not free you from participating in the killing of animals. It's just another facet of the same integrated process.
You're putting me in the position to explain the basic context and meaning of conversations you're in. Simultaneously you're exaggerating to flippantly dismiss me and others. Do you think it's possible you're caught up for reasons other than "debate" or a commitment to accuracy and shared knowledge?
lib
:data-laughing:
which of you losers upvoted this? show yourselves so i can mock you
??? Then eat the eggs I guess? But that's not eating the chickens, idgi sorry, what you said here doesn't follow from your premise
Also are those chickens eating agricultural surplus or is the surplus grown expressly for the factory-farmed chickens?
If you've got well cared-for pet chickens then yeah eat the eggs but I think you're equivocating
The point of eating the chickens in a historical context is that if you don't they still die anyways.
Ok fascinating
I'm talking about today, and so was the comment I replied to before they diverted into a historical argument
Using history to defend a practice that may no longer be necessary is facile, sorry
The comment you were replying to was about how in a future sustainable society it would still make sense to have chickens for the same reason they were useful historically.
I am pointing out that these arguments:
are unrelated to the historical argument and using the former to bolster the latter is incoherent. Okay, if raising chickens is an important component of a whole food system then great, like I said eat the eggs, you still haven't connected that with the practice of eating meat
But chickens are not bugs and saying hey maybe we don't need to eat them isn't eco fascist, chickens form attachments, fear for their lives, enjoy being petted and held by humans. Bugs don't care for any of that shit except for staying alive.
I think I've made my point clear so I'm done here, peace✌️
The point of eating livestock is that if you just let them die you've wasted resources. You can argue that's worth it, but the connection to the practice of eating meat is there.
The comment they were replying to didn't present any history at all. They were just telling a story to retroactively justify raising, killing, and eating chickens.
And as parent said, the fact that something was done previously is not a good justification for doing it now. In fact, it's the base of conservatism and then reactionary thought. There need to be other, good reasons.
That's not how I read it. They explained why it was done historically. They didn't just say we should do it because it was done previously - they said : here is why it was done, and implied that the same reasons apply today.
It's not a story that raising, killing, and eating chickens is an efficient use of resources in a context of sustainable, low-industry farming. It's factual and true, in that context. That's currently a widespread context in 2023 across the Third World (of course not in more economically developed countries), and there are many people on this website that think that we should adopt this kind of approach to agriculture moving forwards. If you do, then yes, it's an efficient way to do it, and that is an argument towards that.
You may disagree and think that this isn't a sufficient reason. That's not the same as saying that it's merely an argument from tradition, because it isn't.
Again, the poster they replied to did not state anything historical. They made some shit up that sounds good but doesn't investigate the question at all. This is actually very common in the implicit western chauvinist mythmaking tendency in which we are all constantly bathed. We tell convenient, simplistic stories about how humans used to live, stories that are strikingly reflective of either the status quo or thst bolster the status quo as a development from "primitive" living. Marx was guiltu of this as well, despite his many great insights.
They also said some absolute bullshit about headless chickens that is more or less an urban legend, despite having a tiny kernel of truth.
I do think that the point of raising the veneer of history in these discussions comes from a place other than solid material grounding or a socialist analysis, that it is more about the aesthetics of a lefty academic analysis and is guarding the real reasons that are too conservative and reactionary to actually self-recognize and state (yet). It does play on the "this is how it was, so how it can be now" idea.
I don't think I understand what your second paragraph means, sorry! Could you rephrase?
The second paragraph is that it isn't made up. It's a historical fact that raising chickens allows the recycling of agricultural waste, and coincidentally it turns out that we only started raising checks when grain agriculture picked up and that their distribution historically was highly correlated with the culture of grains from which they could be efficiently fed without impacting human food use (mainly rice and millet). See : https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2121978119. It wasn't the case in Europe, however.
These historical circumstances still persist in much of the world, and are the reason why many subsistence farmers still today use chickens. If you see that as a basic model for the future of farming, as many do, then it would make sense to continue, otherwise not (in which case you'd probably be looking at lab meat/eggs instead).
"Allows" does heavy lifting in these statements. It means it is possible. Yes, of course it's possible. And it's how westerners have been using them for a few hundred years, not coincidentally.
The paper you cited draws conclusions based on coincidence: they create a (we should note, tentative) timeline for chicken domedtication in what is now Thailand and say, "you know what else happened around then? Millet and rice". This is fun stuff to speculate about, but is also premised on a limited imagination and, frankly, a lack of contending with much of what we do know about neolithic agriculture, which is to say that a lot of it doesn't follow the narrative of the agricultural revolution, but was instead often play farming (to use a problematic term), or held a niche that was a minor role carried out for social or spiritual reasons, or reflected a very different approach to agriculture than working a field. Anyways, I'm just providing context to point out that the paper cited has all the hallmarks of a simplistic narrative following this line of thinking. I'll point out two obvious things, not to say that they are what happened, but to illustrate why we shouldn't be lazy in confirming our biases here.
Cereal production was not particularly high-yield until much, much later. Diets were dominated by other food sources. Therefore, agricultural waste would also be comparatively small. The number of animals supported by farming would be small.
Anyone who has raised chickens with any amount of space knows they spend a fuckload of time pecking, especially at pests.
So, how did the authors rule out this coincidence following from wild chickens (red junglefowl) following their essential insect food source to places where cereals were grown and stored? No doubt, agricultural waste would be something to feed these pecking jerks, but we should be highly critical of just-so stories. Also, I'm being exceptionally generous, as we don't have much evidence to solidly align these timelines or draw the clear line from agriculture to domestication.
I will wager, with high confidence, that very few places in the world have the historical conditions of the jungles of neolithic Thailand. The cultures there, as has been the case nearly everywhere except the most environmentally-constrained places (e.g., far North, cold conditions), would have been rich and varied, and have a diversity of food sources and practices that differed from culture to culture.
Modern places, including poor and third world ones, are not, generally speaking, recapitulations of a historical state of humanity. There are many that exist in a way that separates them, at least in part, from the worldwide economic hegemony, carrying out aspects of a hunter gathering or a particular and uncommon means of agriculture. But these are still modern people and cultures. Most participate with the wider world and make use of technologies and levels of ag production (including monocultures) completely unavailable to any neolithic people. The vast majority participate in agriculture not through a traditional means or a historical means, but through a means forced through imperialism, usually with monoculture crops fed by fossil fuels and intended for export. The import of food is the norm, under these very different conditions.
In terms of a model going forward, animal ag is nearly entirely an unnecessary downside that is forwarded by marketing and (comparatively) rich consumption patterns. The conditions under which it is helpful are exactly those of deprivation through imperialism, where people are forced to get by with so little that having animals to handle scraps and waste becomes valuable. But this is not a recapitulation of historical conditions, it is an extremely modern and capitalistic situation and aligns better with a "hustle grindset", individualistic approach to global poverty than one focused on addressing its true driving factor.
You didn't read the study fully. It's not using the jungles of Thailand as the only example - it also looks at situations in Northeastern Africa, in modern China, etc...
That handles about half of your argument where you argue that it only works for that specific environment, it doesn't, it is observed in every historical environment where suitable grains were being grown.
There is no reason to have a just-so story. The article actually does consider the hypothesis that chickens merely stumbled into cereal-growing places, but that's just a question of how it started. It doesn't explain why people continued to engage in very deliberate husbandry for thousands of years. I suggest you completely read the paper if you're interested.
It also addresses the fact that, yes, Europe was not a place where this was a factor. Instead, other animals (notably pigs) filled this niche in a way that more synergistic with the crops and practices of the time and place.
As far as the point about global poverty, you're just coming back to my original point. If you believe that the way forwards is industrial agriculture (I do too), then yes of course animal husbandry doesn't have a point in terms of efficiency, as I said before.
It's an okay point of view that, no, we don't need to have industrialized and mechanized agriculture everywhere, and we can have modernized small-scale farming, in which case having animals such as chickens can be efficient. There is a difference between something being necessary because you are destitute and something being efficient because it allows you to get more out of your resources - it could feasibly fall onto the latter.
I'm aware and did read the study, thanks.
When on earth did I say that?
Incorrect. What the authors actually say is that chickens coincide with the spread of Asian crops, particularly rice. i.e., this follows a pattern of agricultural trade and sharing of practices.
There are many, many places that developed and grew grains without chickens. Nearly all of them, in fact.
There are many reasons to have just-so stories. I already pointed to a particularly pernicious one, which is the widespread western chauvinist tradition of justifying current practices, and especially eurocentric practices, as a natural and historical outcome. There does not need to be a direct material interest in the authors doing so, though there always is one: you can get published more easily and with less work if you more or less support this kind of thinking. It doesn't need to be intentional, either. The lathe of capitalist academia will take true believers and cynics alike.
Academics tell just-so stories all the time. Our comrade Stephen Jay Gould wrote about this extensively regarding evolutionary theory, whereas the vast majority of scientists in the field were retelling the same stories, and usually because they actually believe them and actually internalize those thought processes.
Thank you for the condescension.
Maybe. Or maybe not. Maybe pigs were just, you know, already there. And were first part of hunting cultures. Etc etc. It is best to question simplistic narratives that are mostly making guesses based on coincidence. Various parts of Europe, of course, did eventually start using chickens as well.
It wasn't clear to me that this was your position. However, my point about global poverty is about modern conditions not mirroring those of neolithic Thailand, or really any of the places and times in the article, but instead reflecting modem capitalism. A similar tool is involved (animal ag as food technology), but of course even that is different due to artificial selection.
Efficient in what way?
Is this what you mean by efficient? Due to trophic levels and the energetic expense of entire birds, I'd say you're using a lower technology for no good reason when you could just mulch or otherwise process your waste more efficiently.
We don't actually know exactly why people started farming chickens. It was almost definitely in Southeast Asia, but the reasons that people participated in any kind of agriculture have been varied snd changed over time. Eventually it became simply a form of food, and one that synergized with cereal production, but raising chickens predates the existence of having any significant amount of agricultural waste to feed them.
Your idea of having "ethical" decapitated chickens makes no sense. Nobody does this and it would contradict the labor saved by letting chickens deal with ag waste. It's also just plain infeasible because cutting at exactly the brain stem isn't easy.
In a world of industrialized agriculture, our ability to produce enough food or nutritious food is not the problem. Ag waste can be recycled straight back into ag or used in other ways abd is unnecessary for food production except when poverty has been forced onto people artificially, such as through imperialism. Groups like the FAO like to talk about malnutrition in countries in Africa while ignoring the elephant in the room: the empire has forced IMF "restructuring" on them, has undercut domestic food production, and turned their economies into extraction industry and perpetual poverty. In this status quo of deprivation, liberals squabble over whether having chickens or a cow is "the fix". Meanwhile, industrialised ag can produce more and better food, and cheaper, but it is deliberately made unavailable by global capitalism.
Anti-veganism is not particularly well-grounded in a material analysis. It's usually just reactionary excuse-making and recycles the same kinds of self-serving talking points I've heard from "leftists" that work for defense contractors.