this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
683 points (97.8% liked)

Science Memes

11130 readers
2474 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Seems like a weird thing though. A lot of domesticated animals can't survive in the wild. And even the ones that can, it would only be in certain parts of the world, and they'd be an invasive species.

So do we want all of those animals to go extinct? If you eliminate all farm related activities with these animals, give them a place to live out the rest of their lives, but then what? But do you not allow them to breed? Or just let them all die off so they go extinct?

Or do you keep some of them in zoos? Given they've been bred to live on a farm, does that mean you have zoos that are identical to farms? And if you can get milk, eggs and honey from these animals if they're technically living in zoo (which is exactly like a farm in every way) what's been accomplished?

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

This is a very common argument and it's a little shortsighted, because the answer is broadly "yes". Reducing the number of cows/chickens/etc in the world is a net positive, and would only require us to stop force breeding them like it's some kind of degenerate poultry hentai. Allowing the species to reduce in population is only of benefit to the species (cough humans cough) and is overall desirable. Keeping some in zoos would be fine, maintaining the native wild populations is also a good plan, small scale farms ("family" or "hobby") farms where they don't brutalize the animals is also a feature of most vegan utopias. Take india, where most of the population is vegan: there are still cows on farms, cow-derived produce is still available, it's just the cows aren't kept in American-style stock farms.

YMMV, and like any ideology there are other opinions with equally valid outlooks, this is just what I see most often. (full disclosure, I am not a vegan (there's plenty of evidence to that in my post history), I just sleep with a lot of vegans and quite like chana masala)

(There's also a pretty... sane... subgroup that proposes 'corrective breeding'; a process wherein we undo the destructive changes humans introduced to the species and return them to what would be found in their 'natural' state. "Contentious" is probably the best description.)

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Most indian population is definitely not vegan. there have been various surveys that show the percentage of the vegetarian population is between 23% and 37%. That means 63% to 77% are non-vegetarian. It's a myth, a big one, that India is mainly a vegetarian country.

Not even the majority of Indians are vegetarians, much less vegans.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Very poor word choice on my part, I will freely admit that. The veg population of inda in is roughly larger than the entire US population, which is the much more useful statistic. I'm also aware that the vast majority of people who eat a vegan diet do so for economic reasons. Sorry about that.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Many Indians I've worked with are sort of semi-vegetarian, eating meat but only on certain days. I think that's specific religious doctrine rather than a general attitude about animals - like Catholics eating fish on Friday.

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Degenerate poultry hentai

Excuse me sir/madam, but I'd request that you respect the preferred literary sub-genre of some without resorting to terms such as "degenerate". Poultry Hentai may not be overly popular and only have a niche following, but it truly is an art form in and of itself. Whether it's "2 hens, 1 cob" or the better-known "Lady Chookerlee's Lover" it truly does represent a formidable contribution to the art.

[–] ZeffSyde@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Don't even get me started on Bawk-kake...

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Damn. That's a good one!

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I cherish you.

~~But probably from a distance. Chickeboos aren't the best for, you know, close-up cherishing.~~
~~You know why.~~

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

There’s also a pretty… sane… subgroup that proposes ‘corrective breeding’; a process wherein we undo the destructive changes humans introduced to the species and return them to what would be found in their ‘natural’ state

Yeah I feel like that is just forcing animals to live in the way humans want them to live under a weird assumption that we know what they want.

I could live out in the wild if I really wanted to, but I don't because living in a heated home, having access to healthcare, and having a grocery store nearby is way better than starving to death, getting frostbite, dying of a disease, or getting eaten by wolves. I don't know how an animal wants to live their lives, so who knows, maybe they'd rather die of disease over being poked by a few needles by a veterinarian, starving because there's no mangers filled by humans, or getting eaten alive by a pack of wolves. Maybe animals want that, but there's no way of knowing and it's a really weird thing to assume given humans don't want to live that way. We live happy an fulfilling lives without having to constantly worry about being eaten by wolves, why would that be a requirement for an animal to be happy?

I think people see nature from a Disney cartoon perspective where the only danger is a human hunter. But the reality is nature is extremely brutal.

I don't think a perfect ethical solution to domesticated animals really exists. Best we can do is just treat animals better. If they seem like they're happy enough, then that's probably alright.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Indian economics and laws regarding dairy produce their own sort of hell. If the unwanted non producing animals aren't smuggled across the border for slaughter, they're abandoned and left to starve due to laws about culling. Nobody's really feeding unproductive animals except for the goshalas and there's nowhere near enough of those for India's dairy cattle production.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeahhhh... I was drunk and I probably could have thought that example through better. My apologies.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The response I've heard for that one is that domesticated animals are dependent on us because we've bred their survival capabilities out of them. People originally just captured wild animals and put a fence around them. Selectively breeding only the more docile ones has turned them into something they wouldn't have been without our interference. To me that part makes sense, but the present reality is still what it is, and what you're saying is still true.