Theories on humane animal agriculture.

[brimstoneSalad]

When there's profit motive involved, it's almost inevitable that animals will be treated badly.

But what if there's no profit motive?

Do you think a non-profit would be able to run a sustainable farm, for the benefit of the animals (taking care of costs such as food and medical bills) by selling the products (such as milk and eggs)?

Naturally, the price would be much higher since the animals would not be killed when production drops.

Do you think it would be possible to have a life good enough (worth living) that it could even excuse letting them reproduce? Or is the only ethical approach to modern farmed species extinction?

[Neptual]

When there's profit motive involved, it's almost inevitable that animals will be treated badly.

But what if there's no profit motive?

Do you think a non-profit would be able to run a sustainable farm, for the benefit of the animals (taking care of costs such as food and medical bills) by selling the products (such as milk and eggs)?

Naturally, the price would be much higher since the animals would not be killed when production drops.

Do you think it would be possible to have a life good enough (worth living) that it could even excuse letting them reproduce? Or is the only ethical approach to modern farmed species extinction?

There are farms that do this. This is how most family run farms (or any non corporation) make their money. Of course if you could consider PETA doing the same thing only to an extremist point of view, and they ask people for donations rather than selling products for a lot of the revenue.

[TheVeganAtheist]

Do you think a non-profit would be able to run a sustainable farm, for the benefit of the animals (taking care of costs such as food and medical bills) by selling the products (such as milk and eggs)?

Do you think it would be possible to have a life good enough (worth living) that it could even excuse letting them reproduce? Or is the only ethical approach to modern farmed species extinction?

I think this is wholly anti-vegan. By selling animal products you are encouraging the overall consumption of animal products. It would be hypocritical for you to say "don't eat animal products" except for the ones we have which go to protect our animals from exploitation.

One fundamental problem we have as vegans is that people consider eggs and meat and dairy "food". Do you consider breast milk of a new mother to be adult food? Would you consider eating a human that has no family or friends and died either naturally or in an accident? I do not look at another human or their secretions and think "food". If we want the world to move away from using and killing animals, we can't participate in encouraging it.

If you have a rescued dog that has puppies, and one of those puppies dies in the womb, would you suggest selling that dead puppy as meat or eating it yourself? I know its a disgusting thought, but I think its only more disgusting in our minds because most of us didn't grow up in a culture that considers dogs as food. We are more okay with chickens or cows or pigs as food because of our socialization.

[brimstoneSalad]

There are farms that do this. This is how most family run farms (or any non corporation) make their money. Of course if you could consider PETA doing the same thing only to an extremist point of view, and they ask people for donations rather than selling products for a lot of the revenue.

Family farms are for-profit soul proprietorships, there's a big difference there- they still have profit motive. When they make more money off the animals, they keep that money and use it however they want- usually to buy things or services for their personal comfort. They build a bigger house, they put their children through expensive schools, they lobby the government (usually by joining groups that do that, not directly).

A non-profit is entirely different. Private inurement is illegal.

It's pretty well established federal law, and with very few loopholes (and of very limited size):

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... ement.html
http://www.federaltaxissues.com/0300_pr ... ciples.php


A non-profit farm would have to function almost exclusively on donations today- particularly because the cost of the eggs and milk would be so far above "fair market value" that nobody would buy them except to support the farm.
However, if all for-profit animal agriculture were eliminated, then $100 a gallon for milk and $10 an egg would just be what those things cost- fewer people would be able to afford to buy them, and those who could would be supporting the animals directly (not lining greedy pockets) whether they wanted to or not.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think this is wholly anti-vegan. By selling animal products you are encouraging the overall consumption of animal products. It would be hypocritical for you to say "don't eat animal products" except for the ones we have which go to protect our animals from exploitation.

It may seem like a double standard to some, but it's not really hypocritical- it's saying "don't hurt animals"; and offering up one rare exception where those products don't hurt animals (at least directly).

As to encouraging consumption, though- that may be true. Unfortunately most consumers aren't smart enough to see the difference- eggs are eggs, to them.

Somebody could (fallaciously) claim that because one particular organization is selling eggs/milk that are cruelty free, then eggs/milk are probably cruelty free.

This is an empirical claim, though, and could be tested. I would go by the results of whatever that told me- I don't like to assume either that people will or will not be encouraged to rationalize consumption of animal products purchases elsewhere. There's a fair chance that this is the case, though, so it's definitely something to be wary of.

If people continued consuming eggs or milk because of that rather than going vegan, that would be inadvertently doing harm. But at the same time, it would reveal the true margin of cruelty in the industry- and it would displace some number of cruelly produced eggs and milk. It's hard to say what comes out ahead without more information.


But aside from that unknown, what if all other animal agriculture were outlawed? If *only* non-profits working for the animals' welfare were allowed to keep animals and sell the eggs and milk to support the animals?

Then it would be the only game in town, and doing so wouldn't inadvertently encourage people to buy those products elsewhere.

One fundamental problem we have as vegans is that people consider eggs and meat and dairy "food".

Maybe, but I think a more immediate problem is that they believe those things can be produced economically without cruelty, or that they don't care about the cruelty and don't want to know about it. And maybe not so much that they consider them 'food' as that they consider them necessary food, due to myths about nutrition that are continually spread by unethical doctors.

People consider all sorts of non-food items food. I also consider some non-food items food; like calorie free sweeteners (it's not food, but I eat it).

I don't think that vegans have been doing a very good job at convincing people that these things are not food, because regardless of negative health consequences to consuming them, they are nutritive to some degree and there's a pervasive myth that they are necessary- supported by tradition and religion, and that's hard to fight.

Do you consider breast milk of a new mother to be adult food? Would you consider eating a human that has no family or friends and died either naturally or in an accident?

If the donating parties are consenting, it can be. I don't think whether I would eat them or not, because of personal perceptions of what I consider food, necessarily has a bearing on the ethics of the matter.

If the mother donated the breast milk for somebody to eat- there's not necessarily anything wrong with that (provided the child wasn't being neglected in the process).
If the person donated his or her body for somebody to eat- no matter how disgusting that is (though I find it less disgusting than meat from animal agriculture) then there's not necessarily anything wrong with that (providing it's not spreading prion diseases and the like).

A thing is wrong mainly in proportion to the harm it does.

I don't think that a few people practicing those things would lead everybody to do it, and I don't think more people doing it would necessarily lead to rape and murder for those products. It may be possible, and that would be an argument against it, but I find it unlikely.

The key is in understanding the need for consent when the parties can give consent, and when they can't (and yet are still intelligent) we may have to make our best judgment about what is in their best interests.

We do things without our companion animals' consent all of the time- things that are best for them, out of our concern for them, and as protectors.
We stop dogs from eating chocolate. We give them medication when needed. We don't let them run around in the street. We don't let them bark.

Put yourself in the position of a hen.

If you had no job, and no prospects, and if you didn't make money you wouldn't have anywhere to live or anything to eat (you would be struggling to survive in the wild, and likely killed by a wild dog or bobcat or something)- but lo, every day you menstruate, and for some bizarre reason people want to buy this excretion from you. It's gross that they want to buy it, sure, does that matter?

I wouldn't care so much why they want to buy it. It's not fertilized, it's not my baby. I'm just going to eat it later, but I can't live off my own eggs and people will pay far more than they're worth- enough to get me some digs where I can feel safe, and buy some food, even pay for medical care.

It's not a hard decision to make, and even from the most conservative perspectives that should be a life worth living.

When you start getting thrown into tiny, crowded, hellish cages. When you're going to be killed as soon as your egg production declines. When you don't have decent health care, and if you get seriously sick you're just thrown out to die. When half of your face is sheered off with red hot metal. When generation after generation you know your children will suffer the same fate, and there's nothing you can do about it.

That's not a very hard decision to make either, and even from the most generous perspectives, that's a living hell. You wouldn't want the people who put you in that position to make a dime, and it's not a life worth living by any stretch.


There are situations in-between those two ends- and that's where most of the argument from the pro-animal-ag. side come in. They think there are many 'win-win' situations in between the two- where humans can exploit the animals too- that that it could produce a life well worth living for the animals.

I don't believe anything less than spending all of the money on the animals is acceptable, because any personal gain or exploitation creates a system which devolves into cruelty through efficiency. And when a greedy operator weighs profit against life, profit is going to win.

I can't deny that from the hen's position, if all of her needs are reliably met and provided for (without the destabilizing influence of human greed), she's safe, has space, has stimulation and entertainment, can socialize, and she receives excellent veterinary care and is not at any point killed before 'her time' for profit- that's a decent deal.

Provided it doesn't otherwise perpetuate cruelty elsewhere through tacit endorsement of eating animal products, it's hard to argue against it.


And as to the argument that it does perpetuate cruelty elsewhere- that's an empirical claim, and I think we need to pony up some empirical evidence before making it. Despite being more believable than theistic claims of miracles being true, an empirical claim still needs evidence to serve as an argument.

So, the question is: Do we have hard evidence?

If you have a rescued dog that has puppies, and one of those puppies dies in the womb, would you suggest selling that dead puppy as meat or eating it yourself? I know its a disgusting thought, but I think its only more disgusting in our minds because most of us didn't grow up in a culture that considers dogs as food. We are more okay with chickens or cows or pigs as food because of our socialization.

I find that far less disgusting than farmed meat. It's substantially less revolting on moral grounds. The puppy died before ever being born.
Of course I would not eat it; but I can't find a rational basis to judge others for eating it, since the practice causes no harm.
If somebody wants to pay thousands of dollars for a still-born puppy, and that money can go to animal welfare, why should it otherwise be thrown away?

I think these are important questions we need to answer, and provide evidence for, if we're going to take the position.