13
Egg Prices Are Soaring. Are Backyard Chickens the Answer?
(civileats.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025
13 points (84.2% liked)
Hacker News
705 readers
437 users here now
Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.
The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
Modern chickens were bred so that they produce so many eggs that they literally drain their bodies of calcium. It wears their bodies down. Seeing them as someone to be exploited and only as a means to produce eggs is what is abusive.
In order to keep them healthy, you have to give them either an implant that stops them from producing eggs or feed the eggs back to them so that they recover the calcium.
Plus, what happens when they get old and stop producing eggs? Then what do you do? Do you just keep them around? Or do you kill them and then eat them? Doing that would also be abusive.
most people don't see chickens as people, so this isn't a concern. they're animals, not someones
You're an animal too.
And yes, they are someones. They are sentient. Each individual has personality. Whether people acknowledge that or not does not make it not true.
I'm a person. humans are animals, that is true, but we are distinct in important ways. denying this is dehumanizing.
No, that is a speciesist take. We are not distinct in the ways that are most important. Among many similarities non-human animals feel pain and don't want to die. Those are the most important ways that we are the same.
Do you think humans evolved in a vacuum? We share a lot of similarities in our brains with other types of animals that also have brains.
It is not dehumanizing. Here's a quote to think on: "When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"
i'm not equal with animals. this is just more dehumanization.
speciesism is rational. i wouldn't ask an elephant to engage in a discussion on lemmy.
Speciesism is not rational. I'm assuming you would not apply the same standards to a human that had the same intelligence as a chicken?
Say we had a person with the same intelligence of a chicken. Would it be okay to milk them and use them for their milk? Or to use any part of them for ourselves? To eat them?
we don't know that any non-human animal understands personal mortality, so we need to clear up an ambiguity in your syntax there. the don't even know if they know they colud die. if you don't know you could want something, to say that you don't want it is almost tautological. we can't say teher is any evidence they want not to die, though.
There is evidence. Watch them scream as they die in any documentary. Watch them try to run away as they get corralled into the death cage.
https://watchdominion.org/
that's not evidence of understanding personal mortality.
Yes it is.
it's not enough evidence. we still need proof they understand personal mortality.
It's more than enough. You go there in person and try and kill one of those cows or chickens and watch them run away and then you tell me straight to my fucking face that they Don't have a desire to live/ not die.
this, too, is not proof. do you have any animal cognition papers that show cows understand that they might die?