This technology has existed for quite a while now, I think well over 10 years. Talking to farmers, they are also well aware of it, but like tangential technology within dairy farming, the main reason they aren't using it is costs. Any added costs would have to be added to the price.
Where I live, the highest standard (in term of animal welfare) eggs costs around 40 cent per egg. The lowest standard cost around 10 cent, which is also generally the most sold type of egg. Getting this kind of technology widespread would either mean regulation + tariffs or getting it cheap enough that only cultivating eggs with female chicks in them becomes a cost saving technique.
For anyone who hasn't been to the grocery store recently, a rotisserie chicken can be had for about $8. That was wild to me when I stopped to think about it for a second: a chicken born and raised to adulthood, slaughtered, and brought to my local market all for under $8.
The rotisserie chicken is a loss leader. Costco has publicly said they are happy to “lose” $30-40M a year on them because it drives people to the store and they make the rest up in higher margin products.
I am fundamentally opposed to all of this nonsense, but I don't think maceration would cause any pain - it's pretty fast.
This feels like a distraction from the real suffering we see in industrial farming. While the culling of male chicks gets a lot of attention because they're babies and that triggers an emotional response, there are much bigger issues in terms of actual suffering endured - like the prolonged confinement of laying hens and other factory farming practices.
The new embryo identification technology is an improvement, but I'm concerned that framing it as a 'humane solution' will just serve as moral licensing for consumers to feel better about continuing to support an inherently unethical system.
Is there any reason not to believe that humans are so stupid and amoral that they would never support a complete overhaul of the food system which eliminates suffering in one go? Even the moral leader Noam Chomsky has publicly stated that he just doesn't care enough about animal suffering to think about it.
Probably the best animals are going to get are ad hoc reductions to their suffering which are aligned with decreased economic costs, or which target niche markets like vegans.
I don't know for a fact how the machine does it based on feather shading, but I do know for a fact that there is a thing about chickens: sex linking in hybrids.
When you hybridize certain pairs of breeds (e.g. reds and barred rocks) the hybrid chicks show different feather coloring at the time they hatch. Hybridization can also produce offspring which are for instance more productive egg layers. Being hybrids, they don't breed true.
Not all hybrids have the same consistent sex-linked characteristics.
This is a false assumption - many vegetarians aren't. In particular vegans are a subgroup of vegetarians that is not ok with anything animal-based precisely for the reasons you mention.
Vegetarian. I consume eggs however I ensure they are ethnically sourced from organic, free range and roam freely farms; like my local.
As soon as it has a formed element of biological life to it, then no. I don't eat fish neither as it was alive.
Honey, milk I'm fine with it's a byproduct if sourced ethically. Unless I know the source, I won't eat it.
The problem isn't eating meat, the problem is the inhumanity caused by producing meat. We produce so much meat that we are slaughtering animals for the sake of rather than. Meat being of quality.
Having 12 McD chicken nuggets on the drive home is whats wrong. Not cooking steak from a butcher to have with wine for dinner.
I continue to be fascinated by the concept that milk and unfertilized eggs are vegetarian.
Milk comes from cows that had their calves slaughtered (maybe a little bit of it comes from cows that already weaned their calves?). Unfertilized eggs come from chickens that were bred for the explicit purpose of popping them out one after the other.
I recognize that you may be stepping back from this discussion, but I think it's important to address these inconsistencies in your earlier reasoning:
Your logic is inconsistent on multiple levels. You won't eat fish because "it was alive" but accept eggs from an industry that kills hundreds of millions of male chicks. You claim honey and milk are fine as "byproducts," but this ignores how dairy cows must be forcibly impregnated, separated from their calves, and killed when production drops, while honey is literally the bees' food that we take, often killing many in the process. These aren't benign side effects - they're fundamental to how these industries operate.
You claim to only support "ethical" animal products while acknowledging industrial meat production is inhumane, yet fail to recognize that "ethical" animal agriculture is simply not scalable to feed the global population. These distinctions you're making (McD's vs butcher, etc.) are arbitrary moral lines that serve more to make you feel better about your choices than to address the fundamental ethical issues. After sharing your perspective on these broader ethical concerns, falling back to "it works for me and my family" isn't a meaningful response to systemic issues affecting billions of beings.
Not defending vegetarians (or anyone else) here, but people decide how much morality/ethics they are willing to go for. There are people who don't eat steak/chicken etc, but eat seafood. Some people don't consider fish as meat, some don't consider chicken as meat. I don't claim to understand their logic, but each to their own.
There are people who don't eat meat, but drink milk (dairy industry is horrific too) or eat egg based products (cakes etc). There are people who classify honey as an animal product and there are people who disagree.
I think it is important that we are compassionate to those who haven't yet found their way over, but I draw the line at tolerating defense of vegetarian 'ethics'.
> each to their own
So while I generally agree with this, is it fair to say it when it doesn't apply equally for all sentient life—or is it just convenient?
> There are people who classify honey as an animal product and there are people who disagree.
The way people choose to define and classify is theirs and nobody else. They may be wrong, but they still do it and have the right to do so and to express it in respect the local laws.
In my previous job someone new asked me about my diet. I responded vegan and another colleague exclaimed : YOU’RE NOT VEGAN YOU GOT PETS!! (Two rabbits in whole garden free range with their own-dug-house). I’m not sure if he was right about the definition but fore sure that was correlated: my garden _is_ a (big) cage/prison/limit. However the way he said it triggered my defence mode[0] and it took me months to process the message.
Consider also cobalt associated with slavery. From the view of biologist and most vegans, humans are animals and then cobalt consumption problematic (it’s used in many tech, not just smartphones).
I also occasionally wash my hand in public places with probably animal sourced soap and yes it’s for convenience as for cobalt and my pets.
_Anyone_ allow themselves to slightly bend their ethics to not becoming mad. From the "only-good-meat" eater that don’t restrain for the (probably industrial) delicatessen slice during a wedding cocktail. To the vegan that use electronic devices or feed his cat with animal products.
I’m a rational guy and hate seing those irrational behaviors everywhere including myself, but pointing others wrongness is often inefficient to pass a message, if not counter productive.
All those assertions said lol, I’m quite bad at communicating and the best behavior I found is to never ever engage myself a conversation about veganism or ethics, I just wait for questions and respond with neutral and concise terms. Often the interlocutor gets curious and ask more details and I believe there’s more chance he update his opinion by himself than me teaching him.
I think you've misunderstood my point. I wasn't discussing personal choice in definitions - honey is objectively an animal product, produced by bees. This isn't about how people choose to classify things, but rather about factual reality. Similarly, "each to their own" becomes problematic when there are victims involved - it's not merely a personal choice when it affects others' wellbeing.
> but I draw the line at tolerating vegetarian ethics
Which reads for my as not accepting the existence of it, which sounds a bit absurd. Flat earth theory exist even if it’s silly. You may have used tolerate in the sense of approve or consent I guess.
> it's not merely a personal choice when it affects others' wellbeing.
I agree this is problematic for the victims which usually doesn’t get to participate in that choice. It’s not fair. But I believe it is a personal choice, constrained by societal statu quo (or you get trouble) even if irrational, silly or awful. Some countries prefer maximizing freedom or tradition over fairness or minimizing victims.
You're right: vegetarianism is not a respectable ethical stance.
As someone who has actively tried to minimize my contribution for more than 25 years, I feel quite strongly that vegetarianism is a net negative in terms of progress on this cause.
> kill
This is the part everyone seems to get incensed over, but for me this is actually the highlight. I guess it's difficult for people to accept that their grocery shopping habits contribute to what is essentially billions of individual lives not worth living.
Not a vege myself but I don’t know many vegetarians that consume eggs. In my head I think vegan+dairy, but that’s probably because I’m a young person and veganism has popular ~most of my life.
During COVID, farmers were killing pigs with steam. Imagine being steamed alive. Animal industry is cruel beyond most people's imagination. Anything to lessen that cruelty is good, very good.
We aren't gonna reduce our meat consumption, the least we could do is lessen their suffering
> Ventilator shutdown involves locking a flock or herd of animals in a building and turning off the ventilation systems. As the temperature rises and gases inside the building accumulate, the animals suffocate to death, usually over a period of many hours.
Rising "gases" is CO2. Suffocation by co2 is one of the worse death because that’s how the body knows he needs to inhale. Most of the other gases will kill you without you noticing. but forcing a subject to breath co2 is absolute torture.
there are abetoirs that have continious public viewing, and pigs are gassed, with CO,carbon monoxide, knocking them out, and then then they are bled never know a thing, CO causes no reaction
other than going to sleep.Holland I think
I suggest you have a look at the video I posted above. I'm sure plenty slaughterhouses does a good job at mixing CO2 with something else. We only need to regulate the maximal CO2 concentration, the prices won't move neither the bacon availability but there will be much much less suffering
> The principle of gas stunning or Controlled Atmosphere Stunning (CAS) is that animals are exposed to a high concentration of CO2, CO2 mixed with inert gases, or inert gases only
> Carbon dioxide especially at high concentrations (above 40%) is pungent and painful to inhale and leads to a highly aversive response involving very loud and high-pitched vocalisations and vigorous attempts to escape from the gondola and the exposure to the gas, including scratching other pigs vigorously with the claws of the front legs and trampling of pigs that have become recumbent. Furthermore, during the induction phase animals will show increased breathing and gasping associated with signs of breathlessness (“air hunger”). Induction of unconsciousness with CO2 stunning does not immediately induce unconsciousness and the process is associated with fear, pain and respiratory distress (Verhoeven et al., 2016; Beausoleil and Mellor, 2015), lasting from the start of exposure to CO2 until loss of consciousness
Thats horrifying, and it motivated me to do a bit of reading - most of what I saw suggested it was only used for containment of wide spread infections in factory farmed animal population (mad cow was the one that came up the most) and in those cases I can kinda understand the need to contain the animals and dispatch them....but the idea that it could last 3+ hours is still unacceptable.
I don't mind the killing, but it should be quick, efficient, and as painless as possible for the animal involved.
This is certainly possible if we, humans, really wanted to. So I assume you just don't believe society will ever decide to do it. This is unnecessarily negative outlook IMO - the first step to change something is to believe change is possible.
This is a classic is-ought situation. Seems easier to improve the process and ethics of killing animals for consumption rather than reducing meat consumption at a society level.
People don’t change their ways very easily. I know I have to fight rolling my eyes whenever someone suggests the the solution is simple: eat less meat.
Seems easier to improve the process and ethics of killing animals for consumption rather than reducing meat consumption at a society level.
This is the point I am also trying to make. At least short term, I do not see meat consumption going down. Maybe younger folks growing up today might understand climate change and the meat industry's contribution to it more than their parents/grandparents and be willing to make changes to their diet, but changes like this take a lot of time, if they happen at all.
In the meantime, anything we can do to lessen the cruelty to factory farmed animals (for ethical reasons) and anything we can do to reduce harm caused by meat industry on the environment, however small, is worth pursuing
I agree with your statements, but why not do both? Improving the process of killing animals doesn't exclude working towards reducing the number of deaths.
If the GP said we will never stop eating meat I would agree. But saying we can't even reduce it is a bit extreme - we successfully reduced many other things (without banning them, just by coercing people - for example cigarettes).
When speaking of ethics, how do you measure the ethics of causing pain vs killing? I'd say even a 1% reduction in consumption (killing) is better than whatever pain reduction.
I guess the point is you and others feel so strongly about ways to reduce suffering but couldn't care less about life.
Not sure that is fair. Many people accept that there are 2 sure things in life (maybe 3) - birth and death. In a way, birth and death are two of the most natural things we have, a family of birds is born, a fox makes it's way up the tree and eats them all. Many people be able to say "that's life, i just hope the didn't suffer!"
Fair enough, but I don't think that would be consistent when applied to people. Which is to say ethics likely isn't that important for most people - we often try our best to prevent death and may even increase someone's suffering to prolong their life.
I'm from Canada where we have legal assisted death, something I would vote for over and over again, as I think most Canadians would. I don't eat much meat personally, but it's more a ecological environmental thing vs an animals thing. Things live, things die, that is life, oh well. :)
I have never eaten meat in my life. But I am surrounded by meat eaters. Even polite, rational, calm discussion about reducing meat consumption doesn't last more than a minute. It is as though people are more addicted to meat than alcohol and somehow it is drilled into their heads that humans need meat for protein and strength, though there are tons of vegetarians who lead healthy lives.
You don't need to take my word for it - try talking to someone about reducing their meat consumption and see how the conversation goes.
Saying "we aren't gonna reduce our meat consumption" is negativity. Saying "we aren't gonna stop eating meat" would be realistic. But there are plenty of ways we could reduce it. For example, there is a growing trend (in larger cities at least) to reduce one's meat consumption (sometimes completely - there are more vegetarians year by year). Another thing would be reducing subsidies that go towards producing meat - they skew the market in a way that promotes meat. That would be a unpopular change, which is why nobody does it, but it would make sense considering just environmental impact (carbon credits are an even different but related topic).
I'm not going to convince anyone to stop eating meat, who am I to tell them how to live (and I understand why that would be annoying). But changing my personal habits is absolutely within my power, and that may even convince someone to do the same (just like my decision to stop eating meat was because I learned my friend does it.
I never asked anyone to stop eating meat or even reduce it. I only tried (very politely, because I know this is a sensitive topic) to point out the effects of overfishing etc and in my experience, people don't want to hear it. In many cases, they are fully aware of the effects of meat/dairy industry, they still don't want to give up meat. This I understand, I struggled to give up coffee for many many years.
On the question of reducing subsidies for the meat industry - are you aware how powerful the meat industry is? Even the almighty Oprah at the height of her fame and reach couldn't do anything, got sued by the beef industry. There are a few states that have ag-gag laws, do you really think there is political will to repeal these?
In my town, a single mango costs $3.49. Sure it would be nice to subsidize fruits and veggies, but animal industry lobbying is way more powerful than mango/watermelon lobbying.
I appreciate your positivity, I suppose our experience on this issue has just been polar opposite.
As someone arguing against vegetarians in the past, I get the point, but I actually made the switch recently, not because of ethics, but simply because of cost and laziness.
It's a silly story: I recently wrote a program to create my diet from the week based on local grocery store nutrition labels and prices for a couple hundred items, subject to constraints for calories, macronutrients (supporting my goals in the gym) and micronutrients (hit all RDIs for vitamins and minerals plus some speculative stuff). Meat is never included in the generated output because it's too expensive relative to what it offers from a nutrient perspective. All of my daily needs can be met for cheap and with minimal prep on a diet consisting basically of rice, beans, eggs, soy milk, oat milk, pea protein, Brussel sprouts, carrots, and apple juice, which works out to <$15/day for ~3000 calories; <$10/day if I remove some personalized constraints which adds lentils and substitutes cow milk in place of plant milks. Prior to my program, I was spending $20+/day buying groceries mindlessly or on takeout.
I've basically become a vegetarian out of sheer frugality and laziness (I don't like cooking and I don't like solving a puzzle to hit my macros each day). I imagine many people could be convinced to be weekday vegetarians from this angle, but it did take me several months to work through nutrition science books/videos to arrive at this point. (Shout out RP Strength.)
The other issue with my diet is that it is not optimized for taste or variety. I don't mind this (condiments go a long way and I'm pretty focused on my fitness goals), but I think I'm an outlier in this respect.
Anyway, all this to say I see an economic angle for hope, except that all messaging to the public on nutrition science is awful and confusing which leads to consumption decisions not based in any logical framework, and I doubt that behavior will change anytime soon unless we go through another economic shock.
I remember reading somewhere that over 80% of the grains grown in the U.S is for animal consumption, not human. Those animals are then slaughtered for human consumption. I don't know how true that number is, but even if it is half that, it is still highly inefficient and wasteful. That article also calculated the amount of resources (water especially) to produce one pound of meat vs a pound of fruits/vegetables.
None of this is rocket science, it is fairly straightforward to understand. Reducing meat consumption makes sense economically, ethically, environmentally etc. But, people like their hamburgers and their sea food and their KFC...
Right, makes sense. I guess going into fitness I expected meat would be important for getting protein and might be worth a premium, but it's both expensive and requires time to cook where most vegetarian products can be eaten without any prep. The only appliance I need is a rice cooker, which has had an extremely high ROI. The only animal product I can't seem to remove is eggs because of choline.
This article lead me down a rabbit hole, and I got into reading about Hy-Line - the way they describe their product lines are frankly hilarious: https://www.hyline.com/varieties
"Hy-Line Brown
Prolific Producer, Rich Brown Eggs, Hardy Layer"
> New technology enables hatcheries to quickly peer into millions of fertilized eggs and spot male embryos, then grind them up before they mature into chicks.
I think the title is quite misleading. They would still end killed, just earlier.
I was going to start disagreeing with you, but then I read your link, and you're pretty much right.
> The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands.
My comment said that the new process is painless and you say I am mistaken because the current process is virtually painless.
Also, virtually painless doesn't sound like painless to me. It sounds like a nice thing to tell people to convince them grinding up conscious creatures has no negative aspect.
"There's also the debate on whether one-day-old chicks are conscious, but I don't know the literature enough to have a strong opinion."
Why comment if you admit you don't know what you're talking about? There's lots of debate over whether you are conscious. Does that meaning grinding you up is plausibly a nice thing to do?
Where I live, the highest standard (in term of animal welfare) eggs costs around 40 cent per egg. The lowest standard cost around 10 cent, which is also generally the most sold type of egg. Getting this kind of technology widespread would either mean regulation + tariffs or getting it cheap enough that only cultivating eggs with female chicks in them becomes a cost saving technique.