No! (And given we all live on Earth in 2012 it’s pretty obvious that it is and I knew that.) It gives companies an incentive to treat meat marginally better, instead of creating an impossible step between current and acceptable policies. It also gives the company you like most additional money to crush its competitors with, rather than giving a smaller relative contribution to all soy farmers against the meat industry.
Yes, it changes incentives in the meat industry, but giving money to soy farmers shrinks the meat industry. But which of these is better depends on a) your preferences and b) the economics of these industries. The short term cost of contributing to the suffering of animals my not be worth the tiny marginal improvement in the amount of suffering animals.
I don’t know the economics of it, but based on my current knowledge, I think the safest bet is refraining from consuming animal products as much as possible, and then buying the most humane products when necessary.
On the other hand, some people are making arguments that the production of plant based foods actually harms more animals than the production of, say, beef. I just stumbled across this
It’s an interesting take on it, but I think that it ignores quite a lot of things:
This article is terribly sourced. I’m willing to trust it a bit because the author seems well-qualified, but I can’t be confident that the article is accurate.
This article portrays cows grazing in really open fields, which is an inaccurate picture of how much beef is produced. The significant issue is factory farming, and this article does not address that. I have significantly less problem with feeding on animals that avoid feedlots. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the ideal world included some degree of raising animals for food, for a variety of compelling reasons.
I’m not worried at all about the death of nonhuman animals, but rather the suffering of nonhuman animals. This article seems to conflate the two.
The normal grain argument is that even if the production of grain does damage, the grain still needs to be fed to the animals, so it’s still a net benefit to consume as few animal products as possible. This article counters it by suggesting that cows eat special grains that humans cannot. Assuming that’s accurate, if cows were not produced for consumption, all that inedible grain could be replaced with edible grain/vegetables.
At best, this merits a cow-based diet—we still should not consume chickens, fish, eggs, pigs, etc.
Overall, I still think anyone interested in preventing as much suffering as possible should reduce his or her animal product consumption as much as possible.
Why is that the optimal response?
Stronger incentive to treat animals better, by moving money along that gradient instead of just removing it from all companies.
Unless even the best treated meat is treated too badly according to peter_hurford’s values.
No! (And given we all live on Earth in 2012 it’s pretty obvious that it is and I knew that.) It gives companies an incentive to treat meat marginally better, instead of creating an impossible step between current and acceptable policies. It also gives the company you like most additional money to crush its competitors with, rather than giving a smaller relative contribution to all soy farmers against the meat industry.
Yes, it changes incentives in the meat industry, but giving money to soy farmers shrinks the meat industry. But which of these is better depends on a) your preferences and b) the economics of these industries. The short term cost of contributing to the suffering of animals my not be worth the tiny marginal improvement in the amount of suffering animals.
I don’t know the economics of it, but based on my current knowledge, I think the safest bet is refraining from consuming animal products as much as possible, and then buying the most humane products when necessary.
On the other hand, some people are making arguments that the production of plant based foods actually harms more animals than the production of, say, beef. I just stumbled across this
It’s an interesting take on it, but I think that it ignores quite a lot of things:
This article is terribly sourced. I’m willing to trust it a bit because the author seems well-qualified, but I can’t be confident that the article is accurate.
This article portrays cows grazing in really open fields, which is an inaccurate picture of how much beef is produced. The significant issue is factory farming, and this article does not address that. I have significantly less problem with feeding on animals that avoid feedlots. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the ideal world included some degree of raising animals for food, for a variety of compelling reasons.
I’m not worried at all about the death of nonhuman animals, but rather the suffering of nonhuman animals. This article seems to conflate the two.
The normal grain argument is that even if the production of grain does damage, the grain still needs to be fed to the animals, so it’s still a net benefit to consume as few animal products as possible. This article counters it by suggesting that cows eat special grains that humans cannot. Assuming that’s accurate, if cows were not produced for consumption, all that inedible grain could be replaced with edible grain/vegetables.
At best, this merits a cow-based diet—we still should not consume chickens, fish, eggs, pigs, etc.
Overall, I still think anyone interested in preventing as much suffering as possible should reduce his or her animal product consumption as much as possible.