Animal Rights (Chile)

[Sy Borg]

The issues are far from new. Civilisations have fallen due to land mismanagement. Environmental issues naturally came from the agricultural revolution, which altered natural ecosystems. From there, numerous mistakes have been made due to lack of local knowledge that have decimated ecosystems.

Jared Diamond called the advent of agriculture "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race."

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet ... human-race

:-)

That is not just taking the ball and running it way downfield. It's overshooting the goal line, continuing through the crowd, out the exit gate, out into the street, finally making a touch down in a cul-de-sac alley :)

I think of the agriculture as cracking some eggs to make an omelette. There have been many tremendous balls-ups in history - both ancient and recent - many of which would have been avoidable had leaders bothered to listen to experts in the local area, ie. the original long-term inhabitants.

Still I am in favour agriculture and other technological advances for the same reason that I am in favour of (non-extreme) inequality. Maybe we humans would last longer if we just stayed in jungles, picking fruits and spearing animals, and putting our brainpower into deep spiritual pursuits.

However, we humans were evicted from Eden for failing to respect our landlord's property, and so I - as a fallen human - would rather to cheer on the space projects of Musk, Bezos, NASA and even the CCP than to lead a short, brutish and parasite-infested life in the wild. The Earth's biosphere is doomed, anyway, when the Sun expands. It's only a matter of when. The biosphere can either die out completely, or send its "seeds" out to other worlds. For that, we need inequality - and, of course, agriculture.

Agriculture will eventually evolve too. Entomophagy will become more widespread. Jellyfish products will be common. Pain-free meats will be grown in factories for mass production and all manner of meals based on fungi and symbiotes that are grown indoors a la Asimov.

By then, most wild animals will be gone and many arable lands will lose productivity (although with some opening up in the Arctic and Antarctic), so the changes will be forced.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think the issue here is that humans have the ability to pursue their rapacious interests and overcome the limits that 'nature' places on all other species. Locusts, for example, do great damage, but their numbers, and therefore the areas that are affected, are limited by 'nature'. Their numbers are controlled by starvation as the locally-obtainable food runs out, and they die.

Agriculture seems relatively harmless, but that's only because it is the lightest-grey part of the grey area between 'damage' that is acceptable and that which is unacceptable.

We think there are ancient (human) societies who died out due to the environmental damage they caused. Wasn't the Sahara desert formed in such a way, or am I misremembering what I've read in the past? And didn't the Incas and the Mayans possibly suffer a similar fate? Nevertheless, these are the counter-examples. Humans have been destroying our ecosystem since we've been around, even if the very worst of our excesses only came about since the Industrial Revolution.

In the context of this discussion, humans are unique among all of the Earth's creatures in their potential to damage our ecology, and can't be compared with other living things. Humans can overcome (easily) the limits that nature places upon other creatures, and they (we) do.

[Belindi]

Sy Borg wrote:

However, we humans were evicted from Eden for failing to respect our landlord's property,

Thank goodness someone here understands the practical, non-superstitious, application of the ancient myth !

[GE Morton]

That is not just taking the ball and running it way downfield. It's overshooting the goal line, continuing through the crowd, out the exit gate, out into the street, finally making a touch down in a cul-de-sac alley

I think creative writers and scholars who have gained a reputation and some credibility sometimes mischievously make startling comments or arguments just to delight in the uproar sure to ensue.

[Sy Borg]

... humans are unique among all of the Earth's creatures in their potential to damage our ecology, and can't be compared with other living things.

Except cyanobacteria.

https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/th ... ction.html

Let me tell you about a catastrophe. I don’t use that word lightly: This event was monumental, an apocalypse that was literally global in scale, and one of the most deadly disasters in Earth’s history.

It began about 2.5 billion years ago (though opinions vary). The Earth was very different then. There were no leafy plants, no animals, no insects. Although there may have been some bacterial life on land, it was the oceans that teemed with it, and even there life was far simpler than it is today. Most of the bacteria thriving on Earth were anaerobic, literally metabolizing their food without oxygen.

But then an upstart appeared, and things changed. This new life came in the form of cyanobacteria, sometimes called blue-green algae.

Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic. They convert sunlight into energy and produce oxygen as a waste product. Back then, the Earth’s atmosphere didn’t have free oxygen in it as it does today. It was locked up in water molecules, or bonded to iron in minerals.

The cyanobacteria changed that. But not at first: For a while, as they produced free oxygen as their waste, iron would bond with it and the environment could keep up with the production.

At some point, though, as cyanobacteria flourished, the minerals and other sinks became saturated. They could no longer absorb the oxygen being produced. It built up in the water, in the air. To the other bacteria living in the ocean—anaerobic bacteria, remember—oxygen was toxic. The cyanobacteria were literally respiring poison.

A die-off began, a mass extinction killing countless species of bacteria. It was the Great Oxygenation Event. But there was worse to come.
cyanobacteria

Up until this time, the atmosphere was devoid of the reactive molecule. But as oxygen abundances increased, some of it combined with methane to create carbon dioxide. Methane is a far more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2, and this methane was keeping the planet warm. As levels dropped, the Earth cooled. This triggered a massive glaciation event, a global ice age that locked the planet in its grip.

Things got so bad the cyanobacteria themselves were threatened. Their own numbers dropped, along with nearly all other life on Earth. The mass extinction that followed was vast.

[Belindi]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... on-reveals

[Sy Borg]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... on-reveals

I wish that unfettered pictures of what goes on in factory farming were available. It is unethical for governments to prevent animal activists from showing the public how these businesses are conducted. This censorship does not allow consumers to make informed decisions about their eating ethics.

[GE Morton]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... on-reveals

I wish that unfettered pictures of what goes on in factory farming were available. It is unethical for governments to prevent animal activists from showing the public how these businesses are conducted. This censorship does not allow consumers to make informed decisions about their eating ethics.

What is illegal is trespassing to take such photos. If a person legally on the property (say a disaffected employee or customer or vendor) took such photos no one could prevent them from publishing them.

[Sy Borg]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... on-reveals

I wish that unfettered pictures of what goes on in factory farming were available. It is unethical for governments to prevent animal activists from showing the public how these businesses are conducted. This censorship does not allow consumers to make informed decisions about their eating ethics.

What is illegal is trespassing to take such photos. If a person legally on the property (say a disaffected employee or customer or vendor) took such photos no one could prevent them from publishing them.

Ideally, trespass would not be needed, with access granted to animal activists to check on animal welfare. That way more people could make informed decisions about what to eat.

[Belindi]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... on-reveals

I wish that unfettered pictures of what goes on in factory farming were available. It is unethical for governments to prevent animal activists from showing the public how these businesses are conducted. This censorship does not allow consumers to make informed decisions about their eating ethics.

What is illegal is trespassing to take such photos. If a person legally on the property (say a disaffected employee or customer or vendor) took such photos no one could prevent them from publishing them.

I need to inspect these places for myself. Because I cannot do so I rely on disinterested journalists to do the work. If a business excludes disinterested, unannounced ,and peaceful inspections the owners know the reports will be unfavourable.
If the business had nothing to hide from its customers it would be proud to display its work.

[GE Morton]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... on-reveals

I wish that unfettered pictures of what goes on in factory farming were available. It is unethical for governments to prevent animal activists from showing the public how these businesses are conducted. This censorship does not allow consumers to make informed decisions about their eating ethics.

What is illegal is trespassing to take such photos. If a person legally on the property (say a disaffected employee or customer or vendor) took such photos no one could prevent them from publishing them.

Ideally, trespass would not be needed, with access granted to animal activists to check on animal welfare. That way more people could make informed decisions about what to eat.

Whether farming operations allow that will depend upon how much impact the publicity, positive or negative, will have on consumers' buying habits.

[Sy Borg]

I wish that unfettered pictures of what goes on in factory farming were available. It is unethical for governments to prevent animal activists from showing the public how these businesses are conducted. This censorship does not allow consumers to make informed decisions about their eating ethics.

What is illegal is trespassing to take such photos. If a person legally on the property (say a disaffected employee or customer or vendor) took such photos no one could prevent them from publishing them.

Ideally, trespass would not be needed, with access granted to animal activists to check on animal welfare. That way more people could make informed decisions about what to eat.

Whether farming operations allow that will depend upon how much impact the publicity, positive or negative, will have on consumers' buying habits.

Clearly, allowing access to their operations would force them to change to more humane methods, biting into the bottom line. Animal torture is the price paid for cheap meat, a system propped up by secrecy and implicit deception.

[LuckyR]

What is illegal is trespassing to take such photos. If a person legally on the property (say a disaffected employee or customer or vendor) took such photos no one could prevent them from publishing them.

Ideally, trespass would not be needed, with access granted to animal activists to check on animal welfare. That way more people could make informed decisions about what to eat.

Whether farming operations allow that will depend upon how much impact the publicity, positive or negative, will have on consumers' buying habits.

Clearly, allowing access to their operations would force them to change to more humane methods, biting into the bottom line. Animal torture is the price paid for cheap meat, a system propped up by secrecy and implicit deception.

Not necessarily. If every ranch had to do it, then the higher costs of production would be equally passed along to the consumer. True food would cost more (a good thing since it would envourage eating less), but single ranches wouldn't have a cost disadvantage since it would be universal.

[Belindi]

Universal basic living wage is prerequisite for affordable animal welfare.

[Pattern-chaser]

True food would cost more (a good thing since it would encourage eating less)...

...only someone from a culture where food is over-abundant would respond so. Billions of people across the world do not share in your good fortune.