Hacker News Reader

Couple good points in your comment, some not so good. But trust me, I appreciate your comments.

On milk factories and breeding, yes. That is part of the current game. But I would argue that selective breeding has been done for centuries, we've just gotten better at it. Capitalism has basically forced dairymen to become more efficient -- which is good and bad. My grandfather's cows gave 40-50 lbs of milk per day, my father's cows give 80 (some up to 120). There are consequences when that happens. How you get there is better breeding and better feed (feed has a lot to do with it).

On cow longevity, the lifespan of a dairy cow is actually a little longer than that, but the actual longevity it depends on the breed. Holsteins go for about 6 years (lets not kids ourselves, that is not a huge jump in longevity compared to your stated 4). As a comparison, the typical beef cow lives about 2 years. I would talk about veal....but even I don't eat veal. After 6 years the animal is "beefed", as kids we would called it "sold to McDonald's". My next door neighbor was a butcher, basically the only parts unused in a cow are the tail and the moo. Almost nothing goes to waist.

Never heard of a "rape rack", I had to look it up. I know a lot of AI breeders as well, that isn't how it is done on the dairies I've seen. From what I've seen it is not necessary, it is pretty easy to get the job done. But, lets talk female cows...ok, lets bring in biology here, female herbivores of almost any herd species (cows, buffalo, goats, sheep, etc) don't have many periods if there are functioning males around. If those animals are ovulating, the males notice -- even the females notice and tell the males about them.

On subsidies: most subsidies are "floors". No one gets money from the government unless the price of their product drops consistently below a set point. This happened for a brief period in 2009, and even then a lot of operations went out of business (which is by design actually). This isn't like farmers being paid to not farm (that happens -- ugg). But you also can't say the government is completely out of it either, because the government does buy a lot of milk product, usually powdered milk protein, which is often sent as aid to other countries.

Finally, I don't know if I would say a that everything is broken, but lets agree that things could be better. Somewhere between the ideals and where we are now is probably a workable solution that is good for the cows and keeps people's livelihoods.

You don't seem to directly reject any of my points, you haven't heard of rape racks, yet artificial insemination (AI) accounts for 75% of all animal agriculture pregnancies[1]. And sure, government subsidies specifically for the dairy industry may be floors as you say, but farm subsidies help ensure milk stays at close to half the cost it would be otherwise somehow[2].

As for selective breeding, I sure am impressed by the three fold increase in milk production! Sure, it's selective breeding, but that takes a huge toll on the animal, we don't consider its effect on the animal beyond its ability to live to give us that milk. Once again, we treat them as objects rather than animals that should have their own considerations. *One only needs to look as far as dog breeding to see an example of how much selective breeding can screw with an animal.

It's strange though, your post brings me close to my initial thoughts that lead me to veganism... where is a workable solution in a capitalist system where the only thing we value out of these animals is the quantity of flesh and milk we get out of them? There aren't any laws protecting them which aren't self enforced (the Animal Welfare Act explicitly excludes farm animals). I cannot agree that there is a workable solution except moving past this system, thanks for your thoughts and reply.

I've seen many posts from dairy farmers turning away from the industry and going vegan, becoming champions for the cause, you seem like a nice and reasonable person, hope someday to see you in the tofu aisle!

[1] http://polyland.calpoly.edu/topics/agriculture/studentsites/...

[2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/1206/Milk-for-7-a....

...where is a workable solution in a capitalist system where the only thing we value out of these animals is the quantity of flesh and milk we get out of them?

The whole debate will be moot as soon as synthetic meat and dairy tech comes online. People will say it's a revolting idea at first, but it will rapidly become socially unacceptable to harvest live animals once there's a viable alternative.

I actually expect this trend to be pushed by the meat industry, not fought by it. Nobody wants to be in the animal-husbandry business less than the factory farms, because animals are expensive and inconvenient to deal with. It's going to make for a fascinating socioeconomic transition.

Yep, that is a great workable solution without animal agriculture. I will be happy the day that "tissue" agriculture blows up, really hope they don't use that name though....

I think farms will see it as too much of a threat, and there isn't really applicable skills for going from a factory farm to vats or whatever the tissue is grown in.

content edit:

Ruminating on it a bit more, I see how you could be right for larger animal ag company. A dairy producer owns "So Delicious" coconut based yogurt and dairy alternatives, they could see it as a good way to diversify.

There are rather real questions around whether synthetic meat and dairy are going to be cheaper than the real thing, particularly when you factor in externalities like energy consumption. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you can do it economically, and so far nobody's demonstrated that in this case (unless I missed a very recent development). If it can't be, the meat industry (and consumers) are unlikely to accept such a transition without a serious fight.

Have you looked at how much food, water, energy, equipment, and space it takes to raise livestock? It's insane.

I'm well aware of how insane livestock costs are. Unfortunately, synthetic food costs are even more insane (and last time I checked, most depend on existing animal products anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat#Challenges--take a look at the existing culture medium candidates, keeping in mind that fetal bovine serum is made from cattle blood): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat#Economic. Note that the person saying that it will be cost-competitive in ten years has a pretty vested interest in that being the case.

I'd be particularly wary of anyone citing vertical farms as being a cost saver: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#Problems.

To be clear, it's possible that these problems are surmountable. But frankly, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper (both economically and from an environmental standpoint) to change our dietary habits; meat with every meal is going to be costly no matter what.

What is your idealistic outcome? All of these cows are released into the wild and are killed within one to two generations by wolves or mountain lions?

The cows that exist now are essentially useless without farmers. If you are ethically bound with them, how do you come to terms with the terror they will live through until they die?

What do you think cows are, mindless? There is are wild populations of cows that do just fine, here's one[1]. Sure we helped guide their evolution a bit so they are kinder to us and have more desirable traits from our perspective, but they still have all the instincts and intelligence to do alright in the wild, not that I think they should be.

My ideal solution would be a steep decline in dairy production with a coinciding decrease in the breeding of dairy cows until they are gone and hopefully many moved to farm sanctuaries. Each life born into that industry is a short life of suffering.

This would help save many wild species as animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction and ocean dead zones[2].

Veganism isn't some simple "every life must live no matter what" it's that if we don't have to harm an animal we shouldn't. If we're ethically bound with them, how do we deal with the terror they CURRENTLY live through until they die?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_wild_cattle

[2] http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

You linked to cows on an island that have no predators. That's meaningless in the context of cows from Idaho (the context of this thread) where they have to deal with the predators.

Your assertion that their life in a farm is worse than a life in fear of predators is largely unfounded and seems to be based on "no humans = humane" doublethink.

I didn't say they should be all let free immediately, you created some false dichotomy to aid in your construction of a straw-man to argue with. I answered your question and told you what I thought was my ideal, steep reduction in production until it's gone.

We choose to put all these cows into the world (even though we don't need them) and give them shitty conditions. The onus is on us just stop the cycle and let them drastically decrease in numbers and die out so we don't keep on bringing million more into existence.

Are you considering what your arguing? You think that life trapped in a container where you're forced to become impregnated every year and have your baby stolen within a few days after it's born is better than living free for a time with your herd? That view is divorced from reality. Mountain lions may rip your throat out, but they don't enslave your species and put you in such confined controlled environments that the only meaningful decision you can make is which way to turn your head.

Cows are herbivores, but just like us the extent of their desire doesn't end at getting food and sleeping. They're social creatures who care for their young and live in groups. Us putting them in cages and forcing them to produce milk 24 / 7 in not how they want to be.

EDIT:

Your argument about there being no natural predators is really pointless. I never said they should immediately be set free, that's a juvenile perspective. I do want you to understand you need to try and support your claims and do research, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feral_cattle.

You're anthropomorphizing cows with no basis in reality. It's difficult to argue against someone who thinks cows have the same capacity for thought and emotions as humans.

Mountain lions toy with prey and cause very violent deaths that can orphan calves leading them to starve. I fail to see how that is a better outcome.

You keep on trying to put words in my mouth... I didn't say they had the same capacity for emotions as humans, I said they had feelings and enjoyed being around eachother. Look up sentience, it's largely agreed all mammals are, which is why we have medical boards to review if an experiment is ethical to do on an animal.

I wasn't kidding about looking stuff up, you're the one arguing based on your gut feel of what you think the world is rather than trying to support your claims.

Your argument about lifespan doesn't seem to make sense. Every species has some lifespan. Many are shorter than dairy cows. How do you decide what the "proper" lifespan is? Is it the lifespan of its ancestors? How many generations back do you go? Go too far and it may become shorter again. At the end of the day, a cow doesn't worry "oh I'm only going to live 4 years instead of the 20 that those lucky wild cows used to have".

I think you're invoking a human emotion about dying and having a short life which is entirely meaningless in the context of cows.

The problem with these ages is that the cow's maximum productivity is reached around the sixth year. If she is culled before that, it's because of a medical issue which is not economically treatable.

If that happens all the time, then very probably these issues could be avoided by proper care. Breeding has a lot to do with it, also.

  > rape racks

Is consent possible within the scope of bestiality?

Yes, nonverbal consent is definitely possible, although it is considered a weaker standard than verbal consent, which is why humans often advocate for that.

There is a difference between leaving a creature in open space with a herd around them, teeth and hooves available for "speech", and locking a creature to a rack where they are alone and powerless to dissuade penetration.

I don't know how you can apply human attitudes toward sex and consent to other animals so biologically distinct. I'm not going to argue that cows are naturally "consent" to sex at any time in any form, but there's an argument (see below) to be made that supports that extreme more strongly than the idea that human sexuality is applicable to cows. I'm not entirely sure how to research this, but it needs actual research before any meaningful statements can be made.

Cattle is low on the food chain, while humans are at the top. It makes sense for animals at the top of the food chain to be more selective with regard to sex because it's important for their offspring to be highly fit. Lower on the food chain, having the most fit offspring isn't as important, unless they can reliably be fit enough to always evade predators. Since illness and injury can always happen, it's more important to have many offspring than it is to have especially fit ones. Ergo more sex, and less selectivity with regard to partners.

Anyway, I'm not a biologist, and I haven't heard of any research on this topic. For all I know, what I just said is complete bullshit, but it seems to me to hold more water than blindly applying human morality to non-human animals.

You're describing K-strategists vs R-strategists, which I don't think has quite that relationship to position on the food chain, but there still are species that do more of one that the other. Your point does make sense to me that those concerned more with quantity would be less emotionally harmed by unwanted sex. Not a biologist either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

>Yes, nonverbal consent is definitely possible

If a cow doesn't struggle in a 'rape rack', how is that not consent then?

>There is a difference between leaving a creature in open space with a herd around them, teeth and hooves available for "speech"

If that argument were valid, anyone that didn't resist during a gang rape because of fear of repercussion would be 'consenting'.

Also, there are plenty of species where sex is straight up violent. Projecting human sexual standards onto other animals is idiotic at best.

She was asking for it, all dressed up in leather like that.