Vegans and eggs

[Yoggy]

People often forget though that there are eggs in other things they eat like biscuits and cakes. So, although they might only eat 1 egg a day, they are in fact eating a lot more in other types of food. :)

Perhaps, but most cakes only have 2 eggs for the whole cake, so one slice is only a small fraction of an egg. Unless they eat the whole cake, then they'll be in trouble :D

[Korn]

I've recently read that US citizens on average eats circa 250 eggs per year. A domesticated chicken who is producing circa 250 eggs per year (this is normal, based on an over-production rate of circa 32, meaning that she produces 32 times as many eggs as her wild ancestor, Gallus Bankiva) will therefore - with a lot of pain, blood and frustration - produce enough eggs to feed one human pr. year until she is considered useless, killed and made into eg. baby food or pet food, normally after only a year or two.


From The Poultry Guide:
"A hen which lays one egg every day is a very good layer."

[sandra]

That is so sad Korn. I wish every single human being could realise the horror of those facts.

[Manzana]

Just to put a slightly different spin on things...

what is more cruel, to kill a happy or an unhappy animal (or person)?
Personally, if i was unhappy i'd be more willing to die!

THis answer normally makes organic meat eaters confussed at the very least!

Just to clarify, I am TOTALLY against organic meat. I think it's an AWFUL way to make people feel good about totally taking advantage of other beings and killing them for their own pleasure... Organic slaughter houses do not look any different from normal ones...

[Klytemnest]

Just to put a slightly different spin on things...

what is more cruel, to kill a happy or an unhappy animal (or person)?
Personally, if i was unhappy i'd be more willing to die!

THis answer normally makes organic meat eaters confussed at the very least!

Just to clarify, I am TOTALLY against organic meat. I think it's an AWFUL way to make people feel good about totally taking advantage of other beings and killing them for their own pleasure... Organic slaughter houses do not look any different from normal ones...

I agree that "organic" meat and "cage-free" eggs, etc. are somewhat about alleviating the burden of guilt, guilt that - as far as I am concerned - should not be alleviated by the thought that the slaughtered animals were treated relatively humanely.

On the other hand, I would prefer that animals be treated humanely - even if their humane treatment makes some people feel that it is therefore OK to slaughter the animals. After all, the number-one reason I became a vegan was to decrease the amount of unnecessary suffering in the world. I keep thinking about my dear cat Paolo, whom we put to sleep over a year ago. I wanted him to have the best life possible. I want the same for the millions of innocent animals that are doomed to execution.

[Zan]

Utopia to me would be a world where no animals were used, abused and slaughtered to be eaten.
But we live in the real world and I don't expect to see Utopia in my lifetime. I want an end to the terrible suffering of factory farming, and I think to attempt to ban it you have to put something in its place. That's where free range--truly free range---farming comes in. It has got to be better for the animals if they live a happy life, where they can behave naturally for their species in a natural environment with no suffering before they are killed.

It is like the difference between concentration camps and nice enlightened open prisons where you can do what you want within certain limits. I don't want any animals imprisoned, but since they certainly are going to be for some years to come getting rid of the concentration camps and treating them with respect and dignity in their lifetimes has got to be a step in the right direction.

[cobweb]

i agree, zan, i do take an abolitionist stance myself but in my heart i feel glad to see animals living out what lives they have outdoors with access to natural foods and the company of their own kind.

[erfoud]

It is like the difference between concentration camps and nice enlightened open prisons where you can do what you want within certain limits. I don't want any animals imprisoned, but since they certainly are going to be for some years to come getting rid of the concentration camps and treating them with respect and dignity in their lifetimes has got to be a step in the right direction.

The snag is,this improvement on the conditions these creatures live in may lead to general acceptance of animal exploitation, so that the animal lib movement would be hindered. "Happy" animal consumption should be flatly rejected, as Francione masterfully pointed out. This whole welfarist stuff runs counter to abolition

[Zan]

The snag is,this improvement on the conditions these creatures live in may lead to general acceptance of animal exploitation, so that the animal lib movement would be hindered. "Happy" animal consumption should be flatly rejected, as Francione masterfully pointed out. This whole welfarist stuff runs counter to abolition

Actually I believe there is already general acceptance of animal exploitation.

" This whole welfarist stuff runs counter to abolition"?-----------

On the contrary---i believe that the more animals are viewed as sentient beings with needs and emotions the more likely people are to stop eating them. Intensive sytems allow the animals to be viewed as nothing more than units of meat production---because their needs are denied them and they continue to exist, people can de-animalise them in their heads.

I do personally flatly reject "happy" animal consumption---I would rather starve to death, but the real world keeps on turning and anything that ends intensive farming should be enouraged.

[erfoud]

It´s the hot debate among abolitionists, Zan.
In some cases (It happened to me) the welfarist approach may lead people to evolve and realise any way of animal exploitation is unethical, whereas some may be satisfied with using and consuming animals whose situation is deemed acceptable.
in this way, as a matter of fact it´s hard to predict how people might react to the step -by -step approach, but I definitely believe that the best way to fight for animals is to campaign for abolitionism, that is, outright animal liberation so that animals aren´t seen as "goods" anymore

[cobweb]

i agree with the abolitionist stance in principle but i want to see less suffering right now.

[Zan]

It´s the hot debate among abolitionists, Zan.
In some cases (It happened to me) the welfarist approach may lead people to evolve and realise any way of animal exploitation is unethical, whereas some may be satisfied with using and consuming animals whose situation is deemed acceptable.
in this way, as a matter of fact it´s hard to predict how people might react to the step -by -step approach, but I definitely believe that the best way to fight for animals is to campaign for abolitionism, that is, outright animal liberation so that animals aren´t seen as "goods" anymore

My stance is abolitionism but I would hate to think my ideals would condemn millions of animals to lives of terrible suffering because I could not be pragmatic enough to accept that the move from intensive to free range systems would be a huge improvement for those animals personally. Anyone who has seen intensive farming first hand and has any compassion would want to end their suffering----now! I fear it is a kind of arrogance to condemn millions more to suffer in that way for the greater good---which frankly is a goal that belongs in the Utopia I mentioned earlier --- rather than support a move away from intensive farming.
It is completely unrealistic to expect the world to suddenly realise that we vegans are right and animals are not "goods".To hold out for all or nothing means you are actively supporting the continued suffering in factory farms, and in fact plays right into the hands of the multi nationals behind intensive farming. Most major changes come about step by step---e.g. universal suffrage. First only the gentry could vote, then men with land, then "common" men, then women over thirty etc. etc. If everyone had said right at the beginning that they didn't want the vote going to anyone else unless everyone over the age of 18 got it, I am sure the gentry would have been highly delighted because they would have had a perfect excuse to continue with the status quo. Likewise to demand an end immediately to all use of animals is easily dismissed by the multi nationals and the meat industry, so we have no weapons to fight them with.

[erfoud]

To hold out for all or nothing means you are actively supporting the continued suffering in factory farms
Well, I couldn´t disagree more with this view, and besides, I consider it offensive to abolitionists. Anyway, it´s up to you to hold these crappy views...

[Manzana]

so we have no weapons to fight them with.

Plenty of weapons... I do not buy organic or free range meat/eggs/milk and that is because i do not support them. If everyone did the same, would they exist?

I think factory farming is better in some ways than organic because it makes people uncomfortable. Plenty of people would be vegetarian if it wasn't because their conscience feels better by buying "happy flesh"...

[Zan]

Well, I couldn´t disagree more with this view, and besides, I consider it offensive to abolitionists. Anyway, it´s up to you to hold these crappy views...


Okay---you say I have crappy views:). I won't be as rude to you, but I do believe the total abolitionist or nothing stance is idealist, abstract to the point of being existential with no hope of becoming reality, which is why I think it supports continued suffering.

[Zan]

Plenty of weapons... I do not buy organic or free range meat/eggs/milk and that is because i do not support them. If everyone did the same, would they exist?

I think factory farming is better in some ways than organic because it makes people uncomfortable. Plenty of people would be vegetarian if it wasn't because their conscience feels better by buying "happy flesh"...

Obviously, what I meant was because total abolition of the use of animals now is such an alien concept to the majority of people that it is easy for the multi-nationals to dismiss it. Factory farming doesn't make nearly enough people uncomfortable---because it is out of sight it is out of mind. People LIKE being able to buy their meat cut up, wrapped in plastic and unrecognisable as animals from the supermarket---if they were forced to see the animals and the meat as animals I believe more people would change.

Your weapons are not buying free range meat and eggs? Well obviously neither do I --I have been vegan for a very long time---I don't feel I am doing anything to help the animals suffering in factory farms by doing so.

[erfoud]

By saying so - that abolitionists are supporting continuing suffering in factory farms- you´re being far ruder than me. Sometimes plain sentences are more offensive than swearwords, don´t you think?

[Korn]

It's totally possible to
a) claim that using causing any kind of suffering for others - humans or animals - isn't ethical (when other solutions are 'practical and possible')
b) try to live according to this viewpoint
c) agree that 'less harm' is better than 'more harm'
d) decide that one wants to promote 'no harm' instead of 'less harm', even if one at the same time knows that we won't see a world free from any harm caused by humans in our lifetimes.


It is completely unrealistic to expect the world to suddenly realise that we vegans are right and animals are not "goods"
This could be said about all people with healthy, ethical ideals. Some ideals may never be realized ever, and many will not be realized in this or the next generation, and none will be realized 'suddenly'. But is that an excuse to not to try to realize these goals? I'm pretty sure that the very existence of a vegan movement is a main reason that many non-vegans think that eating animals who have had a good life is better than eating animals that have been suffering. They may feel guilty for causing the suffering they do, are not ready for going vegan (or at least they think they aren't ready), and make a move towards a less cruel solution. You don't need to need work for 'animal welfare' in order to promote animal welfare, the best way to inspire non-vegans to work for animal welfare is to keep insisting that we have no right to cause the death or suffering of any animals at all.


we live in the real world and I don't expect to see Utopia in my lifetime. Not only are lots of the improvements we see in today's society a result of a process that started many generations ago, they are also a compromise between an ideal solution and what can be done right now. If nobody would promote the ideal solution, the compromises would most likely be even less worth than they are today.

Vegans are in the unique situation that we represent opinions that are still relatively new to most people, at least in the Western world. If we don't promote these viewpoints, nobody will.


On the contrary---i believe that the more animals are viewed as sentient beings with needs and emotions the more likely people are to stop eating them. That's not in any way a contradiction to veganism! I support veganism not because I wanted animals to have larger cages or listen to nice music while they're stuck inside a cage, but because it just doesn't make sense to harm anyone - human or non-human - if you don't want to be harmed by anyone. The vegan solution (no factory farms, no free-range farms, no hunting) is better for all involved parts, is more environment friendly, feel more right, is more logical, make more sense economically (the list is endless); so why would I spend time trying to promote anything but only solution I support? That would have been a perfect way to kill the vegan movement; just convince all vegans that nothing will happen 'suddenly' or that nothing will be perfect, and use this as some kind of pseudo-argument for not promoting 100% respect for animals. Every hour, event amount of money a vegan spends on promoting animal welfare means less time and resources spent on promoting a viewpoint only we can promote.

There are lots of people who feel guilty about using animal products, and they'll probably feel better if they would buy organic meat or 'free range' chicken, or support organizations that are not vegan, but who try to improve the conditions animal farms live under. If they do their best, and we do our best, we... all do our best. That must be the best solution, because while we can do what they do (say that it's better if animals have larger cages etc., and promote changes in that direction), they can't do what we do (say that animals shouldn't live in cages at all, and promote a vegan lifestyle).... Well - they can do what we do, but they won't because they aren't vegans - which is why vegans have to keep focusing on what's unique for vegans.

I can spend resources on improving the life of a goat, or I can spend resources on promoting the idea that humans shouldn't do anything that makes goats or any other animals suffer at all, so for me, the choice is easy. I don't think the vegan movement should commit an 'ethical suicide', and instead start working for something millions of others can work for.



...idealist, abstract to the point of being existential with no hope of becoming reality If a man hits a woman, should we tell him to hit less often, or not so hard, or should we tell him that we don't think he has any right to hit anyone at all? Should we stop working against violence (against women, children, political prisoners...) if unless we would assume that we would see a totally non-violent world? Is the statement "a non-violent world is idealist, abstract to the point of being existential with no hope of becoming reality" a valid reason to accept violence, to not promote non-violence, or to start promoting a 'don't hit so hard'-movement?

[cobweb]

i think that, no, the vegan movement should definitely NOT spend resources trying to make farming less hellish for the animals, and should instead take the abolitionist stance which is the only option, really.

however, myself, in private, though i would describe myself as an abolitionist, i take some tiny crumb of comfort when i see real free-ranging animals in contrast to those imprisoned in dank, stinking hell-holes. that's the difference between a paper exercise and reality, and probably the difference between myself as a human and myself as a part of the vegan movement.

[Zan]

I live a vegan lifestyle and firmly believe that the use of all animals by humans is wrong. At the same time I do think that animals who are going to die for humans anyway, despite what I think about that,could at least have a decent quality of life in a truly free range system rather than an existence of torture, pain and misery in an intensive one. I don't see a contradiction with being a vegan and caring about the suffering of those individual animals in intensive systems now.In fact, as I said before, I believe that an acceptance that all animals need to be treated with respect is inevitably a step towards not using them, and if everyone accepted that intensive systems were wrong that is an achievable step towards a respect for life.

Quote:
Not only are lots of the improvements we see in today's society a result of a process that started many generations ago, they are also a compromise between an ideal solution and what can be done right now. If nobody would promote the ideal solution, the compromises would most likely be even less worth than they are today. ( sorry ---haven't worked out how to quote properly)

I do think the ideal solution should be promoted, but I also think now is a great time in history to make the compromise of outlawing all factory farming now.

On your next point---I don't think I was ever coming from the stand that the Vegan movement should spend resources on promoting farm animal welfare. I just accept that, as a vegan, some harm that other huimans do to animals is a lot less than other harm they do, and I wouldn't want to discourage less harm by an all or nothing approach.


Quote:
If a man hits a woman, should we tell him to hit less often, or not so hard, or should we tell him that we don't think he has any right to hit anyone at all? Should we stop working against violence (against women, children, political prisoners...) if unless we would assume that we would see a totally non-violent world? Is the statement "a non-violent world is idealist, abstract to the point of being existential with no hope of becoming reality" a valid reason to accept violence, to not promote non-violence, or to start promoting a 'don't hit so hard'-movement?

I'm sorry but I don't accept this analogy. Although the death and misuse of these animals is the same, truly free range animals could have a really good quality of life, so it isn't a matter of hitting less hard. If I see an animal suffering I step in and help it---I want to make it well so that it can return to living a life where it can fulfill all its natural potential. Are you saying that if someone took you to an intensive pig unit ------and told you that, on your say so, these actual individual pigs would be moved to green grass, mud wallows, the right to bring up their piglets without farrowing crates, that they wouldn't have their tails and teeth cut off , but that they would still be killed and eaten----that you would say no, leave them in this concentration camp of misery ?

[cobweb]

^ that's my point and it's not a 'crap' opinion atall, it's the opinion of someone who knows animals and cares about their lives right now.

[Korn]

I believe that an acceptance that all animals need to be treated with respect is inevitably a step towards not using them
Hm... do you agree that the only way to treat them with respect is to not use them at all?



I do think the ideal solution should be promoted, but I also think now is a great time in history to make the compromise of outlawing all factory farming now. The amount of enough people who actually respect animals today is IMO way too low to get acceptance for such a suggestion in governments and parliaments throughout the world. The demand for animal products is so also currently extremely high - the number of eg. chicken and meat consumed daily is so high that converting the production methods into something that would be remotely close to what the animals deserve would demand such a big revolution, so much money, and such a dramatic increase in price on the final animal products that 'this time in history' realistically means that animal products would be extremely expensive. Farms, transport... practically everything would have to be restructured, rebuilt. Even if we would be able to convince every government and person on the planet to invest a lot of money and resources in improving the conditions for animals that later should be killed, these investments would later be used as an argument for stop using all these 'enhanced' farms. Less suffering is always better, but what we suggest in terms of respect for respect for animals is nothing less than a revolution, and even if this (stop using animal products) is a revolution that would free up a lot of money that could be used elsewhere, what you suggest seem to be two, not one revolutions. First, a revolution thats very expensive and requires a lot of investments... investments that won't have any value if people should start to accept that we have no right to keep animals in cages or kill and eat them.



it isn't a matter of hitting less hard. Anything but allowing all animals to roam freely would be 'hitting' them with restrictions. Taking calves away from the mothers as a part of the milk production procedure is also 'hitting' them. Killing them is also an insult to their rights.


Are you saying that if someone took you to an intensive pig unit ------and told you that, on your say so, these actual individual pigs would be moved to green grass, mud wallows, the right to bring up their piglets without farrowing crates, that they wouldn't have their tails and teeth cut off , but that they would still be killed and eaten----that you would say no, leave them in this concentration camp of misery ?
I think you misunderstand me... first of all, my opinion doesn't matter here, because they're not going to ask me. Of course I want as little suffering as possible for everyone. I'm just discussing where vegans should have their focus, and what we can do. I know non-vegans who treat their animals quite well, according to the common definition of 'well', and of course I'm not going to ask them to treat their animals worse so more people can go vegan because animals are treated badly.

If someone ask me what my opinion is, I'm going to say that we shouldn't kill or harm animals at all, we should not eat organic meat/eggs, and I'm not going to change my opinion to something else than just only to become popular, 'realistic' or because I'm only for 'sudden' improvements. If people who defend animals give the impression that medium improvements are acceptable, we'll see small improvements. People are so generally afraid of being 'extreme' or support 'extreme' viewpoints, and therefore try to position them in the middle. If you place all the arguments and viewpoints about animals on a scale from 1 to 100, and 100 is total respect for animals, someone has to take the position of promoting and defending those viewpoints, and who can do this better than vegans? If we don't, if we create an impression that better farms is acceptable, we just moved the '100', and the result, the compromise - the 'middle way' - will be closer to '0'.


What do you mean by "total abolitionist or nothing stance" in terms of stuff that's relevant to real life situations? How can a stance against all human and non-human slavery harm animals 'support continued suffering'? Nobody will call up vegans every month before they make decisions about changes in factory farms, and ask us if we are for or against more comfortable cages. Realistically, I'm for both a total and to suffering in the long run, and an immediate reduction. If I see an animal suffer today, I'll try to help it, just like I would try to help a suffering human. I'm not going to suggest to anyone that animals should continue to suffer in order to make more people vegan.



Obviously, what I meant was because total abolition of the use of animals now is such an alien concept to the majority of people that it is easy for the multi-nationals to dismiss it. Getting rid of apartheid in South Africa was considered quite 'alien' at some point as well. The same was the right to vote for women. If a hippie would say in 1968 that "in less than 40 years from now, the man who actually were-to-become the president of the USA would travel around the world and talk about ecology and reduction of pollution the same way we do today", people would say that it would be totally unrealistic. The existence TV channels dedicated to rock was probably considered utopian before MTV. The same is true for a lot of other stuff, like eg. mobile phones: "Are you saying that everyone will carry a little thing in their pocket that allows them to talk anyone they want, even in other countries? Get real!"

What would happened with the relationship between UK and India if someone would convince Gandhi that he was reaching for non-reachable goals? And - do you think the American slaves would find it 'realistic' that USA ever should get a non-white president? I'm all for totally reaching for the 'un-reachable'...

[Zan]

I think I have said my piece and am now in danger of going round in circles and repeating myself. To answer you though:

Hm... do you agree that the only way to treat them with respect is to not use them at all?

Yes I agree, but to the animals themselves there are degrees of respect. I believe it is possible for animals to be treated with enough respect in a freerange system to have a good quality of life. There is no respect for them at all in intensive systems---they aren't even treated as living creatures.

You say----I'm all for totally reaching for the 'un-reachable'---but yet earlier you talk about the impossiblitity of "two revolutions"---one move away from intensive farming and then a complete end to using animals. I'm all for reaching for the "un-reachable" as well, but realistically expect it to take a while. If it means two revolutions so be it.I still think that getting people to see animals as sentient beings is a step towards our ultimate goal, rather than allowing them to de-animalise them in factory farms. All the unreachable goals you mention being achieved had little steps along the way---i believe ending intensive farming and changing to free range not only has huge benefits for the actual animals at the time, but would be a step on the way to the ultimate goal.

Korn we actually agree:

Realistically, I'm for both a total and to suffering in the long run, and an immediate reduction. If I see an animal suffer today, I'll try to help it, just like I would try to help a suffering human. I'm not going to suggest to anyone that animals should continue to suffer in order to make more people vegan.

But to me that means getting as many animals out of intensive units as possible. Erfoud seemed to be suggesting that would be against veganism because it would be supporting free range farming---that's when I said to support an all or nothing stance was to condemn animals to continue suffering.

I became vegan for the animals, not because I wanted to follow an ideology---I want to end suffering.

[Korn]

I believe it is possible for animals to be treated with enough respect in a freerange system to have a good quality of life. Well, I disagree, for several reasons. Animals want to be free, just like humans, and not live in cages - small or large. Chicken don't want to lay 2-300 eggs per year; the natural amount for them is 8-10 eggs per year. Imagine how non-profitable the egg industry would be if they would lay only 8-10 eggs per day and in addition roam freely - outdoors. Birds and animals have feelings, just like humans, and I don't think a life in a concentration camp, where you regularly see your mates disappear in large amounts belongs to the same sentence as 'good quality life'. There are so many humans around that want such a high amount of animal products that if the production process would convert into what some people call humane, not only would the industry hardly be profitable, it would require a lot of water and other resources, and much more land than it does today.


I'm all for reaching for the "un-reachable" as well, but realistically expect it to take a while. If it means two revolutions so be it. That's fine. If we agree that factory farm owners won't call you and me and ask for our opinions, my concern is what your possible disagreement with some of the statements posted by others in this threads means in terms of real life changes. Do you suggest that vegan activists and promotors should spend less time on promoting veganism, and more time on helping animals in factory farms? IF not, what is the difference between your and my viewpoints?

I'm all for helping animals and humans that need help, but main focus is on 'priority'. Whatever I do, whoever I help, there will be someone else - human or non-human - that need my help: Imagine you're driving a car on a highway, and you see a dead mouse along the road. You observe it, don't like what you see, maybe it even upsets you that humans use cars, because this means that animals will be killed. Now, imagine that you see a dead child along the road. If you are like me, you'll pay more attention to the situation than if it was a mouse. You'll stop/call the police/report it... in one way or other you'll do do anything but just keep driving. We prioritize constantly, and that's the way it has to be. Priority/focus is extremely important, and if vegans should prioritize they're time and resources into helping chicken getting slightly larger cages, they are choosing something else away (in terms of the same time, the same resources). One could argue that by helping factory animals, or even by promoting veganism, one is choosing not to spend the same resources and time on helping humans in need. All we do is about focus and priority, which is why a situations where vegans should promote use of organic meat or free range eggs would be really absurd the way I see it.




Realistically, I'm for both a total and to suffering in the long run, and an immediate reduction. If I see an animal suffer today, I'll try to help it, just like I would try to help a suffering human. I'm not going to suggest to anyone that animals should continue to suffer in order to make more people vegan.

But to me that means getting as many animals out of intensive units as possible. Erfoud seemed to be suggesting that would be against veganism because it would be supporting free range farming---that's when I said to support an all or nothing stance was to condemn animals to continue suffering.

I think it's more complicated than just 'supporting' this or that, because 'support' is a very general term. 'Support' can eg. be about opinions only. not about activities. If you are a surgeon, and the society around you needs more surgeons, would it make sense to stop being a surgeon and instead start driving a taxi - if you enjoy being a surgeon? Surgeons have their special education (which not a lot of others have), just like vegans have their special ethical platform (which not a lot of others have). Driving taxi is a very useful thing to do, you may save lives by driving a taxi, you may help people home when they're drunk or reach a plane when they're short in time. I could easily come up with many other examples than taxi driver, but the point is that both surgeon and vegan would can do something for others that not a lot of others can.

What if all the 'classical' vegetarians - Albert Einstein, Gandhi, Leonardo da Vinci, Henry David Thoreau, Albert Schweitzer, Benjamin Franklin and so on - would busy rescuing a mouse here and a chicken there instead of dedicating their time to what was truly genuine for these people?

Of course we are not robots, and won't calculate the results of every action we do, but by large, I think vegans getting involved in animal welfarism instead of vegan activism is a really bad idea.

This doesn't mean that I'm against vegans donating money to whatever they feel can help humans or animals the environment - it's just that if the few vegan activists that are out there would focus entirely on veganism, this would make lot more sense than if they'll rather use energy on other activities that easily can be done by others) rather than promoting their rather unique viewpoints. If we think that there are too few vegans around, we can only blame ourselves, because we are the only group that really can do something about it.




I became vegan for the animals, not because I wanted to follow an ideology---I want to end suffering.
Sure, but I don't think I'll end suffering if I manage to give a chicken a slightly larger cage to live in before he is killed by a machine, because when he is out of that cage, a new chicken will be put into it - until people will stop eating chicken. It will take longer before people stop eating chicken if those with healthy arguments/viewpoints against eating chicken are busy in factory farms working for minor improvements.

I truly believe that the total effect of showing others what kind of lives these animals live has a stronger effect than trying to make their lives on the death row more comfortable. I also doubt that people who is against death penalty, and who want to contribute to get an end to it, have any doubts that the best thing they can do is to try to convince people and politicians not to support death penalty...

If changes happen in people's consciousness - the other, necessary (material etc) changes will follow. If we change the physical conditions only, and there's no change in people's consciousness, we are only treating symptoms - and I'm all for doing something with the cause. The main cause of chickens suffering is that people buy chicken meat and eggs, because if they wouldn't, there wouldn't have been any market for chicken farms.

People have been trained to not respect animals, or even believe that we need to make them suffer and die. Some people even believe that if they stop eating animals, they'll have to practice an ascetic lifestyle, spend more money on food or even become sick. It's just so much vegans can do that nobody else can - things that will help both humans, animals and the environment. Luckily, more and more non-vegans accept that they don't need animal products, but we wouldn't have been there today if we would have got lost in 'welfarism'....

[Zan]

Circles...........:)

I did say right at the very beginning "truly" free range. I am not talking about keeping animals in slightly larger cages. I don't know why you have labelled me as "welfarist" because that is not where I am coming from.

Birds and animals have feelings, just like humans, and I don't think a life in a concentration camp, where you regularly see your mates disappear in large amounts belongs to the same sentence as 'good quality life'.

Yes they certainly have feelings, but not exactly like humans---that verges on anthropomorphism. I value animals too highly to think of them as furry or feathery little humans. Everything is relative and there is no comparison between the conditions in intensive farming and animals who are truly free range and can roam in large fields with their families. That is the beginning and end of my point---yes, I want an end to all animal abuse and use, but on the journey there a move to free range is surely a good thing.

Circles circles.........