Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Other animals do the same. Dolphins and whales will create bubble nets and dive into them scooping up fish or krill until they're completely full. Seabirds then swoop in in droves and devour any fish left as they panic and jump into the air. Lions and other predators would run killing floors if their prey weren't so unbelievably fast with dangerous hooves and antlers. We just do it so efficiently that it's disgusting, and we do it for profit rather than subsistence.


The scale and necessity are not sidenotes - those are the substance of the problem. Killing 100 animals out of necessity? Fine. Killing 1 animal for more abstract-than-subsistence needs (connection with nature, culture, etc)? Still seems dramatically less bad than killing billions of animals mechanically and without necessity.


I think the thing you are missing is the number of people in existence.

I say that as a vegan.


Does factoring in population size really change things that much? 55 billion animals being killed in the US every year divided by the US population of 330 million is 167 animals killed per capita per year. So the average American is paying slaughter houses (somewhat indirectly) to kill an animal nearly every other day. That frequency doesn't seem a little excessive to you?


Just so we're clear, 45 billion of those "55 billion animals" are shellfish. Another 5 or so are fish.

We don't kill anywhere near that many in slaughterhouses every year.

I'm merely pointing out that 100 animals killed for necessity would certainly not feed 8 billion people on the planet.


profit is just an intermediary of subsistence.


Not really, because if we were doing it for subsistence we wouldn't be doing it like this at all. It's incredibly inefficient even aside from the ethical considerations. The only thing that overcomes that thermodynamic inefficiency is preference, and that has nothing to do with subsistence.


if you didn't have a farm system to pull from, how many animals would you slaughter to subsist? Where would you raise the animal? what things would you give up for proper animal husbandry? I'd argue it is incredibly efficient!


It is incredibly efficient if you start with the assumption that raised meat is the required way to feed people. It's not, obviously, and less so every day.


Yep. It was the supply of cheap meat that drove demand. Before large scale animal husbandry, it was super expensive to butcher healthy animals, and comparatively cheap to keep them around for milk and cheese. Pigs and chickens are an exception because they eat everything and they thrive pretty easily.


I'd argue that meat should be the preferred method of feeding people given the nutrients in it.


Okay but then you’re back to not talking about efficiency, aren’t you?


I don't think so. we can be efficient or inefficient with meat as food or vegetables as food.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: