[kbenson]

> To be humane means "having or showing compassion or benevolence" which is about as far from how you can describe the treatment of livestock that you can get.

The problem I have with this is that like in so many other subjects, a too general term has been used to describe a specific type of practice. Traditional farming is very different than factory farming (which seems to be what you are describing), and there are many levels between them. You may still have problems with how a traditional farm is run, and that's fine, you can present those. But presenting features of factory farming as problems with "livestock farming" implies that all livestock farming is like that, and that's untrue.

If you believe all livestock farming is immoral, please use, or at least add justification for the cases where it's not factory farming if you are going to call out all livestock farming. If you are instead specifically targeting factory farming, please endeavor to accurately label it.

[asciimo]

Considering that 99 percent of US meat comes from factory farms[1], there's little point in discussing other forms of farming.

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2010/12/why-free-r...

[kbenson]

> Considering that 99 percent of US meat comes from factory farms[1], there's little point in discussing other forms of farming.

First, that would only possibly be true if we constrained ourselves to meat production. The original comment I replied to specifically called out dairy, and it's partially what I was thinking of when I replied.

Second, that doesn't make sense because it's useful to discuss alternatives when discussing problems. Even if they aren't a feasible drop in replacement, that doesn't mean there aren't aspects that can possibly be encouraged. Also, it may help narrow the arguments and objections to the core problems people have. For example, is factory farming undesirable because animals are confined, animals are in pain, or because animals deserve a better lifestyle, where they can exist at least somewhat like they would in nature (i.e. do animals deserve not to be tortures in ways that are not just physical)? Focusing only on factory farming may yield reforms that address symptoms, not the problem.

Inaccurately aimed or qualified criticism leads to arguments from people who may agree in principle. It's counterproductive.

[anbende]

If there are ways of farming that are ethical that are already in use (the 1% in your argument), then we absolutely should discuss those. We would want to start increasing that number.

It changes things considerably whether livestock can be raised ethically. If they can, we can try to do that. If they can't, then the only ethical solution is to stop raising livestock. So discussing that 1% has practical implications.

[truth_sentinell]

You can't raise livestock for hundreds of millions of people "ethically" -whatever that means-. That's why people industrialized the process, and on most big factories there's little human intervention.

I can't picture the day where people stop eating meat. It just won't happen, not matter what arguments you present.

The best way to go is replacing it, and the perfect postulate is lab meat, which I hope, is going to be massively produced at low cost in the next ten years. And even if it doesn't ill people, tastes the same as natural meat, you will find resistence.

So, to summarise: lab meat at lower cost than natural meat, demands plunge, billions of animals are saved every year.

[mbfg]

once lab meat/lab milk can be produced at or below cost of farming, cows will likely go extinct, unfortunately.

A less vulgar correlary is that once horse racing is outlawed, horses will mostly go extinct as well, as the racing industry is responsible for being able to acquire feed/hay/veternary care for the average horse owner. Without it will be practically impossible to keep 'pleasure' horses.

We humans are nasty creatures.

[RehnoLindeque]

From what I've heard most land-use in the world goes towards animal agriculture - mainly for growing feed. Don't quote me, but I think it's over 40% of all land use in the USA. On balance I'd be far more concerned about the destruction of habitat for already endangered wildlife.

[nitrogen]

What percentage of usable land is actually used, and what percentage of that usable land percentage is used destructively?

[Ericson2314]

Billions of animals won't be brought into existence, you mean.