[fwipsy]

Basically this boils down to "I don't feel responsible for the meat I eat being factory farmed."

Not that I'm in any position to criticize; I'm in the cognitive dissonance camp.

Have you considered consuming "ethical" animal products (e.g. free range eggs or whatever?) That doesn't seem like martyrdom; compared to what you want (government mandated livestock welfare) it only costs you marginally more (due to missing economies of scale.)

[BobbyTables2]

I’m in the same camp. On the other extreme, I find it darkly funny that eating plants is supposed to be okay…

Aren’t they alive too? What if they were conscious? If they aren’t but still a lifeform, that makes it perfectly okay?

No answers, just makes me wonder at times if common ethics is all it’s cracked up be.

Is eating plants not required for sustenance or nutrition really justifiable? (Chocolate, sugar, spices, …)

[computably]

> What if they were conscious?

Well, they're not.

> If they aren’t but still a lifeform, that makes it perfectly okay?

According to Jains: No. Violence against plants, insects, and possibly even certain microorganisms is considered unethical.

IMO as an irreligious person: Yes. Life is just a particular form of self-sustaining and self-propagating system. Those properties are of little to no moral value.

[smackeyacky]

Are you sure? What about a stand of trees whose consciousness might just run extremely slowly compared to ours?

[computably]

About as sure as one can be. It's neither logically nor physically impossible, but the claim that trees are conscious is practically unfalsifiable and is not supported by any substantive evidence. It has nothing to do with "fast" or "slow," no matter how you poke or prod or slice or dice a tree, there's nothing that suggests a capacity for consciousness. I would be less surprised if my friend's dog started speaking perfect Chinese with an American accent.

[imjonse]

If anyone cares about plants suffering they should go vegan, as many more plants are consumed to raise animals than would be if there was a direct plant intake in humans for the same amount of calories and nutrients. Ditto for land use, water, CO2 emissions, etc. but let's assume our friend cares strictly about reducing suffering short of starving themselves to death.

[yunwal]

Just FYI, the designation "free range" on eggs means essentially nothing. It means the hens have access to the outdoors, but that could still mean a tiny, packed space, just missing a roof.

"Cage free" and "no antibiotics" are probably the only USDA-regulated terms worth caring about, but they're fairly low bars. "Certified Humane" designation is a higher, well-audited bar, but many farms that might qualify forgo it due to the costs associated.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Factory farming is a consequence of a post-industrial economy where 95% of the population isn't directly involved in farming. Few people would want to reset the clock back to where most are attached to the land with limited options. The only reliable source of B12 before the modern era was to consume some animal derived products. Other basic nutrients are hard to attain through plants alone. It is necessary for us to engage in animal husbandry in the absence of technological interventions that we never evolved to depend on.

[alterom]

To the extent that I can, I do try to pick ethical products (like the aforementioned free-range eggs).

It's not an all-or-nothing thing indeed; there's a huge spectrum between veganism and not at all thinking (or caring) about where the animal products come from.

But yes, I, as a consumer, am not responsible for what is already heavily regulated in favor of factory farmers. Heard of the ag gag laws? You can't vegan them away.

It's not a free market, see.

It's as delusional to blame people for eating the availableunethically produced meat as it is to blame them for starving during the Holodomor (..or Great New Leap, or the Irish Potato Famine, or...).

Radium-based snake oil "medicine" didn't disappear because the consumers boycotted an unethical product. It was because we have FDA.

I really do not feel responsible for what would amount to trying to enforce regulation that doesn't exist.

I am responsible for voting, so when it comes to the ballot, ethical farming does get my vote.

[yunwal]

> like the aforementioned free-range eggs

I noted this in another comment, but the "free-range" designation means almost nothing. Hens have access to the outdoors, but that can mean a packed coop with no grass where part is missing a roof.

Look for "Certified Humane" or research the farm directly.

[alterom]

Thanks for the actionable advice.

Side note: I've never seen that "certified humane" label. I'll look for it though.

The people who are saying that it's "easier than ever" to be buying ethically farmed products are full of it.

[daemin]

All markets have rules, the "free" in "free market" is just marketing.

(Not disagreeing with you, just mentioning it because your statement inside made me think of it)

[alterom]

Well of course. Free market (even as a theoretical concept) is only possible with regulation that prevents monopolies and ensures some sort of fairness.

The agricultural market is perhaps the furthest thing from it, given the importance of, well, having food. Farmers get subsidies. Nation-states get involved in the circulation of food around the planet. Geopolitics comes into play.

In some markets, individual choices of consumers matter a lot in shaping them.

Agricultural products are as far from that as it's possible.

I am not convinced that not buying unethical meat does any more than not buying unethical weapons of mass destruction, or not using Palantir's products.

Few of us are hoarding stashes of chemical weapons or signing contracts with Palantir, and yet Palantir still thrives.

Perhaps simply not buying it isn't always the most effective way to end something.