European Farmers Must Keep their Pigs Emotionally Happy

[Infohawk]

You cannot assign human emotions to animals that do not have our brain. That shit doesn't even make sense.

Why not? It makes perfect sense why emotions evolved in many mammals. What separates human brains from animal brains is our ability to reason, not our ability to be emotional.

And really, we should only worry about "smart beings" is a dangerous path because there are mentally disabled people and infants who almost everyone agrees are deserving of empathy.

Everything has to die, so I don't have a problem with eating animals. But I don't see any reason not to be humane.

 

[PingviN]

You cannot assign human emotions to animals that do not have our brain. That shit doesn't even make sense. Yes pigs are smart, I love pigs they are one of my favorite animals and they produce my favorite foods.(I also happen to be a big fan of the letter P so there is that too). But really? They are batteries in which we store energy for us to refill. If you look at it any more than that, you're a moron who is projecting human bs onto animals that don't have the capacity to feel or think the way we do. I'm all for not treating our food like garbage, but making sure they're "emotionally happy" is retarded. Farm animals have a great life. They get fed, they get to hang out all day and then they get slaughtered for the good of another species. Whereas our deaths are mostly pointless.

Animals such as pigs and cows know pain. They may not know jealousy, fear of death or understand philosophical standpoints, but the pain is very much real, just as it is for you. This is scientifically proven, it's not about people projecting human emotions on emotionless objects. Farm animals do not have a great life, all too often they live to crowded, gets malnourished, abused and all sorts of hideous maltreatment. "Emotionally happy" does not mean they become pets to be loved, they're still meant to be eaten. For the greater good of the pigs, their deaths are as pointless as human deaths are for us.

 

[bfdd]

Why not? It makes perfect sense why emotions evolved in many mammals. What separates human brains from animal brains is our ability to reason, not our ability to be emotional.

And really, we should only worry about "smart beings" is a dangerous path because there are mentally disabled people and infants who almost everyone agrees are deserving of empathy.

Everything has to die, so I don't have a problem with eating animals. But I don't see any reason not to be humane.

I don't see a reason to believe pigs or cows feel or view the world in any way shape or form resembling what we do. Sure they can feel pain, but so can trees what's your point? My comment isn't that only "smart beings" should be worried about. My comment is that these other species cannot be viewed from a human perspective because they are not human. Assigning any human value to a pig is asinine and those that do it are fucking retarded. I view your point of view and the one I'm stating as one of arrogance and ego. Do you think a pig gives a fuck about its food? Nope.

Animals such as pigs and cows know pain. They may not know jealousy, fear of death or understand philosophical standpoints, but the pain is very much real, just as it is for you. This is scientifically proven, it's not about people projecting human emotions on emotionless objects. Farm animals do not have a great life, all too often they live to crowded, gets malnourished, abused and all sorts of hideous maltreatment. "Emotionally happy" does not mean they become pets to be loved, they're still meant to be eaten. For the greater good of the pigs, their deaths are as pointless as human deaths are for us.

This is such a load of garbage. Like I said everything feels pain, so what? How they quantify that pain is what matters. If the only thing they can think about is "ouch this hurts" and not "ouch this hurts it's ruining my quality of life" then the pain really doesn't fucking matter does it? For the pigs quality of life to be diminished, the pig has to understand what that even means. Like I said you are projecting human thought and emotion onto an animal incapable of understanding.


I love pigs, pigs are one of my favorite animals and I am always amazed to find out how smart they are and all the cool things they can do. I don't think farm animals should be treated poorly, I believe we should respect all animals which we have used to keep our bellies full. That doesn't mean we have to go this far.

 

[Throckmorton]

Trees can't feel pain. They don't have brains.

We can't give a pig the same rights as a human, but we should do everything we can to minimize suffering for animals. That's why animal cruelty is illegal and there are regulations on the livestock and meat industry to prevent suffering. What's wrong with giving them some damn straw to play with?

 

[gaidensensei]

Plants don't have a nervous system, so they can't immediately feel any pain. But they do know if an organism is causing detriments to them - they will try to regenerate the spot that was affected, or grow around an obstacle. The difference is time.

Edit: Also obligatory plant that is sensitive to touch (immediately): Mimosa Pudica

 

[Throckmorton]

BTW I think pigs are capable of love. Other mammals are much more intelligent than most people realize.

 

[CycloWizard]

Trees can't feel pain. They don't have brains.

We can't give a pig the same rights as a human, but we should do everything we can to minimize suffering for animals. That's why animal cruelty is illegal and there are regulations on the livestock and meat industry to prevent suffering. What's wrong with giving them some damn straw to play with?

Straw costs money, increasing the price of raising animals, increasing the cost of food. This is the drawback of every regulation: it increases the price of the regulated product. This increased burden is obviously felt the most by the poorest.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't see a reason to believe pigs or cows feel or view the world in any way shape or form resembling what we do. Sure they can feel pain, but so can trees what's your point? My comment isn't that only "smart beings" should be worried about. My comment is that these other species cannot be viewed from a human perspective because they are not human. Assigning any human value to a pig is asinine and those that do it are fucking retarded. I view your point of view and the one I'm stating as one of arrogance and ego. Do you think a pig gives a fuck about its food? Nope.

You're overlooking some basic biology here. We know where emotions come from in the brain. Most mammals share most of our brain with us. If you've ever seen a documentary on primates you can clearly see that they have all of our basic emotions. (And I wouldn't call knowledge of death an emotion even if it creates emotion.) What they don't have is our same frontal lobe. So trees simply do not have mammalian emotions. If ego is involved here it is your idea that humans are somehow unique in their emotions. We are unique in our thoughts but not in our emotions. Again, this is generally accepted biology which you seem to be ignoring.

I haven't seen anyone assign human value to animals here. But really so far you haven't presented a rational reason why we should ignore animal suffering. "They don't feel emotions" is scientifically incorrect.

Pigs don't think about what they eat, but why would we judge ourselves by pig standards? It's like saying we should ridicule children because children ridicule each other. No, we have higher standards. And I would also point out no animal puts their food through what we put our animals through. Most predators paralyze their prey to make feeding easier and not to mention cut the jugular. As a practical matter this makes things quick.

But at the end of the day, you're probably overthinking this. You could use all your arguments for pets too, but most people don't want pets to suffer because people are emotional and don't like suffering. Same thing here, people don't want animals to suffer if it's cheap to avoid it.

 

[ichy]

That doesn't mean we have to go this far.

Go this far? They're saying give the pigs some freaking straw, not requiring weekly massages!

 

[William Gaatjes]

Straw costs money, increasing the price of raising animals, increasing the cost of food. This is the drawback of every regulation: it increases the price of the regulated product. This increased burden is obviously felt the most by the poorest.

Sometimes you just need to invest a little. Paying the least is not always the best solution. If the burden is shared among a large group of people, the burden gets per capita automatically less.

A bit of a hyperbolic situation, but it is pretty much reality :
Look what is happening with the cheapest food in the US ? What happens to the people eating it ? The burden on society is a lot more. It seems cheaper but when you look at the entire situation. Overweight, diabetes, not able to work full hours(assuming there are jobs), often calling in sick, special cares for people with diabetes or with other chronic problems... It all costs a lot of money too. Health insurance goes up. These are all things that must be taken into account as well. In the end that cheap food is more expensive on the whole society then a bit more expensive food but a lot healthier.

The big question here is of course, how does this effect the consumer when looking at the quality of the meat and what is added to the animal ? For example, if that animal is saturated with antibiotics, does the consumer ingest these antibiotics as well ? Does the antibiotics have an effect on the symbiotic bacterial life we carry around.

For example, we can get other problems because slowly antibiotics get less effective. This causes complications or simple bacterial infections after surgery to become a serious issue. In todays hospitals, bacterial infections and the cleaning up and sterilizing costs millions. Is it related, that is sure interesting to find out.

It is just shifting the burden. But It seems a bit of a mantra for unregulated free market enthusiasts : "It is not my problem i payed cheap, why should i care ?"

It is from a certain perspective just as physics. Nothing is for free. Energy never disappears, it just changes into a different form.

 

[Craig234]

nm

 

[Infohawk]

Straw costs money, increasing the price of raising animals, increasing the cost of food. This is the drawback of every regulation: it increases the price of the regulated product. This increased burden is obviously felt the most by the poorest.

I'm not going to dispute this raises the cost of meat. But realistically how much do you think it is? Most people seem to agree that westerners have too much meat in their diet so this not something we should be that worried about.

 

[theeedude]

Better they play with straw than play with feces and fight. Less antibiotics and less stress hormones in the meat.

 

[lord_emperor]

Under a new ruling from Brussels, the country's farming community must provide their animals with "manipulable material" to give environmental enrichment.

The European Commission says this includes straw, hay, wood, compost or sawdust.

The aim is to keep animals contented and also prevent them from attacking each other.

This is a good thing.

I don't mind eating things, but I don't think they should live miserably just to increase farming density and line some corporation's pockets.

This is why I don't buy live lobsters, they're stuffed in a tank and can't even move.

 

[CycloWizard]

Sometimes you just need to invest a little. Paying the least is not always the best solution. If the burden is shared among a large group of people, the burden gets per capita automatically less.

But the people least able to bear this burden have to share it with those who are most able. In the current market-driven solution, there are plenty of levels of meat availble for people, allowing those who are able to pay to pay, yet those who are not can still eat meat. I can order choice reserve tenderloin filets from Omaha Steak or Kobe steaks at a restaurant if I want an animal that lived its life in the lap of luxury, or I can go to the store and buy really cheap ground beef. I have a choice - that is the basis of freedom.

A bit of a hyperbolic situation, but it is pretty much reality :
Look what is happening with the cheapest food in the US ? What happens to the people eating it ? The burden on society is a lot more. It seems cheaper but when you look at the entire situation. Overweight, diabetes, not able to work full hours(assuming there are jobs), often calling in sick, special cares for people with diabetes or with other chronic problems... It all costs a lot of money too. Health insurance goes up. These are all things that must be taken into account as well.

And the market would sort it out if the government would get out of the way. If people were held responsible for their food-related decisions by paying for their own healthcare, everyone would be better off unless they chose not to be. Health insurance can give incentives for living a healthy lifestyle (or could, if government would let it).

In the end that cheap food is more expensive on the whole society then a bit more expensive food but a lot healthier.

But even more fundamentally, can you demonstrate that a pig with straw will produce healthier food than one without straw? I sincerely doubt it. If you want to impose a burden, you need to be able to prove that a reason exists for that burden.

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm not going to dispute this raises the cost of meat. But realistically how much do you think it is? Most people seem to agree that westerners have too much meat in their diet so this not something we should be that worried about.

The price increase would be small, but that's not the point: It's about choice and freedom. Either we are free to choose what we like or we're not. Either we can pay less for cheap meat or we can pay more for hand-fed, free-range animals which grow up on a playground. Giving animals straw to screw around with won't affect my bottom line, but it will for someone who can only occasionally afford meat at its current price. It's absolutely absurd that we are talking about legislating additional costs for food to marginally improve the happiness of an animal, especially in light of its obvious effects on the bottom line of humans.

 

[Infohawk]

The price increase would be small, but that's not the point: It's about choice and freedom.

Underlying your argument is that animal welfare has just about no value for you in this context. Am I right? If a human ever has to choose a smaller portion of meat, that should trump animal welfare here, right? I think that's what's at the crux of the matter. You don't really think animal welfare is even worth a minor inconvenience to humans.

Are you generally opposed to all animal welfare laws? Can't we agree that all animal welfare laws have a cost? Society has to pay to enforce those laws. Isn't that taking a choice away from humans? One person might want to choose to slit his dog's throat because he doesn't want to pay for its food anymore. One person might want to see dogs fight to the death for entertainment and profit. Why is it okay to deny them that right if animal welfare has no value?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Who cares if they are miserable or not? They are FOOD. South Park nailed it again where they showed the turkey being all happy and then the saw blade comes and chops all their heads off.

What business is it of government to mandate how the FOOD feels? If it increases yields and a better quality product then that is up to the PRODUCER of FOOD. See what I'm getting at here? It's the PRODUCER of FOOD that is being asked to raise operating cost via government mandate. What do you think that will do to the cost of food?

I'll think about this next time when I bleed out a stripped bass after hauling that fat 20 pound pig into the boat. Was she happy the last 10 minutes of her life while I fought her and drained all her energy then yanked her from her happy roaming place? Was she embarrassed when we all took pictures and laughed while she was still alive? Spent, she has little energy to move, let alone put up a fight in the boat. Her eyes tell me "just get it over with". And I do.

Over-react much, guess so over animals having something in their bare pen to play with. Envy of an animal being happy til it's butchered is a sad thing.

 

[William Gaatjes]

But the people least able to bear this burden have to share it with those who are most able. In the current market-driven solution, there are plenty of levels of meat availble for people, allowing those who are able to pay to pay, yet those who are not can still eat meat. I can order choice reserve tenderloin filets from Omaha Steak or Kobe steaks at a restaurant if I want an animal that lived its life in the lap of luxury, or I can go to the store and buy really cheap ground beef. I have a choice - that is the basis of freedom.

And the market would sort it out if the government would get out of the way. If people were held responsible for their food-related decisions by paying for their own healthcare, everyone would be better off unless they chose not to be. Health insurance can give incentives for living a healthy lifestyle (or could, if government would let it).

The problem is that the market is not perfect because the people are not perfect. There is no code of conduct. This can be perfectly seen in the rising Chinese production market of today. When people can make more money, they will scam others. This may not be the case for every human, but it is the case to create a very unhealthy situation. The best example is cheap electronics. It is cheap, but it is bad for the environment and people work 16 hours ( in the recent past, i do not know how it is today). And what do the western consumers do ? They buy the cheapest, they did not buy the more expensive because it is good for everybody. Rand utopia is not much different from communism.

You always assume that individuals do not interact. Every citizen does not live on it's own island. It is the interaction that causes unregulated free market enterprises to fail. The end is communism. One has it all, the rest is just slaves. That is what will always happen to Rand utopias. Funny that she hated communism, introducing a concept that would lead exactly to the very thing she hated so much. Because her family lost everything in a political gamble they played a big part in.

But even more fundamentally, can you demonstrate that a pig with straw will produce healthier food than one without straw? I sincerely doubt it. If you want to impose a burden, you need to be able to prove that a reason exists for that burden.

That remains the big question does it ?
That is what i mentioned in my idea and why i mentioned my idea (It is not only my idea, many people would have come up with it).
I do know one thing, stress suppresses the immune system. Constant stress suppresses the immune system constantly. This would make animals more susceptible to diseases i would think. And since these animals are closely packed, an infectious disease can have dramatic consequences as can be seen in recent history of Europe. Various infectious diseases caused the destruction of hundreds of thousands of animals. A part from the fact that it is cruel, it cost a lot money. It is wasted resources. Because the animals did eat, and there is no meat to sell. Thus no profit to start a new production cycle.

 

[bfdd]

Go this far? They're saying give the pigs some freaking straw, not requiring weekly massages!

it says they have to keep them emotionally happy, that doesn't mean a fucking thing and that is the part that goes to far. giving them some straw so they have a "better" environment I have no issue with, regulating that the animals must be "happy" is what I do have issue with because there is no way to quantify that except to compare to what we consider happy, which doesn't make sense int he context of a pig or any animal besides us humans and maybe the highest functioning apes.

 

[William Gaatjes]

A good example is Q-Fever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_fever

Q fever is a disease caused by infection with Coxiella burnetii,[1] a bacterium that affects humans and other animals. This organism is uncommon but may be found in cattle, sheep, goats and other domestic mammals, including cats and dogs. The infection results from inhalation of endospores, and from contact with the milk, urine, feces, vaginal mucus, or semen of infected animals. Rarely, the disease is tick borne.[2] The incubation period is 9–40 days. A human being can be infected by a single bacterium.[3] The bacterium is an obligate intracellular pathogen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coxiella_burnetii

Coxiella burnetii is an obligate intracellular bacterial pathogen, and is the causative agent of Q fever. The genus Coxiella is morphologically similar to Rickettsia, but with a variety of genetic and physiological differences. C. burnetii are small Gram-negative bacteria that are highly resistant to environmental stresses such as high temperature, osmotic pressure, and ultraviolet light. These characteristics are attributed to a small cell variant (SCV) form of the organism that is part of a biphasic developmental cycle including a more metabolically and replicatively active large cell variant (LCV) form.[1] It can survive standard disinfectants, and is resistant to many other environmental changes like those presented in the phagolysosome.

Does anybody has some more history about why this bacteria is this dangerous( besides the wiki entry).

Mad cow disease is also known and can affect pigs as well.

Flu is common among pigs.

 

[PingviN]

Seems the article is 8 years old. Not very fresh.

I think this boils down to a difference in mentality were more Americans than Europeans don't really care for the animals if it means it will cost them more. We don't believe in torturing animals.

 

[CycloWizard]

Underlying your argument is that animal welfare has just about no value for you in this context. Am I right? If a human ever has to choose a smaller portion of meat, that should trump animal welfare here, right? I think that's what's at the crux of the matter. You don't really think animal welfare is even worth a minor inconvenience to humans.

Are you generally opposed to all animal welfare laws? Can't we agree that all animal welfare laws have a cost? Society has to pay to enforce those laws. Isn't that taking a choice away from humans? One person might want to choose to slit his dog's throat because he doesn't want to pay for its food anymore. One person might want to see dogs fight to the death for entertainment and profit. Why is it okay to deny them that right if animal welfare has no value?

Animal welfare has no business in the US legal system. Animals are not persons, so they can have no rights. Governments exist to protect rights, so animals fall outside the bounds of government action. It therefore doesn't even make sense to suggest the notion of animal welfare laws in a legal context. The only way animals could enter into a legal framework are as property or as a regulated food source, where the regulations on the food source could only be implemented to protect persons' right to life.

Your argument, that animal welfare has value, is completely separate and is exactly in line with my own views. I value animals and have always had pets. I like seeing them in nature, zoos, circuses, or anywhere else. I also use animals for both food and research. I value them for all of these reasons. However, it's impossible assign a value to an animal in our nominal legal framework where our government exists to protect the rights of its human citizens. Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[Infohawk]

Animal welfare has no business in the US legal system.

So just to be clear you think torturing a dog should not be a punishable offense? Even though I disagree with you, it is consistent with the pig debate.

 

[piasabird]

They must be fed Beer every night and also sing songs to them and plant flowers next to their pen. Maybe a little aroma therapy and some river mud might be nice also. The pigs in some places in spain are raised under the Almond trees.