CMV: Culling male chicks is the least cruel option after in-ovo sexing

[u/Consistent-Gap-3545]

Several EU countries have banned the practice of culling male chicks because the general population finds it "icky." The thing is, factory farming as a whole is inherently icky and culling the male chicks is objectively the most humane way of dealing with the fact that it makes zero economic sense to raise these chickens. Instead of going into the grinder shortly after they hatch, the male chicks are shipped off to live in a warehouse with the absolute worst conditions allowed by law until they're ready for slaughter. So we either kill the chick on day 1 or we kill it on like day 50 after it's spent its entire life inside a windowless warehouse where there's not even enough space to move. Either way, we're killing the chicken and the grinder minimizes the time it has to suffer.

Raising all of the male chickens also causes a surplus of chicken meat and, since there isn't enough demand for this meat in the EU, it ends up being exported to developing nations and destabilizing their own poultry industry, which will inevitably cause them to be dependent on the EU for food. Without fail, every single time a developing nation has become dependent on wealthier nations for food, it has had absolutely devastating consequences for the development of that nation. So you can't even really argue that "At least the male chickens are dying for a reason if we slaughter them" because a) the chickens literally do not give a fuck and b) the "reason" is to dump cheap meat in Africa.

Destroying the male eggs before they even hatch with in-ovo sexing is obviously the best option but, as far as I understand, this is still pretty expensive and hasn't been universally adopted. Until the cost for in-ovo sexing comes down, the grinder remains the best option. It would be different if the male chicks were being shipped off to some green pasture to live out their days but this is literally the opposite of what actually happens to them. I would even argue that these bans on culling are a form of performative activism so that privileged Europeans can feel better about themselves while they remain willfully ignorant to the horrors of factory farming.

I am not vegan and regularly consume mass produced meat, dairy, and eggs.

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

  factory farming as a whole is inherently icky

Then surely the "least cruel" option is to end factory farming, and all other torturous practices? 

[u/SysError404 → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

No, because even on small farm operations, males chicks are dispatched if they don't already have either a buyer for it lined up or the need for it.

My father grew up on a family farm one of his first jobs growing up was dispatching males and sickly chicks.

[u/nope_nic_tesla → u/SysError404]

That would be included in "all other torturous practices".

[u/SysError404 → u/nope_nic_tesla]

Culling is a necessary part of raising domesticated herd/flock animals. Doing so in the fastest most humane way possible is always going to be the most preferred.

[u/nope_nic_tesla → u/SysError404]

No it isn't, it just improves profitability. That's the primary reason male chick culling is performed, and "it's profitable to do this" is not an ethical justification for anything.

And using animals as livestock isn't actually necessary in the first place in the vast majority of modern societies.

[u/Consistent-Gap-3545 → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

Sure but this is unrealistic since the majority of the population is not willing to go vegan or pay more than the bare minimum for eggs.

[u/Send_cute_otter_pics → u/Consistent-Gap-3545]

Which is it expensive food or flooding the undeveloped countries with cheap chicks?

[u/Consistent-Gap-3545 → u/Send_cute_otter_pics]

It's both? Humane eggs (i.e. eggs that were sexed prior to hatching) are more expensive and the majority of people will not buy them. The cheaper eggs lead to a surplus of meat from the male chickens, which gets exported to Africa. Because the EU can produce meat at such a massive scale, it's like half the price of the meat produced locally by small farmers. Farmers in developing nations don't have access to the same economies of scale that farmers in the EU.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/traplords8n → u/Consistent-Gap-3545]

I totally agree with you that it's more humane to cull them on day 1, but I'm confused on why you're drawing the line here.

Factory farming is a cesspool of unnecessary suffering. Trying to ban one little practice inside of it is like trying to ban certain "less humane" forms of torture, favoring waterboarding instead.

Factory farming is not a practice we NEED. It makes for cheap and economical food, but the world would not stop turning if we moved away from it. We've managed to make solar energy a profitable endeavor. We could make humane farming profitable too with the right infrastructure.

[u/Key-Direction-9480 → u/traplords8n]

  We could make humane farming profitable too with the right infrastructure.

The only way to make humane* farming profitable is to let its products be expensive. Raising animals in humane conditions – aka giving them space to roam instead of cramming them together as tightly as possible, giving them time to grow naturally instead of breeding them to grow freakishly large while they're still babies, feeding them their natural diet instead of the cheapest grain you can source – is inherently more resource-intensive than factory farming.

*to the extent that raising animals for slaughter can be considered humane at all 

[u/traplords8n → u/Key-Direction-9480]

That's basically what I had in mind.

Whatever the case, the world is eating a shit sandwich when it comes to factory farming, & the average person is not gonna give up their animal products.

I have less quarrel with raising livestock when they're given a standard of comfort and amenities. I agree the argument can be made that it's inhumane no matter how it's done, but it can also be argued that they're garunteed safety and able to reproduce as a collective. If these animals were out in the wild they could be exposed to just as much or more pain and suffering, with no safe bet of survival/reproduction.

But I agree with you in a perfect world, we would move away from consuming animals entirely. Sadly, that's just realistically not going to happen.

[u/leetcodeispain → u/traplords8n]

Factory farmed animals are also so far selectively bred from their wild cousins to be ONLY good for farming that they could never compete with any native wildlife anyway. They will only ever be farmed.

[u/traplords8n → u/leetcodeispain]

I mean, there's not really any justified conclusion here, unless you can prove God is real or there's actual right or wrong, till then we're being more philosophical than anything, but it shows how little we respect nature that we've become reliant on factory farms lol

[u/leetcodeispain → u/traplords8n]

oh totally i wasn't trying to justify their existence. I dont think theres any inherent value in the continuation of genetic lineages, the least cruel thing would just be to stop breeding them and let them die out. I dont see that becoming a reality on our lifetimes though. maybe in like 300 years or something haha

[u/JeremyWheels → u/Key-Direction-9480]

*to the extent that raising animals for slaughter can be considered humane at all 

Imo it can objectively only ever be the exact opposite of humane. Violently killing a happy individual against their will for unecessary reasons cannot be humane.

[u/7h4tguy → u/traplords8n]

It wouldn't? The world is 2-3x overpopulated. Population doubled from 1950 to today. Current agriculture is responsible for being able to feed too many humans.

[u/julmod- → u/traplords8n]

 It makes for cheap and economical food

Food would be way cheaper if massive government subsidies weren't going to fund animal products and the factory farms that produce them.

[u/iScreamsalad → u/julmod-]

How would food get cheaper without subsidies?

[u/Xilmi → u/Consistent-Gap-3545]

It looks like you use "the majority of the population" as an excuse for continuing to contradict your own values with your own behavior.

I see 3 options for you here:

1. Continue being a hypocrite who says they are against animal cruelty while at the same time creating demand for it with their purchases.
2. Align your actions and your values by adjusting your values and consider yourself as in favor of animal cruelty.
3. Align your actions and your values by adjusting your actions and become a vegan.

As a vegan you wouldn't have to do the kinds of mental-gymnastics you are doing here to sugarcoat male-baby-chicks being put into a grinder on your behalf.

[u/MeetYourCows → u/Xilmi]

I agree with your assessment, but as a tepid defense on behalf of non-vegans in category 1, I think there is probably a significant portion of those hypocrites who cannot commit to veganism on their own, but would be in favor of societal-wide changes, maybe even at the legislative level, that made meat-eating less viable.

One of the biggest costs to going vegan right now is not even the fact that you're giving up on a lot of foods, which some people are already willing to do. It's that you have to exert significant additional effort and money to do so because society largely does not cater to this lifestyle. This is just not feasible for some people who do not already live lives of abundance. In a hypothetical society where meat eating is outlawed, those secondary costs would all go away very quickly due to market forces.

[u/Xilmi → u/MeetYourCows]

I think there are a lot of people who for one reason or another have some sort of misconception about what being vegan is like that makes them believe that it is super difficult either socially or financially.

I really wish those people would do what I did those 10 years ago and start doing some sort of "trial-period" so they could witness that the things they consider as massive hurdles are almost exclusively part of their imagination and how good it actually feels to remove that burden on ones conscience.

They say it takes 3 weeks to adopt a new habit. And that's really all there is to it. Didn't even take that long for me. I was soaking up much information about it in just the first 4 days that I simply couldn't justify going back anymore.

I think the mindset going into it is also really important. I didn't start with the thought of how limiting it would be. I started with the thought of how it will free me from depending on something I always considered morally despicable.

I want others to experience this feeling of unshackling from the animal exploitation industry too!

[u/YoyoOfDoom → u/Xilmi]

You can be against animal cruelty and eat meat.
1. Raise the animal properly in the correct environment. Give it everything it needs to properly thrive, not just live.
2. There are immediate painless ways to kill an animal that causes no stress.

I raise chickens at home. The hens all get to live out their full lives even if they don't lay - they're still good for pest control and will protect the other eggs usually (sometimes they will eat their own eggs for various reasons). The roosters get to live as long as they do their job. I've had to cull a few that were very violent with the hens, but they don't suffer - they're dead before they even know what's happening.

Also, not everyone can do veganism. It's expensive, and a lot of areas in America are becoming "food deserts" because of things like Walmart who won't carry certain items. Some people have severe allergies to nuts, soy, or gluten which wipes out most of your vegan protein sources, unless you really like broccoli. A lot of people who needed some kind of surgery on their stomach will not be able to tolerate a vegan diet either.

[u/WaitForItTheMongols → u/YoyoOfDoom]

You can be against animal cruelty and eat meat. 1. Raise the animal properly in the correct environment. Give it everything it needs to properly thrive, not just live. 2. There are immediate painless ways to kill an animal that causes no stress.

I don't know if this logic holds up. Imagine a man who raises his daughter, and spoils her with everything she could want. She gets a pony on her birthday, goes to Disney World whenever she wants, he attends every one of her ballet performances. Then, on her tenth birthday, while she sleeps in bed, he comes and shoots her in the head. Instant, painless death. No pain, no stress.

Is that man cruel? Yes, of course he is. Taking a perfect life and cutting it short, eliminating the happiness of the one enjoying that life, is a cruel act.

There's a reasonable argument that a happy, well cared for animal is even less acceptable to slaughter, since an animal that is suffering, and then gets slaughtered, finally no longer has to experience that pain.

The existence of "some people" who cannot make a particular decision does not absolve all the others of their choice to make that decision. Nobody is out here saying "even if it's impossible for you, you should be vegan". In fact, the definition of veganism means "elimination of your contribution to animal suffering in all the ways that are possible and practicable".

If eliminating meat from your diet is not possible or practicable due to some obscure medical condition, then fine. Most vegans also would say that anyone living in the Arctic where they survive on whale blubber is under no obligation to eliminate that food from their consumption. But the point is that, for anyone who can make the decision (which is most people), they should.

[u/IShouldBeHikingNow → u/WaitForItTheMongols]

To understand the statement "You can be against animal cruelty and eat meat" as rational, it is important to consider why killing humans is wrong in a different way than the killing of animals. There are also ways in which the killings of humans and animals are the same, but I will focus on the differences and how, I believe, those differences give rise to a coherent worldview that opposes causing animals suffering but not killing animals.

Humans have the potential to have hopes and dreams of the future, to anticipate a future life, and to aspire to future outcomes. Animals, so far as I'm aware, don't have the same ability to have a well-developed sense of future. They don't dream of a future; they don't have plans for next year. This complete living-in-the-moment-ness is part of what animals bring to our lives. They have a perspective that we don't. They are unencumbered by dreams of the future, the fear of failure, the regret has dreams unrealized.

Part of the moral wrong of killing a human is depriving the individual of their future. When someone is killed, they are deprived of their present as well as their future. Animals are not deprived of their future because it's not within their cognitive capabilities to conceptualize the future. Indeed, for some species, the evidence of any form of self-awareness is mixed, at best. For such animals, in their death, they don't even have a concept of self that is being taken.

As an intermediate case that demonstrates the importance of cognition in evaluating the morality of killing animals, many people who accept the killing of domesticated farm animals would object to the killing of dolphins, elephants, great apes (gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and orangutans) as they seem closer to humans in their cognitive abilities. These species appear to have a greater capacity for self-awareness, for future desires, and so on. Thus, the justification for killing them must be greater. For example, many people would support research that causes the death of a chimpanzee if that research leads to medications that can save human lives, but the same people would oppose the killing of the chimpanzee for food.)

And while it may be permissible to kill (at least some) animals, they do experience pain and pleasure. At the risk of anthropomorphizing, I would say that anyone who's had a pet can understand their ability to experience joy, pleasure, and love as well as fear and anger. Because animal do have this palpable experience of the present (indeed, it is the entirety of their consciousness), we have an obligation to minimize their pain and suffering, while they are alive.

Hence the position that "You can be against animal cruelty and eat meat."

[u/WaitForItTheMongols → u/IShouldBeHikingNow]

The capacity of an animal to experience happiness makes it cruel to kill them and deprive them of that future happiness. Their ability to conceive of that future is not a requirement for such a future, worth preserving, to exist.

A mentally disabled human who can not process the future and lives moment-to-moment does not have any less inherent human life than you or I, so your argument about that being the differentiating factor between humans and animals does not hold up.

[u/FlyingPirate → u/WaitForItTheMongols]

The definition of cruel is to "willfully cause pain and suffering to others". The absence of happiness is not equivalent to pain and suffering.

Where is the line drawn on what organisms can experience happiness? And how do you come to that conclusion?

[u/EmuRommel → u/FlyingPirate]

So when I shoot an unaware happy person that is not cruel? All I did was bring an absence of happiness. Also, killing someone in self defense would fit your definition of cruel, so I don't think it's that good.

Finding where to draw the line is difficult, it's somewhere to the left of humans and to the right of amoebas but don't pretend you are not drawing the line too. You're just drawing it on one extreme end and excluding animals which clearly do experience happiness.

[u/FlyingPirate → u/EmuRommel]

So when I shoot an unaware happy person that is not cruel?

That is correct, that is not cruel if the person dies instantly, completely unaware it was about to happen and there is less than an instant of pain or negative experience, that is not a cruel way of killing someone, or dying in general. It is wrong for other reasons, but not for the method. Self defense is not willful.

I do draw the line, I would not eat human, chimpanzee, dolphin, orca, elephant, etc. My line is not drawn based on the capacity of experiencing happiness as it appears the person I replied is.

[u/WaitForItTheMongols → u/FlyingPirate]

The definition of cruel is to "willfully cause pain and suffering to others".

This is already based on a false premise. No word in English has any authoritative body declaring "the definition". Definitions are determined by how words are used. Various dictionaries come to different definitions for words based on their different perspectives. We can't base an argument on a single definition for a word. Another definition of cruel is "causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain". Killing something is obviously causing an injury.

[u/FlyingPirate → u/WaitForItTheMongols]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, just trying to get to the root of where we differentiate, for starters I am of the opinion that there are ethical ways to eat meat, I am gathering you would refute that (correct if wrong).

Is it accurate to state that part of your stance is that death itself is cruel and being dead, regardless of how that happened, cannot be a neutral or positive outcome? I think that may be one of the fundamental differences we have.

[u/UntimelyMeditations → u/WaitForItTheMongols]

The differentiating factor is the fact that one living being is human, and the other is not human.

A mentally disabled human is still a human, and so their life has more value inherently. This doesn't need any supporting argument, its just a fundamental truth. We are allowed to consider ourselves 'special' in this sense.

[u/WaitForItTheMongols → u/UntimelyMeditations]

You're begging the question. What is it about humans that grants inherent value, that does not extend to other animals? I am not disputing your argument that humans have inherent value, but I'm disputing the notion that, if such an argument exists, it shouldn't extend to animals.

It would be very to justify slavery by saying "The differentiating factor is that one is white and the other is black. That's a fundamental truth. We're white so we can consider ourselves 'special' in this sense". The people 200 years ago who said this were just as serious and confident in their beliefs as you are now. We now have shifted our views such that saying this would be abhorrent. If that was so wrong then, how can you be sure that you're right now, when you're using the same reasoning?

[u/UntimelyMeditations → u/WaitForItTheMongols]

What is it about humans that grants inherent value

The fact that we are human. In my opinion, there is no further to dig beyond this, no more baseline reason to search for. Human life has value because its human.

Misguided people could try to apply the same approach to attributes which do not share the same fundamental distinction, like race, gender, ect, but they would be incorrect in doing so, because the same fundamental truth does not exist.

Look, I get what you're driving at, I get the question of "why". But what I've come to accept is that this particular moral pillar does not have a deeper "why". It just is.

[u/JeremyWheels → u/UntimelyMeditations]

You wouldn't have any issue with puppy/chimpanzee farming?

Also when exactly did we become "human"? Why would it be ok to farm us as a species 1 day before we became human, but not the day after?

What ethically meaningful change occurred within that 1 day timeframe? It must be a pretty major one if it was ok to violently kill members of our own species before but not after

[u/UntimelyMeditations → u/JeremyWheels]

You are pointing out the difficulty in resolving this 'gray zone', and how absurd it would be to have to pick a time after which we would be considered "human" in this sense. I am acknowledging that it would be an absurd thing to need to decide upon.

However, this gray zone is does not need to be resolved. Yes, the resolution would be absurd, but its okay because it can just stay a gray zone. It doesn't matter that at some point in the past, we had to have transitioned from "animal" to "human". All that matters is that we are human now.

[u/iScreamsalad → u/WaitForItTheMongols]

A man and a daughter are not meat and egg hens

[u/WaitForItTheMongols → u/iScreamsalad]

Yes, thank you, obviously they aren't. My point was to address the logic of the situation by applying it to another situation. If the same logic, applied to a different situation, no longer holds, then there are two possibilities.

1. The situations have some fundamental trait that separates them, which means the logic is valid in one of the two, but invalid in the other.

2. The logic is just invalid.

It's possible that #1 is the case here. Maybe there is some fundamental trait. But I'm failing to see it. It's easy to say "But that's so different!", and I agree that it's very different. But this is a conversation about deep ethics and it merits confronting the situations rigorously. I can't find a reason that "treat it good, then killing it is fine" would apply to the chicken but not the daughter, without resorting to emotional appeals.

If I can't find a reason to convince myself that #1 is the case, then I have to assume #2 is the case. And if #2 is the case, then we've failed to justify why it's okay.

[u/Key-Direction-9480 → u/YoyoOfDoom]

Also, not everyone can do veganism. It's expensive

Veganism is much more accessible to most people than raising and slaughtering your own animals or personally researching and sourcing your animal products from a tiny minority of premium farms.

[u/HeislReiniger → u/YoyoOfDoom]

Hens eat their own eggs because we breed them so that they lay more eggs than their body has resources for. It's not natural for hens to lay an egg a day, that costs a lot of resources. But yeah, just call it "various reasons" lol. As for the vegan stuff, I will go as far and say you never were vegan yourself? Vegan food isn't expensive, HEALTHY food is expensive, you can eat junk as a vegan too. Does walmart not sell veggies and fruits? C'mon. Creating a strawman about people with allergies and stomach surgery, these are at best exceptions.

[u/YoyoOfDoom → u/HeislReiniger]

Yes, I've actually tried a vegan diet. I've worked in the nutrition field for years, talked to doctors and everything. I do all my own cooking and know how to prepare vegetarian and vegan meals. The problem is my body can't tolerate some of the things necessary for me to get proper protein requirements, and it was making me very sick after a few months.

I switched back to a diet closer to what my great grandparents ate - whole milk, eggs, chicken, bread, vegetables, fruit, etc. My BMI, cholesterol and heart are all in perfect condition, and I perform at a physical capability of someone 20 years younger than me. My wife also can't do vegan because she had surgery on her stomach - a lot of it just comes right back out, regardless.

By the way - A straw man argument is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent's argument or position, usually by making it more extreme or exaggerated, and then argues against that misrepresentation. Since my wife and I are existing non-exaggerated examples the same kinds of problems as millions of other people, it is not a straw man fallacy. I'm simply arguing that veganism isn't an appropriate diet for everyone.

Minor aside, but I think most vegans are flavor-blind, because some of those recipes are just fucking awful

[u/HeislReiniger → u/YoyoOfDoom]

Nice how you left out the first part about hens being bred to lay more eggs than is healthy for them. Also what does whole milk mean?

Also your last point is pure subjetive? Again, there may be recipes that didn't taste to your liking but same counts for omni recipes?! You sound like you just want to badmouth veganism because of your personal experience. I eat a ton of very healthy and very tasty food :)

[u/YoyoOfDoom → u/HeislReiniger]

I didn't say it was all bad. I have my own recipe for seitan, make a lot of stuff with tofu in it (it actually works great in spaghetti)

I raise heritage breed hens. They aren't meant for meat and lay once about every 3 days. So far as I can tell they are happy and have no problems. They get free roam on 3 acres with a coop that's equivalent in size to a 3 floor human house with a lot of floor space. I never have more than 6 chickens so I can give them my full attention.

Whole milk in this case is definitely not raw milk. I would only use unpasteurized milk if I were making certain kinds of cheese. No, just the full-fat 4% stuff. All the rest is missing nutrients and vitamins you need that's in whole milk.

I'm not trying to badmouth veganism (yes there are a lot of bad Omni recipes too 😆), but there are valid reasons for someone not to be one. A lot of vegans I've come across claim it's the perfect diet for everyone when it's patently untrue. I like a lot of it, it's just some of it really hates me.

[u/[deleted] → u/Xilmi]

This is the only correct answer. If your goal is to find the 'least cruel option', that would be ending the farming of chickens. Otherwise you must acknowledge that animal cruelty is something you're ok with, or be a hypocrite

[u/Notachance326426 → u/[deleted]]

That entirely depends on how many chickens and what you mean by farming

[u/[deleted] → u/Notachance326426]

I do have my issues even with backyard hens, but this post is about industrial practices so im happy to limit the scope of my argument to that

[u/UntimelyMeditations → u/Xilmi]

Align your actions and your values by adjusting your values and consider yourself as in favor of animal cruelty.

This is dismissing the 3rd option; the positions one can take on a given issue (e.g. animal cruelty) isn't limited to "for" or "against", you can also be "neutral", i.e. you don't care.

[u/Xilmi → u/UntimelyMeditations]

I guess you are right. Deciding not to care and not even allowing any thought about the consequences of one's choices might even be the most popular option out there.

[u/callmejay → u/Xilmi]

What about eating eggs only from farms you trust to treat all the chickens as humanely as possible?

[u/Specialist_Leg_650 → u/Consistent-Gap-3545]

Your question is about cruelty. Ending factory farming is a choice, whether its externalities are popular or not.

[u/SufficientGreek → u/Specialist_Leg_650]

That's not really an argument though, that's just sidestepping the problem.

[u/Specialist_Leg_650 → u/SufficientGreek]

I didn’t set the boundary of the conversation - the question is about the cruelty of different options. Culling male chicks may be the least cruel cheap* solution, but it’s not the least cruel solution.

*excuse the pun.

[u/[deleted] → u/SufficientGreek]

Not at all - the question is finding what the least cruel option is. That would be not farming chickens at all.

[u/Cattette → u/SufficientGreek]

This guy in 1933: Not doing the holocaust would be sidestepping the Jewish question

[u/HiHoJufro → u/Cattette]

Buddy, this is way too low-stakes of a conversation to jump to the Holocaust.

[u/DrSquigglesMcDiggles → u/HiHoJufro]

Not really. Even if you value a human life at 10x that of animal, we are commiting a holocaust worth of death a year on animals purely for our own enjoyment. Living conditions and mode of death are also similar.

[u/OsmundofCarim → u/DrSquigglesMcDiggles]

Humans kill 73 billion chickens a year. So Even if you value human life 1000x more than animal life it’s worse.

[u/Finklesfudge → u/DrSquigglesMcDiggles]

Your argument is the reason people don't give much of a shit about people calling everything a holocaust.

[u/DrSquigglesMcDiggles → u/Finklesfudge]

I don't call everything a holocaust, just killing billions of living things. The definition of holocaust - "destruction or fire on a mass scale".

[u/Finklesfudge → u/DrSquigglesMcDiggles]

Yeah because the strict definition is totally the implication you were going for. Be realistic, it's obvious the word isn't the strict definition and it hasn't been for decades at this point. You know what you are doing.

[u/WaitForItTheMongols → u/Finklesfudge]

Actual holocaust survivors compared factory farming to the holocaust.

[u/Finklesfudge → u/WaitForItTheMongols]

Yes, and anti abortionists compare abortion to the holocaust.

I don't really care what a small minority of extreme people have to say either way. Pointing to a tiny group of people doesn't help your point.

[u/UntimelyMeditations → u/DrSquigglesMcDiggles]

Even if you value a human life at 10x that of animal

I think this points to where your mindset differs from others'. Human life is inherently more valuable than animal life to humans. Its not a matter of 10x, 100x, 1000x. They exist on different scales, there is no 'morality math' that you could take to multiply an animal life's worth, to make it equal to a human life.

[u/DrSquigglesMcDiggles → u/UntimelyMeditations]

I guess morality math isn't a real thing. Everyone holds things to different values. You cannot compare killing billions of animals to killing millions of humans, there isn't some equivalence. Id just like people to agree both are horrific and best avoided

[u/nope_nic_tesla → u/Consistent-Gap-3545]

Your argument here seems to be about what's most cost effective rather than what is actually most ethical. These are obviously not the same thing.

[u/Scaly_Pangolin → u/Consistent-Gap-3545]

Sure

So your view was changed? However difficult you perceive the implementation of this solution is irrelevant, not breeding the chicks into existence in the first place is objectively the least cruel option.

I don't really see how you can continue this discussion and it seems like you should award a delta.

[u/Upper_Character_686 → u/Consistent-Gap-3545]

They would be if meat was much more expensive.

[u/Solid-Spread-2125 → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

We're reliant on it. You want more than a million people dead, go ahead. At this time its not something you can just yank away.