FAO makes case for meat, eggs and milk as ‘essential source of nutrients’(news.un.org)

posted 2 years ago

cawsby [he/him]@hexbear.net

news@hexbear.net

99 commentshide report

Sort:

Hot Top Controversial New Old

You are viewing a single thread.

View all comments View context

[ - ]

panopticon [comrade/them]@hexbear.net

7 points

2 years ago

A food system that doesn’t include chicken eggs would not only provide people with less food, it would also be less sustainable and create more food waste.

??? Then eat the eggs I guess? But that’s not eating the chickens, idgi sorry, what you said here doesn’t follow from your premise

Also are those chickens eating agricultural surplus or is the surplus grown expressly for the factory-farmed chickens?

If you’ve got well cared-for pet chickens then yeah eat the eggs but I think you’re equivocating

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

sysgen [none/use name,they/them]@hexbear.net

6 points

2 years ago

The point of eating the chickens in a historical context is that if you don’t they still die anyways.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

panopticon [comrade/them]@hexbear.net

6 points

2 years ago

Ok fascinating

I’m talking about today, and so was the comment I replied to before they diverted into a historical argument

Using history to defend a practice that may no longer be necessary is facile, sorry

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

sysgen [none/use name,they/them]@hexbear.net

5 points

2 years ago

The comment you were replying to was about how in a future sustainable society it would still make sense to have chickens for the same reason they were useful historically.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

panopticon [comrade/them]@hexbear.net

5 points

2 years ago

I am pointing out that these arguments:

we shouldn’t eat pork because pigs are as intelligent and emotional as three year old humans.

if you cut the head of a chicken off at the brain stem it can survive more or less indefinably. It’s basically a giant bug and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with eating it.

Insisting that human nutrition should be de-prioritized in favor of the lives of animals that roughly have the intelligence of five Beatles is essentially eco-fascist.

are unrelated to the historical argument and using the former to bolster the latter is incoherent. Okay, if raising chickens is an important component of a whole food system then great, like I said eat the eggs, you still haven’t connected that with the practice of eating meat

But chickens are not bugs and saying hey maybe we don’t need to eat them isn’t eco fascist, chickens form attachments, fear for their lives, enjoy being petted and held by humans. Bugs don’t care for any of that shit except for staying alive.

I think I’ve made my point clear so I’m done here, peace✌️

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

sysgen [none/use name,they/them]@hexbear.net

4 points

2 years ago

The point of eating livestock is that if you just let them die you’ve wasted resources. You can argue that’s worth it, but the connection to the practice of eating meat is there.

permalink

report

parent

Show more comments

[ - ]

AHopeOnceMore [he/him]@hexbear.netB

4 points

2 years ago

The comment they were replying to didn’t present any history at all. They were just telling a story to retroactively justify raising, killing, and eating chickens.

And as parent said, the fact that something was done previously is not a good justification for doing it now. In fact, it’s the base of conservatism and then reactionary thought. There need to be other, good reasons.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

sysgen [none/use name,they/them]@hexbear.net

3 points

2 years ago

That’s not how I read it. They explained why it was done historically. They didn’t just say we should do it because it was done previously - they said : here is why it was done, and implied that the same reasons apply today.

It’s not a story that raising, killing, and eating chickens is an efficient use of resources in a context of sustainable, low-industry farming. It’s factual and true, in that context. That’s currently a widespread context in 2023 across the Third World (of course not in more economically developed countries), and there are many people on this website that think that we should adopt this kind of approach to agriculture moving forwards. If you do, then yes, it’s an efficient way to do it, and that is an argument towards that.

You may disagree and think that this isn’t a sufficient reason. That’s not the same as saying that it’s merely an argument from tradition, because it isn’t.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

AHopeOnceMore [he/him]@hexbear.netB

3 points

2 years ago

Again, the poster they replied to did not state anything historical. They made some shit up that sounds good but doesn’t investigate the question at all. This is actually very common in the implicit western chauvinist mythmaking tendency in which we are all constantly bathed. We tell convenient, simplistic stories about how humans used to live, stories that are strikingly reflective of either the status quo or thst bolster the status quo as a development from “primitive” living. Marx was guiltu of this as well, despite his many great insights.

They also said some absolute bullshit about headless chickens that is more or less an urban legend, despite having a tiny kernel of truth.

I do think that the point of raising the veneer of history in these discussions comes from a place other than solid material grounding or a socialist analysis, that it is more about the aesthetics of a lefty academic analysis and is guarding the real reasons that are too conservative and reactionary to actually self-recognize and state (yet). It does play on the “this is how it was, so how it can be now” idea.

I don’t think I understand what your second paragraph means, sorry! Could you rephrase?

permalink

report

parent

Show more comments

news

!news@hexbear.net

Create post

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember… we’re all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

Community stats

198
Monthly active users
20K
Posts
428K
Comments

Community stats

Community moderators