[3l3ktr4]

It's crazy to see people denying that (meat) factory farming is a problem. You'd expect most of the public of this website to be rationalists in one way or another. Of course factory farming is an aggravating factor for the spread of diseases. Of course we can thrive with less meat consumption or none. How is that even a question?

[sandworm101]

>> Of course factory farming is an aggravating factor for the spread of diseases.

Of some diseases. It also prevents other diseases. Isolating animal species, specifically separating their waste, prevents cross-contamination. Google the stories of people getting parasites from lettuce grown on a "small organic farm" downhill from the pig sty. Want to eat raw lettuce and undercooked steak without getting sick? Those privileges come from factory farming techniques.

(I grew up in an area where we washed vegetables in diluted bleach. And I still prefer my meat very well done, burned, because that's how meat must be cooked in parts of the world that don't have western-style factory farming.)

[ceejayoz]

> Want to eat raw lettuce and undercooked steak without getting sick? Those privileges come from factory farming techniques.

Outbreaks of E. coli, listeria, giardia, etc. are common in factory farmed bagged lettuce. Dole certainly isn't some small artisan operation; https://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/packaged-salad-mix-12...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/08/16/ecoli-str...

"'There are more and more people wanting products like triple-washed bagged lettuce, but bagged salad is a great vector for E.coli growth,' he said. 'And farms have expanded closer and closer to animal feedlots and dairies, and these are now more prone to flooding.'"

Farm workers pooping in the fields because they're not allowed to walk 15 minutes to a port-a-potty doesn't help, either. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB888948983807436500

> And I still prefer my meat very well done, burned, because that's how meat must be cooked in parts of the world that don't have western-style factory farming.

That's more likely to speak to a lack of food safety regulation in the supply chain, from farm to slaughterhouse to store to table. It's entirely possible to properly process an artisanly raised organic cow in a way that avoids spreading E. coli all over it.

[perrygeo]

> Isolating animal species, specifically separating their waste, prevents cross-contamination.

Not even close to true. The act of isolating (concentrating) animal species, pumping them full of antibiotics, and concentrating their waste is a significant danger to human and animal health alike. It breeds antibiotic resistant strains of disease and the waste is never isolated - it always gets into the soil, air, and groundwater of the surrounding communities increasing the risk of cross-contamination downstream. These are well-documented, peer-reviewed, large scale impacts that you somehow ignored when googling for n=1 anecdotes to confirm your bias.

[mtalantikite]

> Google the stories of people getting parasites from lettuce grown on a "small organic farm" downhill from the pig sty.

It sounds like the problem is maybe farming of animals in general? Obviously a farm being small and organic doesn't automatically equate with everything being fine. Even on factory farms animal waste seeps into groundwater and can cause tons of environmental issues, which reminded me of a report from last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNutjzkXDqY

[jvanderbot]

Remember, the disease spread from an animal factory farm (even in your comment). TFA is about a disease among animals. GPs comment was arguably about animal factory farms. Of course we need industrialized agriculture, but do we need animal farms?

A slightly more on topic, and more generous interpretation of GPs comment removes any contradiction.

[linearrust]

> Of course factory farming is an aggravating factor for the spread of diseases.

Modern industrial farming has been the greatest source of limiting disease, parasites and sickness. Before modern industrial farming, human life was rife with food-born parasites, disease and sickness. So much so that it severely limited people's physical and intellectual development.

> Of course we can thrive with less meat consumption or none.

We can survive without meat. But being omnivores, we probably need meat to thrive. Though too much of a good thing can be harmful.

> How is that even a question?

As a self-proclaimed rationalist, why does that surprise you? Rational people question things.

[lambdaba]

> Of course we can thrive with less meat consumption or none. How is that even a question?

A sweeping statement, that betrays ignorance of the many people that are tremendously helped or healed from terrible illnesses by eating more meat (or even, only meat). I'm not advocating everyone eat only meat, nor do I think most people would want to, but there are also MANY people who would fall gravely ill if they did so.

Again, it's fine to voice an opinion, but this kind of categorical statement that isn't supported by empirical evidence is not. I'm very well acquainted with the subject myself, having dealt with severe autoimmune issues, and if I was forced to eat only plant matter, my health would be completely compromised. It's something I have heard from thousands of others, and if you are so interested I will provide links. There is also "scientific" data to support this, though as someone who has lived through it, I don't care for it, but it exists. Anecdotes, again, by the thousands, many with ex-vegans for whom a plant-based diet took a huge toll.

[maxerickson]

You say you expect most people on this website to be rationalist and then you also say that you expect most people on this website to be rationalist.

[tnel77]

It’s not perfect, but HackerNews seems to have one of the most intelligent pool of users I’ve had the pleasure of interacting with. It’s not perfect, of course, but the discourse on a HackerNews thread is light years ahead of what you’ll find on Reddit.

[3l3ktr4]

Are you saying it's not rational for me to expect rationalists around here? :P I guess that's reasonable?

[eadmund]

> Of course factory farming is an aggravating factor for the spread of diseases. Of course we can thrive with less meat consumption or none.

Of course, life with less meat consumption has a lower quality, and life with no meat consumption is utter misery.

Cities are an aggravating factor for the spread of disease, but I’d hardly argue that they should all be dissolved: the benefits are worth the costs. Likewise with meat. Eating meat fulfills one aspect of our natures as humans; a life without meat is thus a less humane life. No thanks.

[mensetmanusman]

Air travel is a bigger spread of disease, should we ban air travel?

[philipov]

This is not the slam dunk "no" you think it is.

[jvanderbot]

I believe you're joking, but if not, it's about tradeoffs and Pareto optimal solutions.

Lifestyles and civilization doesn't significantly change if we all halve or eliminate need for factory animal farms in developed countries.

[Ekaros]

So is any travel especially public. Should we just do permanent lockdown. Only allow people in essential jobs or jobs that can't be done from home to get outside their houses?

[Ekaros]

If we really wanted to stop diseases from spreading, we could go back to lockdowns. That would clearly be effective way. And also it would be effective in combating climate change.

[hollerith]

>Of course we can thrive with less meat consumption or none. How is that even a question?

I have personally been helped by a diet of mostly meat (and frozen raspberries) which I stayed on for a few years. It helped me to stay somewhat productive while I slowly recovered from a complicated illness state.

These years I get most of my protein from beans and almonds, but those foods do subtle cumulative damage to my gut (even if I pre-soak, pressure-cook, then refry the beans and blanch, then toast the almonds) so once a year or so I take a break from them, and since I cannot handle eggs, grains or dairy protein, and since I seem to need a lot of protein, during the breaks I eat a lot of grass-fed lamb.

If I lost access to meat, I would be less healthy.

[Affric]

> “Of course”

Those words require “as proven by” and then the sentence that follows.

The claims you make are so trivial as to almost be tautological. You make no quantitive claims except “none” for meat consumption. The most extreme possible position.

Rationalists put forward measured testable arguments that can be defeated by fair reason. Rationalists don’t frame the arguments for what they oppose in purely negative terms and what they support in purely positive terms.

Factory farming has had massive benefits to the health and well-being of humans on the planet. It is undeniably cruel. No meat consumption for many would lead to mental and physical health issues for many. It would also end some of humanity’s cruelest practices.

[lamontcg]

Wonder how many people here who are reacting to what you posted negatively are also convinced about the lab leak theory of SARS-CoV-2 origins...

People get worried about serial passage "gain of function" experiments in a lab with a dozen lab animals being involved. Meanwhile in farming a virus can get passed through millions and millions of animals in nice compact bioreactors.

[mattmaroon]

It’s not a question, we can. I don’t think anyone here said we couldn’t.

But it’s also not a question of if we’re going to, we won’t. Meat consumption goes up a little every year (on average) and we’ve known these things for a long time, so clearly we’re not convinced.

As to the benefits and drawbacks of factory farming, there are a lot of both. It’s overly-simplistic to call it a problem.

[sgregnt]

Can you expand who is we in you claim? The commissariat of food?

[boringg]

Which category do you fall into? It sounds like you are more enlightened...

[lazide]

Quantity has a quality all it’s own.