[quonn]

Wrong.

- mass unethical treatment (assuming you do not mean the fact that animals are killed) is related to the conditions which are related to price

- health risks can be minimal depending on the amount and type of meat you eat

- the CO2 impact again depends on the meat and conditions. Surely chicken in your backyard can be kept without CO2 impacts with some effort.

- your very existence has a CO2 impact. By your own logic you have two choices …

[rimunroe]

> Surely chicken in your backyard can be kept without CO2 impacts with some effort.

I’m not sure this is possible, at least not in a typical yard or urban garden. According to one study[1] community gardens in and around cities emit six times the CO2 per serving compared to industrial agriculture. I assume this is roughly applicable to backyard gardens too. I wouldn’t be surprised if this isn’t applicable to livestock—which the study appears to have excluded—but also wouldn’t be surprised if the story is similar with chickens/livestock.

I imagine that even if it is less efficient to grow your chickens in the back yard, it might be possible to approach or exceed current industrial poultry farms in CO2 efficiency. My hunch is that if those farms get incentivized by penalties on CO2 production it would be impossible though.

[1] https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/1968...

[quonn]

I said backyard, not some urban garden.

[znpy]

> - health risks can be minimal depending on the amount and type of meat you eat

Health risks from meat is an US-only issue. Here in Europe we have much stricter regulations on meat, so much so that American meat cannot be imported and cannot be sold here. IIRC (might be wrong on this) Canada doesn't allow importing US meat as well?

Meat is safe for consumption in Europe.

[hn_throw2025]

A while back, the EU relaxed restrictions on feeding animals to other animals in order to boost trade. Restrictions that were in place for good reason after the BSE crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/22/eu-to-lift-its...

[burnt-resistor]

No. It generally doesn't matter where in the world cows are raised, the important point is the conditions. The health risks cannot be minimized because of antibiotic abuse (antibiotic "superbug" evolution) and pandemic virus evolution of cramming too many animals near people who care for them and wildlife.

[thrance]

> mass unethical treatment (assuming you do not mean the fact that animals are killed) is related to the conditions which are related to price

Source? I really don't buy that more expensive meat producers kill their animals that much more "humanely". And even if the killing was painless, you're still killing tens of animals per year for the sole sake of a tastier meal.

> health risks can be minimal depending on the amount and type of meat you eat

True.

> the CO2 impact again depends on the meat and conditions. Surely chicken in your backyard can be kept without CO2 impacts with some effort.

I trust you raise all the animals you eat, and don't feed them with imported grains? Don't be ridiculous.

> your very existence has a CO2 impact. By your own logic you have two choices …

You're basically telling anyone who's self-conscious about their environmental impact to kill themselves. Great.

[closewith]

> And even if the killing was painless, you're still killing tens of animals per year for the sole sake of a tastier meal.

Do you believe that's inherently immoral?

[burnt-resistor]

Grossly incomplete.

The larger risks to us include:

- Pandemic virus evolution of viruses from complex people<->livestock<->wildlife interactions.

- Evolving antibiotic resistant bacteria since livestock are given most of the same compounds given to humans simply for economic advantage, and in some cases, to force-feed animals with unsuitable feed like too much corn in too short of a timeframe. Some CAFO farms, their cows would die if not given antibiotics. [0]

- Water, air, and soil pollution on a large scale. Liquid shit lakes that spread manure into the air with sprayers. Runoff from pesticides and fertilizer used to grow the corn, soybeans, etc. The list goes on.

And, yes, climate change, animal cruelty, and other concerns.. but like condoning genocides, nothing will be done about it because people want their fucking Costco-sized 40 pack of cheap hamburgers, BMW SUVs, and overwatered perfectly green grass and air conditioning set to 68 F / 20 C in Phoenix AZ.

0. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/antimicrobial-stewardship/report-...

[dude250711]

Nuances destroy agendas.

[znpy]

Nuances destroy absolutisms, yes, and it's a good thing because real life has a lot of nuances.

[const_cast]

This comment is the opposite of nuance. They literally argued that everything you do has a CO2 impact, therefore you either shouldn't try at all or should just kill yourself.

That's, like, the least nuanced and most caveman-brained take on climate change you could possibly develop.

Also: appealing to edge-cases as a distraction isn't nuance, it's derailing. I can find fucking exceptions to anything. ANYTHING. How many people in the West are growing their own chickens? Give me a fucking break man.

[GeoAtreides]

And bikeshedding (or nitpicking while ignoring the main thrust of the argument) destroys interesting discussions.