alt.hn

3/9/2026 at 3:06:37 PM

New farm bill would condemn pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates

 https://twitter.com/Lewis_Bollard/status/2030985704902099335

by bilsbie

3/9/2026 at 3:47:44 PM

The sooner we get to true lab grown meat the better

Meat is nice but would be better if we can skip the whole suffering thing

by Havoc

3/9/2026 at 4:04:33 PM

This is a false dichotomy. The choice is not lab grown or suffering. Farmed animals could live happy, healthy lives and then be culled in a humane way.

The problem is that it costs slightly more and our society is more concerned with cost than animal suffering.

by sosodev

3/9/2026 at 4:16:55 PM

> Farmed animals could live happy, healthy lives and then be culled in a humane way.

Breeding animals _specifically for killing them_, no matter how they are killed, is not what I'd consider humane. If we take 'humane' literally, it means to be treated as you would treat a human. I doubt we'd do this to humans. So the only way to be okay with this is adhering to a form of specieism.

by Insanity

3/9/2026 at 8:09:41 PM

> I doubt we'd do this to humans. So the only way to be okay with this is adhering to a form of specieism.

The obvious historical pointer to the Holocaust as a well covered example of people being treated like that - and a fact often swept under the rug: people are being treated essentially like that in North Korea, today.

An older interview but still good to watch

https://youtu.be/ZGJm4bjRaaE?is=E2hFWYi-ynPnWGfm

by ffsm8

3/9/2026 at 7:43:34 PM

Many, many people disagree with you.

It is not at all a logical, ethical, or emotional contradiction to say that we should have humanely-raised livestock whose purpose is to be slaughtered for meat. We can ensure that they are kept in healthy, safe, and humane ways during their lifetimes, and are killed as quickly, cleanly, and painlessly as we can reasonably manage.

And, um, the meaning of "humane" is only loosely related to "treat like a human." It means "treat well, view with compassion", and similar. We talk of things being "humane" or "inhumane" in how we treat each other, too. [0]

Humans have been raising meat animals with compassion and treating them well during their lifetimes for longer than we have had written language. Veganism/vegetarianism is not even physically an option for many people, excludes many cultures' traditional practices, and very, very often requires (or at least tends toward) supplementing with foods that are at least as unethical as factory farming practices.

[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humane

by danaris

3/9/2026 at 9:34:41 PM

As unethical as purposefully murdering animals?

I don’t think you can call it a compassion when you own an animal with sole purpose of efficiently growing it and then killing it so its body can be dismembered and sold off. This is treating animals as property, that produces profit.

by blks

3/9/2026 at 8:37:59 PM

> supplementing with foods that are at least as unethical as factory farming practices

That's the first time I ear about supplement being unethical, let alone "compared to factory farming". Stretching the usual arguments, it may be almonds' water or soy in brazil ? I'd be glad you clarify your point.

by aziaziazi

3/9/2026 at 9:21:32 PM

The harvesting of a number of the common foods used to supplement vegetarian and vegan diets—eg, soy, agave, quinoa—are variously destructive to the environment and based on labor practices exploitative enough that they sometimes verge on slavery.

by danaris

3/9/2026 at 10:43:34 PM

Oh I understand the confusion: soy, quinoa and agave are not supplements but food. I guess we might agree on "alternative" but the word choice isn’t your point.

Soy is a strange pick at it’s mostly cultivated to feed livestock (77%) and using it instead for humans instead would require substantially less crops.

https://www.deforestationimportee.ecologie.gouv.fr/en/affect...

Agave… is mostly water and glucose, without much minerals or protein. How does vegs requires or tends toward that aliment more than other?

Quinoa original region doesn’t have the same working standards as un US/UE but I’m not aware of a difference with banana, coffee, avocado, cacao, vanilla, coconut, palm oil (or soy)… however Quinoa also grow in other regions: here in France you can find local quinoa at the same price as the one from Bolivia: around 8€/kg (organic). It’s super healthy but not very popular through.

Beans and lentils are more popular I think (self non-scientific estimation) but yeah soy is great and tasty.

by aziaziazi

3/9/2026 at 4:25:16 PM

Many farm animals aren't bred specifically for killing them. Think egg-laying hens and ducks, milk-producing cows and goats, etc.

Not too different from humans in that respect; humans are bred systematically (we have dedicated hormonal supplements, birth facilities, documented birthing procedures, standardized post-birth checklists of forms of vaccination regiments, standardized mass schooling, government-subsidized feeding programs, etc) and most are used machinistically by society exclusively for productive output, regardless of whether the society is corporatist, capitalist, socialist, communist, etc.

by anonym29

3/9/2026 at 4:43:43 PM

I think you misinterpreted GP's emphasis.

But still, egg and dairy animals are culled when productivity drops. The human equivalent would be killing all male babies, and females after age ~40.

This does not seem more "humane" than the human equivalent of meat farming, where all human offspring would be harvested at age ~15.

by quesera

3/9/2026 at 5:03:00 PM

Yup exactly. And when animals are bred specifically for milk, they aren't treated well even before they are killed. Dairy cows need to be kept continuously pregnant / in lactation state through artificial insemination. They don't magically produce milk all-year round.

And pregnancy is _hard_ on animals (including humans), it changes your physiology and psychology. Even if we take for granted that a cow isn't as conscious as a human (IMO consciousness is a sliding scale, not a binary), then they are still being primed for giving birth and taking care of offspring which never comes. Imagine doing that to a human - it's a definite form of cruelty.

by Insanity

3/9/2026 at 9:36:53 PM

What do you think happens to a cow, when she stops producing milk? She is kept constantly pregnant, what do you think happens to most of her male offsprings? In the end, almost every single cow’s life ends in violence.

by blks

3/9/2026 at 4:09:19 PM

Any kind of domination of one species over another raises serious ethical questions. Avoiding suffering on the dominated side is nearly impossible.

by block_dagger

3/9/2026 at 4:13:55 PM

Are all pets suffering?

by sosodev

3/9/2026 at 4:18:35 PM

I think what GP meant is that when it involves money, suffering is nearly impossible to prevent. That's why you have puppy mills, for example. Most people don't know how the puppies are raised, they just see the cute puppy in the shop. The same way people see a pretty piece of meat in the supermarket and don't know its history.

Raising animals for meat is theoretically doable with no suffering (not sure about milk), but it's not happening in practice. With pets the situation is better - a lot of people adopt and some care about how their pet was raised if they buy it from a breeder.

by diacritical

3/9/2026 at 4:19:05 PM

Don't strawman other people's comments.

by mperham

3/9/2026 at 4:26:41 PM

I didn't intend to. I think that domesticated animals have long had a harmonious relationship with humans so I find it a bit difficult to believe that it's always an ethical dilemma. Pets are just the most obvious lens to identify that.

I also think we need to be careful with the idea that we should entirely avoid suffering because it's impossible to do.

by sosodev

3/9/2026 at 7:04:24 PM

I think that it is what you know of the history of animal domestication and of pets that makes you think that there is an acceptable and low amount of suffering.

I think most people are aware of animal cruelty in factory farms (the chicken in cages, the pigs in cages, etc.), which represents 90% of all farm animals globally (https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/global-animal-farming-est...).

For pets, I don't think you understood what GP was saying: pet breeding involves massive amounts of death of puppies/kittens that aren't pretty enough or don't manage to survive infancy, the female breeders are basically confined to cages and "producing" all their life, some short-nosed breeds of dogs and cats are even illegal in some countries because they spend their life unable to breathe properly, pets are abandoned and killed, etc. The happy pets you see in the street are not representative of what it is to be a pet. But yes, these ones are not suffering.

As for long and harmonious, as much as we tend to see anything in the distant past as innocent, I'd remind you that the systematic killing of male chicks, the killing of veals to avoid them drinking all the milk, the killing of all animals as soon as productivity drops beyond a threshold, are not new practices. No animal wants to be enslaved. Same as no human wants to be enslaved.

I'm not attacking you, just attempting to give you an idea of why other commenters believe animal domestication is not ethical.

by constantius

3/9/2026 at 4:16:57 PM

nah.

by JungleGymSam

3/9/2026 at 7:03:14 PM

> Farmed animals could live happy, healthy lives and then be culled in a humane way.

> The problem is that it costs slightly more and our society is more concerned with cost than animal suffering.

IDK about other livestock, but this definitely doesn't hold for chickens, one of the cheaper meat sources in the US. Switching to breeds that could live more than a very-few weeks(!) before getting too overweight to walk, would increase price by far more than "slightly more", and there's no hope of anything fitting any sane definition of "humane chicken farming" without that step.

I suspect it's also true for pigs, not necessarily the "we bred them so wrong that their very existence is a crime against god and nature" part but that the price increase from a "healthy, happy life" would be a lot larger than "slightly more". Maybe also cows, dunno about that one.

by ritlo

3/9/2026 at 7:44:35 PM

It's not like chickens chose this way of life. Such breeds were developed for the specific purpose of meat, with no regard for their wellbeing. Don't shame the chickens for what human bastards do.

by penguin_booze

3/9/2026 at 9:41:58 PM

Oh, sure, our fault, but fact remains that modern meat-chicken breeds are so incredibly fucked up that it’s not really possible to humanely farm them. They’re like that because of what we did, yes, but step one toward comprehensive humane-farming for chickens would have to be “let those breeds entirely die out” regardless of who’s at fault (and it ain’t the chickens).

by ritlo

3/9/2026 at 9:30:56 PM

This is whitewashing to make consumers happy and less concern. Nothing is humane about murdering an animal to sell its body parts for profit. Thats just marketing.

by blks

3/9/2026 at 6:11:35 PM

I am too lazy to do the math, but I somehow think it would cost _multiple times_ more: https://www.farmtransparency.org/kb/food/abattoirs/age-anima...

> society is more concerned with cost than animal suffering.

Yes, and it's politically very hard to change. I totally understand price sensitivity around food. At least where I live milk and meat is extremely subsidised. How can you have chicken that is grown, slaughtered, cleaned, packaged, distributed, kept cold all the way, etc. and sell it for 5eur/kg (and cheaper on discounts). There's s much human work, resources, fuel used - I cannot understand.

Also - being a vegetarian/vegan is more expensive than being omnivore.

by trymas

3/9/2026 at 7:09:46 PM

> being a vegetarian/vegan is more expensive than being omnivore.

Being vegan is cheaper where I live regardless of whether we factor in the subsidies or not. Beans, chickpeas, lentils and sometimes soy (examples of protein sources) are pretty inexpensive. Peanuts, some other nuts (in the culinary sense of the word) and some of the vegetable oils are also inexpensive.

If you factor in foods meant to replace or replicate the taste of a carnivore diet like vegan yogurt, milk or cheese, or things like Beyond Meat burgers, it might become expensive, but you don't have to limit yourself by trying to replicate what you used to eat - you can make lots of things from 10-20 basic ingredients.

by diacritical

3/9/2026 at 8:18:12 PM

> being a vegetarian/vegan is more expensive than being omnivore.

I read this often but the long term vegs usually says the opposite as does the studies [0]. Bonus point: The veg options are often the cheapest in the non-vegan restaurants (although not the tastiest). I have some hypothesis where it comes from:

- Meat substitues are seen as a necessary replacement. They are transformed, which require more work - and therefore more expensive. However they are as (un)necessary as a fined-prepared piece of charcuterie, which isn't cheap neither.

- Cost is evaluated at the supermarket shelf but as you noted the animal products are extremely subsidised. Vegs pays for them but don't use it. Infrastructures like airport, rails, road and urban amenities are not free either even if you don't pay for them. How you evaluate the price is at your own discretion.

- Fancy products are placed in the most visible shelf and thats the people see first, but they compare it with the cheapest animal alternative. I'm an engineer and by my fancy organic tofu 7-20€/kg but used to buy chicken at 25-35€/kg in the same fancy segment. If I'd be on a budget I'll probably buy the bottom shelf one at 3.5€/kg, next to the 5€/kg chicken.

- Cost of change: changing habits require to re-create the optimization you build during the previous years: where to find the best price for the product X, what quantity should you get or what daily stable you can add in the routine for cheap (fake meat and fancy milk aren't).

0:

> Main findings suggest that food expenditure negatively relates to vegetarian food self-identity, and unemployment status mediates the link between vegetarianism and food expenditure.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-06353-y

Vegan diet is always the cheapest - but not in the lower income countries. However it is when including costs of climate change and health care.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_vegetarianism

by aziaziazi

3/9/2026 at 9:58:22 PM

Cost is not a minor thing considering the suffering that poverty creates.

by Hammershaft

3/9/2026 at 8:28:23 PM

At the scale to feed the world, and at the prices we require, absolutely not. Eating meat means making another creature suffer. Don't delude yourself.

by philistine

3/9/2026 at 4:13:06 PM

That's exactly why lab grown meat is the best way to solve the issue.

Society is only concerned with cost, regulations are weak and rarely enforced and companies are operating in a capitalistic market where they can't compete unless they squeeze every last cent out of each animal. That's hard to change as lots of people have an interest in keeping the status quo and the citizens who vote don't have the time to read everything that comes their way. We can't expect that society will wake up, that people will start voting with more conscience or that everyone will go vegan.

Lab grown meat (or growing brainless animals or something similar) is a technological solution. When it becomes cheaper than normally-grown meat and similar in quality, the atrocities committed in the farms would cease to exist as the farms themselves would cease to exist. The same market forces that are responsible for what's happening to the animals now would prevent any future torture.

by diacritical

3/9/2026 at 4:18:48 PM

I'm skeptical of this claim because there's clearly a growing population that hates the idea of putting anything they don't understand in their bodies. Genetically modified vegetables, food dyes, vaccines, etc.

I find it hard to believe you could convince a large portion of Americans to eat lab grown meat just to save a buck.

by sosodev

3/9/2026 at 4:30:17 PM

I think that population is shrinking, not growing. They're surely vocal, though.

But if lab grown meat is cheaper, some part of the population would buy it. The farms would lose part of their business so economy of scale would help lab grown meat and hurt the farms. I think it would lead to a feedback loop where lab grown meat will get even cheaper and farm meat would get more expensive.

With lab grown meat you also have the option not only for a perfect piece of meat, but for different kinds of tastes, textures and compositions that haven't existed before. Just like people eat processed meat (think ham or nuggets or deep fried pieces), they would love to try the new tastes. I know I would.

by diacritical

3/9/2026 at 10:52:11 PM

I think a lot of people will be suspicious of lab grown meat after years of fake meats marketing of substances filled with some unholy combination of seed oils and chemicals (in before some nerd pipes up with a comment about how water is a chemical too kekeke) specifically designed to poison our bodies. Well maybe I exaggerate about specifically designed but fake meats are certainly not healthy for us.

by kelipso

3/9/2026 at 4:31:20 PM

Not to be glib, but the shelves of most American grocery stores do a pretty good job demonstrating that that segment of the population isn't dominant yet. There's a glut of processed food full of ingredients much harder to pronounce than an ingredient list that would read "Ingredients: Beef (cultured)".

And to be glib, I'm not thrilled about the idea of catering to the bar set by "things they don't understand" from that group in particular.

by delecti

3/9/2026 at 4:33:54 PM

Sure you could, just don't tell them. The fast food burgers are already part soy and no one is yelling. If they replaced that with lab meat people would probably like it better.

by wholinator2

3/9/2026 at 6:05:56 PM

Worse. We were told we couldn't have happy, cruelty free meat because it would be expensive. We were told we couldn't have clean meat because it would be expensive. We couldn't have sustainable meat because it's too expensive. We couldn't reduce the environmental harms of meat because it's too expensive. We couldn't have locally produced meat because it's too expensive.

Well we got none of those things. But beef steak is still $25 a pound. I don't really care if it gets more expensive because at current prices I can't eat it regularly anyway and rich assholes will have no problems eating their steaks every day even at $100 a pound so why don't we just have a sustainable, clean, less cruel industry?

Countries reduced their demand of our meat, because of horseshit tradewar games, and yet the price went up. Demand for American industrial crops like soybeans, which is used significantly as a cattle feed, cratered, to the point we will have to hand the farms tens of billions of dollars, yet somehow beef still got more expensive. Meat processing uses illegal immigrant labor, sometimes even child labor, and all regulation of those facilities has dramatically curtailed under Trump administrations, and yet beef still gets more expensive.

Here's what beef producers say:

>“It’s hard as a beef producer to necessarily say that beef prices are too high. I mean, if people are paying $6 for a latte at Starbucks, but then they’re paying $6 for a pound of beef, they’re able to feed a family for a family of three with that pound of beef,” said Taylon Lienemann, co-owner of Linetics Ranch in Princeton, Nebraksa.

In other words, fuck you pay me. "Starbucks makes great profit so we should make more". The reason for the price increase is a "very small herd", which producers have been reducing because of droughts and otherwise because they don't think the profit is high enough to invest in future production.

by mrguyorama

3/9/2026 at 4:09:24 PM

I actually had some this weekend.

If you support this, visit one of the handful of restaurants selling it to show interest and support the companies. The salmon I had was ready for prime time in the right context, and if you didn't know, you probably wouldn't have noticed.

by dehrmann

3/9/2026 at 4:33:52 PM

I'm surprised to hear that it works with fish in particular. I wouldn't have thought it could replicate the flakiness of real fish. That's great to hear honestly.

I'd assumed it would mostly be limited to cultured ground beef and chicken nuggets.

by delecti

3/9/2026 at 4:27:52 PM

At least the thing with live animals is that they have to be kept within some kind of parameters to survive, with those parameters hopefully also leading to some level of food standards for us. I can’t even conceive of the kind of chemicals and processes that would be required to keep random meat-like cells alive without the rest of the body.

by clickety_clack

3/9/2026 at 4:54:00 PM

I think not so long from now the exotic meal experience for the young ones will be real grilled chicken that looks like a chicken. Like zebra or crocodile meat was for us northerners.

From my own little box I think that that if lab grown meat was available and affordable, I would never eat a bit of real chicken, pork or beef again. I know veganism is an option too, but... I grew up with meat and it's very difficult to give up.

by flowerbreeze

3/9/2026 at 5:07:08 PM

Have you tried tempeh? It solves 95% of my chicken craving since I found the right recipe and spices. It's also cheaper, nutritious, faster to cook and almost no processed.

https://tempeh.info/

by aziaziazi

3/9/2026 at 4:01:58 PM

Lab grown mean doesn't work.

But debrained animals are certainly more plausible.

You just need a miminum interface to keep their bodies running. Cruelty free meat.

by noosphr

3/9/2026 at 4:14:13 PM

Oysters don't have a central nervous system.

by dehrmann

3/9/2026 at 4:03:03 PM

I understand that at least chicken works.

also, you misspelled "meat" as "mean"

by pmarreck

3/9/2026 at 4:09:28 PM

What a weird compromise.

by hackable_sand

3/9/2026 at 4:10:15 PM

In nature, animals are routinely torn apart and devoured while still breathing.

In a proper rending facility, a captive bolt pneumatic/hydraulic pistol punctures their skull and sends a shockwave through their brains, killing them like Tony in the last scene of the Sopranos.

by pmarreck

3/9/2026 at 3:50:52 PM

I'll be pleased to let you eat that for me.

by okokwhatever

3/9/2026 at 3:56:02 PM

I mean if it’s functionally identical then I would.

Not super interested in pink slime style concoctions either

by Havoc

3/9/2026 at 8:28:18 PM

Lab meat is essentially proprietary food.

I hope that never takes off. I’m not eating that shit for sure.

by znpy

3/9/2026 at 4:15:55 PM

what a disgusting idea.

by JungleGymSam

3/9/2026 at 3:52:38 PM

It's not even nice. People ate meat because fresh fruit and vegetables weren't available all year round or even at all. All good food has plants to make it taste nice. You can easily just skip the meat and go straight for the flavour.

by globular-toast

3/9/2026 at 4:03:38 PM

The Alaskan word for "vegetables" is literally "boring food"

by pmarreck

3/9/2026 at 4:10:42 PM

In Swedish, it's "green things."

by dehrmann

3/9/2026 at 4:08:03 PM

Do you live in Alaska?

by givemeethekeys

3/9/2026 at 6:33:00 PM

Mmm yeah, Alaska being well known for culinary excellence, of course.

by globular-toast

3/9/2026 at 4:12:03 PM

Yeah, I hate being stuck with a luscious rare filet mignon basked in clarified butter, it's so flavorless that I have to chase it with celery, cucumbers, and lettuce just to stomach it... /s

by anonym29

3/9/2026 at 6:34:01 PM

Anything tastes good in butter. Try some okra or cabbage if you're ready for some flavour.

by globular-toast

3/9/2026 at 8:21:02 PM

Anything tastes good in butter, but especially steak!

by khazhoux

3/9/2026 at 8:04:11 PM

Keep in mind, there are more people who have a medical necessity to avoid cruciferous vegetables (like cabbage), gluten, nuts, and other types of plants than there are people who have a medical necessity to avoid meat.

As a whole, more humans are medically biologically incompatible with plant consumption than animal consumption.

Note that I'm talking about adverse medical reactions that range from worsening of chronic disease to acute death, not merely gastric discomfort, like with lactose intolerance.

Not everyone has the privilege of enjoying buttered cabbage.

by anonym29

3/9/2026 at 3:58:24 PM

Your comment makes no sense. If plants weren’t around for humans to eat then how did the animals humans eat survive?

Humans eat animals because they are a denser faster nutrition than plants. More bang for your buck. Trying to act like humans “only eat animals because” is ignoring reality.

by snowe2010

3/9/2026 at 3:54:47 PM

Here's a link to the bill if you are interested in who sponsored and cosponsored it. It's a total of 24 people, so it had a fair bit of support.

If you live in the district of one of these people you might consider contacting them to let them know your opinion.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4673...

by criddell

3/9/2026 at 4:02:16 PM

The "R-" after their names means they're all Republicans, right?

by diacritical

3/9/2026 at 4:06:16 PM

Yes, [R-IA-4] means Republican from Iowa's 4th Congressional District.

by evan_

3/9/2026 at 3:18:04 PM

Gestation crates are up there among the most immoral things created by man.

by hansbo

3/9/2026 at 4:10:09 PM

In their current implementation, yeah, they’re pretty bad.

There is a need for something like it, though. A sow will absolutely lay down on her piglets and suffocate them.

by Ancapistani

3/9/2026 at 4:16:46 PM

> A sow will absolutely lay down on her piglets and suffocate them.

This makes me really curious because that behavior seems very maladaptive for a species. That leads me to wonder if something else, ie. the environment or domestication, is leading to this behavior rather than pigs being really, really prone to wiping out their own species. Does anyone know why they do this in a farm environment?

by hangonhn

3/9/2026 at 11:47:49 PM

They definitely do it in the wild as well, though likely at lower rates.

They reproduce very quickly - evolution is a numbers game, and yield isn’t part of the equation.

by Ancapistani

3/9/2026 at 10:40:05 PM

Pigs are adapted to singular survival. A stressed sow will often eat the piglets. And that stress can be being a mother for the first time.

There are a lot of environmental factors, like snuggling for warmth being unsafe.

But by and large... Pigs give birth in numbers. They can afford for half to die, and still proliferate. They don't need to be 'good parents'.

by shakna

3/9/2026 at 10:19:10 PM

We're also genetically engineered them to be much heavier than they would be naturally.

by barbazoo

3/9/2026 at 11:48:55 PM

That depends on the breed, but sure. I’ve not seen it happen at noticeably lower rates for less sturdy breeds for whatever it’s worth.

by Ancapistani

3/9/2026 at 5:29:04 PM

Both things you mentioned.

by jonah

3/9/2026 at 3:19:53 PM

Humanity is almost definitely going to wipe itself out in the not too distant future through an avoidable (if not for the selfish greed of many of us) climate change resource war Great Filter event.

This used to really bother me, but lately I'm thinking it is probably for the best.

by bayarearefugee

3/9/2026 at 3:57:22 PM

> This used to really bother me, but lately I'm thinking it is probably for the best.

The older I get, the more careful I am to remember there's young people left in my wake and I get to decide whether I owe them anything or not - and, I make a personal belief that I do, a very great deal in fact. So getting comfortable that the whole system is damned and worth tossing is very convenient but too cavalier for me to find comfort in

by digitalsushi

3/9/2026 at 4:05:45 PM

> The older I get, the more careful I am to remember there's young people left in my wake and I get to decide whether I owe them anything or not - and, I make a personal belief that I do, a very great deal in fact.

I don't disagree with this at all, and on a personal level I do everything I can to reasonably leave things as good or better than I found them. I just no longer believe anything I do is going to pull humanity as a whole back from the edge.

by bayarearefugee

3/9/2026 at 5:54:48 PM

no single raindrop feels it is to be blamed for the flood.

I've always enjoyed that line. I also find it interesting how people interpret it. I take it to mean that each raindrop should still try to not cause a flood, and at some point, the flood will be prevented. Others take it to say there are simply too many other raindrops and they won't try, so there is no point in any drop trying. I don't care for that version.

by sethammons

3/9/2026 at 3:26:01 PM

One of my favorite questions to ask people is something like: "Imagine a button appears in front of you. Pressing it will snap all human beings painlessly out of existence. Do you push the button?"

Some people get caught in minutiae about downstream effects, I tell them it can go however they want (house pets are free or gone too, planes land harmlessly, etc)

In my circles, I've found it's about 50/50 button pushers to non-button pushers. Perhaps unsurprisingly, vegetarians are more likely to be button pushers.

by abound

3/9/2026 at 3:34:32 PM

That’s wild to me. I’d hazard a guess that 0% of my friends would push the button (okay, lizardman tax, I’m sure I could find someone I know who would say yes). I think they’d also feel a need to go find whoever made said button and lock them in a cell for safekeeping.

by wincy

3/9/2026 at 3:35:10 PM

My first serious programming job was at a start up and the owner asked me this question. I was caught off guard, of course I wouldn’t! I couldn’t really explain why at the time, but it essentially revolved around the fact that I was young and optimistic. 25 years later, I’m not so sure. Now, said optimism has almost vanished and there are days pushing seems like the path to least suffering, but I also feel it’s unethical for one person to decide for everyone else.

by moribvndvs

3/9/2026 at 4:24:53 PM

I mean this sincerely, not as an insult: consider that the problem is with your mind or personal life, not with the world, and you should look for a way to address that if you haven't already.

by greygoo222

3/9/2026 at 5:28:13 PM

Suggesting that the wholesale suffering wrought by humanity unto itself and all other life on this planet throughout its entire history is merely in my mind or a problem with my personal life is actually incredibly insulting on top of being willfully ignorant.

by moribvndvs

3/9/2026 at 6:11:57 PM

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting your attitude towards it might be.

by greygoo222

3/9/2026 at 7:31:10 PM

“For better or worse, pessimism without compromise lacks public appeal. In all, the few who have gone to the pains of arguing for a sullen appraisal of life might as well never have been born. As history confirms, people will change their minds about almost anything, from which god they worship to how they style their hair. But when it comes to existential judgments, human beings in general have a unfalteringly good opinion of themselves and their condition in this world and are steadfastly confident they are not a collection of self-conscious nothings” ― Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

by NoGravitas

3/9/2026 at 3:44:27 PM

It's impossible to refute anecdotes purporting to represent populations based on what they might do in a hypothetical, and the people being described fade further out of tangible existence at every next layer of abstraction.

But Most Vegans I Know (tm) regard human life as valuabe, speak in terms of harm reduction, and tend not to fantasize about making Vault Tec real.

by glenstein

3/9/2026 at 4:07:57 PM

If human life is net harmful, then harm reduction means targeting 0 humans.

by gowld

3/9/2026 at 3:48:23 PM

FWIW I wouldn't push the button.

I just think we are going to absolutely deserve the outcome as we collectively and metaphorically push that button... which we continue to do and are regressing on stopping ourselves from doing so a handful of super wealthy can watch gamified number go up.

by bayarearefugee

3/9/2026 at 4:08:34 PM

What makes you think that we we collectively and metaphorically are pushing the painless button?

by gowld

3/9/2026 at 4:25:23 PM

Well you're right, the real world isn't so simple and the button we are pushing certainly isn't going to be painless.

by bayarearefugee

3/9/2026 at 4:35:57 PM

Ehhh no they wouldn't.

by tengbretson

3/9/2026 at 3:49:37 PM

Are you in silicon valley by any chance?

by hrimfaxi

3/9/2026 at 6:58:33 PM

Even more, Xoogler.

by relaxing

3/9/2026 at 3:30:21 PM

God what an awful prospect. How about when you push the button it only removes the button pushers, so the rest of us are free to continue enjoying our existence.

by mock-possum

3/9/2026 at 3:33:58 PM

The point is that continuing to enjoy your existence is inflicting a massive toll of suffering around the world, to both others humans as well as non-humans.

I’m not saying I’d be one to push the button, but I think it’s worth trying to understand the mindset of someone who would. It’s very arguable that pushing it would be the ethical thing to do.

by stouset

3/9/2026 at 3:37:29 PM

Not entirely convinced that outside the torment nexuses used in industrial meat farming, natural suffering is any lesser sans humanity.

by trylfthsk

3/9/2026 at 4:05:29 PM

"Someone who would" is a terminally online loser who's confused the symptoms of their mental illness for philosophical insights.

Speaking as a lifelong atheist, I cannot stand this genre of nihilistic post-Christianity, all questionable moral baggage with none of the guidance. Here's a tip for you: humanity did not introduce evil to the world. If you don't understand this, find a church, it'll be better for us all.

by greygoo222

3/9/2026 at 4:38:57 PM

Here's a tip for you: describe what you find questionable and why, otherwise reader will understand: "I don't like that, you're [loser / mentally hill / nihilist]".

I you don't like the conversation you're also free to ignore it.

by aziaziazi

3/9/2026 at 5:03:02 PM

While I usually try to refrain from unsupported insults, I am comfortable calling people who support killing the entire world population "losers."

by greygoo222

3/9/2026 at 6:11:40 PM

You really have nothing productive to say in this thread, you sound irrationally angry. This is a pretty milquetoast philosophical question. If someone asks whether humanity is a net negative environmentally and your only response is to call them whiny losers, maybe you'd be better off on Twitter.

I mean I know you understand what an abstract argument, is but you've chosen to interpret it in the laziest way possible for maximum rage. There are better ways to spend your time.

Extra points for calling yourself a vegan atheist to appeal to credibility.

by Capricorn2481

3/9/2026 at 9:32:03 PM

I'm not angry, just disdainful. Some abstract philosophical positions are unworthy of respect.

by greygoo222

3/9/2026 at 7:08:47 PM

The only people who find the question of erasing humanity milquetoast are terminally online losers.

by relaxing

3/9/2026 at 4:22:27 PM

Humanity did not introduce evil, but we have absolutely industrialized and massively scaled it.

by stouset

3/9/2026 at 6:05:03 PM

There probably are reasonable methods of estimation that would say suffering associated with factory farms currently outweighs suffering occurring in the wild, though I don't know if I agree. However, factory farms are both relatively recent and temporary. It's hard to defend the position that humanity vanishing tomorrow would reduce net suffering in the long run. If nothing else, another industrial species will eventually replace us, and there's little reason to believe they'll be any better.

Of course, I personally have higher hopes for intelligent life than merely not causing massive suffering. That brings me to another tangent: Are you vegan?

I am. You might be, but I'm estimating you probably aren't. You can go vegan, it's easier than you think, and if you don't think you can commit, being 90% vegan is 90% as good as being 100% vegan. All thought experiments aside, you can be a part of making a better world, right now.

You can also make donations: https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/animal-welfare

by greygoo222

3/9/2026 at 4:55:22 PM

I think humanity did introduce evil.

It requires a sense of morality to divide good from evil, and I don't think that existed on Earth before humans. Digging into the Hominid tree might add some qualifications, but I don't see that as a meaningful distinction.

by quesera

3/9/2026 at 3:47:26 PM

What if the suffering is the point?

by SoftTalker

3/9/2026 at 4:01:35 PM

It is, because you can't have pleasure without suffering but I think these conversations should focus on the amount (maybe as a percentage) of suffering that someone/something experiences.

If you were locked in a room and being tortured, would you think it'd be appropriate for me to go: "they feed you at the end of each torture session, isn't it worth it to keep going for that?"

by hypeatei

3/9/2026 at 3:52:47 PM

[dead]

by cindyllm

3/9/2026 at 3:48:15 PM

You should definitely watch the Black Mirror episode about the robot bees!

by jancsika

3/9/2026 at 7:36:44 PM

“optimism, where it is not merely the thoughtless talk of those who harbor nothing but words under their shallow foreheads, seems to me to be not merely an absurd, but also a really wicked, way of thinking, a bitter mockery of the most unspeakable sufferings of mankind” ― Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race: A Contrivance of Horror

by NoGravitas

3/9/2026 at 3:31:30 PM

Because that line of "enjoying your existence" making no mention of the monumental harm we cause to every biome on the planet is exactly the kind of selfishness that the button pushers would like to eradicate.

by itsanaccount

3/9/2026 at 3:35:05 PM

Biomes are not moral subjects and don't deserve consideration. (Pigs are).

by greygoo222

3/9/2026 at 3:59:57 PM

Biome is just a fancy term that encompasses a set of moral subjects.

by namero999

3/9/2026 at 3:43:47 PM

> Biomes are not moral subjects and don't deserve consideration. (Pigs are).

Where do you think animals live?

by Capricorn2481

3/9/2026 at 4:06:23 PM

Causing harm to biomes is not the same thing as causing net harm to animals inside biomes. The base rate of harm done to animals inside biomes is immense and horrific.

by greygoo222

3/9/2026 at 6:24:49 PM

You're doing crazy gymnastics right now. Eliminating biomes drives animals to extinction. In what world could you argue that doesn't deserve even a little moral consideration?

I'm not going to argue with someone who works this hard to be a contrarian.

by Capricorn2481

3/9/2026 at 9:46:25 PM

It's not gymnastics, you just have no background on this topic.

Species are not moral subjects. Individuals are.

Killing an individual animal that could live a worthwhile life for longer is an individually bad act. Insofar as this happens in the process of species going extinct, that's bad. But it's also the default state of nature. Does replacing a forest with a city cause net harm to non-human animals? That's not clear. It might even be net good.

Does that mean we should destroy wilderness on purpose to prevent wild animal suffering? Not yet, we don't have the technology to mitigate knock-on effects, and it should be done a way that does not harm individuals. But I can't get behind viewing biome destruction as some kind of atrocity against the animals within them, at least not as a whole. (Some species have better lives than others).

by greygoo222

3/9/2026 at 3:36:49 PM

And I’d call entertaining thought experiments such as this “having such an open mind your brain falls out of the back of your head”.

by wincy

3/9/2026 at 3:54:05 PM

Well, some people do choose suicide but I have a feeling that you'd be uncomfortable discussing assisted suicide. These conversations around humanity and suffering typically end in thought terminating takes such as yours. Why even respond if you're effectively throwing your hands up in the air and ignoring nuance?

by hypeatei

3/9/2026 at 4:19:40 PM

The person you're responding to is explicitly saying they would be fine with suicide.

by greygoo222

3/9/2026 at 4:29:11 PM

> is explicitly saying

I don't think it's explicit, that's why I put the quip in there about assisted suicide. This thread is showing me that perhaps a lot of people would be okay with the "complainers" offing themselves but I'm not sure... my gut feeling is that a lot of optimists hold conflicting beliefs around this.

by hypeatei

3/9/2026 at 4:48:37 PM

As a card-carrying optimist, I am strongly in favor of universal right to die. Maybe you should wait for the people in this thread to report their opinions before making assumptions?

I don't want most "complainers" to kill themselves, nor would I recommend them to, but I support their right to. And if they showed me convincing evidence their life contains too much suffering to be worthwhile, I would agree with their decision.

by greygoo222

3/9/2026 at 4:06:05 PM

If I were to implement such a button, I'd make it so that only the people who said "yes" would disappear.

Life is a gift. A painless life has no value. In fact, if you are genetically immune to pain, your lifetime survival rate is something like the teens.

by pmarreck

3/9/2026 at 3:36:40 PM

We live in a sandbox. Unless we decide to work together to escape it, then there is no point in humanity to exist. All we essentially do is produce rubbish, poo and suffering.

by varispeed

3/9/2026 at 4:00:52 PM

> there is no point in humanity to exist

Did any one ever state that there was? Religious types will argue, but my counter is just humanity came up with religion as a stop gap in knowledge.

by dylan604

3/9/2026 at 3:40:44 PM

If you can’t find anything worthwhile here what makes you think you’ll find it out there?

by giraffe_lady

3/9/2026 at 3:45:04 PM

It’s a meaningless question, there is no “out there”.

by epgui

3/9/2026 at 3:52:10 PM

Not saying it is not worthwhile. As nature equipped us with feelings to make existence more pleasant. Enjoy the brief blip of consciousness.

by varispeed

3/9/2026 at 4:10:41 PM

I am thanks.

by giraffe_lady

3/9/2026 at 3:48:04 PM

The suffering is mainly because of overcrowding

by HoldOnAMinute

3/9/2026 at 3:52:51 PM

the suffering is mainly because of extreme wealth hoarding and profoundly selfish use of resources; overcrowding could be easily solved for all people if we as a species decided it was important

by smarf

3/9/2026 at 3:52:41 PM

Well, social stratification isn’t helping anything.

by jagged-chisel

3/9/2026 at 4:09:55 PM

Pigs outnumber the humans 7-to-1 in Iowa, but they don't vote so here we are.

As an Iowan, it is obligatory to show love for Herbert Hoover and our pig population when called upon.

by hermannj314

3/9/2026 at 4:50:56 PM

some pigs vote

by jpfromlondon

3/9/2026 at 7:03:01 PM

I can understand and respect no meat people’s position (vegans etc), because it is consistent. Even if I disagree generally.

But how can I comprehend people who eat meat and okay with killing animals, but get outraged by so and so practices of growing them? Isn’t it a textbook definition of inconsistency and hypocrisy?

by aristofun

3/9/2026 at 8:48:11 PM

Where is the inconsistency in being ok with killing an animal and eating it and wanting the time leading up to their death to not be misery?

by xboxnolifes

3/9/2026 at 11:25:36 PM

How it can be more miserable than it already is - being animal slave from birth to guaranteed death (don’t tell me animals can’t feel it from adjacent room/building)?

by aristofun

3/9/2026 at 3:48:50 PM

Anyone who's ever looked after and cared for pigs knows that this is very-very cruel. I would do the same with those humans(?) who wants this. Greed over everything. Disgusting

by aquir

3/9/2026 at 3:27:31 PM

Farming practices are already absolutely terrible.

And for reasons of arbitrary weight increase, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ractopamine is used in the USA. Doesnt degrade when cooked, so humans also get fat from it amongst other bad side effects. Banned in most countries, but not the USA. This is also why pork export is banned in most countries.

I know 1 person who is "allergic to pork". But European pork is fine. Even Canadian pork is fine. But what's different with US pork? Ractopamine.

To me, this is yet another reason why capitalism initially was great at making an economy, but profit-seeking behavior gets legally and ethically worse and one trades ethics for money.

by nekusar

3/9/2026 at 3:49:29 PM

> I know 1 person who is "allergic to pork". But European pork is fine. Even Canadian pork is fine. But what's different with US pork? Ractopamine.

Ractopamine is used in Canada.

This sounds like a possible case of the nocebo effect: Someone experiences symptoms based on a belief that an ingredient is bad for them. When they consume the same thing without the belief that the ingredient is present, the effects are absent even though the ingredient is present.

This happens with people who believe they have WiFi sensitivity disorders, too. If you put them next to a WiFi router with blinking lights they will experience the pain of their condition. If you turn off the lights on the router but leave the WiFi transmitting, they stop feeling the effects.

by Aurornis

3/9/2026 at 3:41:30 PM

Ractopamine is authorized in Canada per the article you linked.

by bananalychee

3/9/2026 at 10:41:39 PM

Likely due to trade agreement, with a geological neighbour.

by shakna

3/9/2026 at 3:47:53 PM

Let's not let that pesky detail get in the way of the USA bad narrative he has going.

by 1234letshaveatw

3/9/2026 at 4:11:13 PM

Still banned China, Russia and the EU...

by enaaem

3/9/2026 at 4:23:43 PM

Looking at the stuff China puts in their food (like the actual instant noodles), definitely a red flag if even they ban it.

Generally I look at EU for what's good/bad to consume though. It's scary how much stuff is banned there that's in everyday US products.

by Insanity

3/9/2026 at 5:38:20 PM

I generally think that as well and so was surprised to read that they're planning to not label CRISPER fruits as such.

"European Union’s Parliament and Council, the bloc’s governing body, reached a provisional deal in December to “simplify” the process for marketing plants bred through new genomic techniques, such as by scrapping the need to label them any differently from conventional ones."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47271338

by jonah

3/9/2026 at 3:44:27 PM

This is fascinating to me. I am allergic to pork (or I would say intolerant, when I eat it I get a headache and/or stomach ache). But I did try a piece of wild boar once, and was fine after that. I will have to look into this!

by jedberg

3/9/2026 at 3:52:43 PM

> To me, this is yet another reason why capitalism initially was great at making an economy,

Initially it wasn't that great either if you were a slave or worked 14 hours a day .

by imjonse

3/9/2026 at 4:34:44 PM

Capitalism precludes slavery.

by akramachamarei

3/9/2026 at 5:00:08 PM

> Capitalism precludes slavery.

Hmm? Capitalism neither precludes nor predates slavery.

by quesera

3/9/2026 at 7:02:03 PM

Capitalism precisely precludes slavery. One of the most important and foundational of its principles is private property. The first, most natural, and universal instance of private property is the ownership of one's own body. Heck, we even have the phrase "private parts." Slavery requires the most basic violation of bodily autonomy. In other words, to permit slavery is to permit the violation of the most basic property right. I struggle to see how slavery could be compatible with capitalism.

by akramachamarei

3/9/2026 at 7:26:53 PM

Go ask kids forced to work for years in cocoa plants or coltan mins in africa what they think of your little explaination

by grimblee

3/9/2026 at 9:06:22 PM

you assume that capitalism implies that everyone gets to participate. but that is not a necessary condition. you can have a capitalist system where not everyone participates. slaves did not participate in capitalism, but their owners did. one might even argue that employees do not participate in capitalism either (i am not familiar enough with the specific definitions to state that with certainty however).

by em-bee

3/9/2026 at 4:10:02 PM

crates are wastefull , gestation tubes, amputate there irrelevant legs, and keep them in nice cozy tubes.

by metalman

3/9/2026 at 3:48:54 PM

[dead]

by aaron695

3/9/2026 at 4:06:02 PM

If the billionaires in power thought that they could grow their wealth 1% more by forcing the rest of us humans into gestation crates, they would do it in a heartbeat.

by ryandrake

3/9/2026 at 3:55:01 PM

I find it odd we need legislation to prevent this.

There are not enough consumers to care? Or maybe with legislation we get better outcomes due to scaling effects?

If we are willing to use legislation, could we tax such gestation crates, and use that tax revenue to breed unconscious pigs? Or find a way to disable consciousness in their brain? Or fund lab meat? I'm sure small labs are doing this, but if we are at the point of legislation, I imagine there is enough willpower to solve this problem rather than bandaids.

by butILoveLife

3/9/2026 at 3:58:05 PM

Consumers probably don't know all of the conditions involved in making any of the products they buy. That information is generally not on the label, and even environmental and conditions based labels are often vague and hard to interpret.

Also in an economy of rising costs, people are going to choose affordable options even if they might be vaguely aware of worse conditions happening somewhere else, far away from the grocery store aisle where they are making that choice for their family.

by stetrain

3/9/2026 at 4:08:26 PM

> If we are willing to use legislation, could we tax such gestation crates, and use that tax revenue to breed unconscious pigs? Or find a way to disable consciousness in their brain? Or fund lab meat?

This is the kind of "big government libertarian" thinking that you only find on HN. It's like virtue signalling but the virtue is contrarianism. What you've suggested is more complicated, less ethical, less effective, and likely to be opposed by just about everyone across the political spectrum.

by post-it

3/9/2026 at 7:50:56 PM

Lmao, you did describe me so hard.

But I think I'd push back that this is less ethical.

All sorts of things are unpopular, but the masses can't logic their way through it.

by butILoveLife

3/9/2026 at 4:34:52 PM

Everything you suggested are bandaids

by hackable_sand

3/9/2026 at 4:56:41 PM

Voters do care, in both blue and red states, they already passed laws in their state to this effect. This is the federal government invalidating those laws.

by Spivak

3/9/2026 at 3:48:50 PM

Does anyone else ever find it odd that in posts like this the person posts a sad picture of a pig instead of a screenshot of the page of the bill they're talking about?

I think "a provision that would condemn millions of pigs to a lifetime in gestation crates" is in fact horrific, however, outrage is the currency on places like X.

Posting a page number sounds specific, but then why not post the page (or quote it)? Particularly in any even remotely political environment where the default is "vote for (or oppose) this bill or you want [insert cute animal, baby, person, minority group] to die."

Just a tiny bit of source referencing could go a long way to help people better understand what you want them to support (or oppose).

by SunshineTheCat

3/9/2026 at 3:59:44 PM

fwiw, i found it helpful, i had no idea what a gestation crate is. i don’t think the photo is sad or manipulative, the sad part is what is being done to the pigs! and seeing a photo of what is done to the pigs is all i needed to make up my mind. it’s like the difference between posting a document that references “enhanced interrogation techniques” vs seeing a photo of what was actually done, it has a very different impact. i agree some kind of a citation would be nice though, so i don’t have to go digging about what to say when i contact my representative about.

by djcannabiz

3/9/2026 at 4:04:27 PM

Yeah, why would someone trying to drum up opposition to the measure show the real-world impacts of it instead of the (easily Googlable) dry legalese? Real thinker, there.

by lux-lux-lux

3/9/2026 at 3:50:09 PM

Whoa there - can’t shape public sentiment if you let people go read it for themselves.

by jagged-chisel