usernamesAreTricky @ usernamesAreTricky @lemmy.ml

Posts

706

Comments

1,227

Joined

2 yr. ago

Unfortunately this is far from a US only thing. It is worse in the US, but it's still everywhere. Factory farming is rather high globally, including Canada where I'm going to assume you are from based on your instance

It’s estimated that three-quarters – 74% – of land livestock are factory-farmed. That means that at any given time, around 23 billion animals are on these farms.

[...]

Combine land animals and fish, and the final estimate comes to 94% of livestock living on factory farms

https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-are-factory-farmed

It is a pervasive myth, supported by misleading industry advertising, that Canada does not have factory farms. Canada does, in fact, have factory farms, with the average chicken farm housing as many as 36,000 chickens.

https://mercyforanimals.org/blog/canada-chicken-farming-2024/

Like many Republican lead US-states, various conservative lead Canadian provinces have also tried put Ag-gag laws in place to limit filming of factory farms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag#Canada

That is missing what I am saying entirely. Argue with the logic, please, instead of a false interpenetration. The exact categories are not relevant to what I am saying at all. What matters is that the reasoning could be used to justify difference between categorization of humans that you think shouldn't be morally relvent

Those are examples of the conclusion the flawed logic (difference = inherently justifying different treatment) could be used to justify. So I am saying we should reject the premise because of what the same logic can justify

This is rather circular reasoning. You are saying humans only matter because some humans say only humans matter

If we can just declare ethics excludes any group inherently because I said so, then that can lead to pretty bad conclusions

Not the person you are replying to, but that's not what the point of the name the trait question is about. It is not about distinguishing between species

Why are humans morally considered is not asking why humans are human. Asking why one doesn't morally consider chickens is not asking why chickens are chickens

It is about distinguishing between what matters to ethics. It's not a trait that makes them chickens vs humans. It's about a trait or set of traits that makes someone morally considered

Declaring that humans and chickens are distinct is not sufficient to say to they deserve radically different ethical consideration. Otherwise you are just saying that difference itself = justifying different ethical consideration, which is highly flawed. You could for instance, use that to say any group of humans are distinct in some way and thus deserve different moral consideration. Be it by gender, skin tone, etc.

Since you asked that made me actually reverse image search it to double check it was originally where I thought it was from. It was not, and now I am not sure where exactly it's originally from. The oldest version I found was from a blog from 2008, but on that post the file metadata says the photo was from May 11th, 2004

The factory farming definition they use is more specific than that. It's based on the numbers per location

There's not really much crab farming in the US in general. It's basically all wild caught which has it's own negatives to the environment like overfishing. It's more of a thing in other parts of the world like South East Asia

Still at fairly high densities from what I can tell though not necessarily always as insane as the photos I showed earlier

The definitions of factory farming they use here are based on the number of individuals per location. There are other metrics you may object to for the rest of that 25% too

For instance

Despite the consumer demand, however, approximately 95% of the cattle in the United States continue to be finished, or fattened, on grain for the last 160 to 180 days of life (~25 to 30% of their life), on average

https://extension.psu.edu/grass-fed-beef-production

I should also note that without demand for US beef and dairy production and consumption decreasing that's not something that can change all that much because there just isn't enough land for it

We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates

[…]

If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

Treat that more as a rounded figure since data is less precise on fish. Anything that's not at that density would a rounding error at most. The densities of farmed fish are truly insane - usually far above the already high densities you see for land animals. The high level of concentration is not only terrible for the fish themselves, but also leads to huge pollution. Putting an unnaturally high count of fish in one area heavily concentrates their output

Parasite and disease rates are also super high. High usage of antibiotics in fish farming also lead to stuff like antibiotic resistance

I could keep going, but instead I'll just show some photos of the absurd densities:

There's one important detail that you might be missing here: Republicans are coming for the filibuster indirectly despite profusely saying how much they valued preserving senate rules

They are overriding the senate parliamentarian to do this. They are carving out the filibuster without saying they're doing so. Right now it's on some more technical details, but they are setting precedent that they can ignore the parliamentarian. The senate parliamentarian is the one who decides what counts as budget related for reconciliation (which is used as a narrow way around the filibuster strictly for budget). If they can just declare anything budget related and ignore the parliamentarian, they can push all kinds of stuff through that they otherwise couldn't get through now

Through the series of votes Wednesday, Republicans set precedent for the Senate to reject the state EPA waivers with a simple majority vote. They made that move even after the Senate parliamentarian agreed with the Government Accountability Office that California’s policies are not subject to the Congressional Review Act, a law that allows Congress to reject federal regulations under certain circumstances

AI detectors are massively flawed. They have terrible accuracy and have high numbers of false positives. Especially over short bodies of text like parts of one page

Same time as they dropped charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for the same exact thing at the same event. They know these charges are BS. There is no logical reason to be putting these charges, especially a week later, other than intimidation

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/ras-baraka-charge-dropped-alina-habba/

You can use xcancel or other nitter mirrors like

https://xcancel.com/atrupar/status/1922680043332878521

Same person is also on Bluesky and made an identical post there

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lp5dvd4j4d2c

Overall in net, there is not much way around the fact that we have to reduce consumption and production of fish to end overfishing. Even fish farms often use wild caught fish as feed

Labels that get funding by producers paying to have them tend to not work out well. Massive conflict of interests emerge. Here's some articles ranging from 2013 to 2023 showing different problems with the MSC's labels

Scores of organisations have expressed concern that the MSC’s certification process does not properly account for bycatch, particularly of sharks and cetaceans. In 2018, a group of 66 conservation groups and academics accused the MSC of not paying enough attention to the protection of species not specifically targeted by fisheries.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/26/blue-ticked-off-the-controversy-over-the-msc-fish-ecolabel

Report: Half of MSC-certified ‘sustainable’ tuna caught with controversial gear

Biologist Susanna Fuller, co-director of marine programs at Canada's Ecology Action Centre, agrees. "We know ... that blue stamp doesn't mean that you're sustainable," she says. When asked if consumers should choose MSC-labeled seafood, Fuller pauses. "It's a gamble," she says.

https://www.npr.org/2013/02/11/171376509/is-sustainable-labeled-seafood-really-sustainable

State & local dem parties have, generally speaking, been better about standing up compared to the national party

Obviously not 100% of them, but certainly a lot more

See: States limiting involvement with ICE, tons of state AGs suing trump, Maine's Governor directly challenging trump's anti trans actions and winning, NY Governor challenging trump's threats on pulling congesting pricing, Illinois Governor signing an EO to limit the state's sharing of any Autism data with the federal government after RFK's registry comments, etc.

Unclear, but in any case I think this was more of a sign they were spooked by the pushback. People showed up to protest right away, and planned to stay at the protests until he was freed

Remember that we the people have power

Update, has been released from custody

https://www.northjersey.com/videos/news/essex/2025/05/09/newark-nj-mayor-ras-baraka-released-from-custody/83545443007/

As an update to this, they now have fully released her following a judge ordering her immediate release! Here she is speaking to supporters

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/bail-hearing-tufts-student-rumeysa-ozturk-detained-in-louisiana/3708999/

Maybe, maybe not. Don't assume it's a given that they will ignore it. This is not a defense of this administration. This is a reminder against always having the hopelessness that this administration wants us all to have. They want us to assume all fights are hopeless so we don't fight them

While they have very notably been ignoring the order on Abrego Garcia, they have followed some of the court order in other related cases like this

For instance, a week ago ICE released Columbia pro-Palestine activist Mohsen Mahdawi from detention after a judge ordered immediate release. Here's a photo of him leaving

Fish farms are not the environmental win they claim themselves to be. They can sometimes actually make things worse because they'll often take wild caught fish as feed too!

The sheer quantity of wild fish used in salmon farms is also a growing concern. About a fifth of the world’s annual wild fish catch, amounting to about 18m tonnes of wild fish a year, is used to make fishmeal and fish oil, of which about 70% goes to fish farms

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/11/global-salmon-farming-harming-marine-life-and-costing-billions-in-damage

Environmental impact is not limited to salmon farming either. All kinds of fish farms dumps large amounts of waste into the environment

For a world annual shrimp production [in fish farms] of around 5 million tons, 5.5 million tons of organic matter, 360,000 tons of nitrogen, and 125,000 tons of phosphorous are annually discharged to the environment https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3353277/

They can also drive deforestation in some parts of the world too

Conversion to aquaculture is the most prevalent driver of mangrove deforestation across the tropics over the last 50 years generating substantial carbon emissions. Preventing further aquaculture expansion within mangrove forest areas will be essential to achieve national emission reduction targets in mangrove-holding countries.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.14774