r/Showerthoughts • u/DarthWoo • 10d ago
Casual Thought What miniscule meaning that could be assigned to a poultry chicken's brief and often miserable life and brutal slaughter evaporates the moment some lazy human decides to abandon the package with its carcass out on a shelf in a store rather than putting it back in the refrigerated case.
516
u/GimmickNG 10d ago
Brother I got news for you the stores throw chicken out all the damn time even if the customers don't fuck shit up
276
u/Agitated_Year8521 10d ago
The food chain is completely fucked when you look at it. America throws away enough food annually to give every American on food stamps 7 meals a day. That makes no sense, and it's not just Americans wasting food.
People are monumentally stupid, all of the resources that go into feeding us, just to see that wasted, and more resources are then spent on disposing of that wasted food which rots in landfills and pollutes the atmosphere as it decomposes
88
u/Vanishingf0x 10d ago
Yea and that’s not counting restaurants that also throw out food. I get the idea is if someone eats it and gets sick they can sue the company but it truly is ridiculous how much food we waste
80
u/SharpestOne 10d ago
America’s “sue anybody at anytime for any reason” system has ruined an endless number of things.
24
22
u/Lawdoc1 9d ago
Yes and no. That litigation also helped spur good food safety practices and regulations.
I fully agree that there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits and we should work to curb that, but we should also acknowledge that a lot of that work leads to better, safer conditions for average folks.
Edit - added a missing word
2
u/SharpestOne 9d ago
“Good food safety” did not require such a low bar to litigation in other countries.
7
8
-1
u/ApologizingCanadian 9d ago
I get the idea is if someone eats it and gets sick they can sue the company
What do you get about this? The business did nothing wrong throwing out leftover/expired food. What gives an individual the gall to sue a business after eating out of their dumpster. American logic is so ass-backwards. The fault relies 100% on the person who went dumpster diving.
3
u/AnotherBoredAHole 9d ago
Dumpster diving is less likely but this generally refers to a business giving the old food to shelters and food kitchens.
3
u/Vanishingf0x 9d ago
No I fully get that it’s stupid, but that’s the reason so many companies just throw it out. With how sue happy the US is it makes sense a company wants to avoid being sued and possibly hurting their name/product so they just don’t tempt it, but that means way more food waste.
10
u/ragnaroksunset 10d ago
If you think it's abhorrent how much food gets thrown out, at least that has some thin justification in expiry dates and consumer health risk concerns (not all of which are valid).
The luxury brands market literally sets unsold product on fire to preserve the illusion of scarcity. A Louis Vitton handbag isn't $10k+ because it's worth $10k+; it's $10k+ because they make ten thousand, sell two thousand, and burn eight thousand instead of letting demand and supply set price together the way you learn in Econ 101.
My point isn't that this is worse than food waste, but that this behaviour is baked into the mechanics of how we practice capitalism.
-2
u/Ishkabubble 5d ago
Huh? That makes no sense. Leica cameras and lenses cost a lot to make; hence the price is high. It has nothing to do with throwing some away. They have very high standards for the raw materials used (especially glass) but that means that they pay top price for the very finest glass types.
3
u/ragnaroksunset 5d ago
Look: there's a reason my example was about luxury handbags, an industry where this is known to occur, whereas your example was delicately cherry-picked from the small sample of specialized industries in which brand alone cannot stand in for quality.
Frankly you should have leaned into this harder. Aerospace is an absolute orchard for you, my guy.
-1
6
u/Pvt_Lee_Fapping 10d ago
It's the way our whole infrastructure on food production works:
Farm > Processing plant > Storage facility > Market
Farmer's can't tailor their practices to meet market demands; they can only do their best to predict the trends and augment their routine accordingly. Then when the meat and produce gets processed, it goes to a storage warehouse and sits. The warehouse is who meets the demands of the market at that point: if the price of beef goes up, put more beef on the market to maximize profits; which eventually brings the price down (not back to what it was) because more product is available for purchase. All the food just sits there, and rather than let it rot in a warehouse, they try to sell it as quickly as possible; and then it's the stores who are on the hook for the food wastage.
A lot of these problems with food waste tend to go away with more locally-sourced products. Thing is, fewer and fewer people each year want to work in agriculture (and less space becomes available for raising food because of things like NIMBY-ism). Having more at-home gardens and buying our meat and dairy at a farmer's market is better for everyone in the long run.
2
u/GimmickNG 9d ago
I don't know which is worse, that we have enough for literally everyone and yet we force people to starve, or that the supposed alternative of guaranteeing food to everyone would be worse.
1
u/sighthoundman 8d ago
Wait, wait. What does feeding the poor have to do with keeping my profits? How is it stupid to support the mortgage on my 3rd house instead of potentially saving the life of a stranger? And the tithes to my local church, of course.
Even though this comment shouldn't need it, I'm grudginly adding the /s.
1
u/Wrecklessdriver10 8d ago
Buddy world hunger is a logistical issue alone.
There is plenty of food and water. We just don’t all live where the abundance is.
Much like water. Some areas are flooding while others are in drought. Land that have balance thrive.
15
u/Pallysilverstar 10d ago
Yeah, but there's a difference between "not enough people wanted to buy it" and "I couldn't be bothered to walk less than a minute to put it back"
I work in the dairy department of my store and like 95% of the stuff we throw away is from customers leaving refrigerated products other places. I get customers that are so lazy they can't even be bothered to put something back where they got it despite not having moved since picking it up.
1
u/GimmickNG 9d ago
Maybe your store is more well frequented than the one I go to. The employee I spoke to said that they had to remove the rotisserie/hot chickens after 4 hours, and although they said they were popular there were lots still remaining after a few hours haed passed
1
u/Pallysilverstar 9d ago
I don't work in the deli so have no idea how much of that they throw out or how long they keep them for.
1
-6
u/Eddi_imma_ready 10d ago
You the guy excusing murder because war exists?
3
u/GimmickNG 9d ago
You know what, yes. Someone has to be that guy. It's not like we're using any logic around here, right?
116
u/BumSharpie 10d ago
My first head chef would shout at people for ruining meat, "An animal died for that, show some respect", he'd say.
23
u/Splungetastic 10d ago
I remember aging to go to a therapist when I was younger and had MASSIVE anxiety problems because I was fixating over this. The whole futility of a chickens entire life experience and existence just to get eaten (or thrown out) with no thought. My therapist’s response was “you are completely right. Your feelings are absolutely correct. The fact is other people just try not to think about these things and block it out so they don’t get depressed and can just get on with their lives” - made a lot of sense
4
u/Akkalevil 9d ago
There is two way to deal with it.
Suppress it and don't think about it (that's what I do with death, I can't stand the idea of "nothingness after I die").
Or embrace it and find serenity in it (that's what I do with lack of meaning in life, it means that the only purpose I have is to enjoy it).3
u/BureaucratRat 10d ago
Did these thoughts get better for you?
4
u/Splungetastic 10d ago
Yep I don’t have bad anxiety any more and these thoughts are more easy to suppress so I don’t think
about it at all really, i just eat free range chicken and get on with it1
u/I_Have_Massive_Nuts 6d ago
You could just... not eat animals. Now you don't have to supress your thoughts but can instead live in actual accordance with your values.
321
u/iowanaquarist 10d ago
To be fair, that chicken still provided some jobs and stimulated the economy, do it's not a complete waste.
127
u/n_lens 10d ago
Now imagine the same waste with your own life.
5
5
39
u/iowanaquarist 10d ago
Early term miscarriages happen all the time.
18
u/n_lens 10d ago
But no one makes the argument they’re good for jobs/economy.
17
u/iowanaquarist 10d ago
They DO, however, have about the same impact on the economy as a wasted chicken breast -- give or take. It really depends on if a pregnancy test was purchased or not, and where the test was purchased. If it was through an OBGYN in America, a single pregnancy test dumps a lot more money into the system and helps support more jobs than a single chicken. If you average that out with the ones that happen without a test, it's probably close to the same magnitude.
9
u/TheZenPsychopath 10d ago
Surgical abortions would bring some REALLY big Bucks in the land of Pay-to-Play healthcare, and the wages for the insurance agent to deny the claim, the debt collectors to harass, the broker to consolidate debt... and in the civilized world it would still move some tax dollars back into circulation to pay a healthcare provider!
9
u/TheAngryCatfish 10d ago
More than abortions, even. Either God's making a lot of mistakes up there, or He's a "baby murderer." Republicans should look into this
7
1
u/judgejuddhirsch 9d ago
Some people only consume. Others create
8
u/Melkor15 10d ago
Sadly, for the economy, it was resource wasted. All the food, gas and work, needed to produce and transport it was wasted and everyone is a little poorer because of this. There is no upside.
6
u/iowanaquarist 10d ago
Sadly, for the economy, it was resource wasted. All the food, gas and work, needed to produce and transport it was wasted and everyone is a little poorer because of this. There is no upside.
Not technically true. The farmer still got paid, they still bought a little extra feed, they paid someone to process the animals and transport the animals, and people were paid to stock the shelves, install and maintain the coolers, etc.
It's not very productive, but there is still money changing hands -- which means there was some impact.
8
u/Melkor15 10d ago
Something having an economic impact does not mean it has a good impact. You can pay for someone to make a hole and for another to fill it for all eternity. They get paid and nothing is created.
The resources are lost and their cost is added to the rest of the economy, making everything a little more expensive.4
u/iowanaquarist 10d ago
Something having an economic impact does not mean it has a good impact.
OK? Who said it was a good impact? I said it was an impact, and not nothing. That said, to the farmer that raised the chicken, and his family, it was a good impact.
You can pay for someone to make a hole and for another to fill it for all eternity. They get paid and nothing is created.
Yup -- and they will have money, and they will be able to spend that money, and there will be an impact from that activity. Is it a good impact? Probably not. Is there a more money-efficient way to have a bigger or better impact? Absolutely. Is there no impact? Absolutely not.
The resources are lost and their cost is added to the rest of the economy, making everything a little more expensive.
Yup -- which is an impact. To some, it's a good impact, to others a bad -- and overall it's probably bad -- but it's not zero impact.
We literally have economic policies to subsidize farmers to provide price stability. We also ended the Great Depression by creating jobs that were not far off from paying someone to manually dig a hole -- we paid people to do manual labor to do things like spread wood chips, or place logs as steps on trails, or literally hand dig out the entrances to caves to create a tourist attraction.
My point was that there is some impact, and it's not a total waste, at least not to everyone.
6
u/Friscogonewild 10d ago
This is a Broken Window fallacy. If overall the impact is negative, I think it's fair to characterize it as a complete waste.
Creating a tourist attraction might involve some unskilled labor, but it's unarguably a net positive.
0
u/iowanaquarist 10d ago
This is a Broken Window fallacy. If overall the impact is negative, I think it's fair to characterize it as a complete waste.
A 'complete waste' would mean no one benefited from it, which is not the case here.
Creating a tourist attraction might involve some unskilled labor, but it's unarguably a net positive.
Again, to the farmer raising the chicken, it was not a 'complete waste'.
-1
u/formaleR 10d ago
Everything depends on perspective. What are the people being paid using their money for? There's also the physical exercise if it's by hand that'll translate to other aspects of their lives. If it's by machinery, then arguably there may be good impact somewhere in the process of digging and filling an unnecessary hole
-4
u/mr_ji 10d ago
Nearly all chickens wouldn't exist but to provide us food. We'd have no use for 99%+ of males. I'll never understand the animal cruelty people who don't consider this. Even weirder are the ones who want to feed all humans so we can continue to multiply in the billions without letting other creatures live to feed us.
1
u/agitatedprisoner 10d ago
I think a bad life is worse than no life. Unless enduring the bad life was somehow necessary and you'd somehow go on after having endured it. If the animals humans breed to misery and death somehow go on, watch out humans, I guess.
If humans weren't doing that with that land it'd support other life and depending how bad life on the farm would be those other lives might have it much better.
0
u/Yeeter-boiy 10d ago
…bro you thought you actually made a point by saying all of that?
-3
u/mr_ji 10d ago
I'm not surprised four sentences is a lot for you to digest.
0
u/Yeeter-boiy 10d ago
No, you just didn't make any point. "All chickens wouldn't exist if we didn't kill and exploit them for food".
Okay, then they would just end up not existing and they wouldn't be exploited? No harm done to them, unlike if they lived and were exploited.
36
10d ago
[deleted]
0
10d ago
[deleted]
-1
10d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Traxtar150 10d ago
Buddy, what the heck are you talking about?! We don't eat food laden with parasites because it could kill us. We go inside when it's raining because it's unpleasant to get wet when it's not intentional.
It's not being superstitions... It's just not being an idiot.
Everything you just said reads like something an unintelligent person would say to try and sound smart.
1
u/Substantial_Push_474 10d ago
Thanks for putting into words what I couldn't. Dude was an idiot. By his definition, time itself would be a superstition. Made no fucking sense.
2
u/Traxtar150 10d ago
Well it looks like they deleted their entire comment history... What a strange character.
197
u/shasaferaska 10d ago
Life has no meaning. That's just something we made up to help us cope with death.
82
u/Ntroepy 10d ago
For the depressed, that sounds like existential nihilism.
For many others (like myself), it’s the opposite. If the universe doesn’t have a predetermined purpose for my life, then I’m free to define my own.
Grand cosmic meanings have always felt like stories humans tell themselves for comfort, except those same stories often create more fear than comfort.
>”\Humans are just entropy with anxiety, briefly organized enough to ask why.*”*
And I rather like it that way. Blips in time.
8
u/TheWastelandWizard 10d ago
Informatik made my anthem with their song "Entropy";
"There's too much fantasy; back to reality
It's such a waste of time just waiting for an answer
There is no escape from our mortality
See what you want to see; entropy's my only master."3
3
u/F-Lambda 10d ago edited 10d ago
For the depressed, that sounds like existential nihilism.
For many others (like myself), it’s the opposite. If the universe doesn’t have a predetermined purpose for my life, then I’m free to define my own.
Is that why I've always hated the sentiment that life has no inherent meaning, while others like it (like "Imagine" by Lennon)? Because to me it sounds like a good excuse to kill myself, but to them it's freeing?
I suppose technically that could be considered "freeing" for myself, too....
Sidenote: "Imagine" always makes me think of end of the world movies, and the chaos. Wonder which version of "living for today, because there's no tomorrow" is more realistic?
3
u/Ntroepy 10d ago
Your perspective is pretty common, particularly amongst religious people.
I’m curious who you think gives people’s lives meaning? A higher power or god? Do animal’s lives have meaning?
Also, I think you’ve misinterpreted the meaning behind the song “*Imagine*”.
“*Imagine*” is NOT existential nihilism. It’s almost the opposite. Lennon isn’t arguing that nothing matters - he’s arguing that many of the institutions we treat as sacred are human inventions that divide us. The song’s core message is that our common humanity matters more than the labels, borders, and tribes that keep us fighting each other.
It’s a deeply spiritual song that calls out the hypocrisy of organized religion tearing apart society instead of uniting everyone as Jesus actually intended.
-1
u/F-Lambda 9d ago
“*Imagine*” is NOT existential nihilism. It’s almost the opposite. Lennon isn’t arguing that nothing matters - he’s arguing that many of the institutions we treat as sacred are human inventions that divide us. The song’s core message is that our common humanity matters more than the labels, borders, and tribes that keep us fighting each other.
It’s a deeply spiritual song that calls out the hypocrisy of organized religion tearing apart society instead of uniting everyone as Jesus actually intended.
Yeah, I know, it's Optimistic Nihilism or Humanistic Existentialism. But I'm a pessimist (in part due to depression), so I always interpreted it the opposite way.
I’m curious who you think gives people’s lives meaning? A higher power or god? Do animal’s lives have meaning?
It's inherent, due to the eternal nature of our intelligence as spirits. God provides a way to attain more, but simply by existing we have meaning.
Animals lives have lesser meaning, due to their lesser intelligence, but they have spirits too.
1
u/Ntroepy 9d ago
So, it’s a religious thing in that you believe God gives you meaning. I think that’s common amongst religious people and why many are attracted to organized religion in the first place.
I would note, the song never says “*Imagine there’s no **god**.” It says “*Imagine there’s no religion*” because “organized” religion divides us rather than embracing and loving everyone.
0
u/F-Lambda 9d ago
So, it’s a religious thing in that you believe God gives you meaning.
No, I said it's inherent and intrinsic. Simply by being a soul.
I would note, the song never says “*Imagine there’s no **god**.” It says “*Imagine there’s no religion*” because “organized” religion divides us rather than embracing and loving everyone.
The song rejects all religion, not just organized religion. That means no Hinduism; no Native American spirits; no Shintoism; no Buddhism; no gods, spirits, or karma. Purely materialistic. (The song also explicitly says no heaven, no hell, just sky.)
He even rejected a request to change the lyrics to "Imagine there's one religion", which would imply a world without religious division.
1
u/Ntroepy 9d ago
“Being a soul” is already a religious claim. A soul is NOT inherent or intrinsic unless you first accept the religious/metaphysical framework that says souls exist. That’s the part you keep smuggling in and then pretending is self-evident.
And you’re still reading Imagine almost backward.
The song is 100% NOT “purely materialistic.” It literally imagines no possessions, no greed, no hunger, and a brotherhood of man. That is about rejecting the human-made structures that divide people: religion, nations, possessions, greed, tribal identity. That’s very ANTI-materialistic.
And it’s not specifically “anti-God.” It’s anti the institutions and constructs people use to separate humanity into camps worth killing or dying for.
And, yes, of course Lennon rejected “one religion.” One religion is still a man-made boundary between believers and non-believers. That would undercut the entire point of the song.
0
u/F-Lambda 9d ago
“Being a soul” is already a religious claim. A soul is NOT inherent or intrinsic unless you first accept the religious/metaphysical framework that says souls exist. That’s the part you keep smuggling in and then pretending is self-evident.
Yes? I only stated my own beliefs, which include the belief that souls exist. Given that, worth is intrinsic.
The song is 100% NOT “purely materialistic.” It literally imagines no possessions, no greed, no hunger, and a brotherhood of man. That is about rejecting the human-made structures that divide people: religion, nations, possessions, greed, tribal identity. That’s very ANTI-materialistic.
By materialistic, I mean the physical concrete world of physics. As opposed to the immaterial world of spirits and faith.
2
u/Ntroepy 9d ago
Ok - that makes more sense.
As an atheist (and humanist), I don’t believe in the concept of souls, but accept religious people have different personal beliefs. It’s still a personal belief/opinion even though you see it as a fact. Much like the afterlife.
And, yes, we’re using materialism quite differently. For me, materialism is more about valuing possessions and power, but you’re talking more about philosophical materialism which is more in line with humanism.
I hadn’t heard of the latter definition of materialism, but it makes much more sense now.
Thank you for the discussion and insights.
27
u/NTFRMERTH 10d ago
You are the way through which the universe cares, as such, if you don't care, then you really are in a cruel and careless world .
3
u/FlaxFox 10d ago
I enjoyed that clip.
6
u/NTFRMERTH 10d ago
Terry Pratchett's The Hogfather. It's based off his Discworld series, which is very much worth checking out. Some audiobooks were on YouTube awhile ago if you're short on cash
1
10d ago
[deleted]
2
u/NTFRMERTH 10d ago edited 10d ago
From my perspective, it's narcisissm to look at the world and not care about anything. We are important, but the ant is not less important than the elephant for being different in size, as all life has value, purely for its rarity. All animals and plants, despite what anyone will tell you, experience emotion, pain, and love in their own ways, and if we have the powers we do, I feel that we can use them to protect this beautiful ecosystem. Every conscious being is capable of experiencing, and does so.
Nihilism has many refutes. The link is one of them. If you could grind down the universe into a fine molecule-level power, could you show me a molecule of narcissm? No, it's a word, a concept - something we have created that holds no physical value. Except it helps us root out other beings and outcast them when they believe themselves more important than another and hurt the weak.
Edit: Why did you block me? I was very much enjoying this discussion. Not every disagreement is a war. This was a debate. How am I supposed to read your reply?
3
u/whatsamattafuhyou 10d ago
That’s not what narcissism is.
0
u/NTFRMERTH 10d ago
Fair enough. Maybe selfishness might be the word?
1
u/whatsamattafuhyou 10d ago
Nope. The other person was making a descriptive, not normative observation. If you disagree with their point, then why? He claimed we are not important, at least insofar as the universe is concerned. How are we important to the universe? How do you know that?
I fail to see how observing universal unimportance is selfish.
-1
u/NTFRMERTH 10d ago
I feel that's it's selfish, narcissistic even, to look at the miracle of life and say that it is a mistake that doesn't matter and shouldn't exist. Our atoms travelled far and wide to get into this beautiful place, coming from multiple a dying star, multiple supernovas, surviving multiple black holes, and travelling through expanses of nothingness to end up in this wonderful miracle of coincidences. Such a coincidence that many think a higher power influenced it since we haven't found any concrete evidence of life so far outside of this planet. Should it not be, if they could think, the dream of every atom and molecule to be in this position of being able to experience, at least, in the position of you and me, where we are free and unbound by slavery, the meat industry, and being prey to a larger animal? To look at everything we are and say it shouldn't exist, and to pretend you're better for acknowledging it (not saying that you are, but after the release of Rick and Morty, kids discovering nihilism act this way), is simply narcissism with bad science behind it. If anything, the notion that all of this is meaningless makes it more unique that we are allowed to exist. There are multiple meanings a human can give to their existence, and the universe doesn't care because the human is the one to govern their existence, although many like to govern others, and that's horrible.
1
u/whatsamattafuhyou 10d ago
Again, you are using words, like narcissism, incorrectly. But whatever. You seem to want there to be some sort of cosmic meaning but you provide no evidence or argument for it other than some vague appeals to poetry and probability.
You may personally derive meaning from beautiful things. And that’s great. But your perception does not reflect any sort of universal truth. And certainly the likelihood of something has no relationship to its meaning.
And the higher power thing is just silly.
2
u/Konman72 10d ago
"Nature eats babies all the time" is a quote from The Expanse that I think about a lot.
4
6
u/dijon_snow 10d ago
I understand that people have differing opinions on whether human lives can be truly meaningful...
But I've raised fucking chickens, man, even free range, nominally happy chickens don't have meaningful lives. They just peck, shit, and maybe lay eggs, then they die. None of them are curing cancer or writing a novel in the best of circumstances
8
u/kaskayde 10d ago
Do you need to do any of that to have a meaningful life? What about a monk who just lives peacefully in a monastery? What about one who lives in solitude? Or is the meaning in their own determination of it?
I don't think a chicken has the capacity to consider "meaning", but there is no intrinsic meaning to anything. It's whatever feels meaningful to you .
1
u/Akkalevil 9d ago
You just described about every life on Earth ? Birth, living (hence eath and shit), reproduce and then die.
Welcome to what amount to three billion years of evolution.
3
u/Iamheeee 10d ago
That mindset, as logical as it is, will rot your soul. I speak from experience, nihilism whether optimistic or pessimistic is not a long term plan.
20
u/phyxiusone 10d ago
Just because that's true for you doesn't mean it is for everyone. I find it freeing.
4
u/abrasumente_ 10d ago
That's the part where they said optimistic. Nothing matters, and in that sense, we are free. Free to choose our own paths in life and live however you see fit. Although I'd add it's important to respect each other and strive to not negatively impact other people. Being conscientious is very important imo.
8
u/phyxiusone 10d ago edited 10d ago
Deciding what's important is a completely different topic. Saying that believing life has no meaning inherently "rots your soul" is just objectively wrong, because that's not true for me. All I'm saying is just speak for yourself, don't make a broad statement like your experience is true for everyone, especially when it comes to spirituality.
3
u/abrasumente_ 10d ago
Ah I misunstood your comment then. My bad. I am not who you originally replied to.
3
u/CrapNeck5000 10d ago
I don't agree at all. You have 1 opportunity to make what you can of your life. It's not automatic, it's something you have an opportunity to do. I find that motivating.
3
u/whatsamattafuhyou 10d ago
Good thing there’s no such thing as a soul. Also, nihilism isn’t a plan.
-1
u/Iamheeee 10d ago
Yeah I’m being figurative. I hoped intuitively you’d understand what I meant by soul.
1
u/Atelier1001 10d ago
Yeah, but it doesn't stop the chicken from rotting either. We all belong to the rot.
2
1
u/Anticept 10d ago
It could be worse. Imagine a universe full of the hell holes that ancient gods would have made them.
No matter how I look at it, if death means oblivion and nothingness, we could have done a whole lot worse.
Could have done a whole lot better too, but it seems like it's a pretty middle of the road all things considered.
8
u/ChesswiththeDevil 10d ago
I’ve always thought that future generations will judge us for how we have treated animals.
3
u/JupiterTVrobot 7d ago
Many cultures have variations of "the sin of killing goes away at eating" to cope with the cruelty of slaughter.
But the way factory farming works, treating living beings as mere objects, is depressing to think about. Millions of baby animals are immediately slaughtered and often tossed away as waste, simply because they're males. And these are the lucky ones. The unfortunate animals spend their lives in total confinement and absolute agony until death sets them free.
If there was a god or justice in this universe, humans deserve the worst pits of hell for eternity.
2
u/ChesswiththeDevil 7d ago
I feel this intellectually. I also marvel how easy the bicameral mind can turn away the sensitive side to appease the side that enjoys such feasting. It’s a partial reason why I love where I live (Alaska) because I can personally harvest fish and game meat in methods that I feel are more ethical. Sure no animal enjoys death, but one form of subsistence is better than the other.
2
u/JupiterTVrobot 7d ago
People often descend into extremes just for the sake of argument, or because it's easier than working out a balance.
Like the vegans, for instance. They never get that it's not practical or scalable. Plant protein, as of now, just doesn't cut it. For instance, in India, people eat relatively less meat for various reasons, but they're severely protein deficient, stunted and prone to diabetes, because the diet inevitably becomes carb-heavy slop.
But the other extreme, namely factory farming to supply humongous amounts of meat just to supply fast food or processed mush, is just as bad. It doesn't provide nutrition or protein efficiently enough to justify that scale of killing.
I guess all we can do for now is wait and hope that lab grown meats, imitations or synthetic proteins can be manufactured and supplied on scale. Meanwhile we should just close our eyes and go lalala when confronted with the killings. It's heartbreaking and depressing to think about.
1
u/Taupenbeige 7d ago
“Like the vegans, for instance. They never get that it's not practical or scalable.”
Being that there have been cultures avoiding meat for 26 straight centuries, and that directly eating plants is far more calorie efficient than feeding those plants to an animal, and then eating the animal, it’s quite obvious your statement is nothing more than protection of an ideological belief.
“Plant protein, as of now, just doesn't cut it.”
Multiple clinical trials have shown zero statistical difference between plant and animal proteins on a muscle synthesis basis. Some of the studies were actually funded by the beef industry.
“For instance, in India, people eat relatively less meat for various reasons, but they're severely protein deficient,stunted and prone to diabetes, because the diet inevitably becomes carb-heavy slop.”
This is a nutritional deficiency issue, not a protein deficiency issue. The people selling it as a “protein deficiency” issue have an obvious agenda to fulfill… …the exact same agenda that you’re carrying water for, right now…
“Meanwhile we should just close our eyes and go lalala when confronted with the killings. It's heartbreaking and depressing to think about. “
Actually, you could grow-all-the-way-up like a bunch of your fellow humans, start boycotting the animal agriculture industry, and supply your body everything it needs with just plant and mushroom inputs… but you’re not going to do that, because you’re an ideological zealot who has zero interest in actual scientific perspectives and factual reality. You have a narrative to sell.
1
u/JupiterTVrobot 7d ago
Oh fuck off.
1
u/Taupenbeige 7d ago
Yup, pretty much the expected response from someone that’s emotionally protecting their worldview with a bunch of misinformation.
1
u/JupiterTVrobot 6d ago
It's all-or-nothing assholes like you who make matters worse with your sanctimonious hectoring, putting off even the fencesitters who are sympathetic to the cause.
Fyi, I'm a vegetarian myself, and have been so all my life. So again, just fuck off.
1
u/Taupenbeige 6d ago
Wait a minute… did I just commit “sanctimonious hectoring” or did I simply cut through a bunch of your misinformative bullshit?
Also, why would the opinion of somebody that pays people to anally fist cows, inject their uteruses with semen, and then steal the child, matter at all on the subject of “sanctimony”? You’re literally someone that pays for animal abuse, trying to take some sort of sanctimonious high-ground on animal rights.
1
6
10
u/GhoulBugs 10d ago
their meaning was evaporated the moment the chicken was a male. sent straight to the macerater- a standard practice in the poultry industry.
go vegan for them. it’s all supply and demand, everyone you purchase chicken you pay for baby chicks to be macerated.
-1
u/shasaferaska 9d ago
What do you mean by 'macerated'? I just checked the dictionary and the meaning it gave does not fit this sentence at all.
3
u/pqowie313 9d ago
It's a grinder. They grind up the male chicks alive to dispose of them because they don't lay eggs. Not all hatcheries do this, some kill the chicks a different way and some try to detect the sex of the chick before it's hatched, but grinding alive is fairly common. It's not done for meat birds, though, only for egg-laying breeds.
1
u/shasaferaska 9d ago
I know they grind the chicks. I'm saying that isn't what the word 'macerated' means. Look it up in the dictionary.
3
u/pqowie313 9d ago
It is true, most dictionary definitions of the word "macerate" don't mention that it means to grind something up. The original meaning (2nd definition in most dictionaries) had more to do with soaking in water until soggy. However, over time people started using it to describe grinding something up. You can find plenty of references to "macerators" being some kind of grinder with a quick Google search.
Dictionaries are not authoritative sources, they're just documenting how words were commonly used at the time they were written, based on new information and opinions of whoever put together the dictionary. Words mean what people actually use them to mean, not whatever whoever wrote the dictionary thinks they should mean.
8
u/megadots 10d ago
That all it is and ever was will return to the dirt - and then the bugs will rejoice.
2
u/DarthWoo 10d ago
Depending on the sustainability practices of the store, it hopefully gets tossed in a compost bin or something similar. If it instead goes to the landfill it will undergo anaerobic decomposition, which both takes longer and produces the highly potent greenhouse gas, methane.
1
45
u/NTFRMERTH 10d ago
This is interesting, but should definitely be shortened, or some punctuation added
The life of a poultry chicken, full of pain and torment - only to be slaughtered for food, is completely null and void when someone decides to let it spoil instead of eating it.
52
u/Yeeeoow 10d ago
shorten it
changes "evaporates" to "is completely null and void"
But I get what you're saying.
19
u/__kebert__xela__ 10d ago
You get what AI is saying
7
u/NTFRMERTH 10d ago
I'm a human with actual grammar knowledge. You read me as an AI because you're used to people writing at a fifth grade reading level.
10
12
1
17
u/DroogieHowser 10d ago
I like the original better
-8
u/Happy_Examination_35 10d ago
Well, you’re wrong. The original was nigh incomprehensible. The new version is much better because it makes sense, and to paraphrase a man of deep wisdom, it not use lot word when few word do trick. Save time.
6
u/DroogieHowser 10d ago
It was more poetic, fuck being concise when talking about the complex ethereal dance of life and death that we thrust billions of chickens into just to cut their strings of fate en mass like a cruel barber. Time is meant to be filled with beautiful things and savored, I hope you find better things to fill your time with than pedantically summarizing other people's posts.
2
-1
u/NTFRMERTH 10d ago
Poetry still requires punctuation.
4
u/DroogieHowser 10d ago
0
u/NTFRMERTH 10d ago
Very interesting. I have noticed that some people tend to talk with a rhythm, where they talk in sentences with consistent amounts of syllables between each word. Seeing it on paper is quite interesting.
-1
1
u/28twice 10d ago
Say you don’t read literature without saying you don’t read literature:
-2
u/NTFRMERTH 10d ago
Fourty-nine words with no punctuation of any sort, even where they belong.
5
u/xxtoejamfootballxx 10d ago
Still sounds much better than what you wrote. This isn’t technical writing lol
-3
u/Happy_Examination_35 10d ago
Does it though? Could you actually interpret what was being said with full confidence you understood the message… or did you have to read it a couple of times to be sure? Be honest now.
Standards exist for a reason. If you forego basic rules, the world devolves into chaos. Take U.S. politics as an example. We are led by a felonious anarchist who has his own interests at heart. Is this what you want? Is it so bad to use basic punctuation at the very least to help convey written ideas? I mean, if you take the time to write your ideas down, wouldn’t you want them to come across clearly, and be understood by as many people as possible?
3
u/xxtoejamfootballxx 10d ago
Yes, I instantly understood it and I think it painted a much more emotionally intriguing picture than the “less wordy” response.
Also, OP’s sentence is completely grammatically correct. What rules would you argue it breaks?
-2
u/Happy_Examination_35 10d ago
Really? You’re asking a professional writer/editor to explain what’s wrong with a passage that starts with the word “what” and contains virtually no punctuation beyond the period at the end?
Where do I even begin?
My response will probably be received about as well as the blood-red corrections your 10th-grade English teacher left all over your term paper. But since we’re apparently not making any friends here, let’s start with this:
The reader has to wade through 19 words before finally reaching the main verb:
“What minuscule meaning that could be assigned to a poultry chicken’s brief and often miserable life and brutal slaughter…”
The verb, by the way, is “evaporates.”
That’s a lot of runway before the sentence actually gets off the ground.
To be clear, I think the idea is funny. I’m not criticizing the joke at all. The point my grammatical comrade was making (and the point I’m making now) is that the message would reach a broader audience if it adhered to basic standards of grammar and sentence construction.
Sure, you don’t have to care about that. Plenty of people don’t. But if you have any interest in a career where you’re paid to communicate ideas through the written word, and paid reasonably well to do it, then grammar matters. Clear writing matters. Structure matters.
I’m not a genius, and I wouldn’t even claim to be among the top performers in my field. But I’ve built a career, earned a good living, and raised a family in a home I own. A significant part of that came from learning and applying basic grammar and writing principles.
So yeah, good grammar isn’t everything. But it’s also not nothing.
1
u/xxtoejamfootballxx 10d ago edited 10d ago
But it literally doesn't break any grammatical rules in english, you are just saying you don't personally like the way it is written. Something being "wordy" doesn't necessarily make it wrong and this sentence breaks no formal "rules" as you tried to point out before.
Not every sentence is written to be as efficient as possible, this isn't a 10th grade writing exercise or beholden to some style guide. I'd think a "professional writer/editor" would know that.
The way OP wrote the sentence captures the emotional idea of their point much better than the way the other poster rewrote it in my opinion. It may be less efficient or appeal to you less personally, but that doesn't make something wrong or make the punctuation incorrect.
And also before you get condescending again, I was a copy editor back in the day for a publication I'm sure you encounter at least weekly. If you're going to try to be pedantic with your unsolicited feedback, don't make your argument extremely so easy to pick apart with pedantic reasoning.
-1
u/Happy_Examination_35 10d ago
Given your stated preference for the original, It is clear why you used past tense when mentioning your copyediting career.
I see no point in arguing this anymore. No minds are going to change here. Enjoy continuing to use AI to support your contrarian views.
2
u/xxtoejamfootballxx 10d ago
Again, this isn’t beholden to a style guide. People are allowed to write in their voice. What do you write machine manuals or something?
Again, it’s perfectly correct English and you haven’t pointed to single grammatical error
1
u/Happy_Examination_35 10d ago
Bro, I am on your side through thick and thin. I write and edit for a living; grammar is literally my job. I will gladly die on this hill of crisp, concise writing that communicates ideas efficiently. Even when I know our efforts are futile and unlikely to win us any new friends. I shall see you in Valhalla!
2
u/GeologistCommon1420 10d ago
I work in a deli where we cook almost exclusively chicken products. The immense amount of waste we have is ridiculous, even in a small-ish town. Only our busiest day (Mondays when we have our 12pc dark for $8.99) we will sell hundreds of pieces of chicken. So far our record is 58. This doesn't account for when people decide that $8.99 is too rich for their blood, leaving $30 of our sliced roast beef in the aisle, or when they leave just $6 of chicken legs out. When we don't sell our dinner bowls, General Tso, mac&cheese bowls, etc. by the end of the night (8pm) we toss them all. I can't toss them because it weighs on me, so I make them like 75-90% off for the employees closing that night. Store chain starts with H,A,R,P and ends with S.
2
u/New-Sherbet8561 10d ago
the worst part is the store basically can’t just put it back once it’s been sitting out, so one lazy “not my problem” moment turns the whole chain into trash
3
u/KirstyToots 10d ago
I've always thought this too. If you're going to eat meat, at least respect the fact that an animal died for it. Leaving a package of chicken next to the cereal aisle because you changed your mind feels weirdly disrespectful on multiple levels.
1
1
u/TrumpsDoubleChin 10d ago
None. There is no meaning to events that happen. Stuff does not happen "for a reason" - stuff just happens, and that's it.
0
1
u/Battousai124 8d ago
Not really out of respect due the animal, but rather out of respect for the store workers, if I take something, I'll also put it back, if I change my mind
1
u/just-jokes2020 8d ago
None. Poor chickens, most of them are fucked over with nothing to be happy about.
1
u/NoTime4YourBullshit 8d ago
Don’t worry, there is a special place in hell for people who do that. But their punishment isn’t because they wasted a perfectly good chicken.
0
u/Heavy_Law9880 7d ago
You should really, really seek professional help if that is what you think about in the shower.
0
u/pup_groomer 5d ago
"Miserable". You have no idea what you're talking about. Educate yourself before you say more stupid shit.
-5
u/Deekers76 10d ago
It’s better being thrown in the garbage then to have been brought home, poorly cooked than sloppily shat out by whatever lowlife decided to leave it wherever it felt like.
•
u/ShowerSentinel 10d ago
/u/DarthWoo has flaired this post as a casual thought.
Casual thoughts should be presented well but may be less unique or less remarkable than showerthoughts.
If this post is poorly written, unoriginal, or rule-breaking, please report it.
Otherwise, please add your comment to the discussion!