yeah if it was about empathy they'd be trying to give them a good environment in the real world instead of developing VR for cows...
this shit is more dystopian than the Matrix because the machines were at least doing the rational thing
humans can't stop irrationally draining our only planet of life
this cow VR is only rational in the narrow view of only maximizing profits, but it comes at the obvious expense of the externalities wasting resources on cow VR instead of making a real pasture ecosystem that can make happy cows, capture carbon, and regenerate topsoil (research the rate of topsoil erosion in the world, it's scary and seriously underreported)
Disagree. There's no way this is cost effective and it's basically just theater that anthropomorphizes what a human thinks would make a cow happy.
Cows don't know what VR is, and having visual input that is at odds with the rest of their sensory input is more likely to be stressful that calming.
They're prey animals. If they hear a noise coming up on them or feel an unexpected touch they're going to want to look at it or may get freaked out if they can't identify the source.
They risk injury if they walk on uneven ground or past obstacles without awareness.
They can't eat or smell the "pretty" grass which is really what motivates cows to seek it; they're not after pastoral views.
Basically this whole idea is foolishness and sounds more like it was designed to be appreciated by cattle welfare sympathizers, not something that a cow actually benefits from.
I agree with both. The farmers are trying to be efficient at maximizing profits, and failing because humans simply aren't smart enough, in many situations. Example: dairy farmers don't fully understand their cows' basic needs/fears/milk production.
To make matters worse, "environmentally-friendly" marketing is now profitable, regardless of a business' actual practices or intent. One could insert any group there: LGBTQ-friendly, women-friendly, African American-friendly, and the principle holds. This is why capitalism/business will never solve our most important social and environmental challenges. And why the U.S. government must remove $$ from politics-- it produces greedy, inefficient solutions.
On the bright side, those cows look pretty cool though, am I right?
Maybe milk should cost what it costs to actually produce, no? There's no real need to subsidize milk through taxes and animal suffering. Maybe then we'd also start respecting our food and those that produce it. Probably won't happen though.
Yeah and you could stop using iPhones and wearing shoes made from slave labor.
...but you won't.
You could actually make a difference for ACTUAL human BEANS but you're stuck on bitching about milk.
This is such a hypocritical take when you're holier than thou attitude is "posted from my iphone" when factory workers are killing themselves just so you can get your data scanned "for cp"
You know how I can tell you're full of shit? I don't own an iPhone. Keep talking out of your ass I was just mentioning one type of solution to the fact that people have to put vr headsets on cows.
LMAO YOU know that's not what I meant, don't be a jackass. My point is that we can phase out cow's milk and then we don't have to fuck the environment over, make it more expensive, OR put VR on cows. It's a Win win win situation. Phasing out cows milk is not the equivalent of living off absolute basic necessities to the point of starvation. Get a grip.
You could say the same about literally any luxury, which is why I don't get your point. Should I refrain from all luxuries because they hurt the environment? Or should we create a society where we produce luxury goods in an environmentally sustainable way? I'll take the latter.
Waaaaa I’m such a huge fucking baby I literally cannot comprehend the fact that milk is not essential to human life. To me, if I can’t have milk, I’d rather just drink my own piss and eat my own shit than say, drink oat milk, which is vastly more sustainable.
We could still afford it at 3-4x the price. Wine costs at least 5x as much as milk and many people still buy it. We just wouldn't drink milk like water. We'd instead treat it more like something that takes considerable effort to acquire.
How are people in Russia going to create a nice, clear, blue, sky and luscious green grass? I mean I agree with what you say, but this is done to cows is Russia. AFAIK, Russia isn't known for beautiful, blue, clear skied, green pastures.
This is a crazy experimental idea, but definitely not dystopian... You can't have nice bright green pastures everywhere, it's pretty innovative to use VR on cows for that. But I agree with you on the overgrazing problem
This is a fake story based on a joke or a purposeful hoax. Cows don't even have front-facing eyes. There is no way for this thing to do what they claim it does, ergo it's bullshit.
More like PR I bet, I can't imagine this being cost effective or practical even if it does work, if they are regularly/still doing this I'd be positively shocked.
Decent farmers are poor farmers with very rare exceptions where the brand is marketed as free range/cruelty free. Most livestock farmers are largely desensitized to animals as sentient beings.
Family farms aren't wealthy though, are they? And I wouldn't send my kin to be butchered. Unless you're talking about diary farms, which are exempt from my prior criticism since milk cows need TLC.
Ok, so you have worked dairy, and I cited that as an exception. Where is the disconnect? Beef ranchers don't have the luxury of knowing their animals, why would they? And they certainly can't afford to give them luxurious lives in the short time they exist on the planet. Sure, breeding stock has to remain healthy, but otherwise they're just a number. And I grew up in ag and presently have a small herd of cattle that are living their days in the lap of luxury. That's my source.
My mum and her partner run a reasonable sized beef stud and they absolutely care about each and every one of their animals, same with the other farmers I know. Just because you're desensitized or don't care, doesn't make it the norm.
And are your mum and partner financially independent from that operation? Also, where do you get off calling me desensitized? I just got done explaining that my cattle are essentially pets. You seem to have trouble with words.
Yes, they are financially independent from that operation. And I called you desensitized because you stated 'most livestock farmers are largely desensitized' then went on to state that you ran a herd making your lived experience the source of your opinions. What was I meant to infer?
It could potentially be used for that, it’s mostly used to reduce wastewater in bev and to increase the efficiency of municipal wastewater plants. Can be used for a lot of different applications.
Well, at least one day a week usually 3 or more, we just don't eat meat with our meals. It's not a career but I feel, better about myself, and like I'm setting a good example.
Not trying to be an asshole, but I am so tired of hearing this shit. Meat isn't essential, if you cut it out entirely you wouldn't die. And, if you cut it out for at least three months, the bacteria causing the craving in your intestines would die too, then you wouldn't even find it remotely appealing.
It's like hearing people talk about how they only do heroine a couple times a week.
Absolutely. It's a fucked up industry that not only exploits animals for no reason, but one of the largest polluters and contributors to climate change in the world. Corey Booker is a politician making a career of it.
You can start a business or work for one that makes plant based or lab grown Meat alternatives, and that indirectly fights factory farming by giving people alternatives. Or you can be a local farmer while simultaneously being a really vocal activist about buying locally
Do you realize how fucking inefficient it is to raise crops that we then feed to animals that we then eat? It takes like 3 pounds of grain to produce a single pound of beef. Not to mention the additional water/time that’s wasted. It’s orders of magnitude more efficient to grow crops that we just eat or process and then eat.
I will start by stating that I am a vegetarian. My reasons are irrevelant.
BUT!!!
1 pound of been is much more nutrient dense than 3 pounds of grain. 98% of cow water consumption comes from rain water. Look up water waste of almond crops. We feed animals mostly what we simply cannot digest or has no value for that and "process and then eat" is basicly animal farming in a nutshell.
Yes… obviously we would have to farm different crops. They’ve studied this. It’s still insanely inefficient. There are zero studies showing that it’s more efficient to feed crops to animals and then eat the animals. Because it breaks the laws of physics.
getting nutritional value out of crops we won't eat is the exact opposite of inefficient and doesn't break the laws of physics. what kind of fucking nonsense.
What magical world do you live in where we can't grow different crops..? My point about laws of physics is that you cannot produce 1 calorie of protein more efficiently by first growing it and then feeding it to animals and then consuming compared to just growing it and consuming it. It doesn't matter that current cropped are geared towards livestock consumption. People are advocating that we change the industry so that we grow things humans can eat. Which is more efficient. According to every study ever done.
It doesn't matter what different crops we grow. We already grow crops humans can eat. There also exists things that grow that we cannot eat. We can turn those things we cannot eat efficiently into things we can eat efficiently by using a machine called a cow. It turns garbage plants into meat. It's a fantastic machine.
If this machine were made of metal, you would call it fucking groundbreaking for turning garbage into edible food.
Millions of dairy cows and egg-laying hens are tortured and murdered every year so you can eat cheese and eggs. The males laid/birthed by cows and chickens are the lucky ones, they get murdered almost immediately after birth and are spared the years of pain their mothers endure (before being murdered anyway)
1 pound of been is much more nutrient dense than 3 pounds of grain
First off, meat has zero nutrients that can be found elsewhere, second off, this is a misleading statistic. An acre of land produces far more grain calories than cow flesh calories, especially if they're grass fed (it's extremely inefficent in terms of land use).
98% of cow water consumption comes from rain water.
And where, perchance, might all the water for the grain they're being fed at feedlots come from?
Look up water waste of almond crops
A literal drop in the bucket compared to animal agriculture. California produces 70% of the world's almonds yet 0.5% of the world's repackaged cow carcasses. Which one of these do you think uses more of California's water? Plus that's literally only a single plant.
We feed animals mostly what we simply cannot digest or has no value for that and "process and then eat" is basicly animal farming in a nutshell.
Nature does not need to have a purpose for humans to simple exist jesus christ. ~70% of all agricultural land could be rewilded if we completely stopped all animal agriculture. This is not even counting the amount of land the animals themselves use. Also, very few cows are exclusively grass fed. Why? Because the amount of grassland it would take to just meet the global demand for cow meat is more land than there is on earth. Not habitable land, ALL land. We could turn 100% of the world's surface apart from oceans into grasslands and it still wouldn't even come close to just meeting demand for dead cow flesh. And this isn't even including the demand for cow milk, dried cow skin, pig flesh, turkey flesh, chicken flesh, chicken eggs, duck flesh, duck eggs, sheep flesh, sheep wool, to name a few
Well it used to be efficient when animals would just eat whatever shit they find on the ground, which humans couldn’t eat. Not so much with industrial farming though, we have too many animals to support with grass.
Not even. Even if you had your own livestock and raised them in your backyard, the amount of water and grass/bugs they eat per pound of food combined with the calorie and nutrient intake is way out of whack. Eating animals is only advised if you're in the little ice age and needing extra fat content and have a shortage of crops.
Yes, calorie for calorie it’s not a great trade. But 10 calories of grass and bugs I’m not going to eat, for 2 calories of beef I would enjoy eating, is a great trade. That’s all they’re saying
Ok, but you're still not going to get enough to feed a family so the sustainability factor is my point. You could eat the bugs and grow crops to eat for yourself instead of using an animals to poorly convert it to a different form of calorie.
This. Not all land is equal, and especially without gmo’s and modern fertilizer, your nice staple foods will just wilt and die in the shitty land you happen to own. Now grass, grass grows just about everywhere. It’s very possible to have a huge herd of cattle you let graze your pastures and eat the food they produce.
Yes technically you could eat the insects. You wouldn’t want to though would you? Especially without modern medicine or sanitation, that’s a great source of whatever disease is going around, and uh, parasites. And exploitative? Really? For most of human history there wasn’t enough food, people didn’t give a shit about the little creatures in grasslands, they just wanted to live to see the next day. They did relatively little damage compared to modern agriculture anyway. And don’t go back to the “meat is an inefficient source of calories”, sure it is, it’s also your only source of calories. You aren’t magically gonna be able to eat grass and your soil still won’t support grain no matter how little meat you eat.
Useful to humans? Do you hear the exploitative language there? The grasslands provide homes to thousands of species. And they protect from flooding, dust storms, and all around balance of the environment. Nevermind that you don't need land for "intensive" agriculture. We can GMO plants and grow them indoors for at least 25% of the resources
Grasslands don't remain grassland without grazing, they become forest. Yes there are better ways to provide food for humanity, but pretending that humans aren't going to put the land to use is unrealistic. It is not exploitation, it is a part of nature just like the grazing animals. Without humans, the apex predator for the grazing animals in most areas since we have made the other predators extinct, ruminant overpopulation would destroy other habitats. Animals protein is a valuable source of nutrients and calories in areas where agriculture is not sustainable year round, when managed properly and not in a factory farm obviously.
Ohhhhh I love it when idiots with zero actual clue about an idustry run their big mouths after they got their education from biased documentaries founded on studies funded by parties that have very certain interest in the outcome.
Never mind only so much will grow on the grasslands of the midwest. So stupid of those farmers not to realize they can just pop any crop onto those arid grasslands where millions of cows now graze.
Never mind that below food grade crops are the ones going to the animals and farmers would just have to throw them out otherwise.
Never mind that Cow feed like grass and alfalfa is grown to increase land sustainability by allowing the land to lie fallow.
Never mind all the best practices developed by farmers. Someone ignorant is here to tell them they know better.
Oh? You mean like the idiot who doesn’t realize we already grow enough produce to feed the world…? Or the idiot who doesn’t realize storing and transporting crops is vastly easier than storing and transporting meat and dairy products? If you work in the industry, that explains a lot. Makes sense it’s run by morons.
I don’t think my taste pleasure is worth hurting another sentient being. If I was starving? Sure, I’d absolutely eat an animal. But just the fact that it tastes good isn’t enough reason for all the cruelty and death. It becomes pretty obvious IMO when you use examples that we haven’t been conditioned to accept because they’re socially normative. Like someone who really enjoys listening to animals die instead of just listening to music that doesn’t hurt animals.
And the industrial farming complex doesn't even grow efficient plants or for human consumption. 99% of all corn grown goes to livestock, sugar that contributes to obesity, and producing a greenhouse gas emitting ethanol fuel. It's an industry hellbent on killing us so this idea that they're good and feeding the world is a bullshit myth.
LMAO ah yes because eating a variety of meats on a daily basis while having it only take up about 20-25% of the total foods I eat adds a significant chance to the risk of heart disease.
It only matters for heart disease when (A) it's red meat (e.g. pork and chicken are excluded from this whole thing) and (B) when you eat more than the human body was intended to eat and (C) you're a lazy ass fuck who doesn't exercise. I eat meat because it helps repair the muscles I tear while working out. Yeah maybe eating a steak every day for dinner isn't the best if you don't leave your couch but if you're actually active as you should be then there's no problem.
My personal stance? VR headsets on cows = good because it means more tasty meat and happier cows.
There’s the ethical concerns about convincing a life form that it’s living a better life than it is, and I’d be willing to talk about that, but I’m certainly not taking a hard stance against this goofy shit.
What I do find hard to believe is that PETA would be on the side of the VR headset crowd.
No idea, I eat meat, and am definitely looking forward to lab grown so we can switch to it. Im very aware of its environmental impact and look for ways to reduce it. Seems people dont like to be told the truth sometimes haha
It is less efficient, but if you are planning on feeding everyone AND having meat be a sizable portion of the food consumed, factory farming is the way to go.
incredibly unncessary too, just eat a fucking carrot how hard is it?
always brought up in these discussions by I asume people who reocgnize the disaster that is animal farming, yet they can't help themselfs and participate in the cycle, thus enabling it.
Ok but lab grown meat exists outside the cycle of factory farming. If you don’t like factory farming and think it’s bad, you should be hugely in favor lan grown meat. It also would have enormously good effects on the environment if people were to mostly switch to lab grown instead of farmed meat.
That's super interesting. What about in terms of nutrition? Will it have essentially the same nutritional value of meat? And where do the nutrients come from in the process?
yea that's not how muscles work. ask any body builder (of which there are certainly many vegan) and they'll sort you out.
In the meanwhile, google "vegan athlete" and be shocked with the never ending list of them.. many world class athletes, olympians, world champions, fighters too
That's a non sequitur. You can feed the world without industrial farming/exploiting animals. Im fact, industrial farming doesn't feed the world, either so fighting it would net no loss
No it isn't. As I already said, factory farming doesn't feed the world and it's impossible to feed the world with meat given the resources needed. If you want meat, lab grown is the only solution. But realistically and pragmatically you don't even need it.
Yeah, I didn't say it would perfectly do it, I said it would be the best way to go. The reason is because plant-only diets also wouldn't feed anyone, and it would also feed less. People throw around statistics about replacing all the land we use for livestock with land for vegetables and whatnot but in reality the land we use for livestock doesn't have soil capable of growing most vegetables, only soil capable of growing grass and weeds. When you actually consider plantable vs unplantable soil, the argument that you can feed the planet with vegetables only falls apart. That land would not be used for farming if it wasn't for livestock.
You may also be wondering about the food we waste on feeding livestock. For grass-fed livestock, this obviously isn't a question since we can't eat grass, so animals literally turning calories we cannot consume into calories we can consume. For factory-farmed livestock, they're fed of byproducts, not things we would feed to humans either. When we farm vegetables we don't eat the whole plant, only a specific part. It's the stuff we can't eat that we can feed livestock. But in reality, this isn't even what we feed most livestock. What most livestock are fed is a byproduct that comes from processing vegetables. It's a bunch of waste from this process that would otherwise be thrown out.
So in terms of both land and food, livestock are actually *not* using up resources that could more effectively feed animals if used for plants. The only possible argument for that case is water, but water is not a large concern, at least not compared to the concern for land and food.
Are you arguing that factory farming is necessary to feed people? Because that is bullshit. A vegetable field from the same land would produce exponentially more food.
Call me a cynic bit more likely not enough compassion. If yield goes up with green fields you could A give them more field time and make the process nicer (as much as it can be) for them or stick a VR headwear on them and cram them in stalls for maximum yield and efficiency
243
u/Faglerwagen 26d ago
That, and having too much empathy for a career in the food industry