Totally Painless Meat Production.

Not to get morbid or graphic. But you know, meat production could just be totally painless. Animals could be bred to feel no pain. There is a condition like that. It's called congenital insensitivity to pain and anhydrosis (CIPA) in humans. On another message board they said, well, then the animals would keep hurting themselves, accidentally of course. And maybe occasionally gnawing off their limbs (again sorry to get graphic). But the way you deal with that is straitjackets and soft restraints, like they use for mental patients. Of course, some might argue animals would still go thru emotional distress. And you obviously couldn't sedate them or give them an anti-anxiety drug like Xanax. It would end up in the meat. But, you could alter their environment. Chickens fight less and are less anxious in dark rooms. Or, you could just breed them to be easy-going and happy.

Then meat production would be totally painless. So what would be the problem then?

 

I bought some awful animal free meat recently. It was bad! :-\

I could be vegan, but I'm too lazy; the pathology for me is sort of determined and I'm not a friend of change in my age.

 

Like I once told a vegan online. It's already dead. If I don't eat it someone else will (and I wasn't being mean to her).

 

Some people, if I understand them, seem to think animals have a right to life. No, animals have a right to happiness and quality of life. Only humans have a right to life. Giving animals the right to life leads to things like cat and dog overpopulation. Plus if animal testing, or even meat production, could be totally painless, I don't see what the problem would be. Animals could just be bred to have Congenital Insensitivity to Pain and be easy-going and happy all the time, so they wouldn't be distressed by things like being kept in a cage or pen. What would be the problem then? Plus in my country, people think it's more humane to let a pet go in a park than to have it put to sleep. Pets don't live normal lives in parks, happy and free. They don't have the survival instincts of wild animals, and die of starvation and disease there. Probably after they've had a litter or two of kittens too, if their cats.

Animals are complex and have the same emotions as humans. They are people too. But sometimes people anthropomorphize them too much, I think.

 

I just shared this with PETA Asia online:

What if animals, could selectively bred to have Congenital Insensitivity to Pain (CIP) and be happy and easy going. Then kept in soft restraints so they don't hurt themselves, and given frequent breaks and a reasonable quality of life. For medical experiments. And meat (until we outlaw that, for health reasons too). What would be the problem then? Because animals don't have the right to life or liberty. I'm sorry, only humans do.

 

Just to repeat my position, and I think it's almost everyone else's position too, because it is obvious. Humans are the stewarts of the earth. And so our rights and our interests will always come before other animals. Animals need us more to run the world, and solve the world's problems (even if we caused them), than we need them. And if it's a choice between human rights and human welfare, and animal rights and animal welfare. And even human suffering and animal suffering. Human rights and welfare will always come first. And I am not saying that animals don't have some of the same rights that humans do. But of the three, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, animals only have one. Happiness. Maybe sometimes they have the right to liberty and to make their own decisions. I don't know. But they would have to understand the situation to have that right, and to make the right decisions. So they usually don't. But animals don't have the right to life, in other words an absolute right to be here. Only humans do.

 

One problem is that most people have never actually seen the animals slaughtered.
I had worked as Security at a slaughterhouse for a few weeks. I got 1st hand looks at how the cattle were prepared for slaughter and processing.
FYI, Stress can negatively impact the taste and quality of the final product. It can also cause issues with the consumer in the form of toxins.
Cattle are brought to the faculty on conveyor belt, and before moving to the final process an attendant who carries a Captive Bolt Gun. These devices are designed to deliver a strong, focused impact to the brain. The bolt penetrates the skull and disrupts critical brain activity, causing instant unconsciousness. The process is extremely fast, occurring in milliseconds, which should prevent the animal from perceiving pain.

 

The problem is not whether the animals are raised, slaughtered, and served to the American Population as a wholesome product. The problem which is endangering our health is all the hormones, antibiotics and growth enhancers fed to these animals to do one thing: INCREASE PROFITS TO THE MEAT INDUSTRY. The reason that most Americans are obese and suffering from Heart Disease, High Blood Pressure and Type 2 Diabetes is the presence of the fattening additives into the meat we eat. Several of them inhibit the transport Insulin into our organs and cells that are designed to increase the weight at the time of sale. That makes most of us overweight or obese. The federal government is so corrupt that there is no hope, unless we eat a plant based diet or immigrate to a country with an honest government. It appears impossible to vote out all of the congressmen who are taking bribes from the meat industry. So we have to make careful choices and insist that all products are properly labeled.

 

Oh good ... I thought this was some Animals rights threads about murdering animals.

Most don't bother to research and find out that, cattle were intentionally bred by humans and are not a natural part of most ecosystems.

 

I brought up my theory that laboratory animals can be selectively bred to all have congenital insensitivity to pain, and thus feel no pain on another message board. They said it was a good idea, but wouldn't work for analgesic research. Sometimes animal testing is necessary for that. But, they pointed out, with new advances in biological receptor modelling, even that may be totally unnecessary some day.

Also, in the US, animals that have had a hard life as animals in laboratories are sometimes given to nice homes, if they are still in good condition and good health.

 

It wouldn't work for any purpose. Assume you have a herd of Cattle, selectively bred to not feel any pain.You put them out in a pasture to graze, etc. THey would all be dead and rotting on the ground inside of a month. Why? because they can't feel pain and so if they rub p against barbed wire and opened gashes they can't feel, and bled out.

THey also wouldn't feel hunger pangs and might starve. If a Snake, or a dog, or even a mosquito bite then they would be insensitive to the pain and might become septic.

These and more arre reason we also give players in RPG games who say they want their characters to not feel pain. Pain is necessary for much more in our lives than we known or are willing to admit.

 

They also could be bred to just have less pain. Or so their pain would never be, or seem, that severe to them. Or they could be bred to deal with physical pain better. Also, from what I understand, if someone doesn't remember the pain they felt, it really isn't that bad. It's like it never happened. They could be bred for that.

Also, on another message board, they said in most cases animals could just be cloned to have no brains. Hurting themselves wouldn't be a problem, because they wouldn't be moving even. The only problem he said would be with laboratory tests on pain relievers.

I am not a scientist or a veterinarian. But I would guess there would be a lot of ways of dealing with animal pain. As I said, the only time pain would be necessary in an animal would be if it were part of the test, like if you were testing the effectiveness of a pain reliever.

 

This is an example of exactly how most Activists think. You are assigning a level of reasoning to an Animal that acts on instinct, it doesn't React, as Humans can or do. Just like you an't assign Human Emotions to an Animal.

"It only hurts a little," Is a distinction humans make. The animal will simply feel discomfort. and if the discomfort is not pleasurable they will act accordingly. so it either hurts or it doesn't. All the in-betweens are human reasoning.

 

Also, someone recently posted online:

Going vegan isn't about "giving up" anything. It's about not taking what was never yours.

My reply: Property is a legal concept. You can't and never should own another human being. But an animal or a pet, I don't know. Legally now you can. Plus animals are entitled to things like being free from pain and happiness. But rights, I don't know. To have rights you must understand them. Do they? We should be concerned with their welfare. And laws should be designed to increase their welfare and happiness. But legally now, again, they have no rights. But better laws for them are a good idea.

 

Another thing about the rights of humans and animals. Humans always have the right to be informed. Informed consent, if they can consent. And if someone, like a court, determines they can't consent, they should at least be informed. Informed about anything unpleasant, especially. That is one of the problems I always saw with capital punishment. I saw if for many years as a form of euthanasia. If it was done painlessly, it could lead to more good. It was better than rotting in a prison cell for life sometimes, I thought. But the person always has the right to know he is about to be executed. And I saw early on, that could cause stress and anxiety. But I was thinking more recently, an antianixiety drug like Xanax might help in that situation.

But not animals though. They never need to know the reason. The reason why the vet is examining them, the reason why the vet is giving them a vaccination shot. It's better they don't know that they going to be put to sleep. It would upset them and they might fight you then. But humans always have a right to know all about that. Unless there is a very good reason why they shouldn't. Humans have an almost absolute right to life and an almost absolute right know. But not animals. Animals have a right to be happy, but not those. Sorry.

 

Did you ever think, as a vegan for example, of just eating animals that die of natural causes? Now I have heard of people in the US doing that with pet lobsters. But like any cut of meat, it has to be handled carefully and eaten right away. If you just ate a cut of meat that died of natural causes, what would be the problem then? And, like with the lobster, it might be delicious.

 

Why don't we raise farms of animals that are nutritious, and taste good too? But they all die of natural causes before they are processed as meat. They can be bred to have short or shorter lives. And they should be given a very nice quality of existence on the farms. Even if it leaves them a little tough and stringy (since animals, like veal, kept in pens tend to have more tender meat, they say). Again, like if medical experimentation was totally painless, and centered on giving the animals a good quality of life. What would be the problem?

 

And when an animal is about to die, he should think he's going some place nice or something nice is about to happen. That would be terrible if you did that to a human. But animals aren't like humans. They don't understand.

And animals kill each other all the time for food. I don't know what that has to do with anything. But vegans keep bringing it up, so I will again.

 

This is for those that still think "This Little Piggy went to Market," is a simply children's rhyme:
Let’s break it down:

1. "This little piggy went to market":
   Represents the fate of pigs who were taken to the market to be sold—either to be fattened for slaughter or sold for consumption. it emphasizes the pig’s ultimate fate as a product for human use.
   
   
2. "This little piggy stayed home":
   Signifies those pigs who weren’t yet ready for slaughter or sale. They might have been younger, weaker, or less desirable.
   
   
3. "This little piggy had roast beef":
   The implication here is that these pigs were destined for fattening, essentially preparing for their own eventual slaughter and consumption.
   
   
4. "This little piggy had none":
   A practical necessity. Pigs don’t get fat or grow properly if they’re overfed too close to slaughter. This reflects the brutal efficiency of "Feed Withdrawal", in livestock farming.
   
   
5. "This little piggy cried wee, wee, wee all the way home":
   Suggests a scene of confusion or distress as the piglet, likely feeling the anxiety of separation from the group, runs back into the pen to escape capture. The "wee, wee" cries reflect its squeals of fear and sense of loss.
   

This provides a deeper look into the harsh realities of pig farming, aligning the nursery rhyme with the more sobering aspects of agricultural life, and the nature of farm-to-table practices.

 

is meat production supposed to be humane in the US?

AI Overview

Yes, according to US law, meat production is supposed to be considered "humane" as the "Humane Methods of Slaughter Act" mandates that all food animals slaughtered in USDA inspected establishments must be handled and slaughtered using humane methods; this is enforced by the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

Key points about the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act:
Enforced by USDA:

The USDA is responsible for ensuring compliance with the act through inspections at slaughterhouses.

Focus on handling and slaughter:

The act primarily regulates how animals are handled and killed at the slaughterhouse, not necessarily their living conditions on the farm.

So, vegans and others, if the PETA brochures and gory pictures are correct, it sounds like they aren't even enforcing existing laws in places like the US. So why not start there? And then move onto the quality of the animals' lives. Yes, before they are slaughtered and eaten. But why not start there. And then most Americans like me, I think, would be in favor of the gradual abolition of meat. For ethical and health reasons.

Huh?