>How do we justify killing animals, including their young, in giant torture factories where rivers of blood flow amidst the cries and horror of the victims, while the killers laugh and laugh, as spy videos show repeatedly? We don't think about it.
For bombings yes, but for eating animals that's not the case. Modern city dwelling folks might not "think about it", but for millenia people not only knew all about it, but also do it themselves, with their bare hands, skinning the animal and all, with no problems.
In rural places they still do it, including where the majority of the world's population lives.
I'm actually old enough to have witnessed the killing of a pig on a farm when I was around 10. It wasn't done "with no problems".
For one, it was horrible. The pig, which is quite big an animal, had to be caught in its den by three people. Then it was attached to a wooden ladder with rope, all the while shouting and crying, very much like a person.
And then its throat was cut open with a big knife and it was let to bleed in a big steel bucket, still crying and shouting.
I wasn't allowed to watch but managed to hide and do it anyway (and even if I hadn't been close I would have heard the noise from afar).
People were sad and hated doing it; they actually postponed the deed every day for a week because they liked the pig in question.
Today we see nothing and so it's much easier for us to completely forget about it; farm people were much more involved and cared a lot more.
What evidence do you have to support the idea that people "did it with 'no problems'"? Why does the profession of a "Butcher" exist ? How about Hindu's, Buddhists etc?
Maybe people used to enjoy a a more symbiotic relationship with their livestock / prey which doesn't exist now with advent of factory farming, it's just pure exploitation and obviously. I'm sure not everyone in the middle ages or ancient hunter gathered societies would've been fine with that.
The same reason the profession of a "Mechanic" exists, specialization allows for greater efficiency.
I occasionally do final trimming on cuts of meat for my family, deboning chicken breast or cutting down a steak or tri-tip. But I'm not quick or efficient at it, so better to let someone else do that and pay them for the service.
Same with doing maintenance and repair work on my family's cars. As I've gotten older and made more money at my specialized profession, I'm shifting from doing all my own car work to paying someone else to do it.
Because comparative advantage and the economic benefits of trade and return on specialization exist on the individual level as well as the national level.
Which is also pretty much also a big reason why human societies exist.
>What evidence do you have to support the idea that people "did it with 'no problems'"?
Familiarity with history and humans? Being from a rural area myself, and having seen tons of people (including my grandparents) do it, and having travelled all around the world?
Really, you'll contest that the majority of people killed and ate animals themselves (without some specialist to package them for them) for most of recorded history and still do in tons of places?
>Why does the profession of a "Butcher" exist?
For the same reason that the profession of a cook exists, even though people cook themselves all the time too, and used to cook even more so back in the day.
As with tons of other professions, because cities and towns first and foremost.
Note that the "profession of a butcher" in most rural areas around the world either didn't exist at all as something specialized, or was a place one rarely visited, and only if they didn't have land and/or animals of their own.
Because almost everybody (and surely many more than actual framers, cattle raisers etc) had their own animals, for eggs and wool and occasionally (as it was quite expensive and a treat) meat, not everybody did.
>How about Hindu's, Buddhists etc?
These have sacred animals (and some of them, not all), or religious diets. Those have existed since forever (also fasting certain foods for certain times).
But since you've asked:
A vast majority of Indians ate meat regularly and meat eating was never prohibited in ancient India. Certain sections of society and some ascetic traditions practiced vegetarianism both for religious and spiritual purposes, but it is not true that they constituted the majority.
Meat-eating is strictly prohibited in Jainism, whereas it is conditionally allowed in Hinduism and Buddhism. In all three religions, the rules regarding meat eating are established according to their beliefs regarding karma and virtue such as nonviolence and compassion
Hindu law books prescribe rules for meat eating for the four castes and specify which type of meat is allowed for human consumption and under what circumstances. Buddhist texts also lay down rules for meat eating by the monks.
However, as time went by, meat-eating became a more restrictive practice in both Hinduism and Buddhism. Presently, vegetarianism is a fashion and a vanity among the elite and the middle class Hindus. They may not perform sacrifices, worship gods, or practice virtues such as honesty, compassion towards fellow human beings, charity, etc., but would make sure that everyone knows about their preference for vegetarian food because it is the current trend and gives them an aura of superiority in a community that has taken to the filmy practices of pseudo culture and hybrid lifestyles.
People pay for meat not from stores because slaughter is a difficult, physically demanding, messy and potentially psychologically distressing job. Not just because "butchers are good at it". All I'm refuting is the statement you made about "people doing it without problems".
Slaughter is outsourced for the same reason people pay nurses to change their sick, elderly parents diapers, it's not a pleasant task. Efficiency might be one reason, but there is more too it.
If you do your research, you will find that in a lot of cultures, taking an animals life was not considered a trivial thing, it had to be done properly, by skilled hunters or butchers, with respect and in some cases, a prayer would have to accompany the task. Take Halal for example.
I've also done quite a bit of travelling and my family also have an agricultural background, so I'm not totally ignorant to the processes and attitudes discussed.
>People pay for meat not from stores because slaughter is a difficult, physically demanding, messy and potentially psychologically distressing job. Not just because "butchers are good at it". All I'm refuting is the statement you made about "people doing it without problems".
That statement "without problems" only meant "people did it without qualms". It is/was just what you do. And millions upon millions still do it.
I didn't mean that it wasn't messy or physically demanding (especially for puny city dwellers, for the average farmer person it's really not much of a deal) and that people wouldn't want to pay to have someone else do it.
The example I gave of cooks captures exactly that. It's not that the cook does it better than cooking your own (and especially not on places like McDonalds), or that people have any psychological distress doing it, it's just that it's faster, more convenient, more specialized, and allows them to do other stuff with their time (opportunity cost).
Of course for someone that has never experienced having animals around, and his parents and relatives hunting and killing them, etc, it's like killing Bambi. Because essentially for those city/suburban kids their exposure to nature is Disney-like or through the families pets. But in general, It being a "psychologically distressing job" was never much of an issue through history, until people strayed off farm/natural life.
>If you do your research, you will find that in a lot of cultures, taking an animals life was not considered a trivial thing, it had to be done properly, by skilled hunters or butchers, with respect and in some cases, a prayer would have to accompany the task. Take Halal for example.
That's because when those traditions started getting food was difficult and meant to be valued as a "god given fortune" -- they way christians were supposed to pray for their every meal too to god who provided it), and some hygeinic practices were also thrown in as "religious texts" too. Not because they had second thoughts about killing an animal. They were not meant to appease the animal, but the gods. And some of those ritualistic preparations of food are more gory than just cleaning it up and being done with it. Halal slaughter is not by any means pretty., and it also encodes the draining one should do of the blood, not eating dead carcasses and other sanitary precautions in the context of religious law (the same way the 10 commandments are more about a community getting along).
Really, you'll contest that the majority of people killed and ate animals themselves
Well, yes and no. People have always eaten meat of course, but the amount of meat per person exploded after WWII. Meat used to be a treat ("kill the fatted calf") that one indulged in maybe twice a week if you were well off.
Now we eat meat or other animal products twice a day, every single day of our lives (which is bad for us btw). It's a scam perpetrated by the meat industry.
For bombings yes, but for eating animals that's not the case. Modern city dwelling folks might not "think about it", but for millenia people not only knew all about it, but also do it themselves, with their bare hands, skinning the animal and all, with no problems.
In rural places they still do it, including where the majority of the world's population lives.