Just randomly, I listened to a podcast that specifies an argument against free-range chicken raising (apparently, they (would) kill each other (to prevent the killing, parts of their beaks are cut). Other animals can also feel irritated and thus be aggressive. It seems that exploration within an ample space should be possible. This can motivate more positively perceived interactions.
I also saw this slaughter manual that described low-cost non-stun slaughter alternatives (also, proper stunning equipment recommendations can be cost-effective in reducing suffering due to slaughter). Do you think that a hammer blow could be perceived as well as a stun (this can be particularly relevant to areas that use other traditional slaughter methods, where animals do not lose consciousness).
Do you think that animals can perceive premature death positively because they do not experience getting old? For example, if animals understand that they can explore and interact with others, have a family that will be well because the industrial farm is made for that, and will never get old, then they can have all they want (also if health issues are prevented).
To what extent do animals perceive power dynamics, among its own species and related genera/families and higher taxa? Apparently, even if a human walks into a chicken barn, the chicken change their behavior. To what extent these dynamics determine the animals’ wellbeing? Do animals have a Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (so that as long as they are physically well and safe, they can enjoy interactions) or use the Max-Neef’s matrix?
How do animals’ needs/preferences depend on the species? For example, is it that some insects are only concerned about finding food, getting into a good temperature and humidity, protecting their bodies, and reproduction? Or, is it that even crickets, if they are being eaten by others (maybe because they lack other food) experience a negative feeling from the interaction, in addition to the physical pain?
Can some animals, such as insects, ‘transcend’ the negative feelings or physical pain from being eaten by an understanding of cooperation (the capacity for contribution outside of one’s family can be limited for some non-human animals). Would this depend on whether these decisions are made by one’s group (a same species group, small group of different species, or an ecosystem, depending on perception) or by ‘other’ animals? Is it that the crickets that are being eaten by others because they do not ‘go with the flow’ as well perceive it better than those who are eaten by a bird?
What are some experimental methods to determine whether an animal would have prefered to exist, all else equal? Is it possible that animals do not consider suicide because they believe that they need to multiply in order to evolve? If so, is this still needed, given the relatively rapid evolution by coordinated human systems, accumulation of knowledge, and use of technology? For example, is there something more fundamental to develop than what humans can in this way achieve?
In sum, what do different animals fundamentally need and how can this be provided at a low cost while keeping the benefits from animal products?
Just randomly, I listened to a podcast that specifies an argument against free-range chicken raising (apparently, they (would) kill each other (to prevent the killing, parts of their beaks are cut). Other animals can also feel irritated and thus be aggressive. It seems that exploration within an ample space should be possible. This can motivate more positively perceived interactions.
I also saw this slaughter manual that described low-cost non-stun slaughter alternatives (also, proper stunning equipment recommendations can be cost-effective in reducing suffering due to slaughter). Do you think that a hammer blow could be perceived as well as a stun (this can be particularly relevant to areas that use other traditional slaughter methods, where animals do not lose consciousness).
Do you think that animals can perceive premature death positively because they do not experience getting old? For example, if animals understand that they can explore and interact with others, have a family that will be well because the industrial farm is made for that, and will never get old, then they can have all they want (also if health issues are prevented).
To what extent do animals perceive power dynamics, among its own species and related genera/families and higher taxa? Apparently, even if a human walks into a chicken barn, the chicken change their behavior. To what extent these dynamics determine the animals’ wellbeing? Do animals have a Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (so that as long as they are physically well and safe, they can enjoy interactions) or use the Max-Neef’s matrix?
How do animals’ needs/preferences depend on the species? For example, is it that some insects are only concerned about finding food, getting into a good temperature and humidity, protecting their bodies, and reproduction? Or, is it that even crickets, if they are being eaten by others (maybe because they lack other food) experience a negative feeling from the interaction, in addition to the physical pain?
Can some animals, such as insects, ‘transcend’ the negative feelings or physical pain from being eaten by an understanding of cooperation (the capacity for contribution outside of one’s family can be limited for some non-human animals). Would this depend on whether these decisions are made by one’s group (a same species group, small group of different species, or an ecosystem, depending on perception) or by ‘other’ animals? Is it that the crickets that are being eaten by others because they do not ‘go with the flow’ as well perceive it better than those who are eaten by a bird?
What are some experimental methods to determine whether an animal would have prefered to exist, all else equal? Is it possible that animals do not consider suicide because they believe that they need to multiply in order to evolve? If so, is this still needed, given the relatively rapid evolution by coordinated human systems, accumulation of knowledge, and use of technology? For example, is there something more fundamental to develop than what humans can in this way achieve?
In sum, what do different animals fundamentally need and how can this be provided at a low cost while keeping the benefits from animal products?