News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Congress passes legislation to end US participation in gl... by arcticbull on Friday December 16, 2022 @06:15PM (#34021943)
> they think it's cruel but has important culinary value

You mean it's cruel but it tastes good, so shrug? I mean that's certainly a position to take. I'm pretty neutral on it but mostly because it is possible to get cruelty-free foie. [1]

[1] https://nuvomagazine.com/daily-edit/guilt-free-foie-gras

Re:Congress passes legislation to end US participation in gl... by waffleiron on Friday December 16, 2022 @06:39PM (#34022199)
And here I was thinking you linked to a vegan alternative. While less cruel, I wouldn’t call murdering an animal to satisfy your tastebuds cruelty-free.
Re:Congress passes legislation to end US participation in gl... by arcticbull on Friday December 16, 2022 @06:40PM (#34022210)
Fair enough, but there's 100% less feeding funnel shoved down their throats daily.

Here's a photograph of the production process from Wikipedia, but I'd probably avoid it if you're feeling hungry. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras#/media/File:Mulard_d...

Re:Congress passes legislation to end US participation in gl... by waffleiron on Friday December 16, 2022 @06:46PM (#34022270)
I agree with your point, these geese live way better lives than their force fed brethren. I just couldn’t agree with the cruelty-“free” part.
Re:Congress passes legislation to end US participation in gl... by defrost on Friday December 16, 2022 @06:48PM (#34022286)
If we're playing ethics, how do you feel about murdering introduced animals to lessen their devestating impacting om pre existing ecologies?

eg: Clean skin bull roundups in the Northern Territory and camel roundups in Central Australia?

These are large coordinated musters to funnel feral animals into yards, to tracks, and to slaughter.

There's a profit, sure, but the incentive for many is to stop them tearing up and destroying the land.

Re:Congress passes legislation to end US participation in gl... by waffleiron on Friday December 16, 2022 @06:56PM (#34022358)
I think that’s a really interesting ethical question, personally I think the profit incentive will cause a cobra effect type situation and these species will never be made extinct where they were introduced.

Having that in mind it’s a situation where one needs a crystal ball to determine whats the right things. A single large ecological shift, with all ethical harms that come with it, or a long term lower level of ethical harm.

Re:Congress passes legislation to end US participation in gl... by defrost on Friday December 16, 2022 @07:36PM (#34022731)
I'm familiar with the areas in question and I fall on the side of believing that feral donkeys, camels, bulls, dogs, cats, cane toads, et al will never be erradicated as the area is vast and the animals are dug in; the best that can be achieved is to routinely cull back.

On another ethical point; the "natural" boom | bust cycle of kangaroos in the Australian outback - their numbers explode when there are years of rain, and the ground is littered with bones in the years that follow.

Is it ethical to cull booming kangaroo numbers (that will die in any case) to prevent the otherwise inevitable pressure on limited water supplies that follows?

This is the land of Peter Singer (and others).