[HN Gopher] French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese p...
___________________________________________________________________
French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers
Author : sofixa
Score : 193 points
Date : 2021-03-27 13:41 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| jaynetics wrote:
| Cheese surplus is a common problem. Here's a hilarious podcast on
| the great US cheese debacle of the 70s/80s:
| https://www.npr.org/transcripts/643471690
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| Oh noes, they ran out... now the cows have to produce more :(
| me_me_me wrote:
| Double oh noes, the cows actually understood and slow down the
| production of milk!
|
| This is a good story to read on the weekend :)
| bombcar wrote:
| They've sold it all if you were hoping to get some monkcheese.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Thanks, that explains it. Been searching the Divine Box site
| for a minute now and no sign of that cheese.
| core-questions wrote:
| Hard to get better advertising than an article like this,
| really.
| kjrose wrote:
| I'm glad they were able to sell it but at the same time like it's
| raw milk cheese. So importing it into Canada and us is pretty
| much a non starter.
|
| Hopefully they'll be able to keep up the sales past this article.
| [deleted]
| kazen44 wrote:
| usually this kind of stuff (fancy cheeses, fancy beer etc) is
| very popular, but extremely difficult to get if you do not life
| in the area. As with most monastery related production, most do
| not sell online or even nationally.
| vmilner wrote:
| In France, at least, the "Divine Box" company seems to be
| acting as a distributor for monasteries.
| cptskippy wrote:
| Unfortunately it's import controls that stop the
| distribution internationally.
| muro wrote:
| Works just fine in EU and to Switzerland
| cptskippy wrote:
| I would argue that's regional.
| iends wrote:
| I assume I can't buy this from the USA because customs rules...?
| vesinisa wrote:
| Well they sold out already, so there's also that. Good on the
| monks though, and it's the thought that counts!
| cptskippy wrote:
| Yeah we can't get anything good here. I went down that rabbit
| hole one Christmas and it's a lost cause.
|
| Unless you're willing to fly to Europe or Singapore (Cheese
| Ark) you're not getting the good stuff.
| dylan604 wrote:
| At least it's not the maggot cheese from the islands of
| Italy.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| I think it might be fine, but they are sold out.
|
| > all cheese regulated by the FDA (that is, all cheese that is
| transported across state lines) must either be made from
| pasteurized (heated) milk or aged at least 60 days.
| richk449 wrote:
| I'm also curious. Lots of other countries they ship to. With
| the US has some weird import laws, or they just figure
| Americans aren't interested in these products.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| Raw milk products (including cheese) are heavily regulated by
| the US FDA: https://www.cheesesociety.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2012/07/PPT...
|
| I imagine these products can be imported but only with
| significant paperwork. And if you fail a pathogen test,
| you've probably lost the shipment and been put on a list for
| "followup": https://www.fda.gov/media/99340/download
| smoe wrote:
| As I understand it, the issue is that many European cheeses
| are made of unpasteurized milk which is illegal in the US.
| And many small cheese makers are not willing to break
| practices going hundreds of years back just to get into
| another market.
|
| Don't know if this applies to the cheese in this article.
| ectopod wrote:
| It's not really about fetishising ancient production
| methods. Cheese made with unpasteurised milk tastes
| different and, in many people's opinion, better.
| watwut wrote:
| Pretty often they are not that old nor are they using all
| traditional techniques. It is more about product.
| masklinn wrote:
| Well you can't buy from the USA because it's sold out. But also
| because it's neither pasteurized nor aged cheese, so you'd be
| correct.
| wazoox wrote:
| I don't know, but it's very similar to reblochon, which is
| probably available.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Reblochon is not available in the USA because the milk is
| neither pasteurised nor aged enough.
| onetimemanytime wrote:
| I am sure they have sold even next year's cheese by now. Kudos to
| them for being PR savvy
| slibhb wrote:
| Will be interesting to find out if the internet makes prayer
| work.
| masklinn wrote:
| If you click through so the site[0], they're sold out, took
| less than 24h after the call went out.
|
| The guardian is 24h old as well, so they'd sold out by the time
| it was posted on HN. Bummer (well good thing for them).
|
| [0] https://divinebox.fr/operation-fromage-abbaye-citeaux/
| kzrdude wrote:
| If I understand correctly they are saying that they sold
| 2006.9 kg
| gameswithgo wrote:
| nice
| nkingsy wrote:
| Well I guess that worked... I was going to buy some but all sold
| out
| HDMI_Cable wrote:
| > "We tried explaining to our 75 cows that they needed to produce
| less milk but they don't seem to have understood,"
|
| I don't know why, but this is the funniest thing I've read in a
| while. I can just imagine the monk explaining COVID to these
| cows, and just getting a "Moo" in return.
| ahelwer wrote:
| Kind of strange, because cows don't just produce milk by
| nature. Much like humans they have to be impregnated & give
| birth, after which they produce milk for about ten months.
| Inquisitive people might wonder how the cow is impregnated in
| the first place and what happens to the calf.
| athms wrote:
| Human don't need to get pregnant to produce milk. Lactation
| can happen with medication or stimulation, which becomes
| easier as women age. If a woman is not inducing lactation
| with hormones, she must stimulate the breasts several times a
| day using hand compression or a breast pump. This is how
| adoptive and foster mothers breastfeed their babies.
| Lactation can also occur in men because they have milk
| glands, which is the reason they too can get breast cancer.
| WJW wrote:
| I assume they either use a bull or use artificial
| insemination and the calf gets taken away to be slaughtered
| and eaten. Do they do it differently in France?
| nickkell wrote:
| As it's a monastery we must leave open the possibility of
| immaculate conception
| throwaway744678 wrote:
| Immaculate conception refers to the fact that Mary was
| born free from original sin, not that Jesus was conceived
| with a sexual intercourse.
| nickkell wrote:
| Thanks for the correction! All this time I've conflated
| it with the "virgin birth"
| ekianjo wrote:
| Not sure if this explains everything but we have been
| selecting species for favorable traits for hundreds of years.
| That's why you end up with hens laying eggs several times per
| week too.
| Swizec wrote:
| > after which they produce milk for about ten months
|
| Which just about brings us from spring 2020 to now.
|
| According to a quick google search, cows gestate for 9.5
| months.
|
| > then the "ideal" breeding season for spring-born calves is
| 9 1/2 months prior to that or beginning in April but for sure
| by May. [^1]
|
| If you're planning to have baby cows in April 2020, you breed
| them in August 2019. By the time you find out about COVID it
| is already too late and you're gonna have a bunch of milk
| whether you want to or not.
|
| As for what happens to the calves: they can't drink all the
| milk modern cows produce. Also they become big cows. Afaik we
| don't usually eat dairy cows because they have been
| selectively bred to produce ridiculous amounts of milk, but
| not to be tasty.
|
| [1] https://beef-cattle.extension.org/when-exactly-is-the-
| beginn...
| [deleted]
| DanBC wrote:
| > As for what happens to the calves, they can't drink all
| the milk modern cows produce. Also they become big cows.
|
| Half of them do not become big cows because male cows don't
| produce milk. We kill the male calves.
|
| > Afaik we don't usually eat dairy cows
|
| Of course we eat them. They get turned into ground and
| minced beef.
| jiofih wrote:
| > We kill the male calves
|
| May have been true a few decades ago, but currently the
| farmers will buy "sexed" sperm (selected for females).
| I've never seen a male calf being killed for that reason.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > I've never seen a male calf being killed.
|
| Well they don't turn into veal steaks by themselves do
| they?
| throwaway8581 wrote:
| Yum.
| watwut wrote:
| All the meat we eat are female cows?
| ajdude wrote:
| No, but they're probably not from male "dairy cows."
| mgarfias wrote:
| No, beef cows make calves. The heifers are kept to make
| more calves. The males are castrated and get turned into
| beef.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| In high school in Texas our Ag teacher described the
| castration part as "getting their minds off the ass and
| on the grass."
| seanwilson wrote:
| Either way, a typical female dairy cow during its
| lifetime is made to give birth about 4 times (they don't
| give milk otherwise), each time its baby is taken away so
| maximum milk can be harvested and then the mother is
| killed about 5 years into its 20 year lifespan when it
| stops producing as much milk. This is the reality of
| profitable dairy farming and people don't like to be told
| about it or think about it.
|
| If you think it's wrong that some countries kill
| dolphins, dogs, whales, cats, sharks, horses etc. for
| food or use foxes, minks, rabbits etc. for fur, you
| should ask yourself why cheese, milk and leather are
| okay.
| jiofih wrote:
| Also not what I've seen - calves are kept with the mother
| for obvious reasons until they are about 6 months old.
| They might be fed separately though.
|
| I'm comfortable with nature. Life is cyclic and you can't
| survive without other living beings.
| novok wrote:
| Most of them are not farmed in a sustainable cycle that
| prevents those animals from become endangered species? Or
| they think of the animals as pet animals.
|
| As for fur, I'm guessing it's because a moral panic
| happened in the 80s and nobody really cared that much
| about fur, since it was a luxury item for a few, while
| meat, milk and leather somewhat is something that
| everyone pretty much still uses today worldwide.
| seanwilson wrote:
| "Japan, Norway and Iceland who argue that whaling is part
| of their culture and should continue in a sustainable
| way." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-45364696
|
| Dogs, cats, foxes, mink and horses aren't endangered
| either, and the amount of meat developed countries eat is
| a luxury as well.
|
| My point is, if you're offended by the way other
| countries treat certain animals, you should think about
| if your use of animal products really aligns with your
| core beliefs or if you're going along with what's
| cultural to you without really thinking about it.
| Swizec wrote:
| Personally I'm not offended by how other countries treat
| non-endangered animals. I wouldnt eat dog, but totally
| understand how they're basically a pest in some parts of
| the world.
|
| I do wish we find more humane ways to industrially raise
| livestock. Meat is way too cheap right now and we should
| reduce the intensity of its production. Humans dont need
| to eat meat at every meal like many of us do right now.
|
| It's also a shame that we don't breed dairy cows for more
| longevity. I'm sure they could be productive for almost
| all their natural lifespan if we let them.
|
| My grandparents had a small farm mostly for family use
| and it wasn't uncommon to keep a cow for 10+ years. But
| they were treated almost lije pets. Each cow had a name
| and I think they rarely had more than 10 at a time.
|
| PS: horse burger is very tasty. I recommend trying it if
| you get a chance
| sedachv wrote:
| > milk... is something that everyone pretty much still
| uses today worldwide
|
| I don't understand where people come up with this
| nonsense. Do you just generalize your experience to
| everyone else? 68% of the world population is lactose
| intolerant: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28690131/
| gambiting wrote:
| You might be surprised, but being lactose intolerant
| doesn't mean you don't consume milk. Lactose-free milk
| exists, tablets that allow you to consume lactose exist,
| and most importantly, even lactose intolerant people can
| usually eat a small amount without suffering ill effects.
| So someone who can't drink a glass of milk usually can
| eat some pastry made with milk. So just because 68% of
| humanity is lactose intolerant doesn't mean 68% of
| humanity doesn't consume milk in some form.
| sedachv wrote:
| Why do you think the genetic mutation for lactose
| tolerance is so geographically specific to Northern
| Europe? It is obviously an adaptation for when milk was
| the only available source of nutrition to those
| populations during times of famine. And the selection
| pressure for this is not ancient history - my
| grandparents experienced exactly that scenario due to
| food shortages during WWII. I don't know why you would
| advocate de-lactosed milk, lactase supplements, or
| "sneaking a little bit in" for the vast majority of
| people who are lactose intolerant, unless you had some
| agenda of pushing dairy on people who do not particularly
| want it and have no cultural traditions of consuming it.
| There is no reason for lactose tolerant people to eat
| dairy on a regular basis because it contributes to heart
| disease. Advocating it for those who are lactose
| intolerant is just insane.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>I don't know why you would advocate de-lactosed milk,
| lactase supplements, or "sneaking a little bit in"
|
| Are you definitely replying to the correct comment? I'm
| not advocating anything. I'm purely stating a fact that
| just because 68% of humanity is lactose intolerant
| doesn't mean 68% of humanity does not consume milk. I
| just said lactose free milk exists(because it does),
| lactose-digestion enzyme pills exist(because they do) and
| people with lactose intolerance can usually eat a little
| without suffering any bad effects(because most people
| can). Is stating facts propaganda now?
|
| >> unless you had some agenda of pushing dairy
|
| Yes you're absolutely right, my check from big milk
| industry will surely arrive any day now. You looked right
| through me.
| sedachv wrote:
| You don't need paid sponsorships to push your colonialist
| attitudes on other people.
| gambiting wrote:
| Stating simple facts that anyone can google in 5 seconds
| is colonialist? Are you for real?
|
| Or maybe....you're the one with some kind of agenda here?
| Because I can't believe anyone would read into my
| comments as hard as you do. Or I don't know, do you take
| those simple facts as some kind of personal attack?
| watwut wrote:
| The lactose intolerant people I knew all do drink de-
| lactozed milk or non-cow milk. They also eat it with
| cereals. Practically, somewhat lactose intolerant people
| eat food with milk inside (whether in sauce or cheese)
| and avoid only quantities that cause them troubles.
|
| There is really no reason to get offended over that
| reality. I don't really know why those people consume
| milk and I was never rude enough to ask. It is their
| diet. But, they in fact eat it even in situations where
| they don't have to and go out of their way to get sorts
| of milk they can consume.
| sedachv wrote:
| > I don't really know why those people consume milk and I
| was never rude enough to ask.
|
| Can you take any guesses as to why? Do you think it might
| have anything to do with the colonialist attitude of "of
| course, everybody drinks milk!" displayed in the parent
| comment? Are your acquaintances in the US? Do you think
| it has anything to do with the $500 million spent over 20
| years on "Got Milk?" propaganda?
| gambiting wrote:
| "colonialist attitude of "of course, everybody drinks
| milk!" displayed in the parent comment? "
|
| You know that simply wanting something to be true doesn't
| make it so, right?
| ficklepickle wrote:
| Here* is a link to a quantitative assessment of milk
| consumption around the world.
|
| There is even a handy map.
|
| Interestingly, they note that milk consumption is higher
| amongst older people. Possibly due to the crazy amount of
| milk propaganda historically.
|
| I know this isn't directly related to your comment, but
| it was getting heated so I wanted to derail that.
|
| * https://milkgenomics.org/article/milk-consumption-
| around-the...
| astura wrote:
| Lacking enzymes to digest lactose doesn't prevent milk
| consumption, as fermenting milk removes lactose.
|
| https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/how-can-you-eat-
| dair...
|
| >In modern Mongolia, for example, traditional herders get
| more than a third of their calories from dairy products.
| They milk seven kinds of mammals, yielding diverse
| cheeses, yogurts, and other fermented milk products,
| including alcohol made from mare's milk. "If you can milk
| it, they do in Mongolia," Warinner says. And yet 95% of
| those people are lactose intolerant.
|
| >That disconnect between dairy and DNA isn't limited to
| Mongolia. Jessica Hendy, a co-author of the PNAS paper,
| recently found milk proteins on pots at Catalhoyuk in
| Turkey, which at 9000 years old dates to the beginnings
| of domestication, 4 millennia before lactase persistence
| appears. "There seem to be milk proteins popping up all
| over the place, and the wonderful cultural evolution we
| expected to see isn't happening," Collins says.
| woobar wrote:
| This article states that 68% is the global prevalence
| estimate of lactose malabsorption.
|
| "Lactose malabsorption (lactase non-persistence) is not
| equivalent or synonymous to lactose intolerance. Lactose
| malabsorption in many cases will not come to clinical
| attention."[1]
|
| [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4040760/
| saiya-jin wrote:
| I don't understand where people come up with this
| nonsense. All diary products gradually lose lactose as
| they are processed more and more, so for example 24 month
| old Gruyere doesn't contain any of it (less than 0.1g for
| 100g even for standard ones). You can be hardcore
| intolerant and still enjoy this fine Swiss product or any
| other from hundreds French ones, British etc. without any
| issue, in any amount.
|
| Plus all the rest others written.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Even fresh mozzarella has very little lactose in it,
| something like 1 g per 100 grams. Any cheese made from
| curd basically, because the sugar mostly stays in the
| whey.
|
| (I am lactose intolerant, and I realize the level of
| discomfort that people experience varies)
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| You've convinced me. I no longer care that some countries
| kill dolphins or whales or cats or whatever for food and
| foxes for fur.
| [deleted]
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| I hope you don't think you're pwning them by repeating
| their point back to them thinking they care that you
| don't care about whales and dogs anymore. It's pretty
| weak snark, especially because you're pretending to do
| something that agrees with their point thinking you got
| them good.
|
| I saw this sad interaction a lot in the wild when someone
| at lunch at work orders a vegetarian option and someone
| else leaves them in absolute tatters by responding "good,
| I'm going to order extra meat ;)" as if anyone else feels
| responsible for his choices.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| I'm just showing that the argument can easily be used to
| draw the opposite and "wrong" conclusion from the one
| that was intended to be reached.
| seanwilson wrote:
| You should reach a conclusion based on your beliefs. I
| don't see what point you prove by starting from beliefs
| you don't hold if that's what you mean.
|
| Do you genuinely not care if people are killing dolphins
| and whales and eating dogs though? I've no doubt some
| people exist that don't but I'm sure they're in the vast
| minority.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > Do you genuinely not care if people are killing
| dolphins and whales and eating dogs though
|
| No, but I do genuinely not care that people are killing
| and eating cows and cow products though. I don't really
| think anything could make me care about that at this
| point, certainly not enough to give up meat and cheese.
|
| So if we are making these things equivalent (which I
| don't believe they are), then I suppose I shouldn't care
| about the dolphins, whales and dogs. In order to be
| consistent.
| seanwilson wrote:
| > So if we are making these things equivalent (which I
| don't believe they are), then I suppose I shouldn't care
| about the dolphins, whales and dogs. In order to be
| consistent.
|
| I'm not making anything equivalent, I'm asking you about
| your beliefs and if they're well founded.
|
| Why is it okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not a dog
| or a whale or a cat? Your beliefs can still be consistent
| if you've justified the difference to yourself. I don't
| think "because it's traditional" or "because we've been
| doing it for hundreds of years" are good ethical reasons
| (which other countries could make about dogs and whales)
| for example.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| He really got under your skin didn't He?
|
| It was a joke my friend.
| DanBC wrote:
| > It was a joke my friend.
|
| Can you explain the joke? What was the set up? What's the
| punchline?
| Judgmentality wrote:
| Jokes aren't well tolerated on HN to begin with, and that
| comment seems a lot more obnoxious than funny.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| You speak the truth.
| [deleted]
| mauvehaus wrote:
| It seems that leather is practically a (profitable)
| byproduct of the dairy industry in this case, no?
| seanwilson wrote:
| The dairy industry is cruel and leather doesn't make up
| for that.
| bengale wrote:
| > what happens to the calf
|
| Sold as veal I'd have guessed?
| uppe wrote:
| Maybe don't impregnate them then. Cows don't magically produce
| milk, they are mammals and lactate because they had babies.
| They actually forcibly impregnate them and kill their babies if
| it's a male (veal) and keeps the loop going until the mother
| can't produce more babies and thus becomes unprofitable. That's
| funny to you? Sounds like torture and slavery to me.
|
| edit: wow, what a surprise, downvoted to the bottom. I know
| it's deeply ingrained in our culture to participate in this and
| that makes it feel safe and normal. Scoffers and deniers, I
| dare you to go watch Cowspiracy or Dominion and then still
| stand by this practice.
| africanboy wrote:
| > Maybe don't impregnate them then
|
| > That's funny to you?
|
| It happens every year to wild cows too that are impregnated
| by males because that's what bovines do.
|
| they don't plan on parenting
|
| Also calf mortality is correlated with the body weight of the
| mother when they are born, domesticates cows have almost zero
| calf mortality rate, contrary to what happens to wild cows.
|
| They will also die due to predators, weaknesses, attacked by
| a bull or older males or for other natural causes, that they
| don't encounter when living in a farm
|
| It's perfectly natural for a cow to see her calves die, it's
| part of their biological destiny.
| TheButlerian wrote:
| You are downvoted because you are a fucking retard.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| With the exception of industrial farming, everything that
| humans normally do to animals is much nicer than the way wild
| animals live and end their lives. So as long as you make sure
| to get your milk and meat from traditional farming, you're
| supporting practices that are much kinder to the animals then
| nature would be.
|
| Animals in nature inevitably die violent or painful deaths,
| often being eaten alive by other animals while they slowly
| starve. They often live lives of subsistence, with periodic
| times where they are near starvation or freezing and barely
| survive. They are often in ruthless competition for food and
| mates with their own species. They will sometimes eat their
| own young when conditions are especially bad, or eat the
| young of others to improve their own chance at reproduction.
|
| If we're talking in pre-industrial times, if I had to choose
| between the life of a Buffalo or a domestic cow, I would take
| my chances as the cow.
|
| Now, industrial practices like factory farming are truly
| horrifying and on that side I agree that they should be
| stopped, despite the increase in cost that will represent to
| animal products.
| simias wrote:
| I don't think it's a good ethical argument. We decide to
| birth these animals for our own well being, ergo we are
| responsible for their suffering. If we only rescued lost
| cows from the wilderness, giving them shelter and a good
| life until we decided to quickly end their life to get
| their meat you might have a point (and even then, I still
| think it would be a bit shaky IMO) but that's not how it's
| done.
|
| If a cat is born in the wild and ends up dying of a curable
| disease then it sucks for it but that's life. If you have a
| cat as a pet and when it gets sick you decide to abandon it
| to fend for itself and die in the wild then you're a bad
| person. Same outcome, very different ethical implications.
|
| >So as long as you make sure to get your milk and meat from
| traditional farming
|
| That's another gotcha that I really dislike. Every time the
| problem of animal suffering comes up there's always this
| opposition between "those crazy vegoons" vs. "the pop and
| mom farm who love their animals and take good care of
| them".
|
| If that were the case, I agree that the situation would be
| very different. It's not though, you can't just ignore the
| woes of industrial farming when that's the vast majority of
| the meat products that surround us. These animals are for
| the most part born into horrible living conditions. In that
| sense I suppose that killing them early when they stop
| producing enough might be one of the least worse things
| that happens to them.
|
| It would be like responding to somebody lamenting the
| deforestation of the Amazonia by bringing up the story of a
| poor farmer tending to his two acres of land in order to
| sustain his family. That's a best missing the point, at
| worse a truly disingenuous argument.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > It's not though, you can't just ignore the woes of
| industrial farming when that's the vast majority of the
| meat products that surround us. These animals are for the
| most part born into horrible living conditions.
|
| Reducing animal product consumption is important. But
| there is no reason to reduce it to 0, that is my main
| point. And note that you don't have to be extremely
| loving and caring with farm animals to be better than how
| nature treats them - it's not a high bar.
|
| And purely from an argument point of view, the arguments
| against the extreme cruelty of industrial farming are far
| different from the arguments you presented, which would
| apply just as much to traditional farming as well (which,
| to be fair, is not always without its own horrors,
| especially where delicacies like foie Gras are
| concerned).
|
| > If a cat is born in the wild and ends up dying of a
| curable disease then it sucks for it but that's life. If
| you have a cat as a pet and when it gets sick you decide
| to abandon it to fend for itself and die in the wild then
| you're a bad person. Same outcome, very different ethical
| implications.
|
| To some extent that is true, but just as we don't judge
| the bear for killing salmon, I don't think it's right to
| judge a human for killing a cow to eat its flesh. The
| fact that we are farming it and not hunting it doesn't
| affect the morality of the situation in any way from my
| point of view. The cat example is immoral from a purely
| human and internal point of view: the human in question
| had entered into a caring relationship with a pet, so
| abandoning it in its hour of need is immoral.
| causasui wrote:
| This argument makes zero sense. If we didn't breed cows,
| they wouldn't exist. There are no wild cows.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Either you believe the only moral thing would be to treat
| cows like cats or dogs, you believe that eradicating the
| species would be preferable to the current situation, or
| you must accept that we should compare the condition of
| cows with similar wild animals in order to decide whether
| our practices are uniquely cruel. Cows are not so unique
| among mammals that comparisons with other wild animals to
| get a feel for what their life _could_ be like if we
| somehow let the free make no sense.
|
| And if we compare industrial practices, then I would
| agree with the GP, the life of a cow in a factory farm is
| unusually cruel if we compare it to the potential life of
| a hypothetical 'wild cow'. But if we look at the life of
| a cow in a traditional farm, I think the opposite becomes
| true.
| COGlory wrote:
| Do you have any personal experience working with dairy cows?
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| My father worked with dairy cows as a side job during
| college. He said they were often very friendly (except for
| Holsteins, they can be mean). They get used to and expect
| the daily routine - milking in the morning, pasture for the
| day, milking in the evening, pasture for the night.
|
| When milking time came, they'd all be crowded up near the
| gate waiting for him to open it so they could walk to the
| milking building. They didn't need to be coaxed.
|
| He said the _saddest_ thing was the practice of de-horning
| calves at a certain age. Prior to that, a group of calves
| would be friendly, unafraid, almost like pets. But
| afterwards (my dad wasn 't personally there for the actual
| de-horning) they would all crowd together at the opposite
| end of the yard in fear when he approached. He said it was
| heartbreaking...
|
| As far as I know, not all farmers practice de-horning.
|
| Edit: I have no idea whether they used pain killers, but
| given the calves' response my guess is no.
| frob wrote:
| I raise goats and I get my kids disbudded every year when
| they're under a week old. They scream for about 5
| seconds, and it breaks my heart, but then they almost
| immediately go back to their old selves like nothing
| happened and are back playing with us. In my case, I
| choose to do it to prevent the chance of future injuries
| for the goat, other goats, and humans.
| Qworg wrote:
| There are polled stock you can use - no need for
| dehorning.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Sounds like torture and slavery to me.
|
| To me as well, and yet you and I are in a small minority.
|
| Also: farming involves actions up to a year in advance of
| consequences, so change is slow and rare.
| bobthechef wrote:
| You can't enslave an animal that lacks free will and
| intellect by nature. Whether such farming practices are
| cruel is dependent on the particular practices. Obviously,
| one ought not be cruel to animals whether they lack free
| will and intellect or not. However, much of the woolly and
| sentimental "animal rights" polemic is grounded in gross
| misapprehension and anthropomorphization of animals other
| than us. It is terribly unsophisticated.
| imtringued wrote:
| I don't believe that the idea of "free will" can exist in
| a form that excludes non human mammals but still includes
| humans. As soon as you have a classical mammal brain
| there cannot be a magic difference like that.
|
| If we were to entertain such an idea that you can still
| lack "free will" despite possessing a mammalian brain
| then we don't even know whether all humans have free
| will. There would be two factors, either genetics or
| education. There are obvious historic reasons for why
| basing the existence of free will on genetics is bad.
| Basing the existence of free will on education is even
| worse because education is completely arbitrary and you
| could teach animals free will to some extent.
|
| Going by the education criteria: If you could get human
| slaves and let them give birth then the child would lack
| the necessary education and we can enslave the child as
| well.
| ben_w wrote:
| > You can't enslave an animal that lacks free will and
| intellect by nature.
|
| I challenge you to define "free will" in a way which is
| simultaneously testable, and also something humans have
| and other animals lack. I have yet to hear a single
| definition which is all three at the same time, despite
| my A-level in philosophy -- every testable definition
| I've encountered has either been something animals and
| humans both have, or both lack; and more commonly the
| attempted definition turns out to be internally
| incoherent.
|
| (Intellect is also notoriously difficult to define, but
| at least in this case humans and cows are obviously
| _dissimilar_ ).
| africanboy wrote:
| > I challenge you to define "free will" in a way which is
| simultaneously testable, and also something humans have
| and other animals lack
|
| every animal, except humans, lack the neurological
| structures to process the concept of "free will" which is
| entirely a human construct.
|
| If they had free will, they would fight for it or at
| least some of them would.
|
| One could argue that we still don't know the human brain,
| so how can we exclude that animals haven't what it takes
| to understand free will?
|
| But it's the same thing of saying that God exists because
| we can't disprove it.
|
| And if we assume that cows understand it, why exclude
| other animals, like fish, or some plant or fungi?
|
| We assume they don't have it because they never showed to
| care about it.
|
| Cattle can be incredibly aggressive too.
|
| _it is proven that regardless of age and environmental
| conditions, some individuals remain more aggressive than
| others. Aggression in cattle can arise from both genetic
| and environmental factors._
|
| _Aggression between cows is worse than that between
| bulls. Bulls with horns will bunt (push or strike with
| the horns) in which can cause more damage overall_
|
| interesting read from Dennet
|
| https://lafavephilosophy.x10host.com/dennett_anim_csness.
| htm...
| ben_w wrote:
| > If they had free will, they would fight for it or at
| least some of them would.
|
| What would that look like? Running away? Because that
| behaviour pops up in news often enough.
|
| Conversely, there's learned helplessness -- discovered by
| animal research and yet also demonstrated in humans. Do
| humans demonstrating this lack free will?
|
| > One could argue that we still don't know the human
| brain, so how can we exclude that animals haven't what it
| takes to understand free will?
|
| I'm not asking if animals _understand_ free will, but if
| they _have_ it -- humans don't seem to understand it even
| though we can talk about it (judging by the difficulty of
| nailing down a definition) so I would actually be very
| surprised if it turned out any non-human animal
| understood it.
|
| I don't understand the point you're trying to make about
| bovine aggression?
| africanboy wrote:
| > What would that look like? Running away? Because that
| behaviour pops up in news often enough.
|
| Exactly.
|
| As I've said if they can't explain to us what they are
| doing and why, it is completely useless to try to frame
| or define it.
|
| it would simply be what we think it is, but not the real
| thing
|
| > Conversely, there's learned helplessness -- discovered
| by animal research and yet also demonstrated in humans.
| Do humans demonstrating this lack free will?
|
| difference being humans can explain why they ran and we
| can rationalize post facto and learn from each other
|
| children don't run if they see a gun
|
| do they lack free will, chose to not move, or lack the
| ability (and the knowledge) to process that information?
|
| free will probably does not even exists as consciousness,
| they are poor terms to describe what we already don't
| have a solid explanation for
|
| but since we are able to process context, something cows
| are not capable of, I understood that OP meant the most
| common meaning of free will: acting in a non
| predetermined way (however bad or inexact as a definition
| it is)
|
| cows don't
|
| because we have selected them in centuries and only kept
| the most docile, so it is expected that they won't run or
| act in expectedly, we literally engineered them to be
| what they are, we can rake it for granted, the same way
| we can be sure that a car with an empty tank won't start
|
| asking for a satisfying definition of free will in this
| context completely misses the point
|
| yes they could still have free will in the sense that
| they chose to walk or eat orm ove their tail, of course
|
| but in that sense a plant chose to grow towards the light
| or not?
|
| I actually believe free will does not exists and
| everything is pre-determined.
|
| We are born and have to die, don't get to chose our
| parents, how we look, where we are born, our gender etc.
| etc.
|
| We can however micromanage the time in between being born
| and dying, as every other living creature in the World,
| but we have far more sophisticated micro managing tools
|
| we also have vastly superior tools in general, we are the
| only animal on the planet that can control fire and have
| an opposable thumb thus we are the only animal on the
| planet that could evolve to the level we have reached
|
| which also gave us the ability to entertain ourselves
| with intellectual riddles such as free will
|
| > I'm not asking if animals understand free will, but if
| they have it
|
| as I've said I don't believe free will exists, but a cow
| lack the machinery to process the concept of free will,
| which also involves guilt, morality, responsibility and
| deliberation AKA being able to determine the consequences
| of different courses of actions.
|
| If cows have it, it's not like ours, it _must_ be
| something far simpler.
|
| the point about aggression is that cows still have their
| own personalities, but that doesn't qualify as freedom of
| choice
|
| many people see cows behaving differently and assume they
| chose to act that way, but it's not like that.
|
| it's simply the result of some random combination of DNA
| and environment
| ben_w wrote:
| > As I've said if they can't explain to us what they are
| doing and why, it is completely useless to try to frame
| or define it.
|
| You've not said _why_ it's useless though. Or what "free
| will" is. I can make a chat bot which will insist that it
| has free will, but I doubt it would be saying anything
| correct about its mind; and I have every expectation that
| someone whose language I do not speak would pass and fail
| exactly the same tests as me if there was a test that
| didn't depend on language.
|
| > difference being humans can explain why they ran and we
| can rationalize post facto and learn from each other
|
| Humans demonstrably make up any old rubbish to justify
| their actions after the fact -- that much _is_ testable.
| And animals copy each other, so it's not like non-humans
| _in general_ can't learn from each other, though I don't
| know about bovines in particular.
|
| > but since we are able to process context, something
| cows are not capable of,
|
| You recon? Given how much context current vision AI can
| get, and that current vision AI is about the level of an
| insect brain, I absolutely expect cows to get context.
|
| > I understood that OP meant the most common meaning of
| free will: acting in a non predetermined way (however bad
| or inexact as a definition it is)
|
| > cows don't
|
| Quick internet search of teaching cows tricks says they
| can act in a non-predetermined way... unless you want to
| dismiss all behaviour as skinnier boxes and operant
| conditioning, which would leave humans open to the same
| criticism.
|
| They are _relatively_ docile, but there were loads in and
| around Cambridge when I lived there, and no, they were
| definitely not like cars with no petrol.
|
| > asking for a satisfying definition of free will in this
| context completely misses the point
|
| I take exception to this. I started by saying "I agree
| this looks like slavery and torture", the reply said the
| concepts didn't apply because they didn't have free will.
| I'm rejecting that, and you're definitely still
| describing a situation that sounds like multigenerational
| slavery to me.
|
| > as I've said I don't believe free will exists
|
| You don't? That wasn't clear, but sure -- as I said,
| every testable definition I've encountered has either
| been something animals and humans both have, or both
| lack.
|
| If you weren't even trying to change my mind,
| congratulations on merely confusing me about your
| intention. :)
|
| > free will, which also involves guilt, morality,
| responsibility and deliberation AKA being able to
| determine the consequences of different courses of
| actions.
|
| Why would it involve those things, and why do you believe
| cows can't forecast the consequences of actions? If they
| couldn't predict actions having consequences, they'd get
| stuck as often as hard-coded robots. Given the live in
| muddy fields, this would make them self-destructively
| useless as livestock.
|
| (And also, current insect-complexity neural nets can do
| that, so it would be really surprising if a mammal
| can't).
|
| > it's simply the result of some random combination of
| DNA and environment
|
| Yeah, and that's true for us, too.
|
| But, as you say, you don't believe in free will, so
| that's fine. :)
| africanboy wrote:
| > Or what "free will" is.
|
| I did
|
| _poor terms to describe what we already don 't have a
| solid explanation for_
|
| > whose language I do not speak would pass and fail
| exactly the same tests as me if there was a test that
| didn't depend on language.
|
| it doesn't matter, cows lack the tools to explain
| themselves, we don't
|
| namely, in this case, a language (any language!)
|
| > Quick internet search of teaching cows tricks says they
| can act in a non-predetermined way
|
| can you prove it? :)
|
| And how do you know it won't end up like the Libet
| experiment?
|
| > And animals copy each other, so it's not like non-
| humans in general can't learn from each other, though I
| don't know about bovines in particular
|
| They don't have history books though, and schools and
| teachers
|
| DNA does not help much if the knowledge dies with its
| creator
|
| > If you weren't even trying to change my mind,
| congratulations
|
| I don't believe in free will the philosophical tool
|
| I think we have machinery that we still do not understand
| that make us what we are and most of what we are is due
| superior processing power
|
| It doesn't matter to me ifnI chose to move my arm, when I
| am driving and see an obstacle I don't have to think to
| use the brakes and I am thankful that training built up
| new neuro-paths to react that way
|
| > Why would it involve those things, and why do you
| believe cows can't forecast the consequences of actions?
|
| because to forecast the consequences of every action you
| need to be able to judge the consequences
|
| if you don't have a framework to judge the consequences,
| you can't forecast them or at best you can simply
| forecast an action-reaction scenario: this happens and
| then this happens, but if you cannot give them a score,
| all scenarios are equal
| ben_w wrote:
| > namely, in this case, a language (any language!)
|
| I assert verbal self-narrative is not necessary for free
| will. You assert otherwise? Why?
|
| > can you prove it? :)
|
| In principle, sure: Watch them demonstrate a learned
| skill. I have no reason to believe the videos are faked,
| but if they are, in principle I could observe IRL.
|
| > And how do you know it won't end up like the Libet
| experiment?
|
| The experiment which showed a human brain reaches a
| decision before conscious awareness of that decision?
| It's evidence that humans don't have free will, FSVO
| "free will", so I'm _expecting_ the same result,
| including the meta-result of people arguing about the
| result.
|
| > They don't have history books though, and schools and
| teachers
|
| > DNA does not help much if the knowledge dies with its
| creator
|
| True for most of humanity, except for "teachers", but
| cows can mentor each other too. So... we agree humans and
| non human animals pass and fail the same tests?
|
| > because to forecast the consequences of every action
| you need to be able to judge the consequences
|
| You can do that with any positive-negative reinforcement
| mechanism, doesn't need _morality_ etc.
| [deleted]
| lucianbr wrote:
| How is it possible to know that animals have or do not
| have "the required neurological structures to process the
| concept of free will", without a definition of free will?
| africanboy wrote:
| because if you scan the brain of a cow with an MRI and
| start talking about free will to it, nothing lights up.
|
| they respond to food, loud noises, other physical
| stimuli, but not to philosophy.
|
| Also, if you open the gates of a farm, cows don't run.
|
| Quoting Dennet
|
| _Let us return to our vultures. Consider the hypothesis
| that for all I could ever know, rotting chicken carcass
| smells to a turkey vulture exactly the way roast turkey
| smells to me. Can science shed any light, pro or con, on
| this hypothesis? Yes, it can almost effortlessly refute
| it: since how roast turkey tastes to me is composed (and
| exhausted) by the huge set of reactive dispositions,
| memory effects, and so on, and so forth, that are
| detectable in principle in my brain and behavior, and
| since many of these are utterly beyond the machinery of
| any vulture 's brain, it is flat impossible that anything
| could smell to a vulture the way roast turkey smells to
| me._
|
| but let's suppose cows have some sort of free will
| concept.
|
| if they can't explain it to us, how will we ever
| understand it? (because it's impossible they have the
| same free will concept we have)
|
| and if we project our _roast turkey smell_ (free will)
| concept to cows, how can we be sure that it 's what they
| need or want, if they can't even communicate a yes/no to
| us?
|
| All our philosophical concepts are based on millennia of
| history that's been transmitted to future generations
| that built new concepts on the old ones
|
| They are not "natural"
|
| if you take a child to a remote location and abandon
| him/her there they wouldn't even know about death or
| illness, let alone laws or rules or free will. Because
| nobody thaught them.
|
| We are basically still stuck in a Solaris situation.
|
| but the question still stands, so I propose another one:
| how do we know that dogs want to live in our homes?
|
| modern neuroscience can explain a lot of things that
| philosophy still consider questions.
| usrusr wrote:
| > I don't know why, but this is the funniest thing I've read in
| a while. I can just imagine the monk explaining COVID to these
| cows, and just getting a "Moo" in return.
|
| Funny because it's impossible to imagine that situation without
| the monk looking like Anthony Fauci in a robe? That exact same
| situation must have happened just about everywhere...
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _I can just imagine the monk explaining COVID to these cows,
| and just getting a "Moo" in return._
|
| They need Ein from _Cowboy Bebop_. See specifically episode
| /session seventeen, "Mushroom Samba".
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| I was gonna put in an order just for having a sense of humor
| about the whole thing but they are sold out...
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| Slightly related to the original post here, if you ever
| wondered how monks ended up in posession of 75 cows and farming
| land, Max Miller did an interesting and funny explanation of it
| on his Tasting History YT channel: https://youtu.be/zz0y1d6IIpY
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > if you ever wondered how monks ended up in posession of 75
| cows and farming land
|
| Did it sound strange to you?
|
| Farming and crafts are a core part of many monasteries, and
| many famous foods and drinks have been invented or refined by
| monks. Everything from Champagne and Buckfast. They have to
| do something simple to earn money and keep busy. And they're
| usually in the countryside so have farm land by default.
|
| What do the monasteries near you do to trade for income?
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| Indeed, and it wasn't always so. The video discusses the
| two skinny/pious/austere monk vs. the fat/drunken/jolly
| monk stereotypes, and the history of how the transition
| between the two came to be.
| kgwgk wrote:
| Ora et labora.
| l33tman wrote:
| Shut up and take my moo-ney!
| JNRowe wrote:
| In France, so "meuh" ;)
|
| I think a few of the French animal onomatopoeia _feel_ more
| correct to me than their English counterparts. For example, I
| can 't unhear coin-coin with ducks any more than I can unsee
| The Moon Rabbit1.
|
| 1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rabbit
| DC-3 wrote:
| Time to take up GOMAD :-)
| roshanjrajan wrote:
| I'm not going to lie but I imagined the same thing and couldn't
| stop laughing
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-27 23:01 UTC)