←back to thread

310 points greenie_beans | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
qq99 ◴[] No.43111299[source]
As someone who once built a large coop [1] then just bought a pre-built shed for the 2nd coop, it's definitely _not_ the _monetary_ solution. You will probably lose money overall for quite some time. I'm still probably underwater.

BUT, there are definite upsides:

- Chickens are very sweet animals, and are quite intelligent. You will grow to love all the silly things they do. You can pet them, they are super soft, and can become quite tame. They can purr.

- I'm told the eggs taste way better, I don't really notice it because I really only eat my own eggs, but perhaps I just got used to them

- It's fantastic to get ~8 free eggs per day (from 13, 3 are not laying this winter)

- Morally/ethically, it seems like the best way to eat eggs if you're caring for them in a loving manner (compare to factory farms)

Consider the downsides:

- You may have to euthanize a chicken, likely by hand (literally) via cervical dislocation. It still ranks among the worst things I've ever had to do in my life. Imagine euthanizing your dog or cat by hand...

- Predators, foxes and hawks, you need defenses

- Veterinary services can be harder to find. Most vets don't want to deal with chickens. However, it also tends to be cheaper than a vet for a dog/cat.

- Your wife may one day want a chicken to live inside the house. You may one day agree to this, and then miss it when the chicken is living outside the house again...

- If you really like eating chicken, you may end up finding it difficult to eat them again in the future after you develop a bond with them.

I think there are more upsides than downsides, but you should think about these downsides before taking the plunge. Don't let it dissuade you. Overall, they have enriched our lives immensely and I would recommend it to others!

1: https://www.anthonycameron.com/projects/cameron-acreage-chic...

replies(54): >>43112058 #>>43112148 #>>43112152 #>>43112271 #>>43112279 #>>43112364 #>>43112438 #>>43112533 #>>43112681 #>>43112832 #>>43112959 #>>43113182 #>>43113393 #>>43113675 #>>43113739 #>>43113780 #>>43113961 #>>43114166 #>>43114184 #>>43114262 #>>43114274 #>>43114277 #>>43114390 #>>43114406 #>>43114485 #>>43114599 #>>43114625 #>>43114955 #>>43115004 #>>43115217 #>>43115442 #>>43115586 #>>43115776 #>>43116129 #>>43116391 #>>43116509 #>>43116522 #>>43116776 #>>43116906 #>>43117144 #>>43117221 #>>43117724 #>>43117897 #>>43118022 #>>43118330 #>>43118511 #>>43118698 #>>43118705 #>>43118975 #>>43119664 #>>43120000 #>>43120271 #>>43120839 #>>43123147 #
pulkitsh1234 ◴[] No.43112152[source]
> If you really like eating chicken, you may end up finding it difficult to eat them again in the future after you develop a bond with them.

I used the believe the same, but as I found out on HN, there are a lot of people who won't bat an eye killing animals raised on their own land. Maybe they just never develop a bond with these animals.

But then the question should be is it just the "bond" which is holding someone back from killing animals? Why can't we just not kill without relying on bonds?

replies(12): >>43112346 #>>43112408 #>>43112409 #>>43112548 #>>43112759 #>>43112869 #>>43113554 #>>43113664 #>>43113714 #>>43114176 #>>43114627 #>>43115088 #
burnished ◴[] No.43112548[source]
Past generations of my family used to name animals that they raised for meat after dishes they could end up in. There are practices people can engage in to distance themselves from the animals they interact with.

But also some people who raise animald for meat hire a person to collect them for slaughter in part because of the emotional toll involved.

As to your last question.. I think you might be confused? People don't like to kill in general. Go outside and ask people how they felt getting their first kill on a hunt as a kid, you're going to realize that a unifying element is learning to deal with harming another animal.

Bonus: being vegetarian doesn't exclude you from the necessity of killing in order to live. You're just killing forms of life that you emphasize with less, which is very reasonable and rational but also not materially different.

replies(4): >>43112871 #>>43113003 #>>43113195 #>>43113875 #
latexr ◴[] No.43113195[source]
> being vegetarian doesn't exclude you from the necessity of killing in order to live. You're just killing forms of life that you emphasize with less, which is very reasonable and rational but also not materially different.

That’s like saying you kill chickens to eat eggs. You don’t kill a plant to eat its fruit. In fact, plants benefit from animals eating what they produce, be it oranges or tomatoes or something else and crapping the seeds somewhere else for proliferation.

replies(4): >>43113261 #>>43113343 #>>43115289 #>>43120618 #
wrigby ◴[] No.43113261[source]
Admittedly this is pedantry on my part, but isn’t this only true for fruits? GP’s argument seems perfectly valid for e.g. carrots or mushrooms.
replies(1): >>43113434 #
latexr ◴[] No.43113434[source]
Mushrooms are “fruits”. The “plant” itself is the mycelium underground and the mushroom is the “fruity” part which is produced to spread the “seeds” (spores).

And fruits are broader than most people think. Many of the things you think as vegetables are fruits: pumpkins, zucchinis, tomatoes. But even outside fruits there is food you can harvest without harming the plant, like potatoes. And we haven’t even gotten into seeds and grains, like rice.

So you can definitely live without killing what you eat.

replies(3): >>43113439 #>>43113601 #>>43117332 #
fragmede ◴[] No.43113439[source]
aren't plants alive?
replies(1): >>43113489 #
latexr ◴[] No.43113489[source]
They are, and you don’t kill them or harm them to eat the things they produce with the purpose of being eaten and spread. If you want to engage in the conversation, please make an effort to do so in good faith and actually address the arguments. If you’re only going to make basic queries everyone already agrees with, we’re just wasting time and space.
replies(4): >>43113501 #>>43113534 #>>43113604 #>>43113943 #
fragmede ◴[] No.43113534[source]
> purpose of being eaten and spread

why do you get to decide that it isn't the purpose of a cow to be eaten?

You're arguing on the Internet, it's already a waste of time and space.

replies(4): >>43113602 #>>43113888 #>>43113893 #>>43119743 #
1. addicted ◴[] No.43113888{3}[source]
Here’s a compromise.

Neither you nor I get to decide what the purpose of another sentient being is.

replies(1): >>43114687 #
2. svieira ◴[] No.43114687[source]
Absolutely. But while I cannot declare its ultimate "final cause", perhaps I have some right to declare a penultimate one? I have my reasons for believing this is the case. What are your reasons for believing it is not (or do you believe that we do have some right to declare penultimate final causes for living creatures, and if so, what are the limits?)