They're usually shredded alive almost immediately because they're seen as "waste" since they don't lay eggs
For some more context:
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
549 points (100.0% liked)
196
16574 readers
1898 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is actually a very smart point and held me back from going vegan for a while. Peter Singer has the best counterargument. Suppose a farm hatches chickens in multiples of 1000 each month. So, if the demand for chicken drops by 1/mo nothing will change, but if it drops by 1000/mo then they will hatch 1000 fewer chickens next month. Well, then if a thousand people go vegan, one will be the straw that broke the camel's back and they will have saved 1000 chickens. So, in other words, you have a 1 in 1000 chance of saving a 1000 chickens. Which means that each vegan saves one chicken on average. So, for all intents and purposes, you can consider yourself to have spared all of the animals you don't eat.
thats a lot of words for "no fewer chickens were raised any year than the year before since we started tracking it."
That's a really embarrassing way to admit you don't understand basic statistics. Please never buy stocks.
I wonder if you actually read that page, particularly the part that says people don't even know what gives them the most utility and when it seems to be calculable they still make irrational choices.
your math doesn't dictate behavior.
When it's calculable? You mean like when it's a concrete number of deaths? Like what actually happens?
And "people don't always act as the math tells them to" isn't a counter argument. You may as well reply to me by saying "but your arguments are moot because reason doesn't dictate my behavior"
that is essentially what i'm saying. farmers are no more rational than i am. neither are abbatoir owers or their workers or meat packers or food suppliers or grocers or restauranteurs. your reasoning would hold up if they were rational actors, but they are not, so you argument crumbles.
you statistics don't save chickens, either.