How do farmers reconcile themselves to the volumes of animals they send to slaughter over the course of their lifetimes?

[Empanadas]

Hi, this is something I’ve always wondered. However, I was watching that Netflix series about Prince Charles and the Duchy of Cornwall and there was a farmer showing a whole barn of cattle he has obviously reared from birth, but quite blithely saying, “oh they'll all be off next week.”

AIBU to think being a cattle / sheep / chicken farmer takes a certain type of person and to wonder how they deal with their conscience in this depressing business?

@Newgirls Jeremy Clarksons show is good because he doesn’t profess to knowing it all, the whole point is he does t. He gets in young farmers and specialists who show him how farming works. I was personally impressed at the number of young, female farmers he had on the show advising him.

@Empanadas

No we do NOT own animals. The fact any animal exists, as a species, means it has as much right to exist as any human.

NO animal is a commodity.

We should never assume the right to “play god” with the lives of animals. As humans, we have the gift of choice. We could use it wisely, but we are abusing it and we should be ashamed at the way we live.

This should be such a natural and obvious conclusion to make, but it always surprises me to see how people struggle to see we shouldnt be playing god. Small children, before being "civilised" into our society, always see this so clearly, and are horrified that the cute farm animals we read to them about before going to bed, are actually what they eat...

"Grow up. We DO own animals. That is how it works. My cat is my property, legally and practically. The farmer owns the cows and the sheep, they are property."

i think if you replace the word "animals, cat and cows" with "slave" here, this would have been a typical sentence from some hundreds of years ago..which we would all agree now is disgusting.

@Newgirls

No not with him as a presenter. Violent bully. Very happy to watch James Reebank and other more genuine farmers though.

He's not just the presenter. It's about his farming year on his farm. With all the ups and downs. Some of it was for comedy value but some was not. He featured knowledgeable people who helped him. I follow James Rebanks on Twitter. He writes as if he knows all the answers which is a bit off putting. You never see any of his disasters.

[quote 21Flora]@Newgirls Jeremy Clarksons show is good because he doesn’t profess to knowing it all, the whole point is he does t. He gets in young farmers and specialists who show him how farming works. I was personally impressed at the number of young, female farmers he had on the show advising him.[/quote]
I follow the shepherdess on Twitter. She was bursting with pride about her contribution on the show. She was showing that women can do anything as well as a man including shearing. She gave Jeremy a ewe to shear but it kicked him in the balls so that was the end of that.

@JassyRadlett

There are so many people better qualified than him to talk on this - some of the young farmers on here.

I don't disagree with that, and if you'd posted that I'd probably have agreed with you - although there is an argument that Clarkson takes these sorts of issues to a different audience than other presenters are able to reach.

I am just so everlastingly tired of the 'if X says something, it must automatically be wrong' nonsense.

He will have reached exactly the audience the producers wanted him to reach

@GorekyPark

i think if you replace the word "animals, cat and cows" with "slave" here, this would have been a typical sentence from some hundreds of years ago..which we would all agree now is disgusting

Whats disgusting (and offensive) is you comparing slaves with animals. Fucking racist too.

But the way some animals are treated is just like slaves,

He will have reached exactly the audience the producers wanted him to reach

Well, I wish it was that exact a science.

But nevertheless, do you think that’s not an audience that should be reached with the sorts of messages others have described the show as having, or the young farmers apparently featured? Why?

And I’ll reiterate: I agree he speaks to a particular audience. It’s not me. But I don’t think all content should be aimed at me, and moreover what I took issue with was your statement that if you agreed with anything Clarkson had said you’d automatically have to rethink. It’s a stupid, thoughtless statement which sums up the modern focus on the messenger being more important than the message.

In our current societal and legal structure, in pretty much the world over, animals are indeed classified as property. You may not think this is how it should be, but it is currently how it is. If you steal someone's dog, you have committed theft. If you rustle someone's sheep and slaughter it, you have committed theft. If caught, tried and convicted, you will be punished for having committed the crime of theft - the unlawful taking of someone's property. Not kidnap, not murder, theft.

But the way some animals are treated is just like slaves

I think the point is that comparing animals to slaves is inherently offensive because by definition you are saying that human slaves are comparable to animals. Well, sure, that's what a lot of American slave owners thought about their property, that they were sub-human and more beast than person.

I'm surprised people still have that view though, Iheartbaby.

"But the way some animals are treated is just like slaves"

This is exactly what i meant @GorekyPark and you know it...I actually said this would be a disgusting sentence...

Gammony click bait
This is just a reductive and frankly childish way to look at another human being.
It just isn't helpful.

I object strongly to white middle aged women expressing any kind of view being labeled Karen and I can't see any positives of doing to other groups either.

How would no animal ownership even work? What have we done with all the cats, dogs, guinea pigs etc of the world? Have we just culled them all? Are they roaming the streets free? My cat would probably do quite well but my dog would be fucked.
But joking aside, how would that work? Are we holding a mass killing event for all domesticated animals?

I just imagined all the released quineapigs on a street roaming in littpe fluffy gangs

no it wasnt...what are you on about? i am saying that saying you
own animals, and you can do whatever you want with them, torture them, playing god etc. is what the disgusting slave traders used to say about innocent human beings hundreds of years ago...

...and i will be disconnecting from your comments @GorekyPark, from now, looking back at your posts to others dont think our conversation would be a fruitful one in anyway.

mbosnz - yes, that’s because laws are human laws.

Humans have presumed to own other species and have devised a whole system of legislation around this. But in reality, we don’t own them and never did.

Yes I might have bought my cat. As a human, that gives me the right to give it a good, safe home. I gain from the companionship of my pet. If he is ill and the vet says it’s kinder to pts, then that’s what I have to do as a responsible pet “owner.”

But I do not see myself as having the right to terminate a healthy animal’s life at any given moment, just because I might have paid money for him. Not do I have the right to keep that cat in poor conditions, just because it suits me or it’s cheaper for me as “owner.” The cat has as much right to exist as I do. I do not get to decide the length of his life, simply because I happen to be a human.

@Kumonkumon

no it wasnt...what are you on about? i am saying that saying you own animals, and you can do whatever you want with them, torture them, playing god etc. is what the disgusting slave traders used to say about innocent human beings hundreds of years ago...

Urm…no you can’t do anything you want with them

Torture is still illegal of an animal and actually so is killing them unless you it’s in an abattoir or with a vet

And hunting off course but you need a license