Brainless chicken farming

[dragon]

I'am sorry say what? How are they supposed to make them brainless other than surgery. I know the guy is an architecture student but I've heard similar stuff from people closer to the field.

Architecture student André Ford has proposed a new system for the mass production of chicken that removes the birds' cerebral cortex so that they don't experience the horrors of being packed together tightly in vertical farms.

Each year, the UK raises and kills around 800 million broiler chickens for their meat. These creatures are grown in vast sheds with no natural light over the course of six to seven weeks. They are bred to grow particularly quickly and often die because their hearts and lungs cannot keep up with their body's rapid growth.

Philosopher Paul Thompson from Purdue University has suggested " The Blind Chicken Solution". He argues that chickens blinded by "accident" have been developed into a strain of laboratory chickens that don't mind being crowded together as much as normal chickens do. As a result, he argues, we should consider using blind chickens in food production as a solution to the problem of overcrowding in the poultry industry. He argues that it would be more humane to have blind chickens than ones that can see.

Ford goes a step further and proposes a "Headless Chicken Solution". This would involve removing the cerebral cortex of the chicken to inhibit its sensory perceptions so that it could be produced in more densely-packed conditions without the associated distress. The brain stem for the chicken would be kept intact so that the homeostatic functions continue to operate, allowing it to grow.

link

[Ziggy Stardust]

I know the guy is an architecture student but I've heard similar stuff from people closer to the field.

Do you have any sources for this? Googling the subject has only come up with other references to this architecture student, and pointless conjecture from philosophers and activists with no indication of practicality.

[Legault]

Whether or not this is a feasible option is irrelevant, because I can see no good reason to give a damn about chicken's rights. Really now, is the reduced suffering of poultry worth the higher cost to the consumer (many of whom, by the way, are lower-class)?

This fantasical concern with animal rights seems like a silly overextension of utilitarianism to me.

[Losonti Tokash]

Sorry, dude, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of cutting off an animal's beak, feet, and eyes to increase KFC's profit margins. The ethically raised meat at my grocery store is the exact price as the rest, and there's better ways to make food more affordable than the awful shit that goes on in factory farms.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Whether or not this is a feasible option is irrelevant, because I can see no good reason to give a damn about chicken's rights. Really now, is the reduced suffering of poultry worth the higher cost to the consumer (many of whom, by the way, are lower-class)?

This fantasical concern with animal rights seems like a silly overextension of utilitarianism to me.

It is not a silly over-extension. Do you suffer? Yes. Is it wrong when someone causes you to suffer? Yes. Is there some qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) difference between you and a chicken that makes its suffering not count? No. However a chicken's lack of higher cognition does restrict the range of things that cause suffering, so there is a quantitative difference.

So, if feasible, it is a good thing to reduce the capacity of chickens to experience suffering if they are destined to be grilled such that the ratio between suffering caused by agricultural practices and the utility of eating chicken is decreased? Yes.

Really simple. Unfortunately, I dont think this is feasible unless you go into an embryo and remove the cells that have differentiated into cerebral tissue... which, given the volume of chickens, is probably impossible. Genetic engineering probably wont work because there is not just one gene for a cerebral cortex, but a network of them that are needed elsewhere for other developmental bits. It might be possible to fuck with the regulation, but even with Gallus' genome, that is no easy task.

[FireNexus]

Could they just cause brain damage with a direct injection of a posion or neurotoxin of some kind directly into the brain tissue? It seems like fully removing the cerebral cortex wouldn't be necessary if you can just destroy it when the chicken is hatched.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Whether or not this is a feasible option is irrelevant, because I can see no good reason to give a damn about chicken's rights.

What does feasibility have to do with chicken's rights? I intentionally mentioned NOTHING about morality/ethics/animal rights in my post (though I agree with everything Alyrium says, that is irrelevant). I am talking about simple cost-benefit analysis, here, Einstein. Do you know what the word 'feasibility' even means?

Really now, is the reduced suffering of poultry worth the higher cost to the consumer (many of whom, by the way, are lower-class)?

Stick it up your ass. Besides the fact that you are horribly straw-manning my post, you have not demonstrated that this option is economically, or even scientifically, feasible to the point where it actually WILL save the consumer money. For the sake of argument, let's ignore morality and focus solely on the monetary aspect. How much will this cost to do, including R&D to actual develop a system where it's possible to do this on a large scale? IS it even possible to do on a large scale, or will the incredibly cost and complexity of the procedure pass on even HIGHER costs to the consumer?

This fantasical concern with animal rights seems like a silly overextension of utilitarianism to me.

How fucking stupid are you? I never mentioned animal rights or utilitarianism in my post, nor do I state anything that even vaguely hints at such concerns. Also, 'fantasical' is not a word.

So, any sources or proof that this can even work? Or that it should?

[Losonti Tokash]

Yes, I can see how people who get upset at overuse of antibiotics and growth hormones would be perfectly fine with someone injecting a neurotoxin into their food.

[Lagmonster]

What you're looking at, from an agricultural standpoint, is the need for an entirely new organism. The most comfortable layman's analogy I can come to would be a meat plant, if that's not too obtuse.

[Korto]

Or factory vat meat. Which may even be possible with current technology, for all I know. Best of luck selling it, though.

I admit I actually feel a little sickened by the thought of us deliberetly creating brainless chickens just so we can go and pack them in tighter, like they're just so many cogs in a machine.
Free-range meat isn't that much more expensive, and it would become even cheaper with more demand. Chickens seem to be an animal that can fit in well with a decentralized model, as you can run a flock of chickens in an orchard, rotate on crop-fields, they can basically look after themselves and even mostly feed themselves on what they find, depending on how many you have. If farmers saw chickens as a small, mostly self-minding, side line that eliminates pests (saving money on chemicals), then we may do away with the (debateable) need for factory-farming.
Far as I'm concerned, "Cruel Tight-pack" v. "Brainless Tight-pack" begs the question of whether we actually need tight-pack at all.

Besides which, on a practicality side it wouldn't surprise me to hear that "fix cruelty by breeding an animal without a brain" is much the same as "fix transport by inventing teleportation"; ie, sounds great but we have no idea how to successfully do it. I can't see surgery, even on a mass-factory level, being economic (there's a horror thought, mass-production brain-surgery).

[Legault]

I wouldn't agree here (mindless or no), but if it can indeed be done through selective breeding it doesn't have to add to the cost. Maybe a little up front in research and development, but long term it'd probably be the same since it is otherwise all the same shit.

If you can do it for free, then I suppose there's no reason not to go down this road.

It is not a silly over-extension. Do you suffer? Yes. Is it wrong when someone causes you to suffer? Yes.

The leap from "I do not enjoy suffering" to "I have a moral obligation to reduce suffering" is a highly dubious one, much less the leap to minimizing poultry suffering.

Is there some qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) difference between you and a chicken that makes its suffering not count? No. However a chicken's lack of higher cognition does restrict the range of things that cause suffering, so there is a quantitative difference.

Two major things wrong with this part. First, there's no way to evaluate the subjective experience of other human beings, let alone chickens. Second, coming up with a quantitative model for pleasure and pain requires a reduction to some biochemical like dopamine, which, as we know from human experience, is going to be insufficient.

So, if feasible, it is a good thing to reduce the capacity of chickens to experience suffering if they are destined to be grilled such that the ratio between suffering caused by agricultural practices and the utility of eating chicken is decreased? Yes.

It's certainly feasible, but it always comes at a cost. No free lunches, you understand. Putting a plan like this in practice is going to require, at an absolute minimum, governmental oversight to enforce the law and less cost-effective methods of meat production.

What you'd be proposing, then, is a higher cost and more market intervention... and for what? To satisfy some unfounded obligation to "care for all living things"? Sounds like a residual Christian ideal to my ears.

What does feasibility have to do with chicken's rights? I intentionally mentioned NOTHING about morality/ethics/animal rights in my post (though I agree with everything Alyrium says, that is irrelevant). I am talking about simple cost-benefit analysis, here, Einstein. Do you know what the word 'feasibility' even means?

If you're going to go out of your way to insult someone, you'd better make sure not to make yourself seem stupid in the process. My "feasibility" comment referred to the point about the guy being an architect, and the possibility that this isn't even possible in the first place. Probably a good idea to pick up on those context clues, yeah?

Stick it up your ass.

lol. I wasn't even addressing you.

Besides the fact that you are horribly straw-manning my post, you have not demonstrated that this option is economically, or even scientifically, feasible to the point where it actually WILL save the consumer money. For the sake of argument, let's ignore morality and focus solely on the monetary aspect. How much will this cost to do, including R&D to actual develop a system where it's possible to do this on a large scale? IS it even possible to do on a large scale, or will the incredibly cost and complexity of the procedure pass on even HIGHER costs to the consumer?

...I think you're confused. I'm saying that the plan seems ill-advised, both from a monetary and morality perspective. So I think we're on the same page, but you haven't exactly made it clear.

[Losonti Tokash]

No way to evaluate the subjective experience? If a living thing does nothing but scream and thrash and try to kill itself and its companions (which you solve by maiming it), I daresay that is not a positive environment. The fact that you think it is a massive leap in logic from "undue suffering is a bad thing" to "I should reduce the suffering of others whenever possible" is...interesting.

[Legault]

No way to evaluate the subjective experience? If a living thing does nothing but scream and thrash and try to kill itself and its companions (which you solve by maiming it), I daresay that is not a positive environment.

Positive for what, exactly? Perhaps the subjective experience of that organism is one of unadulterated primal bliss. Who knows? By the way, I thought you were getting at another point (which may come up later), so I'll say this anyway: Descartes holds that, as animals lack minds, all of their screaming and squawking at torturous pain is really no different than the gears of a clock. A cow's final, desperate cry before the bolt gun isn't any different than a steam clock going off for tea time.

The fact that you think it is a massive leap in logic from "undue suffering is a bad thing" to "I should reduce the suffering of others whenever possible" is...interesting.

Why thank you! If you have a specific question, I'd love to clarify.

[Simon_Jester]

Really simple. Unfortunately, I dont think this is feasible unless you go into an embryo and remove the cells that have differentiated into cerebral tissue... which, given the volume of chickens, is probably impossible. Genetic engineering probably wont work because there is not just one gene for a cerebral cortex, but a network of them that are needed elsewhere for other developmental bits. It might be possible to fuck with the regulation, but even with Gallus' genome, that is no easy task.

Maybe they've got the genome of a chicken born with some kind of variation on anencephaly, and figure they can base the modifications on that already?

[Zablorg]

No way to evaluate the subjective experience? If a living thing does nothing but scream and thrash and try to kill itself and its companions (which you solve by maiming it), I daresay that is not a positive environment.

Positive for what, exactly? Perhaps the subjective experience of that organism is one of unadulterated primal bliss. Who knows? By the way, I thought you were getting at another point (which may come up later), so I'll say this anyway: Descartes holds that, as animals lack minds, all of their screaming and squawking at torturous pain is really no different than the gears of a clock. A cow's final, desperate cry before the bolt gun isn't any different than a steam clock going off for tea time.

Are you suggesting that we can't know that an animal is feeling pain, or that pain is somehow not real?

[Legault]

Are you suggesting that we can't know that an animal is feeling pain, or that pain is somehow not real?

Something like that. Remember, for Descartes, mind and body are entirely distinct, which would make the pain-is-illusion position much stronger. Most of us moderns would discard this duality, but the idea that lower cognitive function (perhaps many times lower) may make subjective considerations equally lower still holds a good deal of weight.

And even if the pain of chickens were "real" in the sense that it's real for human beings, I'm not sure it's relevant. I'm a bullet-biter here in favor of human interest: let all the chickens in the world experience abject agony if it means a kid in Africa gets an extra meal for a day.

[madd0ct0r]

So, I take it you are in favor of removing all quality of life livestock regulation then?

Oh, and do you eat pork?

[Legault]

Yes to both. Though I'm curious: what does pork have to do with it?

[madd0ct0r]

Pigs are pretty damn intelligent. If I recall correctly, about the same as apes, which puts them at the level of a small child.

When people start talking about 'lower cognitive function' means that pain is less important, I invite you to apply a soldering iron to a small child. The pain is just an illusion after all.

Now, you are saying 1) market intervention is bad and 2) starving African children are bad

You do realize that the buying power of American and Europeans means that we because value beef highly enough to buy all of the grain / soya to feed these cattle intensively, we starve Africans ourselves?

Same goes for industrial pigs. Same goes for industrial chickens.

The food you cram into that twisted, amputated freak of a bird could easily go to feed an African but the market says no. Nothing to do with the evil government.

[Legault]

While I'm tempted to take this in an economic direction (as the likely lone Republican on these forums, I have nothing but praise for the market), it's unnecessary, because all of this boils down to personal value judgments. I offered up "cognitive function" as one possible way to look at things, but you're right that certain animals that we consume are very intelligent. Pigs are a good example; so are dogs, which are a delicacy in some cultures. But those kinds of criticisms don't fully apply to my case, as I maintain that people take precedent as a rule.

[madd0ct0r]

So how do you reconcile 'people taking precedance' with the market failure to actually distribute food?

[madd0ct0r]

I was pointing out the contradiction in his argument.

to paraphrase he was arguing "this sort of thing is stupid, becuase like all market interventions it distorts the market resulting in higher prices. Higher prices means less poor people can afford it."

My counter-argumet is that already poor people can't afford it, and it's everything to do with rich people's greed and nothing to do with animal welfare legislation raising prices.

[Legault]

So how do you reconcile 'people taking precedance' with the market failure to actually distribute food?

From where I'm standing, it's two distinct positions:

1) The free market, regulated in ways but unfettered for the most part, promotes the greatest economic welfare in the long-term. I admit that this is a hugely controversial opinion to hold, not to mention a pretty gross oversimplification! But it doesn't really impact...

2) Any resources spent protecting animal well-being could be used towards human well-being. This is what I mean with my "people taking precedence" statement.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Perhaps the subjective experience of that organism is one of unadulterated primal bliss. Who knows?

Give me a minute. I have to process the stupidity.

Ok.

1) Shared evolutionary history and the conservation of basic processes leads us logically to that inference, provided the processes are the same
2) Said processes are the same.
3) Therefore, stabbing a chicken causes the same sort of distress to the chicken that stabbing a human does, to the extent that their brains are capable of processing the information. Pain yes. Long term physiological distress, yes. Existential angst, probably not etc.

Descartes holds that, as animals lack minds, all of their screaming and squawking at torturous pain is really no different than the gears of a clock.

And neuroscience disproves pretty much all of Descartes. Sorry. But you fail both biology and philosophy. Come back when your brain finds its cognitive ability.

Remember, for Descartes, mind and body are entirely distinct, which would make the pain-is-illusion position much stronger.

And this position has been disproven by a century of study of the brains of humans and animals. Go fuck yourself.

as I maintain that people take precedent as a rule

And you fail miserably to justify this rule. In fact, it is inconsistent with your premises. If you are a dualist, you must accept the proposition that you cannot know if anyone other than you exists. If this is the case, we could all just be illusions. So please, go torture a six year old and get back to me. Afterall, you cannot be sure the six year old exists, let alone has a mind.

As for a quantitative model, in practice, that would be rather difficult. Weighting however, is not, and more than suits most circumstances for which we may need such an evaluation. For example, stabbing a human activates the exact same parts of the brain that it does in a rat. The physical sensation of pain is exactly the same (you know, that whole neuroscience thing). However, a human also has a greater ability to suffer in different ways, such as feeling violated, and other things that require more abstract thought and takes place in the cerebral cortex. So, one on one, a rat is "worth" more than a person. That we might have difficulty making determinations in the margin is irrelevant.

However, the immense suffering of millions of chickens would not be justified by the marginal "gain" of a lower price per lb of their meat, particularly given that we do not actually consume anywhere near the annual production capacity of chickens using current methods, and a large drop in production capacity would have next to no impact on the quality of life for people. Unless of course you are about to claim that eating half a kilo of meat per day is somehow necessary for human happiness. If you think that, I have some vegetarians and even for that matter Europeans and Asians I want you to meet.

Oh, but I forgot. None of that matters because you are Cartesian Dualist and thus a failed philosophy student.

[Legault]

Give me a minute. I have to process the stupidity.

Oh dear. You know that when you start a rebuttal this way, it's only asking for me to fire back, right? Have it your way.

1) Shared evolutionary history and the conservation of basic processes leads us logically to that inference, provided the processes are the same
2) Said processes are the same.
3) Therefore, stabbing a chicken causes the same sort of distress to the chicken that stabbing a human does, to the extent that their brains are capable of processing the information. Pain yes. Long term physiological distress, yes. Existential angst, probably not etc.

I'm really not sure whether I'm supposed to take this seriously. Human beings can't even relate to the subjective experience of other human beings, much less other animals. You can yammer all you want about irrelevancies like "shared evolutionary history" and "conservation of basic processes" (might want to work on that over-writing, by the way), but the basic problem here is the gap between one person's subjective experience and another's. It's entirely possible that certain people experience the same biochemicals in radically different ways.

Probability arguments are useless here, by the way, because we can't form probability statements without some sizable data. Any kind of subjectivity-tally is always going to end up at exactly one (and maybe not even one, depending on how you understand the self).

And neuroscience disproves pretty much all of Descartes. Sorry. But you fail both biology and philosophy. Come back when your brain finds its cognitive ability.

Forgive me; I haven't been keeping up with the scientific literature as much as you have. When did science overcome the Cartesian epistemological bubble?

And you fail miserably to justify this rule. In fact, it is inconsistent with your premises. If you are a dualist, you must accept the proposition that you cannot know if anyone other than you exists. If this is the case, we could all just be illusions. So please, go torture a six year old and get back to me. Afterall, you cannot be sure the six year old exists, let alone has a mind.

1) I'm not a dualist, but was rather offering up Descartes as a way to potentially approach this problem.
2) In his Meditations, Descartes goes on to solve (in his view) the problem of justifying the external world. Maybe you should read some undergradaute philosophy before getting pedantic.

As for a quantitative model, in practice, that would be rather difficult. Weighting however, is not, and more than suits most circumstances for which we may need such an evaluation. For example, stabbing a human activates the exact same parts of the brain that it does in a rat.

This is correct.

The physical sensation of pain is exactly the same (you know, that whole neuroscience thing).

This, however, is not. The "sensation of pain" is not a neuroscience thing; in fact, to claim such a senseless thing is a contradiction in terms. Science, as an empirical study, approaches the world from the outside-in, while subjective experience occurs from the inside-out. No amount of data on biochemical release is going to let us feel as the rat does.

I'm sorry in advance that I don't subscribe to your wholly inconsistent, entirely unoriginal scientism (that's "science-as-religion," by the way; I wouldn't explain this, but then you haven't even read Descartes, so I'm trying to be charitable). I await your personal attacks with open arms.