

'Bacontrepreneurs' Building Bacon Empire - lukas
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=7391205&pa

======
JacobAldridge
At a recent stag night I attended, the $450 bottle of wine (which was, alas,
about $445 above our budget) included 'Bacon' in its list of flavours.

We spent the night wondering if that was kosher?

------
jlees
I just have to say that 'bacontrepreneur' is the best word I've ever heard.

Though it might not work quite the same with some pronunciations :(

------
vaksel

       They're experimenting with a bacon-scented body spray
    

Now you too can smell like you just got off your shift at McDonald

------
ars
Kosher bacon salt?

------
dejb
The thought that so many people find such novelty in the carcases pigs sickens
me. Given the way many pigs are 'farmed' I'd say a more accurate description
would be 'Tortureprenuers'. One day, within our lifetimes, this will seem
about as funny as slavery or child molestation and the stench of it will never
be removed from those who promoted it.

~~~
unalone
The thing about slavery/child molestation? They're offenses against human
beings. Animals are different.

We can argue about animal rights at some point, sure, but let's have the
argument when you're not comparing human pain to animal pain and when you're
not making up stupid words like "torturepreneur."

~~~
dejb
It was not a statement of direct equivalence and I stand by the comparison. Do
you believe that animals have a lesser capacity for feeling than children?
Their is intellectual capacity is at a similar level. Doesn't it make sense
that they have the same capacity to feel pain as a child? Where do you draw
the line at being OK with causing extreme pain to other beings?

We where surprised to find that we shared so much DNA with other animals and
it seems likely that we will find that the neural processes have a lot in
common as well. My guess is that we will find that animal consciousness is
much like our own with an obviously reduced inferential capacity.

The comparison with slavery is valid in the sense something that was once
considered normal (or more likely 'unpleasant but convenient/necessary') can
become abhorrent. There were probably a lot of people who knew deep down that
it wasn't right but it was so convenient. In the history books those that
promoted slavery don't tend to come off so well. The difference now is that
the pace of change is faster and our lifespan may also grow considerably.

As for the term 'torturepreneur', I thought was an apt response to the title.

~~~
ars
By your comparison you think you are increasing the status of animals, but
really you are decreasing the status of humans.

And once you make humans into animals humans no longer care about such things
- animals sure don't.

There is a massive and fundamental difference between animals and humans that
no amount of comparing "DNA similarity or neural processes" is going to
bridge.

When peta runs ads about humans also being meat, then think people will stop
eating animals. But actually what happens is that people think about eating
humans.

Do not try to increase animals to the level of humans - it does not work, and
it's incorrect.

Instead increase the level of humans even higher, and emphasize the difference
to animals even more.

~~~
dejb
I am stating reality as I see it and then deriving my morals from that view of
reality. Your argument starts from a desired result (the 'elevation of
humans') and works back toward reality from there.

Humans are meat. That is reality. Even if the consequences of realising this
was rampant cannibalism it wouldn't change that fact.

To me the thing that separates humans from animals is also the thing that
would make us not want to torture them. We are able to model reality in more
detail and to do this we need to be able to consider each situation from all
perspectives. Considering reality from the view of an animal in pain would
cause any empathetic being some degree of pain. Those that block this or just
can't see this part of reality have a second rate existence in my view and are
frankly little better than animals.

~~~
ars
Leaving aside for the moment your assumption that eating animals is equal to
torturing them (which is not true).

Your request is to view the world from the point of view of the animal. Well
animals do not care in the slightest about the pain of another animal.

So I reject that idea. I prefer to view the world from the point of view of a
human. And humans do care, but to a human an animal is food, and a human is
not.

To an animal everything is food, there is no category "not food". So by saying
humans are meat (and therefor food), you are basically advocating for humans
to act as animals.

~~~
dejb
> Leaving aside for the moment your assumption that eating animals is equal to
> torturing them

I don't assume or believe this. What I referred to was modern factory farming
or feedlots. Pigs in particular are subject to some of the most horrific
living circumstances.

But you have had enough opportunities to state that you believe the torture of
animals is in any way wrong. Since you have failed to do so I think it is
reasonable to proceed with the view that you believe it to be OK if there is
even a small utility value in it.

> Your request is to view the world from the point of view of the animal. Well
> animals do not care in the slightest about the pain of another animal.

So now you are arguing that we should be taking our moral cues from animals?
This is somewhat akin to the argument about the terrorist being so evil that
we need to resort to their tactics - except the 'terrorists' here are
defenceless animals.

The second sentence here is almost certainly untrue. Such broad statement
should require at least some evidence.

> I prefer to view the world from the point of view of a human.

The more angles you can view a situation from, the better your model of
reality is. In chess you need to view the game from your opponent's
perspective and in relationships you need to try to understand how your
partner feels. Similarly in interactions with animals it makes sense to try to
model their behaviour by taking their perspective. This is the case if you
have a pet, are hunting or are being hunted. I believe this is an advantageous
and natural human trait. Because we have more surplus brain power we can do it
better than other animals.

A necessary part of running this model accurately is to glimpse at some of the
likely/obvious feelings of the animal being modelled. Those who don't feel any
discomfort at the extreme pain of an animal are either censoring their view or
they simply don't have the mental capacity to construct an accurate model.
Either way I believe it is an impoverished way of viewing reality.

Hopefully this extend description has at least allowed you to understand my
argument.

> To an animal everything is food, there is no category "not food".

This is an obviously incorrect statement. Koala bears only eat Eucalyptus
leaves. In percentage terms roughly 90% the of animal biomass is necessarily
formed through eating plants. Carnivorous animals are by necessity a small
minority.

> So by saying humans are meat (and therefor food), you are basically
> advocating for humans to act as animals.

This is a silly argument that doesn't follow from anything I have said. Even
under your logic there is another option - don't eat meat. But that is a
different argument.

