#Beef cow mistreatment

[terminabense]

  "Factory Farming: Cruelty Impacting Humans, Animals, and the Planet"

Factory farming, the industrialized production of livestock, has dire consequences for humans, animals, and the planet. For animals, it means a life of suffering in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions, often without access to natural behaviors or environments. Chickens, pigs, and cows endure unimaginable stress, injuries, and premature deaths, all for the sake of maximizing efficiency and profit.

For humans, factory farming poses significant health risks. The overuse of antibiotics in livestock to promote growth and prevent disease leads to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, posing a serious threat to public health. Workers in these facilities face dangerous conditions, exposure to harmful chemicals, and exploitative labor practices. Furthermore, communities near factory farms suffer from polluted air and water, leading to respiratory problems and other health issues.

Environmentally, factory farming is a major contributor to climate change, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. It generates large amounts of greenhouse gases, particularly methane from cattle, which significantly impacts global warming. Additionally, the industry consumes vast quantities of water and contributes to soil degradation and water pollution through runoff of animal waste and chemicals.

In summary, factory farming's quest for profit comes at an enormous cost to animal welfare, human health, and the environment. Sustainable and humane alternatives are essential for a healthier, more ethical future.

[fatphobiabusters]

Someone I follow on Twitter just had the shittiest take I’ve seen in awhile 🙃

https://twitter.com/alexmeshkin/status/1580816351631138816?s=46&t=hbfj8WL4aS-ZWTqaJdjpJg

https://twitter.com/alexmeshkin/status/1580816814912679937?s=46&t=hbfj8WL4aS-ZWTqaJdjpJg

"🧵I am likely going to need to mute this tweet after the comment I am about to make but here it goes anyways…

Once we labeled 'fat as beautiful' we opened Pandora’s box to minimizing serious health conditions."

"PSA: I am not responding to people that I offended about the 'obesity' issue. Refusing to accept obesity as a disease that causes other diseases is just as bad at refusing to acknowledge Long COVID is a serious disease."

This person is, of course, uneducated and ignorant as all fatphobes are. The organization that classified fatness as a disease literally went against the suggestions by their own researchers telling them not to do so. The reason why it's classified as a "disease" is because weight loss companies poured money down the throats of the people running the organization until they were guzzling that good lobbying (bribery) cash. They also used the paper thin excuse of "If we label it a disease, then maybe people will be more empathetic towards fat people......?" Which you don't even need more than two braincells to understand was a stupid excuse that of course would not benefit fat people in the slightest. The podcast Maintenance Phase talks about the choice to classify fatness as a disease if anyone wants to listen to it or read the transcript.

That person is also ignorant on the fact that there are no studies that show fatness to cause anything. Nothing at all. There are only correlations, which we've written before about the correlation vs. causation logical fallacy. Other oppressed groups also experience a correlation between their identities and health problems, but I imagine the guy who wrote those tweets would agree that being gay doesn't cause mental illness and being a person of color doesn't cause complications while giving birth. The actual cause is the oppression those groups face, which includes mistreatment as well as increased poverty and lack of access to healthcare. Their bodies are not physically more susceptible to health issues. And that's just the tip of the iceberg on the whole "fatness causes XYZ disease that thin people also can get but let's ignore that fact." Also, I have no doubt that guy would celebrate representation of people in wheelchairs or with vitiligo in fashion magazines as a positive thing. But as soon as it's representation for fat people that isn't outright hatred, suddenly we're "minimizing serious health conditions." And again as we have stated countless times, fatness is ultimately not a choice for the majority of fat people, and there is no proven way to change a fat person into a thin person for more than three to five years at most. So even if fatness was as unhealthy as he's saying, what does he want us to do? And are unhealthy people really undeserving of positive representation in society that doesn't make them into a joke or villain? Does he think people with cancer should be shunned from society as well?

All of this is just plain, recycled fatphobia that has been repeated again and again despite it being so easily refuted. If someone really wants to be a fatphobe, at this point they should at least be creative with it. "Accepting fat people will lead to the slaughter of anyone who hates beef because fat people are cows and the political correctness police have been equipped with weapons of mass destruction." Is some creativity too much to ask? -Mod Worthy

[atikdm]

The Hidden Cruelty of the Dairy Industry: Unveiling the Abuse

The dairy industry, often depicted with idyllic images of cows grazing peacefully in green pastures, hides a grim reality behind its glossy advertisements. The mistreatment and exploitation of dairy cows are widespread issues that merit urgent attention. This article aims 

For more information click here- Dairy industry abuse

to shed light on the abuse prevalent in the dairy industry, from the harsh conditions cows endure to the ethical and environmental implications of modern dairy farming practices.

The Life Cycle of a Dairy Cow

From birth, dairy cows are subjected to a cycle of exploitation. Calves are typically separated from their mothers within 24 hours of birth, causing significant distress to both. Female calves are raised to become milk producers, while male calves, often considered a byproduct, are either slaughtered for veal or raised for beef.

Once a cow reaches maturity, it is impregnated through artificial insemination. This cycle of forced impregnation, birth, and separation repeats every year to ensure a constant supply of milk. The physical toll on cows is immense; they are pushed to produce unnaturally high quantities of milk, leading to health issues like mastitis (a painful udder infection), lameness, and reproductive problems.

Living Conditions

The living conditions for dairy cows are often far from the pastoral scenes depicted in media. Many cows are confined in cramped, unhygienic spaces with little to no access to the outdoors. They stand on hard concrete floors, which contribute to joint and hoof problems. The lack of space and proper bedding can lead to sores and infections.

In some factory farms, cows are hooked up to milking machines multiple times a day. These machines can cause injuries if not maintained properly, and the constant milking can lead to chronic pain and infections. Additionally, the stress of these conditions can weaken their immune systems, making them more susceptible to disease.

Ethical Concerns

The ethical implications of dairy farming are profound. The continuous cycle of impregnation, birth, and separation is a source of significant emotional and physical stress for cows. The treatment of male calves is also deeply concerning; many are subjected to inhumane conditions and slaughtered at a young age.

Moreover, the concept of treating sentient beings as mere commodities raises serious moral questions. Cows are intelligent animals with complex social structures and the capacity to experience pain and distress. The routine practices of the dairy industry often ignore these aspects, prioritizing profit over animal welfare.

Environmental Impact

The dairy industry also has a substantial environmental footprint. Large-scale dairy farming contributes to deforestation, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Manure runoff from dairy farms can contaminate water sources, leading to algal blooms and the destruction of aquatic ecosystems. The methane produced by cows is a potent greenhouse gas, significantly contributing to climate change.

Additionally, dairy farming is resource-intensive, requiring vast amounts of water and feed. The land used to grow feed crops for dairy cows could be utilized more sustainably, either for direct human consumption or for reforestation efforts.

Moving Towards Change

Addressing the abuses in the dairy industry requires a multifaceted approach. Stricter regulations and enforcement are necessary to ensure better living conditions for cows and to reduce the environmental impact of dairy farming. Consumers can also play a crucial role by making informed choices, such as opting for plant-based alternatives or supporting ethical and sustainable dairy producers.

Public awareness campaigns and education are vital in changing perceptions and behaviors. Highlighting the plight of dairy cows and the environmental costs of dairy production can encourage more people to reconsider their dietary choices and support more humane and sustainable practices.

Conclusion

The dairy industry's facade of bucolic bliss masks a reality of widespread abuse and exploitation. By understanding the harsh conditions dairy cows endure, the ethical dilemmas involved, and the environmental impact of dairy farming, we can take steps towards a more compassionate and sustainable future. It is imperative that we reevaluate our relationship with dairy products and work towards a system that respects animal welfare and the planet.

[loudtravelerlight]

The Dark Side of Dairy: Unveiling the Mistreatment of Dairy Cows

The dairy industry, often romanticized with images of content cows grazing on lush pastures, has a less idyllic side that is rarely discussed. The mistreatment of dairy cows is a pervasive issue that encompasses various aspects of their lives, from their living conditions to their physical treatment. This article aims to shed light on these practices, exploring the reality behind the milk on our tables.

The Life Cycle of a Dairy Cow

To understand the extent of mistreatment, one must first comprehend the life cycle of a dairy cow in a commercial farm. Typically, dairy cows are bred to maximize milk production. The process begins with artificial insemination, often performed under stressful and unnatural conditions. Once pregnant, a cow's gestation period lasts about nine months, mirroring that of humans.

Upon giving birth, the calf is usually separated from the mother within hours. This practice is deeply distressing for both the cow and the calf. The cow often exhibits signs of stress and anxiety, such as bellowing and restlessness. The calf, depending on its sex, faces different fates: females are raised to replace older dairy cows, while males are often sold for veal or beef production.

Living Conditions

Contrary to popular belief, many dairy cows do not spend their lives grazing in open fields. Instead, they are often confined to cramped and unsanitary indoor spaces. These conditions are not only uncomfortable but can also lead to various health issues, such as lameness, respiratory problems, and infections.

One common ailment is mastitis, a painful inflammation of the udder, often caused by poor hygiene and over-milking. To prevent infections, cows are frequently given antibiotics, contributing to the growing issue of antibiotic resistance.

Physical Manipulations

Dairy cow mistreatment undergo several physical manipulations that are not only painful but also unnecessary. One such practice is tail docking, where a portion of the cow's tail is removed. This is done under the guise of improving hygiene and milk quality, though research has shown it has no significant benefits and causes significant pain and distress to the cow.

Dehorning is another common practice, where the horns of young calves are removed or burned off. This procedure is typically done without anesthesia, causing extreme pain. The justification for dehorning is to prevent injuries among cows and handlers, yet it raises serious ethical concerns regarding animal welfare.

The Role of Genetic Manipulation

Selective breeding has been employed to enhance milk production, resulting in cows that produce unnaturally large quantities of milk. This genetic manipulation has led to a host of health problems. High milk production strains the cow's metabolism, leading to issues such as ketosis, a condition caused by low blood sugar levels, and milk fever, resulting from low calcium levels.

Moreover, the physical burden of carrying an enlarged udder can cause chronic pain and discomfort. The lifespan of a dairy cow in such intensive farming conditions is significantly shortened. While a cow's natural lifespan can be up to 20 years, those in the dairy industry are often slaughtered after just 4-6 years when their milk production declines.

Emotional and Social Impact

Cows are sentient beings with complex emotional and social lives. They form strong bonds with their calves and other members of their herd. The constant cycle of impregnation, birth, and separation is not only physically taxing but also emotionally traumatic. The stress and deprivation of social interactions can lead to abnormal behaviors and a significant decline in their overall well-being.

Alternatives and Solutions

Awareness of these issues has led to a growing movement towards more humane and sustainable dairy farming practices. Some farmers are adopting methods that prioritize animal welfare, such as providing cows with more space, better nutrition, and opportunities for natural behaviors. Organic and pasture-based dairy farming are steps in the right direction, although they are not without their challenges and limitations.

Consumer choices also play a crucial role. By opting for products labeled as organic, grass-fed, or from farms certified for high animal welfare standards, consumers can drive demand for more ethical dairy farming practices. Additionally, the rise of plant-based milk alternatives offers a way to reduce reliance on dairy products altogether.

Legislative and Policy Changes

Governments and regulatory bodies have a significant part to play in improving the welfare of Dairy cow mistreatment. Stricter regulations on housing conditions, banning painful procedures like tail docking and dehorning, and enforcing higher standards of animal care can make a substantial difference. Subsidies and support for farmers transitioning to more humane practices can also encourage widespread change.

Conclusion

The mistreatment of dairy cows is a multifaceted issue rooted in the demands of modern agriculture and consumer preferences. While there is no simple solution, increased awareness and a collective effort towards more humane practices can lead to significant improvements. By understanding the reality of dairy farming and making informed choices, we can contribute to a system that respects and values the well-being of these sentient beings. The journey towards ethical dairy farming is challenging, but it is a necessary step for a more compassionate and sustainable future.

[crash3spooked]

today's niche drama: alpaca farmer beef

i have to talk about this because omg. this post will get long because there is so much and it requires so much background info.

so if you watch a lot of animal videos on youtube you have probably at least been recommended a video from morgan gold of Gold Shaw Farms. basically he is this guy who abandoned his 9-5 city life to move to Vermont and become a duck farmer/egg breeder. (these details are relevant, trust me).

he's been involved in some controversies before (outside general discourse of whether or not farming is even ethical to begin with), most notably for purchasing purebred dogs from apparently disreputable breeders and for allegedly buying livestock guardian dogs without doing the proper research into it first. to summarize key points from his storied farm dog controversies, he bought two purebred maremma sheepdogs to raise as LGDs, one has recurrent genetic health problems and has a history of chasing down and killing the chickens she is guarding. his other dog toby was diagnosed with lyme disease from a tick bite in July 2022, there is some circumstantial evidence to suggest that morgan was not taking his due diligence in protecting the dogs, who have long hair and regular access to grazing fields, from insect bites. also, i don't know where else to mention this, but morgan actually initially bought abby to breed with toby, but decided against it because of abby's temperament issues and health problems. he would later discover that despite abby being purchased from a breeder all the way in california and toby being from vermont, these dogs are so inbred that they are actually each other's genetic cousins. again, please remember that he purchased this dog specifically to breed her.

there was also some drama with abby's breeder, where she accuses him of mistreatment and poor training, and he accuses her of running a puppy mill. both of them make both correct and incorrect points here but abby's breeder kim is more outwardly rude and has her own backstory full of controversy so morgan gains the internet's favour on this one. i refer to this as drama and not controversy because both parties milked the audience engagement it resulted in for all it was worth. this truly was a very serious issue but morgan and kim treated it like a clickbait competition.

fast forward to last year and morgan is now raising highland cattle. you might recall that highland cattle started getting really really popular online last summer, specifically on youtube shorts. to remind you, morgan runs an egg hatchery. he mainly raises and breeds chickens, ducks, and geese. it's not an incredible stretch for him to shift focus to cows, but it's a bit outside his normal sphere. people pretty quickly accused him of exploitation, saying he only purchased the cows for more popularity and questioning whether he had put enough research or training into raising cows. again, morgan went from being a full-time corporate employee to a farmer, so while he has 8 years of experience with birds he does not have much professional experience with other animals and it is not unreasonable to question his level of preparedness. what's interesting to note that i haven't seen pointed out yet is that duck farming was actually on a steady increase in popularity and profitability in the US during the late 2010s. i had a suspicion this might be true, because i unfortunately remember too turnt tony, and the hallmark of an animal's popularity is an influencer making one their schtick. i looked into the numbers and according to the Iowa Farm Bureau, the demand for pet ducks, duck meat and duck byproducts hit a real spike in north america in 2015, one year before morgan gold chose to open a duck farm. not necessarily causation, but definitely a correlation there. (isn't this post about alpacas?? i know. we're getting there.)

it is now 2024, and market researchers have determined that we are currently in a highland cattle farming bubble. in economic terms, that basically means that a shitload of people have recently decided to start farming and breeding them for profit. economic bubbles are sometimes (oftentimes, if we're being honest) artificially produced and inflated, meaning that some government body or lobbyist group went out of their way to advertise something to the general public until it was popular. economics are fake, so i don't have too much detail on the specifics of the current highland cattle bubble other than that it exists and that it is clear to see from what gets pushed to me on social media. what's relevant for this discussion is the fact that this information has lead many people to reignite the accusations against morgan gold. i dont watch his content these days but i found he always had an overly clinical, overly corporate, "city-slicker" approach to farming that painted his animals more as commodities than beings; i think of him as a family vlogger, but his kids are birds. he knows people are just here to see the cute animals from the thumbnails, but he styles his channel as a sort of how-to guide on starting and running your own farm. he discusses his animals as products, yes, but he also places a heavy emphasis on lifestyle and admits he was drawn to a quiet country life and the self-fulfilment of running his own business.

with that out of the way, the alpaca stuff. before the highland cattle bubble, the 2000s and very early 2010s saw the rise and fall of the alpaca bubble. like with any bubble, among the trend-flitters you're bound to have people who are genuinely dedicated to their field of work and do it without real financial motivation. morgan recently reached out to a few members of the alpaca farming community under the pretense of collaborating on a video, comparing the highland cattle bubble to the alpaca bubble and discussing the history as well as the reality of each. to be very clear, the people morgan reached out to for this video are currently alpaca farmers. these are not people who bought into the bubble in the early 2000s, but people who are currently involved in farming and breeding alpacas. again, i have my own opinions about the ethics of farming and breeding, but they're not relevant for right now. what is relevant is that morgan conducted interviews with these people for a video, told them exactly what the video was intended to be about, then went and used them in a completely different video without anyone's knowledge or consent.

morgan released a lengthy, heavily edited video on his second channel decrying the entire alpaca farming industry as a multi-level marketing scheme. i would say his logic is hard to follow but the thing that is difficult to describe is the way he doesn't actually attempt to explain this stance. he covers a lot of ground in the video. some of it is plain misinfo, some of it is just misrepresented, but the interesting thing is that his actual point of focus throughout the video seems to be explaining why alpaca farming might not be very profitable. this is the main point he seems to argue, when he isn't just explaining what an MLM is. also, i mention the heavy editing because a lot of the video's runtime is padded with clips from shows, movies, and interviews, as well as what i can only call anti-alpaca propaganda. videos of alpacas mating, making strange noises, and spitting, with weird mocking voiceover and captions. also, AI generated art of especially ugly-looking alpacas. this is not conjecture. he really generated AI pictures of alpacas that looked grosser than real ones. of the claims he makes about alpaca farming, well, you might notice fairly quickly that a few of them are exactly the same accusations that are being leveled against him. i will get back to this in a second but there is something even weirder.

during this video, and i am not joking, he takes a stance against breeding, against for-profit farming, against commodifying animals and against making seriously huge business decisions based on your own romanticized ideals of certain lifestyles.

i personally disagree with all of these practices, don't get me wrong! commerce is evil and killing our planet. it is not cute that rural areas are desperately underfunded. but this is coming from a for-profit duck breeder, who runs a youtube channel where he commodifies his animals and encourages people to quit their day jobs so they can move to the country to become farmers, which is something that HE did!!! this is like dumbo releasing a statement against being an elephant while he tromps through the circus eating peanuts.

to add to this vibe, he claims that all alpaca farmers buy animals without doing research first and end up mistreating them or in some way harming their development. he claims that most people think alpacas are incredibly lucrative and are only interested in owning them for profit. he claims that alpaca farming is nothing but a breeding chain, that the wool is not actually worth very much and the real money is in simply passing alpacas from one farm to the next to he re-bred and re-sold. these are all things he has personally been accused of. he specifically sells hatching eggs, and does so because selling duck eggs for breeding rather than for food is more profitable. he breeds all his animals and again even had plans to breed his dogs. he has been accused of failing to research consistently since the early days of his channel and has even admitted in the past when he gets in over his head with a new animal (his geese come to mind specifically). he has a habit of buying animals for one purpose or another and then just breeding them. the things he said about alpaca wool being worth basically nothing are not even true and most alpaca farms make WAY more money selling knitwear than baby alpacas. this is true of chicken farms outside of the meat industry whose profits mainly come from breeding.

anyway that was my rant i dont even know how to end this off besides saying isnt this RIDICULOUS

[ainews]

Kits, also known as baby foxes, may seem like an odd topic when it comes to hamburgers, but they actually play a major role in the eristic nature of the classic American meal. While kits themselves may not have any direct involvement in the production or consumption of hamburgers, their very existence highlights the logical fallacies and contradictions surrounding this iconic food.

First and foremost, it is important to address the ethical dilemma surrounding hamburgers. The meat industry, which is responsible for producing the beef used in hamburgers, has been heavily criticized for its treatment of animals. This includes the confinement and mistreatment of cows, as well as the slaughter of these animals for their meat. Kits, as young and innocent animals, serve as a reminder of the cruelty and senselessness that goes into creating a simple hamburger.

Additionally, kits can be seen as symbolic of the larger issue of factory farming and its impact on the environment. The mass production of beef for hamburgers has been linked to deforestation, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. These harmful effects not only impact the animals and ecosystems involved but also contribute to larger issues such as climate change. Kits, with their innocence and vulnerability, represent the victims of these destructive practices.

Furthermore, kits serve as a reminder of the cognitive dissonance surrounding hamburgers. Eaters of hamburgers often try to distance themselves from the reality of where their food comes from and the implications of their choices. Kits, with their cute and endearing appearance, serve as a stark contrast to the reality of the burger on their plate. This disconnect highlights the illogical and inconsistent nature of consuming a food that causes harm and suffering.

In conclusion, kits may not directly participate in the production or consumption of hamburgers, but their presence serves as a poignant reminder of the many issues that surround this popular food. From ethical concerns to environmental impacts and cognitive dissonance, kits bring attention to the contradictory and eristic nature of hamburgers. As we continue to reflect on the food choices we make, it is important to consider the broader implications and consequences. After all, if a baby fox can highlight the flaws in our logic, perhaps it's time to rethink our love for the classic hamburger.

[8-bit-ch]

I got some memories that resurfaced. Back before I knew how to report ads, it wasn't long ago I was in the same house still, I encountered one that I'm 99.9% sure was from fuckin peta...

The one image that stuck in my head, was a calf, not a full grown cow, a CALF, YOUNG COW, being beheaded while it was still moving. I skipped the ad at that point. If I remember correctly the thing was about beef or something, maybe company mistreating their livestock...idk all I know is my jaw was hanging open like a damn fridge door because of that.

I love love love animals. And it broke my heart to see the poor thing struggle. I want to punch whoever thought that was a good idea to post to the internet...

I understand you need money and you need to have good products, ECT ECT. But that just made me turn it off.

Fuck peta and whoever made that damn ad, fuck whoever thought "hey let's make this an ad for all to see at random!". Those people, they know who they are, they fucking disgust me.

[fmpy2]

Farming and Industry Contextual research

Impact on the earth

After the industrial revolution the birth rates rose majorly with them quadrupling and 300ish million children being born in-between the 1760 and 1804. This naturally made a massive need for a ramping up and industrialising of farming using slaughterhouses and mass breeding. Despite them being invented 150 years prior in 1660 the mass slaughter of animals became a global and coherent institution in the 19th century. This caused a lot of wild species of commonly ate and large animals to be extinct like wild cows, pig and sheep as the bred them into population control and genetic optimum for product. However the livestock industry was the only farming institution that destroyed environments and culled species as the produce industry has done more damage. As the years progressed humans realised that plants could be diseased by insects or small animals causing mass extinction of crop or poisoning of its consumer; in response they devolved chemicals called pesticides, a chemical that would protect the plant by killing off pests that came around it. Despite this seemingly magical chemical it also effected the plant and consumer, for first it contains toxic chemicals that can effect things like soil health permanently and kill larger animals that can rot like birds or beneficial insects that (when grown organically) nourish and keep the plant health. Due to these crops usually being irrigated it can leak into the water which can further damage to not only the soil but also the consumer itself. And Secondly it damages the quality of the product by micro-dosing its consumers with the toxins in the chemicals it uses.

Brazilian cattle farming

In Brazil there is a surprisingly large illegal cattle trade, especially in _ county. Farmers will cut down mass areas of the amazon rainforest for cattle farms in where regulations have not been put in place and where they will front their beef to businesses that will buy it with it thinking it is regulated. The animals in captivity are very mistreated with at minimum farmers physical abuse and not feeding or hydrating them up from a week, making them weak and depressed.

Palm Oil

Palm oil is oil sourced mainly from Indonesia and Malaysia it produces 2 types of oil widely used in a multitude of products, especially food as it doesn't react to oxidisation extending shelf lives.

Palm oil has been and continues to be a major driver of deforestation of some of the world’s most biodiverse forests, destroying the habitat of already endangered species. This forest loss in Indonesia and Malaysia are throwing out millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and contributing to climate change as they require heavy machinery to harvest. There also remains some exploitation of workers and child labour.

[pn403journalling]

Women, Meat and The Absent Referent

Within patriarchal societies, there are consistent parallels drawn between the treatment of women and animals: as beings to be objectified and consumed.

Carol Adams, author of "The Sexual Politics of Meat", coins a politicised definition of "the absent referent", a literary device used in writing. The absent referent is defined as a concept/person that is absent, yet something else takes its place or "refers" back to it.

This phenomenon can be seen in the fragmented, everyday language we use to refer to meat: cows become beef and steak, sheep become mutton, etc. Even the names of meat that retain an animal's name (e.g. leg of lamb, chicken wings) are objectifying in a literal sense as they are not possessive of the animals themselves. [Adams, C. 1990] I agree with the fact that this disengaged language continues to inform and normalise the consumption of meat.

To form the intersection between female objectification and meat consumption, Adams mentions when women use the phrase "I feel like a piece of meat" to describe their feelings of being mistreated, abused or objectified. As meat is an object, it doesn't have any emotional capability. The noun "meat" truly refers to the abused and butchered animal, rendered absent and fully objectified by its transformation into "meat".

Bibliography:

Adams, C. J. (1990). The sexual politics of meat: a feminist-vegetarian critical theory. New York, Continuum.

[cheerfullycatholic]

You had cows??? :o

I had cows 😭

Their names are Hope and Val. We got Hope around this time last year, and she had Val on my sister's birthday in April. There were a few different small reasons why we decided to return them to their previous owners, but the biggest reason was because we live next to a corn field and due to drainage from it, the only spot we had to keep the cows tended to get very mucky, and they were sinking into the mud. Thankfully! The people we got them from said if we ever change our minds and wanted one or both of them back, we could come get them. We just have to find drier land first.

They were so sweet!! 🖤🖤 Hope had this look she'd give you that made you think she could read your thoughts and understand you. She wasn't a super touchy feely cow, but she knew when I was upset and would let me fling my arms dramatically over her back and hang off of her. Val wasn't a big fan of people in general, but she enjoyed the company of the ones she knew and trusted (relatable). Every day while I waited for their water tank to fill up, I'd pick leaves off of a nearby tree for her. Every morning she'd run over to eat them, it was adorable!

For a short time (two weeks maybe), I took care of a calf I named Zero. He was my dad's friend's calf who wasn't given the proper care by the farm he was born on (some dairy farmers don't care about their boy cows. This farm in particular didn't mistreat him, they just didn't treat him at all). When my dad's friend got him, his front legs were locked in a bent position so he couldn't walk very well, and he had a wicked infection in his belly button. My dad's friend runs a decent sized beef farm, a pig farm, and has a full time job as a mechanic, so he didn't have the time to help Zero in the way that he needed, so he was brought to me. I wish I could show you him, but all of my pictures are on my other phone 😞 I'm running late to taking care of my other animals, but maybe in a bit I'll find my phone and reblog this with my favorite video of him!

[swampgallows]

So I saw your ask to Greer abt chickens and to be perfectly frank, thats just the life that chickens live.

My best friend raises beef cattle. Bottle feeds each one, lets his kids name them and play with them. Some of them even get shown and have ribbons pinned to the barn wall. But at the end of their second year they're eaten.

Its perfectly normal and natural, and its also okay to be disturbed by it because you are accustomed to pets = family. But these birds were gotten with the intent to eat them, at least that was my understanding based on your post, and its perfectly fine. They aren't suffering or being mistreated, Chickens do not have a concept of lifespan. They don't know that they will live for 5 or 10 years more, they just know that today they are getting fed and they're happy & safe. Then tomorrow they might be slaughtered for food, and their lives will end and that will be it for them.

They are animals, they live in the moment.

Its the same reason that we stress that you shouldn't draw out an animals life that is suffering. They don't know that something is keeping them alive bc they love them, they just know that they are in pain now. So ending their life is a kindness.

Tldr: There's nothing wrong with eating a pet *anything* chicken, cow, cat, or dog. There is nothing ethically wrong about it.

none of this is relevant to what my question was, but thanks anyway.

[mickibloo]

Human Rights and Veganism

I speak frequently about my passion for human rights and how this is often dismissed by nonvegans on the basis of me being vegan, and seeing how many other vegans have related to my struggles, I thought it would be useful to compile a list of the human rights issues animal agriculture is responsible for and/or perpetuates. This will not be a list that 100% encapsulates the extent to which human rights are violated by these industries, but I think it is still a really great introduction, if nothing else, to how ubiquitous the oppressive nature of animal agriculture is. This post will be mostly guided by links to sources and some key quotes and phrases from those sources. 

1. Slaughterhouse Workers

Slaughterhouse workers are one of, if not the most, abused, mistreated, and neglected groups of workers to exist within western countries. The traumatization they face as a result of their job is often ignored by almost everyone who is not vegan or who does not research the topic. 

“A Call to Action: Psychological Harm in Slaughterhouse Workers“

“These workers perform a job that, by its very nature, puts them at risk of psychological disorder and pathological sadism. This risk emerges from a combination of many factors of slaughterhouse work, one of which is the stressful environment that slaughtering creates. A large portion of this stress comes from the exceptionally high rates of injury among the workers.

“However, slaughterhouse work is unique among major industries due to its innate violence...one of the most prominent studies investigated the impact of having a slaughterhouse in a community on crime rates within that community, using this as a metric for psychological health... Though the industries they used for comparison were nearly identical in other predictors of changes in crime (namely worker demographics, potential to create social disorganization, and effect on unemployment in the surrounding areas), slaughterhouses outstripped all others in the effect they had on crime. They led not only to a larger increase in overall crime, but, disturbingly, disproportionate increases in violent crime and sexual crime.

“Creating and sustaining oneself with “good” moral character and having another self that can mechanically end lives for hours each day not only serves as another source of psychological stress for workers, but exposes workers to the risk that their pathologically un-empathetic work selves will slip into their community lives. This is another explanation for the “spillover” that affects slaughterhouse workers’ minds and communities.

“Living with the knowledge of their actions causes symptoms similar to those of individuals who are recipients of trauma: substance abuse, anxiety issues, depression, and dissociation from reality.

(Testimonies from slaughterhouse workers): “And then it gets to a point where you’re at a daydream stage. Where you can think about everything else and still do your job. You become emotionally dead.”

“So a lot of guys at Morrell [a major slaughterhouse] just drink and drug their problems away. Some of them end up abusing their spouses because they can’t get rid of the feelings. They leave work with this attitude and they go down to the bar to forget.”

Confessions of a slaughterhouse worker

There are things, though, that have the power to shatter the numbness. For me, it was the heads.

At the end of the slaughter line there was a huge skip, and it was filled with hundreds of cows' heads. Each one of them had been flayed, with all of the saleable flesh removed. But one thing was still attached - their eyeballs.

Whenever I walked past that skip, I couldn't help but feel like I had hundreds of pairs of eyes watching me. Some of them were accusing, knowing that I'd participated in their deaths. Others seemed to be pleading, as if there were some way I could go back in time and save them. It was disgusting, terrifying and heart-breaking, all at the same time. It made me feel guilty."

I know things like this bothered the other workers, too. I'll never forget the day, after I'd been at the abattoir for a few months, when one of the lads cut into a freshly killed cow to gut her - and out fell the foetus of a calf. She was pregnant. He immediately started shouting and throwing his arms about.

I took him into a meeting room to calm him down - and all he could say was, "It's just not right, it's not right," over and over again. These were hard men, and they rarely showed any emotion. But I could see tears prickling his eyes." I remember one day in particular, when I'd been there for about a year or so, when we had to slaughter five calves at the same time.

We tried to keep them within the rails of the pens, but they were so small and bony that they could easily skip out and trot around, slightly wobbly on their newly born legs. They sniffed us, like puppies, because they were young and curious. Some of the boys and I stroked them, and they suckled our fingers.

When the time came to kill them, it was tough, both emotionally and physically. Slaughterhouses are designed for slaughtering really large animals, so the stun boxes are normally just about the right size to hold a cow that weighs about a tonne. When we put the first calf in, it only came about a quarter of a way up the box, if that. We put all five calves in at once. Then we killed them.

America’s Slaughterhouses Aren’t Just Killing Animals

“I’ve seen bleeders, and they’re gushing because they got hit [by a knife] right in the vein, and I mean, they’re almost passing out,” she said, “and here comes the supply guy again, with the bleach, to clean the blood off the floor, but the chain never stops. It never stops.”

In Texas, where private employers are not required to carry workers’-compensation insurance, Tyson has opted out of the state system completely. When a worker gets injured at the Tyson beef slaughterhouse in Amarillo, Texas, in order to get medical care from the company, that person must first sign a document saying:

I hereby voluntarily release, waive, and forever give up all my rights, claims, and causes of action, whether now existing or arising in the future, that I may have against the company, Tyson Foods, Inc., and their parent, subsidiary and affiliated companies and all of their officers, directors, owners, employees, and agents that arise out of or are in any way related to injuries (including a subsequent or resulting death) sustained in the course of my employment with the company.

The pressure to sign was enormous. When a worker named Duane Mullin had both of his hands crushed in a hammer mill at the Amarillo slaughterhouse now owned by Tyson, a manager employed by its previous owner persuaded him to sign the waiver with a pen held in his teeth.

'We're modern slaves': How meat plant workers became the new frontline in Covid-19 war

The company is now measuring workers’ temperatures as they report for work, and began supplying surgical facemasks, but, according to Fields and workers interviewed by the Guardian, Tyson continues to suppress information on employees who have tested positive for Covid-19.”

One worker, a central American migrant who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect her job, told the Guardian that the company was not enforcing social distancing. 'We are all given bathroom breaks at the same time and there are hundreds of us waiting to use them. There are only seven bathrooms,' she said. 'They [Tyson] don’t care about the worker. They don’t care if we get sick.' A spokesman for Tyson said the company was taking 'several measures' to allow social distancing but did not address the bathroom break allegations."

One African American worker at a Koch facility that had been targeted by Ice, spoke to the Guardian on condition of anonymity. He alleged that while Koch had recently begun taking workers’ temperatures before shifts, they had also withheld details of any workers who contracted the virus. 'They ain’t offering nobody no disability, no unemployment, no time off,' the worker said. 'I just keep my hands washed up, my face covered up, my whole body covered, and I pray to myself and hope I don’t catch it. The truth is there’s a chance that everybody in [here] will catch it.'

The sociologist Lourdes Gouveia has studied the meatpacking industry for three decades and said the Covid-19 outbreak is simply highlighting again the dangerous conditions in processing plants. Gouveia said the industry has perfected a formula which allows it to maximize profit while producing relatively safe meat by resisting regulations and utilizing low cost, mostly immigrant, labor in unsafe conditions. 'All of these elements are of a highly perfected formula or maximizing profits that is unlikely to change fundamentally,' Gouveia said."

2. Environmental Racism and Classism

Animal agriculture, and factory farms specifically, tend to locate their facilities near poor communities (often black or Hispanic) who do not have the financial means to take them to court over the ways in which these farms affect their health and wellbeing. 

How Swine in North Carolina Affects real People | René Miller Excerpt

“When you go back and you look at where these hog facilities are located, there’s a disproportionate number of them that are located near communities of color, low income communities. It is definitely a human rights issue.”

“Now see, if you lived here, and saw the way they do, you wouldn’t eat no pork. I don’t eat bacon, because I know where it comes from. When they die, they go into a box, and they decompose because they swell in the heat. A truck come and pick them up, take them to the processing plant in Roseo, ground them up into feed, and feed them back to the hogs.

“It hits you right in the face. Smell like something that you had never smell before. Smell worse than a dead body.”

“When we go to the funeral, he used the spray. If we wanna have a cookout on Sunday, he’ll spray. He always sprays Sunday.

“Do you think it’s also a civil rights issue?”

“Yes, I do.”

When We’re Dead and Buried, Our Bones Will Keep Hurting

Like many other hazardous and exhausting low-wage industries in the United States, this work depends on the labor of America’s most marginalized communities. Most workers in the industry are people of color, many are women, and nearly one-third are immigrants.

In 1983, wages for workers in the meat and poultry industry fell, for the first time, below the national average for manufacturing work; in 1985, they were 15 percent lower; in 2002, they were 24 percent lower; today, they are 44 percent lower. Workers earn, on average, less than $15 an hour.

Jobs in the meat and poultry industry have long been a starting point for many groups of new immigrants to the United States as many positions require little formal education, experience, or English-language skills. In 2015, nearly 30 percent of meat and poultry workers were foreign-born non-citizens—about three times more than the percentage of manufacturing workers nationally.

Even immigrants with work authorization can remain vulnerable to coercion from employers, as many are not aware of their workplace rights, may not be familiar with technical terms in English, or are otherwise hesitant to navigate the complex, and potentially costly, procedures to vindicate their rights. The result is a significant part of the low-wage workforce who are less likely to report workplace abuses or even injuries, and are therefore more easily exploitable than US citizens, for fear of their employers’ power to fundamentally disrupt their lives and the lives of their families. “Us workers are afraid to lose our job,” said Rebecca G., an immigrant worker at a poultry plant in Arkansas. “[P]eople don't speak up or say what's wrong about the chemicals, or the speed of the line, or the discrimination.”

3. The displacement and murder of indigenous peoples

The Companies Behind the Burning of the Amazon

The burning of the Amazon and the darkening of skies from Sao Paulo, Brazil, to Santa Cruz, Bolivia, have captured the world’s conscience. Much of the blame for the fires has rightly fallen on Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro for directly encouraging the burning of forests and the seizure of Indigenous Peoples’ lands.

But the incentive for the destruction comes from large-scale international meat and soy animal feed companies like JBS and Cargill, and the global brands like Stop & Shop, Costco, McDonald’s, Walmart/Asda, and Sysco that buy from them and sell to the public. It is these companies that are creating the international demand that finances the fires and deforestation.

The transnational nature of their impact can be seen in the current crisis. Their destruction is not confined to Brazil. Just over the border, in the Bolivian Amazon, 2.5 million acres have burned, largely to clear land for new cattle and soy animal feed plantations, in just a few weeks. Paraguay is experiencing similar devastation.

After years of remarkably successful conservation initiatives that cut Brazil’s deforestation rate by two-thirds, Brazil’s president Jair Bolsonaro has reopened the doors to rampant destruction as a favor to the agribusiness lobby that backs him. That industry is accountable for the atmosphere of lawlessness, deforestation, fires, and the murder of Indigenous peoples that followed. According to data released by Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE), deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon in July 2019 increased 278 percent over the previous July. Bolsonaro responded to this news by firing the head of the INPE. 

I would like to close this post by saying that I understand this may leave nonvegans with some questions; What can consumers do about this? Should consumers be expected to do anything, or would that simply be misplacing the blame for these things? Aren’t all industries awful in similar ways since there is no ethical consumption under capitalism? If you have these questions, I am more than happy to engage in a good-faith conversation about them. The purpose of this post, however, is not to answer such inquiries. I made this purely to raise awareness about these issues because the only people I ever see discuss them are vegans, and these are extremely important topics that I think deserve far more attention than they receive. 

[draconicslime]

“they’re not wrong about cow mistreatment, i LIVE in a place where dairy farms are common and they are treated ABYSMALLY” yeah i live in a place where there are both dairy and beef farms, your experiences aren’t universal, and please let me know what you mean by “stand in their own shit 24/7” have you actually been up close to farm animals... like ever...

[avenger-hawk]

If people stop eating pork and beef and chicken, what do you think would happen with those animals. I mean, sure slaughtering them is cruel, but also no they are very dependent on us for living. How will their life go on?

They are dependant on us for living? Really? Humans breed animals to slaughter them. They take babies away for them to slaughter them and use their mothers for further breeding or for milk. They give them hormones to grow super fast so they get bigger and they can be killed faster. If humans stop breeding animals, IF HUMANS STOP CONSIDERING ANIMALS AS OBJECTS TO USE AND DISPOSE OF, they would only ‘depend’ on us in the beginning, when there would be many animals that would have to be fed and kept in decent conditions. If those animals are kept alive in natural conditions they’ll live out their remaining days and that’s all. Humans would repay the dept they have towards animals, because we wronged them so much I can’t even list everything. Anyway there would be less animals around if people stop using them. Also because the animals you eat are given growth hormones so they become big in no time. Their lifespan is really short compared to free animals. They die of malfunctions because their inner organs always have problems because of those hormones. Same for fish. Salmons are all deaf because of this. The salmons you eat in your nice salmon dishes or your sushi are all deaf because their hearing system didn’t properly form in such a short time.Their lives -every animals’ life- are short and painful.

Also, animals are NOT dependant on humans. That’s an antropocentric vision, we humans think we’re the top of the pyramid or whatever, but we’re not and when a disaster strikes we realize how powerless we are against nature. So pls don’t give me pro-meat arguments like ‘poor animals need humans to survive’ cause before humans enslaved them cows, pigs, hens existed before they were considered pork, beef and chicken and they actually ate less than now. When, btw, most grains are turned into animal food for these very animals. So slaughtering less animals means having more food for starving PEOPLE.

In my opinion if someone has their own farm where animals are well treated, not killed, a little bit of their milk and eggs can be used, after their babies (the animals’) are fed. Since I, and everyone else, don’t have a farm, I think it’s impossible to ignore the suffering of animals, and since I love them I can’t eat them, and I don’t care about the ‘rational’ consequences because it’s more rational to pay our dept to our brother animals and let them all live until their population naturally decreases, and convert breeding farms into agriculture farms, sanctuaries and so on, and make the earth a better place cause it’s clearly a horrible place now, also because animals are so mistreated. You know why, pollution aside? Because most people think animals are inferior to humans, and this mentality subconsciously leads them to think that some humans are inferior to other humans, and so on. There is no equality without respect for animals, no matter what your culture or religion says. It’s 2019, we’re no longer cavemen, let’s not think like them. Also it’s a social justice issue:

https://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle/carnism-why-eating-animals-is-a-social-justice-issue/

I’m strongly opinionated on this and I know from experience that this may cause loooong discussions where many feel offended. So I suggest you to look this site up: https://www.carnism.org/

I also suggest you to read Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer. It’s a shocking, eye opening read. Or the documentary Cowspiracy. And maybe look out for The Gentle Barn on social networks, they rescue these kind of animals and do a lot of education. And watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao2GL3NAWQU

YOu know, maybe I sounded aggressive, I don’t mean it ofc. It’s just that I’m really concerned about animals. On one thing, in my opinion, they depend on humans actually: we have a voice and a way to change things, they don’t. 

[thebuildblog]

Worth Noting.

A lot of people don’t really understand how the dairy industry works. 

1. Female cows are artificially inseminated and impregnated up to 2.5 times a year. 

2. When they give birth, the babies are taken away from them immediately as the cow’s milk can’t be used to feed it’s baby as it is used for humans to eat (cheese) or drink (traditional cow milk). 

3. This is not a natural or nondescript process for the mother cow or the baby -- they are forcefully pulled apart and howl, wail and cry, usually fighting frantically to stay together. 

4. This effort and desire to stay together is considered “aggression” and “defiance,” and they are both often whipped and beaten if they don’t comply including in the face.

5. The baby cows are then put into small pens alone, usually outdoors in all weather with small housing typically to be used as veal meat for humans and slaughtered relatively shortly after. Female babies usually go back into the dairy business, some males and females go into the beef industry where they live for about 6-9 months (lifespan for cow can be up to 40 years) before being slaughtered for hamburgers, steak, etc.

6. Mother cows are hooked up to machines and stand for hours at a time being milked with all of the milk used for humans. When a mother cow can no longer produce milk, she is slaughtered for the meat business.

7. Most animal milks have secretions including pus, other bodily fluids in them which humans then drink.

Livestock animals including cows, chickens, turkeys, goats and pigs are sentient beings -- which means they can perceive and feel things, including joy, sorrow, loss, depression, fear, confusion, etc. These animals are like dogs, cats or domestic animals in every aspect including that they have personalities, form bonds, enjoy companionship, etc. -- except that they look different than dogs, cats and other domestic animals. 

Like humans, animals crave and need connection and comfort from their fellow animals including babies with parents but this does not happen in the dairy or meat industry at any time or in any way. Though piglets are allowed to stay with their mothers after birth for a short time, the mothers are kept in tightly confining metal crates where they’re unable to turn around, move, etc.

Watch a video at a stockyard, feed lot or auction. The animals are upset and terrified and whipped or beaten including in the face if they try to do anything but what human livestock farmers want them to do.

The meat and dairy industry do not have to operate this way. The abuse and disregard for the animals is not necessary and does not benefit the business or improve meat/dairy prices for humans. The industry also overproduces -- tons of meat and dairy are wasted every year with billions of animals killed without being eaten.

What you can do:

1. Limit your dairy and meat intake.

2. Stop eating dairy and meat 

3. Only buy from farms that care about animal welfare including entire lifecycle and slaughter. 

4. Demand that livestock farming changes and/or that livestock are given more legal protection and rights (they currently have none).

5. Help raise awareness about our meat and dairy supply and why it needs to change.

To answer the reader question about “sources,” -- check out Farm Sanctuary, Gentle Barn, and any of the dozens of rescues for livestock on the social internet. Many have education programs that share this information above, and some film inside of the farms, auctions, feedlots, etc. during rescues and you’ll see a lot of the abuse, mistreatment, etc. They also document via video and photos the rehabilitation of the rescued animals as well as share the personalities and traits of the cows, chickens, goats, pigs and turkeys in their care. 

[solaravenue]

Is it wrong to eat meat from factory farms? - Budolfson

It is commonly thought that utilitarian or deontological arguments show that going vegan is the ethical way of minimalizing impact... however, empirical reasons show this is not true.

Follow-up question: Given that almost everything we do in modern society has some footprint of harm, how do we properly distinguish acts that are permissible from those that are not?

Even if most of the meat we buy comes from factory farms which produce immense amounts of suffering, in theory/practice it can be possible to purchase from a farm that treats its animals well

Objection: It is not just the suffering inflicted upon animals that is wrong but their killing

Response: Under the utilitarian perspective, an animal which grows up on a humane farm will lead a dramatically better life than it can expect to live in the wild

Main argument: Is it wrong to consume factory-farmed animals that have suffered greatly, and more broadly, is it wrong to consume products that are produced in ethically objectionable ways?

1) Utilitarianism

The utilitarian argument: Purchasing and eating meat from factory farms is wrong because whatever gustatory pleasure I get from eating a factory-farmed steak is greatly outweighed by the suffering that the cow experiences.

Objection: Agreed, but the welfare effect caused by an individual’s decision to refrain from eating meat does not follow. Individuals do not have a direct effect on the number of animals that suffer given the actual nature of the supply chain that stands between consumption decisions and production decisions.

Consider: The ethical difference between finding and eating a steak while dumpster diving and eating a steak at Jimmy’s Hack-it-Yourself Live Butchering. The former has no negative welfare effects.

“Many products we consume are delivered by a massive and complex supply chain in which there is waste, inefficiency, and other forms of slack at each link […] the sort of slack just described together with other kinds of noise in the extended transmission chain from consumers to producers ensures that significant-enough threshold effects are not likely enough to arise from an individual’s consumption decisions, even those considered over the course of a lifetime”

Cattle-raising analogy: When ranchers decide how many cattle to raise, the price that the beef will fetch is one factor of the least importance, because “insofar as ranchers judge that capital should be invested in raising cattle rather than other investments, they will tend to raise as many cattle as they can afford to breed and feed within that budget, letting the ultimate extent of their profits fall where it may at the feedlot“

Additionally, even if being a vegetarian caused other people to become vegetarians, the supply chain may remain insensitive to the distributed effects of even one hundred consumers. Therefore, unless one were particularly influential like Peter Singer, utilitarianism would not require most people to become vegetarians.

Moreover, individual vegetarian acts often have negative intended consequences, e.g. acting self-righteous contributes to social stigma, etc.

2) The Paradox of Voting

This is basically just the paradox of voting, then. Why should individuals vote, if they do little to change the results of the election?

There are several differences.

Voters have a personal preference to vote, while most consumers do not have a personal perference to not eat meat

It is not fair to say that consumers cause animals to be mistreated, while voters do collectively cause the outcome of the election

As explanation for #2 - There is not the same kind of causal connection to say that it is consumer behavior that causes the mistreatment of animals. Individuals in Australia and NZ have similar consumption behaviors, but animals in those countries are treated better.

Similarly, when the US enacts a general social welfare policy, bad consequences result. However, when other countries enact a similar policy, there aren’t the same bad consequences. Which is to say it’s not the policy itself per se but the bad implementation thereof.

“Complicit in evil” argument - That when purchasing from problematic industries, an individual is complicit in evil.

This implies we are never permitted to purchase anything at all.

Petroleum companies routinely violate significant constraints, and almost every possible consumption activity depends on and supports such companies to a much greater extent than the activity of buying animals at supermarkets and restaurants depends on and supports factory farms

3)  How to distinguish the permissible evils from impermissible evils?

Degree of essentiality of harm to an act - Instead of calculating harm by its looking at the actual harm footprint, decide if harm is highly essential to their production.

Lacto-ovo vegetarians believe it’s ok to consume eggs and milk. 

One interpretation of their view is that it is theoretically possible to humanely harvest eggs and milk from hens/cows so harm is not essential to their production. 

An alternate, less charitable interpretation is that they believe there is no actual footprint of harm in dairy and eggs, which is not true. In fact, it can be argued that laying hens and dairy cows are subjected to highest amounts of suffering due to the nature of their exploitation, while cows raised for slaughter are raised in better conditions and sent to the slaughterhouse.

Why is this distinction significant?

Morality seems to operate on the general idea that there are certain things within an individual’s control, and certain things outside it.