- Jun 18, 2008
- 2,488
- 80
- 294
Quote:
Selective breeding is debatable, for a lot of reasons. But to call it torture is, frankly, a bit silly, IMHO. Animals kept for selective breeding are not typically treated badly, they are typically treated well, as any other scenario would alter the results.
As for "mutating chickens," chickens today are already a series of mutations. There are only two or three wild birds that were bred to become what we now think of as chickens. They really don't mind being bred, I promise you.
Breeders do not mutate chickens, they select for desirable or undesirable mutations. What do you perceive as the process of mutating chickens, or any other animal, for that matter?
Exactly. None of the domesticated animals we have now would exist if not for selective breeding. Nobody would have farm animals, let alone pets, if not for those pesky breeders messing with genes and cultivating breed characteristics. Scientists now are doing the same thing breeders have been doing for thousands of years, just more efficiently (because they have the knowledge of genetics, which Gregor Mendel established in the late 1800's) and with more specific goals.
If breeding "naked chickens" doesn't diminish the quality of life for the chicken (and perhaps even improves it) or the quality of its meat for the people who are consuming it, then what's the problem? There isn't one, so far as I can see. If the problem is factory farming, then go after factory farming in general-- there's plenty of fodder there before even raising the question of whether the chickens have feathers or not.
No, the one i watched they said they tested them and did all sorts of things trying to make them bald. it even said they had to kill a bunch of them to test them. Once again i never said that "selective breeding" or thembeing bald was torture.
Selective breeding is debatable, for a lot of reasons. But to call it torture is, frankly, a bit silly, IMHO. Animals kept for selective breeding are not typically treated badly, they are typically treated well, as any other scenario would alter the results.
As for "mutating chickens," chickens today are already a series of mutations. There are only two or three wild birds that were bred to become what we now think of as chickens. They really don't mind being bred, I promise you.
Breeders do not mutate chickens, they select for desirable or undesirable mutations. What do you perceive as the process of mutating chickens, or any other animal, for that matter?
Exactly. None of the domesticated animals we have now would exist if not for selective breeding. Nobody would have farm animals, let alone pets, if not for those pesky breeders messing with genes and cultivating breed characteristics. Scientists now are doing the same thing breeders have been doing for thousands of years, just more efficiently (because they have the knowledge of genetics, which Gregor Mendel established in the late 1800's) and with more specific goals.
If breeding "naked chickens" doesn't diminish the quality of life for the chicken (and perhaps even improves it) or the quality of its meat for the people who are consuming it, then what's the problem? There isn't one, so far as I can see. If the problem is factory farming, then go after factory farming in general-- there's plenty of fodder there before even raising the question of whether the chickens have feathers or not.
No, the one i watched they said they tested them and did all sorts of things trying to make them bald. it even said they had to kill a bunch of them to test them. Once again i never said that "selective breeding" or thembeing bald was torture.
