sooyoo

Yes, it's correct that a majority of larger scale dairy farming today practices this. The usual argument is that it reduces separation stress (since the calf is assumed to be too young to remember and the cow didn't yet get used to having it by its side), but that argument does not have actual scientific evidence.

But it's far from impossible to avoid. There are farms that keep calves with their moms for the first months and this is an active topic of academic research in animal welfare groups around the world, mostly in Europe. There are some drawbacks, like obviously the calf drinks some of the milk that otherwise could be sold, but there are advantages too, like calves growing faster and having better health which could compensate for these effects, but again, this is still being researched.

So, it's not even clear that it's economically better to separate cow and calf right after birth (dairy industry is quite conservative and slow to adopt change.) But even if there is an economic hit, it's not so big and consumers who care could just pay more. It could eventually be included in regulations for dairy farming, and until then, people who care (like you and me) can voluntarily buy milk from farms that practice keeping them together. Apart from being better for the animals, it also shows farmers and regulators that people care and this can work.

I respect you going vegan, but for this particular problem there are solutions and it seems like there are worse things that we do to animals.

Ever tried assembling a car in your home office?

I agree with your overall sentiment. I'd never buy or consume foie gras and don't care that it's a "cultural thing".

But your general description of meat production is a bit too simplistic. The main issue with it, for me, is not the very act of taking a life for food. It's about what comes before it. The life the animals have in captivity. There are differences of course, but generally lifestock is held in too little space, too high stocking density, inappropriate bedding, flooring and treatment in case of diseases. It's a matter of cost. One can provide conditions where lifestock is suffering much less, having a good life even, but that means much more cost per pound meat sold. In addition, beginning of life (insemination which can be "natural" or artificial or some kind of in-between rape kind) and end (different ways of taking the life, some gas suffocating the animal causing terrible pain, or bolt-into-brain or) can also provide or prevent different levels of suffering. Again it's a matter of cost.

I personally do eat meat. Not everyday but most days. I do try to ensure that the farmer provided the animals with a good life, as I know most of them personally. Or it's a wild animal, running through the forest until the last moments. Not practical for everybody, and pretty pricey, but avoids the worst.

As you see, suffering is key here. The mere act of taking a life is "natural". (A bolt through the brain is quick and less painful than the long hunt by a pack of wolves or a lion.) It's still a kill, but that's the balance I'm striking personally.

Just like the people who were entering the Capitol about 20 months ago.

> But for example, I live in a housing co-operative, and there the laws really become a pain. Like we wanted to use the CCTV to better enforce treatment of communal areas, but you can't without a police report, etc.

I also live in a housing cooperative and I'm glad these laws exist. They protect me from some neighbors that want to set up CCTV everywhere because somebody once saw a kid in the yard that he didn't recognize so must be a burgler (dark skin tone I might add), and because some neighbors don't fold their cardboard boxes properly in the recycling room. And for that BS I and all neighbors should be put under permanent video surveillance in all common areas on the property? No way, I'm glad the law prohibits that.

> Agree that bribes should be part of the analysis, but I would do the comparison with the time and cost to accomplish a goal, without judging the method.

I'm sure you can get your business quickly off the ground if you are friends with the dictator in a country with an oppressive regime. (Others go to jail but that's less important apparently.)

> I've lived in many countries, small, large, rich, poor, and I think Ger many is the worst among them to start a business (and also to live, but everyone has their preferences) unless you have a really good reason to be there.

Try India. There was an HN post the other day about a guy who tried to set up some manufacturing and 2 years in he was still far away from all the permits.

One thing the article we are discussing notably lacks is the mention of bribes. Obviously, you'd add, those would be illegal. Haha. True! They are illegal in India too. And in all other countries. But compared to some forms that are (outrageously!) in German, those re a real PITA.

I'm living in Germany now, by choice, and it's a lovely country with lovely people. Not everything is perfect, but many of the imperfections contribute to the loveliness. Just like in many other countries, rich and poor.

Thanks for posting this. I now know one more person who I'll make sure to never work for. Such a chaotic, ill-informed and partially self-contradictory mess.

Yes there is some bureaucracy involved. No, not all of this makes sense. (Especially to somebody with only partial language familiarity despite the repeated claims to the contrary, but you are making it obvious that there are quite some deficiencies in your knowledge. Fun fact: A foreigner in the UK also won't know all the English legalese.)

One of the points of all of this is to reduce the risk of something like FTX happening. That's why those guys are in the Bahamas, not in Germany.

Frankly, no. Buildings are burning with people dying inside right now. The situation is an emergency, even if all we've ever managed is ten millennia of triage. That is the default, that is the background. Weigh the risks, sure, but don't act like choosing to do nothing is without cost. We should study asbestos just as much as we need to, as best as we can tell, and no more. In the meantime we need to fireproof all buildings with asbestos.

Edit: /s (If that wasn't obvious.)

But who wouldn't pay $8/mo to reduce the number of ads they see to only half!!1 /s

Ah right. And women still can't vote and Jim Crow laws are still in full swing. Because if somebody would take a stand it would be meaningless, right?

What a great read! It's so refreshing to read this kind of article when normally bogged down by the day-to-day grind of writing code.

You got it upside down. Exactly because too many people think like that, this whole corrupt system works. Imagine the whole country refusing to pay bribes. They would disappear tomorrow.

This whole "but this single action won't change anything " attitude may feel rational, and even be (selfishly) rational, but the effect comes through the aggregate. Lots of people in society behaving like that, and you get emergent properties caused by the aggregate of those individual choices. A dangerous (and pretty selfish) path to go in societies.

> Fine, so be it. Pay the bribes and get to work

Since most people think like that, things don't change and everybody is miserable. Cudos to the author for not accepting this rampant corruption.

> If you are trying to save money, fine

If that's really what you think the authors motivation is then you may have missed the point of the article.