We're also responsible for a gargantuan population of captive wheat crops, fruit and vegetable trees and bushes, and a whole bunch of other plants that I am neglecting to mention. Surely those plants are better off existing freely in nature, without facing death by harvester blade?
What on earth does this have to do with vegetarianism and veganism; plants don't suffer (unless you are arguing that they can suffer?)
What does that mean, plants don't suffer? All living organisms suffer when you damage them. The only thing plants can't do is feel pain (at least that is what we think currently. We don't know for sure).
What are you using the word 'suffer' to mean, then?
One of the definitions of the word, according to wiktionary.org, is "to become worse".
Attacks on omnivores by 'vegan nutjobs' are far less common than the incidences of food poisoning and other damage felt by people due to the practice of factory farming.
I am as against factory farming as you are, so you aren't arguing against me when you bring it up.
What does that mean, plants don't suffer? All living organisms suffer when you damage them.
I have no idea what you mean by "suffer" then. It's certainly not a morally relevant definition.
I'm talking about the sensation of pain or (sometimes) loss felt internally by conscious beings. Plants don't feel that; they don't have nervous systems.
We don't know for sure.
We don't know anything "for sure" but we are actually pretty damn sure about how evolution and nervous systems work. I don't really have the patience for God of the Gap arguments.
It's not a non-equitor at all. If those individuals have a problem with ecosystem destruction then they should not buy produce that is grown in farms that have been built by destroying the ecosystem.
That is the only way their stance will have any integrity.
Great, I'm sure most people would agree. What on earth is your point. What on earth does pointing out the potential hypocrisy of practicing vegetarians have to do with the morality of the position itself.
That is true, I feel a little defensive because I don't know if I will be attacked by a vegan nutjob next time I buy meat at the supermarket.
Not what I meant. You feel defensive because you realize, deep down, that you are engaging in a practice that causes a lot of suffering, and this practice is being criticized.
Some people, such as myself, feel guilt about it and try to avoid it. But other people apparently feel the need to lash out at their critics.
This is just an observation though; I'd prefer to keep the discussion on the morality of animal suffering.
Timothy is Right. Ultimately, free will doesn't exist. There is no arguing with it. Our brains are made up of cells, which individually react in predictable ways. In large groups, they react in ways we can't predict, but theoretically could if we had a few supercomputers and a much better understanding of the mind.
My model is based off a few premses like, "Life is good," and "Seek to preserve higher life forms when interacting with them,". I believe this results in society that promotes life.
Your model is based off "Natural is moral." I think this results in a worse society than mine. Therefore, I oppose it.
Also, don't act like mine is a huge contradiction and yours isn't.
But you still have not explained why it is morally superior to protect higher life forms, even if we subscribe to your definition of what constitutes a higher life form.
Why should we protect higher life forms? Because life is good. That is one of my premises. Why is that one of my premises? Because I have been conditioned to think that way.
Seriously, if we deconstruct morality, all you end up with is nihilism.
Debate is ultimately people with the same premises trying to point out the flaws in logic of their opponents. If we have different premises, we really can't reconcile. Well, that or Reductio Ad Absurdum until one of us changes their premises.
On that note, what are your premises? Is it really that "Natural is good?"
Wow, this turned into "meat eater needs to project in order to justify their diet" really fast.
Some quick points to make:
-- A vegetarian needs to put no more or less thought or effort into their diet than a meat eater. An omnivore eats meat but doesn't like chainsawing puppies? HYPOCRITE! No, not really. Each and every vegetarian can have their own rationale or reason for their dietary restrictions, and they're no more obligated to offer an explanation that fits your requirements than you are required to offer the same to them.
Generally, if a vegetarian were to wander around demanding that meat eaters justify their positions, we'd consider that person a raging dick. Food for thought.
-- Plants and animals are different. If you can't see this we really can't have a conversation, and you may in fact be a vegetable.
That is true, I feel a little defensive because I don't know if I will be attacked by a vegan nutjob next time I buy meat at the supermarket.
You're crazy. If the remarkably unlikely scenario occurs that some PETA terrorists harass you in the meat aisle of the supermarket, treat them like you would a telemarketer, or those annoying college students who try to ambush you and sign you up for whatever bullshit they're selling in every major downtown area, and ignore them or tell them to bugger off.
PotatoNinja on
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
It's irrelevant. At this point we're responsible for a gargantuan population of captive cattle, pigs, etc and the best thing for all parties would be to severely draw down their production to achieve a population decrease. This should coincide with reforms in the meat production industry to improve living conditions, reduce the use of antibiotics, ensure that the environmental impact of these facilities is more stringently regulated to reduce the incidence of e. coli outbreaks (remember the spinach outbreak a few years back? traced back to the beef factory up the hill from the veggie farm).
We're also responsible for a gargantuan population of captive wheat crops, fruit and vegetable trees and bushes, and a whole bunch of other plants that I am neglecting to mention. Surely those plants are better off existing freely in nature, without facing death by harvester blade?
On the animal side of the argument, if you have problems with holding captive animals, then how come you have no problems with agriculture practices that destroy grasslands and forests? Surely we should severely limit those as well, and replant the forests we have cut down and restore the grasslands we have destroyed so that the animals that lived in them once can do so again? I mean, they no doubt suffered tremendously when we invaded their habitats.
We can experience pain. Having a similar neurological system, a cow can probably be said to experience pain in a similar way. It expresses discomfort and attempts to avoid the painful stimulus. Watching an animal in pain can cause us to become uncomfortable because we empathize with the sensation and the desire for relief.
A plant, jellyfish, mollusk, or other animal without a central nervous system can not be assumed to experience pain in a recognizable way. If you were pricking them with a pin, most of these organisms would not exhibit discomfort or attempt to escape.
I think this is a morally relevant distinction.
Just because they do not experience pain in a recognizable way does not mean they do not experience pain, period. Furthermore, I object to the claim that the ability to experience pain should be the basis of any moral argument.
Trees definitely exhibit discomfort when you hit them with an axe. This discomfort is exhibited by the excretion of certain materials from the bark to cover the wounded area, so that it can be repaired before insects find it and then eat towards the inside of the plant through it. How would you feel knowing that there is an insect inside you eating your organs? Even if you were in a paralyzed state and thereofre could not feel any pain, you would still be horrified.
Considering this, I'd say hitting trees with an axe is pretty cruel.
Trees may react to damage, but this is not the same as experiencing pain. Pain is a very specific neurochemical process that takes place in an animal brain. It requires specialized organs to take place.
How does sustainable farming practice not make eating animals cruel? I would have thought the argument would have been better split into two: 1) Eating any animal is cruel and 2) Modern and traditional animal raising/slaughtering practices are cruel
Us eating animals is no more cruel than any other predator eating animals.
Ours is probably less cruel actually, since many predators eat animals while they are still alive.
If all the other predators were jumping off a bridge... fuck it, we both know how stupid your argument is, so I'm just going to leave it there.
We're also responsible for a gargantuan population of captive wheat crops, fruit and vegetable trees and bushes, and a whole bunch of other plants that I am neglecting to mention. Surely those plants are better off existing freely in nature, without facing death by harvester blade?
What on earth does this have to do with vegetarianism and veganism; plants don't suffer (unless you are arguing that they can suffer?)
What does that mean, plants don't suffer? All living organisms suffer when you damage them. The only thing plants can't do is feel pain (at least that is what we think currently. We don't know for sure).
What are you using the word 'suffer' to mean, then?
One of the definitions of the word, according to wiktionary.org, is "to become worse".
Oh, so you're arguing against a position that nobody has stated. Good to know.
Just because they do not experience pain in a recognizable way does not mean they do not experience pain, period. Furthermore, I object to the claim that the ability to experience pain should be the basis of any moral argument.
How can a being without a brain feel pain?
Err, just because the organism is not responding to a harmful stimulus in the way you would expect it to (i.e. by flinching) does not mean it is not feeling pain.
Trees definitely exhibit discomfort when you hit them with an axe. This discomfort is exhibited by the excretion of certain materials from the bark to cover the wounded area, so that it can be repaired before insects find it and then eat towards the inside of the plant through it. How would you feel knowing that there is an insect inside you eating your organs? Even if you were in a paralyzed state and thereofre could not feel any pain, you would still be horrified.
You are arguing pseudoscientific hogwash.[/QUOTE]
What? Why?
The fact is this: when you hit a tree with an axe, you are damaging a living organism, often times beyond repair.
Just because it supposedly can't feel any pain, does it mean it is alright to hit it with an axe?
How does sustainable farming practice not make eating animals cruel? I would have thought the argument would have been better split into two: 1) Eating any animal is cruel and 2) Modern and traditional animal raising/slaughtering practices are cruel
Us eating animals is no more cruel than any other predator eating animals.
Ours is probably less cruel actually, since many predators eat animals while they are still alive.
If all the other predators were jumping off a bridge... fuck it, we both know how stupid your argument is, so I'm just going to leave it there.
I'd jump off too. I wouldn't want the predators to think I'm out of the loop, and I bet all the cool predators were doing it anyways.
Let me restate the question: why is the ability to feel pain the basis of your moral argument? Just because a living organism cannot feel pain does not mean it is okay to harm it, or more acceptable to harm it than other organisms that feel pain, surely?
Just because it supposedly can't feel any pain, does it mean it is alright to hit it with an axe?
Is it ok to hit a nail with a hammer? The nail "suffers," by your definition. If it is ok, is it also ok to hit a person with a hammer? They also suffer.
If not, why is it ok to make one possibly living thing suffer (you have no proof nails are not alive) while saying it is not ok to make another living thing suffer (hitting a person with a hammer).
Are you going to continue arguing this remarkably asinine point? That makes me suffer. Am I a living thing? I do react strongly to negative stimuli. Does that mean you're worse than a vegetarian? Hard to say.
Let me restate the question: why is the ability to feel pain the basis of your moral argument?
Because "suffering is bad" is the only rational and self-evident basis for a moral system?
Just because a living organism cannot feel pain does not mean it is okay to harm it, or more acceptable to harm it than other organisms that feel pain, surely?
I mean, there are obviously exceptions; it is wrong to cut down a tree if it belongs to someone else; it is okay to shoot a bear who is attacking a toddler; it is (in my opinion) not so bad to raise a farm animal humanely and then painlessly slaughter them for food.
We're talking about living organisms, obviously, but thanks for your non-input.
Why is a tree alive but a nail is not? Is it not cruel to leave the nail caged, eternally waiting the forthcoming torture of its cruel captor the hammer?
PotatoNinja on
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Just because it supposedly can't feel any pain, does it mean it is alright to hit it with an axe?
That is correct.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Unless there's a compelling reason to damage a (carbon-sequestering, biodiversity-preserving) living thing, it should go undamaged.
Guys, I think that protein is a nihilist. He doesn't seem to understand the premises we all assume, like "Pain is Bad"
Err, what? Stupid strawman attacks aren't adding to this discussion.
I understand that pain is bad, and I agree. My question is, why is that basis of your moral stance? I mean, you didn't really answer my other questions, such as your "higher life form" categorization, so answer this one.
Really, you can tell how seriously to take the OP as soon as you see the claim that cayenne pepper=pepper spray. Even a second of thought should tell you that not all things that contain capsaicin are pepper spray, and that any sort of pepper has a lower capsaicin concentration than pepper spray. Really, it's the same as claiming that they threw an equivalent to a mace because bread contains some iron.
We're talking about living organisms, obviously, but thanks for your non-input.
Why is a tree alive but a nail is not? Is it not cruel to leave the nail caged, eternally waiting the forthcoming torture of its cruel captor the hammer?
Err, just because the organism is not responding to a harmful stimulus in the way you would expect it to (i.e. by flinching) does not mean it is not feeling pain.
SCIENCE! More specifically, we know how pain works.
Really, you can tell how seriously to take the OP as soon as you see the claim that cayenne pepper=pepper spray. Even a second of thought should tell you that not all things that contain capsaicin are pepper spray, and that any sort of pepper has a lower capsaicin concentration than pepper spray. Really, it's the same as claiming that they threw an equivalent to a mace because bread contains some iron.
It was still a dick move, and a dick move by the people who were cheering, as well.
We're talking about living organisms, obviously, but thanks for your non-input.
Why is a tree alive but a nail is not? Is it not cruel to leave the nail caged, eternally waiting the forthcoming torture of its cruel captor the hammer?
You're just trolling at this point. Please stop.
You're telling me wheat-grass and a cow suffer in the same way. I'm asking why a nail and grass don't suffer in the same way. Don't blame me if your points don't make sense, I'm not the guy making them.
Really, you can tell how seriously to take the OP as soon as you see the claim that cayenne pepper=pepper spray. Even a second of thought should tell you that not all things that contain capsaicin are pepper spray, and that any sort of pepper has a lower capsaicin concentration than pepper spray. Really, it's the same as claiming that they threw an equivalent to a mace because bread contains some iron.
Uh, way to completely miss the point. Regardless of the contents of the pie, surely you can understand that it can be a very unpleasant and unwelcome feeling to get something in your eyes?
But that's not even the horrible thing about it. The horrible thing about it is that the woman already suffers from spine injuries, and she got attacked by three. masked. men. and everyone. cheered.
We're talking about living organisms, obviously, but thanks for your non-input.
Why is a tree alive but a nail is not? Is it not cruel to leave the nail caged, eternally waiting the forthcoming torture of its cruel captor the hammer?
You're just trolling at this point. Please stop.
You're telling me wheat-grass and a cow suffer in the same way. I'm asking why a nail and grass don't suffer in the same way. Don't blame me if your points don't make sense, I'm not the guy making them.
I never said they suffer in the same way. Obviously one is experiencing pain and the other isn't, at least not in a way that is detectable or recognizable by us.
To answer your question, grass is a living organism, a nail is not.
I never said they suffer in the same way. Obviously one is experiencing pain and the other isn't, at least not in a way that is detectable or recognizable by us.
We're talking about living organisms, obviously, but thanks for your non-input.
Why is a tree alive but a nail is not? Is it not cruel to leave the nail caged, eternally waiting the forthcoming torture of its cruel captor the hammer?
You're just trolling at this point. Please stop.
Actually, he has a point.
Cells are alive. Viruses and prions are sort of alive. Slime molds are alive. You think your argument is based around this category, "Life," but actually whether something is alive has very little to do with it.
Now, trees and animals are both eukaryotes. Are you talking about eukaryotic life? Multicellular eukaryotic life? There are fuzzy boundaries there, too.
There are fuzzy boundaries between humans (an animal you aren't okay with eating) and other primates (how do you feel about eating chimps?) And there are fuzzy boundaries between primates and other mammals, such as pigs and cows, and so on, down to fish and mollusks.
Now, vegetarianism/veganism is based on the idea that certain of these animals have sufficiently advanced nervous systems so as to experience pain. Which is bad, and so should be avoided. Which animals, exactly? It's fuzzy. Some vegans are okay with eating bivalves, because they don't have nervous systems. You get the idea.
But what I haven't seen from you is some indication of why you think certain animals are okay to eat, and not others. And under what conditions (you mentioned you were against factory farming: why?)
I never said they suffer in the same way. Obviously one is experiencing pain and the other isn't, at least not in a way that is detectable or recognizable by us.
What constitutes obviously experiencing pain?
Things that we can recognize, such as flinching to avoid the painful stimulus.
Really, you can tell how seriously to take the OP as soon as you see the claim that cayenne pepper=pepper spray. Even a second of thought should tell you that not all things that contain capsaicin are pepper spray, and that any sort of pepper has a lower capsaicin concentration than pepper spray. Really, it's the same as claiming that they threw an equivalent to a mace because bread contains some iron.
It was still a dick move, and a dick move by the people who were cheering, as well.
It's Britain. Throwing pies is what they do. I suspect they do that to distract themselves from the reality of being a formerly influential nation.
Guys, I think that protein is a nihilist. He doesn't seem to understand the premises we all assume, like "Pain is Bad"
Err, what? Stupid strawman attacks aren't adding to this discussion.
I understand that pain is bad, and I agree. My question is, why is that basis of your moral stance? I mean, you didn't really answer my other questions, such as your "higher life form" categorization, so answer this one.
What the fuck do you mean? Are you human? Pain is bad. It's not an objective thing. It's bad because our brains evolved it to be a negative stimulus. Because that results in life living to reproduce. That is why it evolved.
Seriously man, you aren't arguing in favor of eating meat, you're arguing from the perspective of a nihilist. Ths isn't a strawman. You are seriously rejecting premises that are necessary for a moral system.
I never said they suffer in the same way. Obviously one is experiencing pain and the other isn't, at least not in a way that is detectable or recognizable by us.
What constitutes obviously experiencing pain?
Things that we can recognize, such as flinching to avoid the painful stimulus.
I never said they suffer in the same way. Obviously one is experiencing pain and the other isn't, at least not in a way that is detectable or recognizable by us.
What constitutes obviously experiencing pain?
Things that we can recognize, such as flinching to avoid the painful stimulus.
What? Pain is a feeling. It requires a brain. Brains create pain.
I never said they suffer in the same way. Obviously one is experiencing pain and the other isn't, at least not in a way that is detectable or recognizable by us.
What constitutes obviously experiencing pain?
Things that we can recognize, such as flinching to avoid the painful stimulus.
That's a circular definition. Also, otherwise inanimate objects can be made to "flinch."
But it's a start. I think what you might mean here is, "we can recognize when an animal feels pain when they react in basically the same way I would." Right?
I never said they suffer in the same way. Obviously one is experiencing pain and the other isn't, at least not in a way that is detectable or recognizable by us.
What constitutes obviously experiencing pain?
Things that we can recognize, such as flinching to avoid the painful stimulus.
But what I haven't seen from you is some indication of why you think certain animals are okay to eat, and not others. And under what conditions (you mentioned you were against factory farming: why?)
I am okay eating anything that is:
a) reasonably safe and tasty
b) not an endangered or protected species (such as whale)
c) grown in a way that reduces the animal's suffering to a reasonable level (such as free-range anti-biotic chicken
Posts
One of the definitions of the word, according to wiktionary.org, is "to become worse".
I am as against factory farming as you are, so you aren't arguing against me when you bring it up.
Just thought I should let you know.
I'm talking about the sensation of pain or (sometimes) loss felt internally by conscious beings. Plants don't feel that; they don't have nervous systems.
We don't know anything "for sure" but we are actually pretty damn sure about how evolution and nervous systems work. I don't really have the patience for God of the Gap arguments.
Great, I'm sure most people would agree. What on earth is your point. What on earth does pointing out the potential hypocrisy of practicing vegetarians have to do with the morality of the position itself.
Not what I meant. You feel defensive because you realize, deep down, that you are engaging in a practice that causes a lot of suffering, and this practice is being criticized.
Some people, such as myself, feel guilt about it and try to avoid it. But other people apparently feel the need to lash out at their critics.
This is just an observation though; I'd prefer to keep the discussion on the morality of animal suffering.
Why should we protect higher life forms? Because life is good. That is one of my premises. Why is that one of my premises? Because I have been conditioned to think that way.
Seriously, if we deconstruct morality, all you end up with is nihilism.
Debate is ultimately people with the same premises trying to point out the flaws in logic of their opponents. If we have different premises, we really can't reconcile. Well, that or Reductio Ad Absurdum until one of us changes their premises.
On that note, what are your premises? Is it really that "Natural is good?"
Some quick points to make:
-- A vegetarian needs to put no more or less thought or effort into their diet than a meat eater. An omnivore eats meat but doesn't like chainsawing puppies? HYPOCRITE! No, not really. Each and every vegetarian can have their own rationale or reason for their dietary restrictions, and they're no more obligated to offer an explanation that fits your requirements than you are required to offer the same to them.
Generally, if a vegetarian were to wander around demanding that meat eaters justify their positions, we'd consider that person a raging dick. Food for thought.
-- Plants and animals are different. If you can't see this we really can't have a conversation, and you may in fact be a vegetable.
You're crazy. If the remarkably unlikely scenario occurs that some PETA terrorists harass you in the meat aisle of the supermarket, treat them like you would a telemarketer, or those annoying college students who try to ambush you and sign you up for whatever bullshit they're selling in every major downtown area, and ignore them or tell them to bugger off.
Trees may react to damage, but this is not the same as experiencing pain. Pain is a very specific neurochemical process that takes place in an animal brain. It requires specialized organs to take place.
If all the other predators were jumping off a bridge... fuck it, we both know how stupid your argument is, so I'm just going to leave it there.
Seriously, your natural is good premise is a lot worse than my life is good premise.
Oh, so you're arguing against a position that nobody has stated. Good to know.
Err, just because the organism is not responding to a harmful stimulus in the way you would expect it to (i.e. by flinching) does not mean it is not feeling pain.
You are arguing pseudoscientific hogwash.[/QUOTE]
What? Why?
The fact is this: when you hit a tree with an axe, you are damaging a living organism, often times beyond repair.
Just because it supposedly can't feel any pain, does it mean it is alright to hit it with an axe?
I'd jump off too. I wouldn't want the predators to think I'm out of the loop, and I bet all the cool predators were doing it anyways.
Is it ok to hit a nail with a hammer? The nail "suffers," by your definition. If it is ok, is it also ok to hit a person with a hammer? They also suffer.
If not, why is it ok to make one possibly living thing suffer (you have no proof nails are not alive) while saying it is not ok to make another living thing suffer (hitting a person with a hammer).
Are you going to continue arguing this remarkably asinine point? That makes me suffer. Am I a living thing? I do react strongly to negative stimuli. Does that mean you're worse than a vegetarian? Hard to say.
I mean, there are obviously exceptions; it is wrong to cut down a tree if it belongs to someone else; it is okay to shoot a bear who is attacking a toddler; it is (in my opinion) not so bad to raise a farm animal humanely and then painlessly slaughter them for food.
..... I'm 99% convinced you would eat a unicorn if you could find one.
Why is a tree alive but a nail is not? Is it not cruel to leave the nail caged, eternally waiting the forthcoming torture of its cruel captor the hammer?
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Unless there's a compelling reason to damage a (carbon-sequestering, biodiversity-preserving) living thing, it should go undamaged.
Err, what? Stupid strawman attacks aren't adding to this discussion.
I understand that pain is bad, and I agree. My question is, why is that basis of your moral stance? I mean, you didn't really answer my other questions, such as your "higher life form" categorization, so answer this one.
You're just trolling at this point. Please stop.
You're telling me wheat-grass and a cow suffer in the same way. I'm asking why a nail and grass don't suffer in the same way. Don't blame me if your points don't make sense, I'm not the guy making them.
Uh, way to completely miss the point. Regardless of the contents of the pie, surely you can understand that it can be a very unpleasant and unwelcome feeling to get something in your eyes?
But that's not even the horrible thing about it. The horrible thing about it is that the woman already suffers from spine injuries, and she got attacked by three. masked. men. and everyone. cheered.
I never said they suffer in the same way. Obviously one is experiencing pain and the other isn't, at least not in a way that is detectable or recognizable by us.
To answer your question, grass is a living organism, a nail is not.
Cells are alive. Viruses and prions are sort of alive. Slime molds are alive. You think your argument is based around this category, "Life," but actually whether something is alive has very little to do with it.
Now, trees and animals are both eukaryotes. Are you talking about eukaryotic life? Multicellular eukaryotic life? There are fuzzy boundaries there, too.
There are fuzzy boundaries between humans (an animal you aren't okay with eating) and other primates (how do you feel about eating chimps?) And there are fuzzy boundaries between primates and other mammals, such as pigs and cows, and so on, down to fish and mollusks.
Now, vegetarianism/veganism is based on the idea that certain of these animals have sufficiently advanced nervous systems so as to experience pain. Which is bad, and so should be avoided. Which animals, exactly? It's fuzzy. Some vegans are okay with eating bivalves, because they don't have nervous systems. You get the idea.
But what I haven't seen from you is some indication of why you think certain animals are okay to eat, and not others. And under what conditions (you mentioned you were against factory farming: why?)
Things that we can recognize, such as flinching to avoid the painful stimulus.
It's Britain. Throwing pies is what they do. I suspect they do that to distract themselves from the reality of being a formerly influential nation.
Seriously man, you aren't arguing in favor of eating meat, you're arguing from the perspective of a nihilist. Ths isn't a strawman. You are seriously rejecting premises that are necessary for a moral system.
That's foresight.
What? Pain is a feeling. It requires a brain. Brains create pain.
Seriously, what?
But it's a start. I think what you might mean here is, "we can recognize when an animal feels pain when they react in basically the same way I would." Right?
Does wheat-grass flinch?
I am okay eating anything that is:
a) reasonably safe and tasty
b) not an endangered or protected species (such as whale)
c) grown in a way that reduces the animal's suffering to a reasonable level (such as free-range anti-biotic chicken