US chicken companies pioneered restricting sleep to keep birds eating around the clock.
A new study (Li et al., 2026) recommends giving chickens just 2 hours of darkness nightly to maximize the time they spend eating. The study and photo are Chinese.
We know chickens have far better hapiness with 7–8 hours of darkness to sleep.
But they eat more and grow faster when they are sleep deprived.
Going vegan is wrong. Going vegetalian may be right, but comes with extra needs.
Going vegan is wrong because it leeds you to choose clothes made out of petrol rather than wool, while wool would last longer and need less ressources on the long run. It leeds you to choose your food from fields using petrol engines to be farmed and reject those using animal traction.
Yes, there are not much field cultivated with animal traction. And this has caused a near extinction of the animals used for traction. Those saved are risen by humans, so non-vegan friendly. Going vegan is willing the extinction of all animals risen by human unless they can still handle themselves in nature.
Vegetalians may agree at measure to let animals survive thanks to human interactions, and could accept some domestication of animals. They may use wool, they may accept vegetables arrived to the market carried by a donkey (and prefer them for that reason to the ones bringed by a truck).
Yet, to be vegetalian, you need a good access to medicine, in order to check you remain healthy, and to correct the mistakes you may make. This access isn’t easy everywhere in the world.
Apparently this isn’t a diet where you only eat Italian food. I’m disappointed.
Weird mind gymnastics you’re doing here.
Cotton, manual labor and electric engines.
Then we should help animals thrive in the wild. Stop hunting, stop killing forests, stop taking their land, and all that stuff. You mentioned none of those.
The current living cows, pigs and chickens are bred to extreme artificial amounts for your pleasure. This is not natural. If we stop breeding more animals and kill off the remaining alive ones, eventually it will balance itself out again. We are not helping them by breeding them and killing them. That’s a selfish fallace so you can sleep at night.
You do not. I personally do a blood check every year just in case. Funnily enough I only had a tiny vitamin D deficiency because I worked inside a lot. Besides that I just eat what I want, vegan of course. I merely added legumes and beans to my diet, and changed some meat things in my dishes for more veggies. It’s really that easy. Super easy and you’ll actually be even more healthy because meat is not healthy.
Your fallace comes from claiming there are only two ways, the hard industrial process or the vegan way (which requires hard industry too).
There are other ways, efficient enough, if we step out of consumerism and capitalism. Yet, if we don’t step out of that, your plan to let natural places to wild animals is an unrealistic dream, so I guess we agree to step out of that (tell me if I am wrong).
Accepting manual labor question me a lot, since one of the base argument of veganism is that human is an ordinary animal and so have no right over other animals. But so, I don’t get how you finally accept productions of humans but not those of other animals. Even when the human workers have no choice but are exploited by a system torturing them.
In my view, it is not a question of right humans would have over other animals. We inherit of a situation. Our ancestors have forced many animals into an unfair contract where we protect them of other predators and take care of their needs, in exchange of their production and meat. It was unfair from start. We have built our civilizations thanks to that unfair contract. Now that we reached a technological level which allow us to do without them, we would just fire them and let them try to survive on their own in the lands we accept to let them?
Wouldn’t it be more moral to have more consideration for those we have forced to be our allies? The contract was already not fair, cancelling it just because it is not at our benefice enough anymore is not something I see as a superior morality.
I don’t understand your point. It makes no sense. What do you want exactly? You want to keep them in farms but not eat them? Or keep them in farms and still eat them? Your argument is incomprehensible. There is no such thing as overnight veganism. And as we move towards a vegan society, animal numbers will normalize and become natural again. That’s just a fact.
I have no problem with eating animals. Some do, and I do not claim they are wrong.
Yet veganism isn’t about eating. The eating part is a vegetalian diet. Veganism add to refuse animal’s prduction such as wool, and all kind of human control over animals. And this is the part I can’t see morality in.
Your simple “number will normalize” claim is so scary when given without any thing to back it. Is it to mean you do not care? You want your hands clean and do not care about consequences?
I don’t ask you to eat them. I just ask you to allow them to survive, even when it needs our help. Because that is something we owe them.
That I want, is to step out of capitalism and consumerism in favor of a society that would be organized to support an healthy and happy life to all humans (even those who live far away). For this, I think we (westerners, but not only) need to learn to live with nature instead of against it. Yet since human made self a master of nature, it is their duty to preserve it.
So how much is the animal ag industry paying you?
Are all those who disagree with you paid by someone to be part of a great conspiracy?
Nope, only those who have a suspicious preoccupation with arguing against vegans specifically, especially when their arguments are cartoonishly dumb and aimed directly at demonizing the very people who are just trying to make the world less cruel.
Cartoonishly dumb arguments should be easily demonstrated false. I may be the evil and corrupted by industries, but demonstrating them false would be useful if some people read us and do not know. Claiming them dumb isn’t an argument.
I do not see how vegans try to make the world less cruel ; as far as I know, welfarist are those who try to reduce crualty. Vegan stand on a moral position of purety which claim to use the good means regardless of the consequences.
I evilishly defend that consequences matter, and that we would better get our hands dirty if it allows better consequences.
I can generate random words too. get out of hand drawing a blank in the long run no pain no gain. it’s a piece of cake, step up your game, rock the boat to give someone the cold shoulder passing the buck. devil’s advocate.
Is it really the best argument to defend your position?
My best arguments are reserved for people who genuinely want to discuss things in good faith. Your sealioning is so formulaic I’m not even sure you’re a human.
Shit comments get shit comments. 🖖
If those who disagree with you are paid to be part of a conspiracy rather than genuinely discussing points, it means you reserve your arguments for those who agree with you and do not need them?
I don’t understand neither your reaction nor your point of view. Or is veganism something you live as a religion? Something you want to believe by faith regardless of how rational it is?
If your only arguments for your cause are attacks such as “not human”, “paid by industry” and such, you probably harm it more than I do by attacking it.
If you check other comments you will find some vegans who argument and stand their position. I would really advice you to take inspiration from them…