usernamesAreTricky

They're continually paying El Salvador for this on an ongoing basis per Chris Van Hollen. To a place they could easily withhold funding if they wanted to until he was sent back

US Senator Van Hallen (from Maryland) flew down to El Salvador managed to see him after applying a bunch of pressure in mid April. So he was at least alive then. Photos were published and such of said meeting

Other dems from congress have flow down besides Van Hallen, but haven't been able to get a visit. They've also had a ton less media attention, so there was less pressure on El Salvador to let them visit him. For instance, Glenn Ivey traveled to El Salvador and tried to visit a week ago but I doubt most people here probably heard about that

https://archive.is/O4NaY

Most farm emissions, especially for animal agriculture, are not from electricity or fuel usage. They could use 100% renewable powered everything and that will still leave 80-95% of the emissions.

direct energy consumption (i.e., transportation, heating/cooling facilities, etc.) accounts for an estimated 5–20% of emissions from energy use in livestock supply chains, including feed production and processing, and is the lowest source of emissions in animal agriculture, according to FAO’s Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) (Gerber et al. 2013; FAO 2020).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03047-7

There is not much way around the fact that the production levels and consumption levels of meat, dairy, etc have to be reduced to make emissions go down in a larger way. Eccentric fermentation (methane from ruminant digestion) alone is 30% of the all global methane emissions. Another 4.5% of all global methane emissions come from farm animal waste as well. On top of all the emissions producing animal feed

Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

This is all circling around and missing the point I am making. The problem I am point out is about the logical reasoning. If logical reasoning is flawed when applied to something else, then it should not be used

This conversation is going in circle, so just going to end this here

Unfortunately this is far from a US only thing. It is worse in the US, but it's still everywhere. Factory farming is rather high globally, including Canada where I'm going to assume you are from based on your instance

It’s estimated that three-quarters – 74% – of land livestock are factory-farmed. That means that at any given time, around 23 billion animals are on these farms.

[...]

Combine land animals and fish, and the final estimate comes to 94% of livestock living on factory farms

https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-are-factory-farmed

It is a pervasive myth, supported by misleading industry advertising, that Canada does not have factory farms. Canada does, in fact, have factory farms, with the average chicken farm housing as many as 36,000 chickens.

https://mercyforanimals.org/blog/canada-chicken-farming-2024/

Like many Republican lead US-states, various conservative lead Canadian provinces have also tried put Ag-gag laws in place to limit filming of factory farms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag#Canada

That is missing what I am saying entirely. Argue with the logic, please, instead of a false interpenetration. The exact categories are not relevant to what I am saying at all. What matters is that the reasoning could be used to justify difference between categorization of humans that you think shouldn't be morally relvent

Those are examples of the conclusion the flawed logic (difference = inherently justifying different treatment) could be used to justify. So I am saying we should reject the premise because of what the same logic can justify

This is rather circular reasoning. You are saying humans only matter because some humans say only humans matter

If we can just declare ethics excludes any group inherently because I said so, then that can lead to pretty bad conclusions

Not the person you are replying to, but that's not what the point of the name the trait question is about. It is not about distinguishing between species

Why are humans morally considered is not asking why humans are human. Asking why one doesn't morally consider chickens is not asking why chickens are chickens

It is about distinguishing between what matters to ethics. It's not a trait that makes them chickens vs humans. It's about a trait or set of traits that makes someone morally considered

Declaring that humans and chickens are distinct is not sufficient to say to they deserve radically different ethical consideration. Otherwise you are just saying that difference itself = justifying different ethical consideration, which is highly flawed. You could for instance, use that to say any group of humans are distinct in some way and thus deserve different moral consideration. Be it by gender, skin tone, etc.

Since you asked that made me actually reverse image search it to double check it was originally where I thought it was from. It was not, and now I am not sure where exactly it's originally from. The oldest version I found was from a blog from 2008, but on that post the file metadata says the photo was from May 11th, 2004

The factory farming definition they use is more specific than that. It's based on the numbers per location

There's not really much crab farming in the US in general. It's basically all wild caught which has it's own negatives to the environment like overfishing. It's more of a thing in other parts of the world like South East Asia

Still at fairly high densities from what I can tell though not necessarily always as insane as the photos I showed earlier