Pynchme another attempt by you to minimise the significance of the individual (the natural "building block" and innovative component of humanity)

“Col, I wish I knew how to inspire empathy where it doesn't exist.”

“Empathy” fine, I have loads of it.

However, Empathy is useless when it is used as an excuse to overindulge in paternalistic sentimentality.

“what we do matters to the well-being of the whole.”

Ah like the “common good”… and the “betterment of all mankind” and other weasel words, most commonly used in to deny individual aspirations or liberty.

“If it is preferable, why limit it? (It's not like we're going to use it all up).”

Because if one is being confronted by a rabid or violently inclined canine, one is disinclined to rely on kindly persuasive pleadings as first line in defence, instead favouring a skull crushing axe handle.

“So why modify our potential for compassion to comply with a lower level?”

I have never denied ones right to exercise compassion. I have, as the illustration above reflects, determined we need to find a balance between “compassion” and "self-defense”

Quoting Albert Einstein

As we know, Albert was an exceptional individual who, through his self-awareness understood he was a part of an huge interactive set of independent and interactive variables but Albert would, whilst he was a part within a massive universe, never denied he was also an individual, possessing and using unique individual qualities and abilities.

Unique, individual qualities and abilities which you seem to have completely forgotten or maybe just conveniently ignored, are what make people “people”.

We are not the uniform robots depicted in movies like Metropolis or hypothesised by socialist/communist philosophers.

People are uniquely individual.

We will always serve “the whole” best when we are free to aspire to the maximum of our individual potential (like Einstien);

rather than either

spending our life “navel-gazing” and postulating our individual levels of “empathy” within a holistic cosmos

or

the slaves of a repressive, uniform, socialistic despotism (by any name)

It's always amazing that an article like this, which is about
the hypocrisy and lies of the animal industries provokes so much
discussion ... not about whether they are hypocritical liars,
but about whether we should eat meat.

However, I suspect an article about the hypocrisy
of the media's claims of unbiased reporting wouldn't provoke any
discussion of whether we should habitually consume their products.

No matter. Katrina wins her claims of hypocrisy with ease.

The other thing about the comments is that
people seem confused about what
the term omnivore means. Omnivores can survive on a
huge range of diets. In our case we can live almost
entirely on fruit (like our fructivore ancestors),
and/or vegetables and
almost entirely on meat and almost every conceivable mixture.
The word "almost" is important in
both cases. If the meat is too lean, then we may well die of
what is called "rabbit starvation" or "protein poisoning". If
we don't get enough dirt (specifically the soil bacteria who
make B12) with the fruit then we can die that way also.
Being omnivorous doesn't mean we need
a balanced diet ... we don't. It's
precisely our low nutritional requirements (we need far less
iron or protein than a chicken, for example), that has made
us a plague on the planet. We can occupy any area on
the planet and survive on local produce. The discovery
of B12 and its synthesis has freed us from any need to eat
soil bacteria or animal products and the stuff made in the
lab is better than the real thing ... it is more easily
absorbed. The US Institutes of Medicine recommends ALL adults
over 50 eat B12 supplements or fortified food for precisely
this reason. Similarly, the manufacture of antibiotics frees
us from all kinds of unpleasant ways of dealing with
infections ... typically by dying. Sometime the natural
way of doing something is dismal.

Col: <"I have never denied ones right to exercise compassion. I have, as the illustration above reflects, determined we need to find a balance between “compassion” and "self-defense”>

Why would anyone need to defend themselves against a battery chicken?

I am not even saying people shouldn't eat eggs or meat; but there is no justification for not treating creatures as kindly as possible.

Btw I don't think that wouldn't be "paternalism" - I'm a F so it would probably be maternalism.

Btw I do believe in the common good and that whatever we do makes a difference - it reverberates.

Pynchme, It's all about costs.

Raising chickens for egg production is like any other business, the less you are able to house in a shed, the higher the 'input costs' of egg production and, the higher the prices they have to charge for eggs.

While most decent people don't like the way that chickens are housed, they also battle every day simply to place three decent meals on the table and, like it or not, people generally vote with their wallet when it comes to food.

Now on the other hand, if you could find a way to 'mass produce' eggs, which doesn't involve craming chickens in a cage and, keep the prices the same, then I dare say you would find little resistance from the masses.

However, until such time may I suggest those who are oppossed to it, simply buy 'free range' eggs and pay the extra.

At least this way you will be taking a little presure off the current system and, you can continue to feel all warm and fuzzy knowing no chichen lived in hell for your benefit.