"Optical Distortion, Inc" A new product, contact lenses for chickens, is to be introduced by a small firm formed to market the product. An entry strategy must be planned including price, sales force, size, and location. Allows data for computation of economic benefit to farmers. Includes state-by-state chicken population data for planning a rollout sales program.
But some ideas cannot be crushed by bankruptcy and the dream of providing lenses to all of America’s hens was carried on by the son of one of Vision Control Inc.’s founders, a young Mr. Randall Wise. Wise, a Harvard Business school graduate and former nautical shipping consultant, used the millions he made from selling his software company to establish Animalens, Inc.
Instead of pecking at each other (success!), the hens were now pecking at the air, rubbing their eyes repeatedly on their wings, and suffering from corneal ulcers and ruptured eyes.
> the coloring was thought to prevent a chicken wearing them from recognizing blood on other chickens, which may increase the tendency for abnormal injurious behavior
So that's only relevant tot the rose-colored variant.
I think the answer lies in this quote right above it:
> They differ from blinders in that they allow the bird to see forward, whereas blinders do not.
Where "blinders" is a hyperlink to an article concerning blinders for chickens.
That article has a piece comparing blinders to spectacles:
> Blinders work by reducing the accuracy of pecking at the feathers or body of another bird, rather than spectacles which have coloured lenses and allow the bird to see forwards but alter the perceived colour, particularly of blood.
But this again only refers to the coloured lenses, which in the article was said to be a variant.
So my understanding is that both blinders and spectacles work by restricting the vision of the bird but the spectactles additionally had a rose-colored variant.
So when they look down (which for a chicken means bending their neck), they can see the ground and their feed.
When looking ahead, their vision is obscured and blurry, opaque, so they won't attack or eat other chickens.
(the red is an additional option)
It has those goggles in it. Still remember fondly to this day (not the game, the chicken goggles).
They can be very mean to each other. “Pecking order” is literally true and the results can be heartbreaking. Ours have never pecked each other’s eyes, thank heaven, but I’m guessing most of that is from the roosters, not the hens. Roosters can get disgustingly rapey and have to be separated from the hens, who can get seriously injured during the mating process.
In my view, we have massive problems (child brain development, social problems) in the world because of protein scarcity, as capitalism excels providing everyone with ample cheap carbs but cheap sustainable protein, not so much. I dream of open source bioreactors for algae (spirulina etc) too boost availability of Protein & Omega 3 (which is another hugely undersupplied nutrient, esp. in non-coastal regions and as appetite for sunflower-fried batter goes up, because Omega 6 cancels out 3).. here in Dresden, we have a small start-up https://algenwerk.de that is trying to commercialize it but the cost really has to be brought down a lot, rn one jar is about 8€ for some green goo that tastes like nothing, but it has potential and they are a talented team.
This anthromorphization is deeply annoying. What next? Turtles don’t care about age of consent?
You might as well rail against clouds for forming, or rain for falling.
But in context, is it even obnoxious or is that just humans having opinions again? The hens don't appear to love it, but they don't like being rained on either. And just like being caught in a rainstorm, they shake themselves off, and get on with their day. Is this OK? I don't know, but it's thoroughly normal and necessary for species survival. Hens do not go into heat or have sex drives, so the hen will never initiate or encourage sex. So all chicken mating is nonconsensual. What does consent even mean here? Yet they survive as a (now domesticated) species.
Similarly, is it "murder" when a coyote eats a chicken? Maybe, but only if we're anthropomorphizing. Really it's just predation. It sets off our moral triggers, but it's an essential function of life -- and for that matter, we do it too and rarely feel bad about it.
if you think about it, most animals die fucked up deaths and end up starving, injured, or being torn apart by a predator.
Or there's dolphins, who will use the threat of drowning to force mating. Waterboarding females for sex.
It's not anthropomorphization. Nor "anthromophization".
They are, but also extremely dumb. I always think of Herzog's rant about chickens and their stupidity.
As they are literal dinosaurs, the terrifying aspect of gigantic carnivore sauropods with the "intelligence" of a chicken has never been properly depicted in movies.
This has been observed long before we started cramming them into tiny spaces, but it certainly doesn't help.
Also, the males, become quite agressive past 4 months of age. They also grow sizeable spurs hard as nails, usually these are trimmed if you have more than one rooster. Roosters will attempt to kill chicks occasionally, although they usually do a great job protecting them from predators. They are able to scare foxes sometimes :)
Searching for it reveals pink plastic chicken glasses for sale today, so they still seem to exist. Or maybe those are blinders instead
Pic available at: https://boardgamegeek.com/image/817261/the-inventors
I can often find them for only $2 more a dozen than the cheapest option.
Forgive me if I'm missing your intent(s) but the way I'm reading your comment it seems to be implying "the logical conclusion of that line of thinking is a worse situation so the logic is wrong or should be ignored".
Which implies that not being extinct is the most important thing even if life is completely suffering.
(It also implies a false dichotomy where the only two options are the horrible suffering of modern factory farming or extinction, with no options in between.)
I have an earnest question about your opinion, without casting any judgement or gotchas about any real world complicated situations:
In a hypothetical world where horrible factory farming is the only possible life for these chickens (the ONLY alternative is extinction) do you think it is worse to keep the system going than letting them go extinct? I think that's the intent in your comment and, if so, would you mind sharing a bit more about why you think that?
I’m not a vegan myself, but I have several vegans in my life, and I believe this is a common viewpoint in the vegan community.
Also, modern chickens are much larger than their ancestors from even 50 years ago as a result of the efficiencies of factory farming, so I would question the premise of your question.
thomassmith65•8mo ago