Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Zuckerberg Only Eating Animals He Personally Kills 544

Posted by samzenpus
from the welcome-to-my-food-list dept.
theodp writes "Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has begun personally slaying animals for food, part of a resolution to fully appreciate the meat he eats by limiting it to that which he personally kills. Zuckerberg has mostly been vegetarian since making the vow, but his hands-on kills thus far include a goat, pig, chicken and a lobster. 'He cut the throat of the goat with a knife,' Zuckerberg pal Jesse Cool told FORTUNE, 'which is the most kind way to do it.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zuckerberg Only Eating Animals He Personally Kills

Comments Filter:
  • by Kenja (541830) on Friday May 27, 2011 @04:18PM (#36266786)
    Really unsure why I should care... this seems more of a People Magazine article then News For Nerds.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      It's about one of the most successful (monetarily) modern nerds going off the deep end.
      • by jd (1658)

        "Going" sounds superfluous given who we are talking about.

      • by LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) on Friday May 27, 2011 @04:26PM (#36266878) Homepage

        He's not gone off the deep end yet. We reserve that judgement til he takes a dozen tech journalists to a remote island and declares "The hunt ...is on".

        I give it a week.

      • So, killing animals for food is 'going off the deep end'? I lived on a farm from ages 5-11. We slaughtered several of our animals for food. That's where the meat comes from after all, or weren't you aware?

        Maybe you lived in a city your whole life and got it nicely packaged for you in a supermarket or pre-cooked and now you want to consider people who actually kill the animals as somehow beneath you, or having 'gone off the deep end'? Maybe you should reconsider your food choices if you want to avoid looking like either a blatant classist or a hypocrite.

        • by Pvt_Ryan (1102363)

          So, killing animals for food is 'going off the deep end'? I lived on a farm from ages 5-11. We slaughtered several of our animals for food. That's where the meat comes from after all, or weren't you aware?

          Maybe you lived in a city your whole life and got it nicely packaged for you in a supermarket or pre-cooked and now you want to consider people who actually kill the animals as somehow beneath you, or having 'gone off the deep end'? Maybe you should reconsider your food choices if you want to avoid looking like either a blatant classist or a hypocrite.

          Pft every true geek knows that meat comes from a replicator which once the food as appeared displays a message "no was harmed in the replicating of this meat".

          Meh, who really cares. Good on him I say.

        • by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday May 27, 2011 @04:44PM (#36267132) Homepage Journal

          When I was a wee lad, I thought that a veterinarian would put the animal, say a cow, under and cut out a steak. After that, he'd stitch it back together and back to the rolling hills of the farm for it.

          Then my mom explained what really happened...
          • by Nadaka (224565)

            Funny thing is that I read a national geographic article about a primitive tribe that did just this. Drug the cow, cut out a strip of flesh (mostly fat and skin) and sew it back up.

            • by Darinbob (1142669)

              So this salesman visits a farmer and notices he has a pig with three prosthetic limbs. He asks the farmer what's going on.
              The Farmer say "well, this here's a special pig. Once my son fell in the well and the pig came and pounded on the door until we came to see what was wrong. So this pig here saved my son's life."

              The salesman asks again, "but what about this pig's legs? How did they get like that?" The Farmer says "My wife was alone at home when a fire broke out and she fell unconscious. The pig brok

        • by Jiro (131519) on Friday May 27, 2011 @05:28PM (#36267734)

          It's not killing animals for food that's going off the deep end, it's the idea that there's some meaning in only eating the ones you kill yourself. He'd never eat only the vegetables he picked himself, or only the bread he baked himself (starting with wheat that he threshed himself). And nobody would only use a computer that they made themselves from iron ore and raw silicon. ("I want to remind myself of how we must destroy the environment in order to get my computer".)

          We have division of labor for a reason.

          • by ed1park (100777) <[ed1park] [at] [hotmail.com]> on Friday May 27, 2011 @06:34PM (#36268360)

            mod this guy up. For all we know, Mark enjoys killing things and uses this story as cover.

          • by SydShamino (547793) on Friday May 27, 2011 @10:25PM (#36270184)

            Sure, but sometimes a division of labor leads to a lack of knowledge about the effort involved in said labor, which then leads to a lack of respect for the laborers or the end product itself.

            Killing your own food might be one of the more extreme ways to address this - there are certainly people who can eat meat but are too squeamish at the sight of blood, and they have a right to eat meat just like the rest of us - but there are other plenty of other ways to address this, too.

            For example, Dirty Jobs [discovery.com] is all about showing how some of the manual jobs in our country get done, and celebrating the fact that there are people out there willing to do them for us. Matthew Moore's Digital Farm Collective [digitalfar...ective.org] project is designed to show non-farmers the effort involved in the production of their vegetables - if you knew that it took the use of a small bit of our fertile planet and some of our precious water for 140 days just to grow one single carrot, might you be a little more invested in the appreciation of that carrot in your dinner? Would you be less likely to let it rot in your fridge?

      • by sco08y (615665)

        Wouldn't this be the shallow end?

    • No fish? What's he got against fish? Figured that'd be the first one on the list.
    • by Bieeanda (961632)
      People magazine? I thought this was someone trying to expand Literally Unbelievable [tumblr.com] into exploring the credulity of Slashdot readers as well as Facebookers.
  • I heard... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27, 2011 @04:18PM (#36266792)
    I heard he actually has someone else kill the animal and then steps in and claims credit for the kill.
  • The man claimed no foul, as he had killed Zuckerberg himself before enjoying his meal
  • by LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) on Friday May 27, 2011 @04:20PM (#36266816) Homepage

    Which is why I mostly eat spiders out of tissues :(

    • On a completely OT note, whatever happened to the "Don't use karma bonus" option when commenting? Seeing as half* my posts are ridiculous shit (see above) it seems stupid to post them at +2.

      *: OK, only half are supposed to be ridiculous shit. In practice it's closer to a 90/10 split.

      • by Qzukk (229616)

        Assuming that everything is working, you can push the little gear icon next to the "Post Anonymously" checkbox (which I just now realized that after a year or so they finally made it not white-on-white). You can also push the Options button below the input box. Either one will open a Web 2.0!!! div that contains a checkbox with "No Karma Bonus?" and a save button. Check it, and Save. Then Post.

        Posting without karma bonus, in case it doesn't work...

    • by iluvcapra (782887)

      I've been doing this for years, which is why I'm a vegetarian.

  • I've killed a few sheep for food myself, and It does give you a new appreciation for where the meat comes from. It's amazing how some people are outraged by killing "free range" pilot whales only because it is very bloody, with NO thought about what exactly is in their quarterpounder.

    • by jd (1658)

      Cows don't have quite the brain capacity or (as recently demonstrated) technology or language sophistication of cetaceans, cows generally have much shorter lifespans, and harpoons at sea are generally not effrective or quick. So at least some of us object on grounds other than "bloody". Well, except in the usual British phrase of "you bloody morons!"

      • by VMaN (164134)

        Pilot whales are not harpooned, but driven up on shore and then their spine is cut. I wouldn't call it painless, but I don't think its savage or torture. Just for reference they are smaller than killer whales but typically bigger than dolphins, FYI.

      • Not to mention we've no shortage of cows... It's not like there are too many whales -- as the stewards of Earth you'd think we'd act like it instead of extincting species for no other reason than because we want to.
        • by VMaN (164134)

          We have no shortage of pilot whales either, afaik. But most people only hear "whale" and assume the worst.

          • by jd (1658)

            The last estimate the IWC did for pilot whales was 1989 and they calculated between 440,000 - 1,370,000. Which, in my books, translates to "we haven't a clue". MarineBio.org lists their population as "unknown but not considered endangered". Which also translates to "we haven't a clue".

            Whale populations are extremely difficult to estimate, though the Japanese method of hauling them ashore and counting them one at a time is probably not the best.

            • by VMaN (164134)

              Yea, killing whales for "science" is absurd.

              Here are some more numbers, courtesy of wikipedia:

              "In its Red List of Threatened Species the IUCN lists both the Long-finned and Short-finned Pilot Whales with "Data Deficient" status according to its 2008 assessment. In a previous assessment in 1996 the organization listed the species in the "Lower Risk/least concern" category. However, the IUCN also says that with an estimated subpopulation size of 778,000 in the eastern North Atlantic and approximately 100,000

            • by rjstanford (69735)

              Whale populations are extremely difficult to estimate, though the Japanese method of hauling them ashore and counting them one at a time is probably not the best.

              Ah... "Research."

    • by Twinbee (767046)

      Both came from a live animal. It doesn't make it more 'clever' if you do it yourself.

  • by Nadaka (224565) on Friday May 27, 2011 @04:22PM (#36266832)

    I grew up in a hunting and fishing household. I've long held the belief that you appreciate you food more if you kill it yourself. I hate to say it because I really dislike Zuckerberg, but he has something going here. If I had the disposable income and free time to procure live animals on a regular basis I would probably do this as well.

    • Agreed, the nerd in me still thinks he's a douche but the redneck in me thinks this is a good thing to try.
      • True. Everyone should at least have done it once, to get the full appreciation. These days I only slaughter the fish I catch - if I catch them, they seem to be a step ahead of me lately - but growing up in deep country and being used to slaughtering whatever gets on the table gives you some perspective.
    • Does he grow his own vegetables or kill (harvest/cook) them too? If not, what's the point?

      IMHO, just cooking for yourself is enough to obtain an appreciation for what you eat.

    • by element-o.p. (939033) on Friday May 27, 2011 @06:35PM (#36268376) Homepage

      I've long held the belief that you appreciate you food more if you kill it yourself.

      +1

      I have two nieces who routinely waste about half the food they put on their plates -- which pisses me off for a number of reasons -- but both are died-in-the-wool animal lovers. "How can you shoot a moose? They are soooo cute and cuddly!!!"...while throwing away 8 oz. of steak every night at dinner.

      When you kill the animals you eat for food yourself, it becomes very, very real to you that your dinner was bought with the blood of another living creature. You don't just throw the meat away because you understand where it came from and what it means for it to be on your dinner plate.

      • by mortonda (5175)

        while throwing away 8 oz. of steak every night at dinner.

        WHaaaat? Your nieces have steak every night for dinner? Wow.

        • by Bill Dimm (463823)

          And they throw away half of what is put on their plates, so they are each served a 16oz steak every night.

      • by Teckla (630646)

        I have two nieces who routinely waste about half the food they put on their plates -- which pisses me off for a number of reasons -- but both are died-in-the-wool animal lovers. "How can you shoot a moose? They are soooo cute and cuddly!!!"...while throwing away 8 oz. of steak every night at dinner.

        I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps the parents should give them smaller portions of steak, and only give them more if they ask for it.

        Or maybe the parents should quit feeding them something they obviously dislike.

      • by Warhawke (1312723)

        I completely understand your sentiment. However, I would also claim the sentiment to encourage everyone to eat everything that is served to them is what singlehandedly promotes childhood obesity in the United States. I actually had to teach my own father (who is fit but has high cholesterol) that the trick to being healthy is to stop eating when it's time to stop eating, regardless of what remains on your plate, or regardless of whether or not you want to finish it. If you want your nieces not to waste f

  • So slitting a goat's throat's ok but walking around w/a live chicken is beyond the pale apparently.
  • Just an excuse for him to kill some animals every day...

    (I'm only half joking, the guy's an evil bastard)

  • I think if your clients want to sit on my shoulders and call themselves tall, they have the right to give it a try - but there's no requirement that I enjoy sitting here listening to people lie. You have part of my attention - you have the minimum amount. The rest of my attention is back at the slaughtering pens of Facebook, where my colleagues and I are doing things that no one in this room, including and especially your clients, has the stomach to do.
  • by Ossifer (703813) on Friday May 27, 2011 @04:24PM (#36266858)

    So he doesn't raise, hunt or catch them, or clean them or prepare them himself. He only does the actual killing...

    Does anyone else find this disturbing? [think Of Mice and Men]

    • by dadioflex (854298)
      I think you're on to something there. There's a process and most people would baulk at the killing while being relatively happy to raise, feed, care for and then eventually eat the animals. Even most farmers don't kill the animals, either through choice or legislation. If he's killing animals to make their sacrifice meaningful then good for him. If he's killing animals because just eating meat he hasn't looked in the eye before plunging home the dagger is no longer good enough for him then I wouldn't approv
    • Not at all. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pigwiggle (882643)

      I've killed, butchered, and cooked several animals. By far, the most difficult part is killing the animal. Especially when it doesn't go well. It can be pretty disturbing. All the rest is just gore. I wish more people had this attitude. I think fewer animals would live miserable lives and people would waste less.

  • The goat actually felt more violated by how Zuckerberg treated his personal privacy than he did about the whole throat cutting thing.

  • by Qbertino (265505) on Friday May 27, 2011 @04:27PM (#36266894)

    the most humane way to kill a goat is *not* to cut its throat.
    The most humane way to kill a goat (or any animal for that matter) without chemicals is to shoot it.
    At best with a powerfull but silenced firearm - as not to scare the animal while its
    sensory functions remain intact for a few seconds after the fact.

    Anyway, please refrain from cutting throats of live beings, wether they're animals or whatnot.
    Thanks.

    • Why waste bullets? Use a pneumatic piston at the base of the skull. Still -- no matter where you shoot something, dying is going to hurt unless you destroy the whole brain all at once... I say dynamite strapped to the things' heads are the most humane.
    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      Silenced firearm?
      No such thing exists. Suppressors exist, but they won't even make a .22 silent. No need to silence it anyway, bullets are supersonic. A .22 to the brain pan and the show is over before it hears the bang. Even a cow can be dispatched this way. Bullet through the eye socket, since cow skulls are too thick for a .22.

      A powerful firearm is also a bad idea, makes a mess and does not kill any faster than a .22 bouncing around inside an animals skull.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      Cutting the throat leads to a massive drop in blood pressure. That leads very rapidly to unconsciousness. The idea that one could remain conscious for a few seconds after decapitation is bunk.

      Properly done, shooting is a better option as it will destroy parts of the brain that would perceive danger or pain. However that takes more skill. You could easily shoot the wrong part of the brain, and leave an incapacitated goat to slowly bleed out.

    • Anyway, please refrain from cutting throats of live beings, wether they're animals or whatnot.

      I realize it may sound odd that this is what caught my attention in your post, but what whatnot do you refer to that is a living being -- with a throat -- but not an animal?

  • Let him do a Facebook share buyback on IPO day with his personal funds, and see how badly the retail investor will do on that over-valuated trade.
  • The amount of people who have a disconnect from where our food comes from is growing. That he wants to help bridge that gap personally, is awesome.

    • by blair1q (305137)

      It's utterly irrelevant where the food comes from. Utterly and totally. We've been eating animals forever, and knowing or not knowing what it looks like as it's dying doesn't make a rational case for vegetarianism, and watching it die doesn't rationalize breaking a vow of vegetarianism. Any human who can't stomach the sight of its food being made is ignoring the nature of the species. Any human who has to make up rationalizations for eating the way they do is confusing nutrition for faux humanitarianism

  • What is it with rich people doing more and more esoteric things in a desperate attempt to feel like they're either special or somehow experiencing more to life than the next guy?
    I'm a full-blown meat eater, I've cleaned and gutted my own fish like anyone who's fished properly, chopped the head off a chicken and held the neck over a sink so that when it tried to pull the headless chicken act all the squirty blood was aimed somewhere, and I wouldn't claim that's made me any closer to understanding sustainable

  • So he's basically killing farm animals? Big deal, get a hunting rifle and go get a deer, moose, elk, what ever and none of that game fed feeder Dependant animals that you find on hunting ranches for the city folk. Then he'd have a better understanding.
  • In other news (Score:2, Insightful)

    by devnullkac (223246)

    I only dispose of trash in my own personal incinerator and landfill in the backyard. Sure, it's dirty, smelly, time-consuming, inefficient, annoying to my neighbors and family, and has virtually no effect on the global trash situation, but it discourages me from generating trash. At least until I become as numbed to the problem of trash disposal as the professionals I used to pay to do that job.

    Seriously, though, if you want to solve a problem that human nature walks us right up to, don't bother experimen

  • two people I would not have thought about in the same way, before today

    you know what? i grew up on a farm. i've butchered animals. i've milked them. i've bottlefed them. i've healed them. i've euthanized them. i've midwifed them. i'm completely unimpressed

    modern living in the west means we are disconnected from our food sources like no generation before us. the chicken nuggets on our plate bear no cognitive relationship to the actual chickens we see, probably, only on television or the internet

    then, at age

  • That's what he's doing! Jees, you'd think I would have figured it out by now. He's eating our privacy.
  • That's the first ethical thing I've heard of Zuckerberg doing. I'm not holding my breath to see if there ever will be a second.

    Pretending that meat doesn't involve death is widespread. Oh sure, people SAY they know, but when it comes right down to it, it's an abstract, intellectualized thing with no sense of reality. When you're the one who has to make the cut or pull the trigger, you can't pretend you're not responsible.

    Animals die so humans can have meat. If you can't bring yourself to be the one to d

  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Friday May 27, 2011 @05:11PM (#36267552)
    He's working his way up to humans slowly.

It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome

Working...