Most farm animals have been selectively bred for traits that fit human needs, at the expense of the animal’s own quality of life. For example, chickens being bred to produce so many eggs that they become calcium deficient and their bones break under the weight of their own bodies. Sanctuaries provide safe spaces for these animals to live out the rest of their lives in the most comfort possible, while going vegan is important for a future where we’re no longer breeding these poor beings into an inherently hellish existence.
Wild animal suffering is a hot debate in the vegan communities these days. There is no cut and dry answer for that. However, whatever we do or don’t do to alleviate or eliminate wild animal suffering says nothing about whether we also create and maintain our own system of animal suffering. We can end the human exploitation of animals, and doing so can teach us a lot about ending our exploitation of each other as well.
I’m not really concerned with whether animals are being exploited by humans anymore than I am the same of plants or fungi. I do think animals shouldn’t suffer because I consider pain to be of negative utility even when experienced by non-persons. With that said, I don’t think the goal of reducing or eliminating animal suffering is better-served by the total elimination of livestock than by ensuring humane farming practice. On the off-chance it wasn’t obvious, I don’t think the utility calculation is clear-cut because of the aforementioned problem of wild animals suffering.
Would you rather live a normal life and at some point be mauled to death, or live your entire life in a prison and at some point be killed more painlessly?
Yes, animals suffer and die in the wild. They also suffer and die in captivity, just in different measures, but I would argue they suffer more as farm animals.
If by “normal life” you mean a life riddled with far more anxiety and danger than I currently have, then I guess it would depend on the prison, but I’m leaning towards prison. This is particularly true if I were to lack boredom and the overbearing curiosity that humans have. Turns out, most animals (especially herbivores) don’t get bored and don’t experience curiosity in the same way humans do. It’s almost like we’re different species with different brains.
Also, most animals aren’t people, and my answer doesn’t actually change the utility values.
Maybe you should look into why it’s bad to be ableist, asshole. I’m autistic, not psychopathic; I use logic when approaching abstract ethical problems. Fuck you.
This is very true. Look at pigeons, for example. Used to value pigeons as a tool for communication and they even saved lives, but when technology advanced with things like the telegram, we abandoned pigeons. Cows have been domesticated for tens of thousands of years, meaning they are dependent on us for survival, and even if we don’t use then for food, we will still have to take care of them as cows have many things wrong with they’re biology such as the fact that they will die if not milked, and no, the calf can’t keep up with that as the modern cow produces far more milk than they did in the wild so long ago. In essence, cows would either become white elephants or go extinct if we didn’t care for them.
“They have to suffer or else they would be extinct” is a very easy argument to make about other beings when you’re not the one doing the suffering. Personally, I would rather not exist than have a few short years of abysmal suffering and no chance to have a meaningful life.
Okay, I’ll be serious for a moment because logical consistency is important to me.
I am responding to the image above. The image above is making the suggestion that higher rates of veganism means that cows will get to live. I am not arguing here in any capacity that we should only care about cows, I am making the statement that the premise suggested in the image, that there are cows that would be alive if there were more vegans is flawed at best.
If the image showed a fox, you’d be saying they think you eat foxes. It’s not a good faith interpretation of the argument being presented - you might as well infer that they’re only talking about men in suits, too.
People eating less cows would drastically reduce the cow population. I’m sure they would be culled, with entire plants electing to kill the cows rather than sustain them unprofitably.
I’m in the same boat with a lot of commenters here, of trying to reduce my consumption for ethical reasons. Throughout my life I’ve tried being vegan and I’ve tried being vegetarian and always failed and now am just minimizing and it’s working very well for me.
Nonetheless, that picture gave me a chuckle. Life’s a ride, might as well have as good a time as possible and that usually coincides with being uptight as little as possible.
I’ve posted more in depth responses to ‘reducitarianism’ elsewhere. In one comment I made an analogy to quitting smoking, and how ‘reducing’ my cigarette count only led to a rebound where I smoked even more than before.
It’s well known in the scientific literature that people are so inaccurate at self-reporting what, and how much of what, they eat, that questionnaire-based studies are specifically designed to compensate for these inaccuracies. So anecdotal claims of people reducing their animal consumption mean very little, particularly when data seems to indicate the opposite.
And like Ed Winter’s post gets into, you need to put the concept of reduction within the concept of justice. Fewer animals being bred and slaughtered sounds nice, but what about for the animals still being abused and murdered? Do you find it acceptable when corporations promise only to reduce carbon emissions by about 10% by 2035? Or how would you feel if police unions claimed they would disproportionately arrest black people 20% less than they used to?
Sorry but ‘reduction’ is nothing but a self-soothe to make people feel like they’re doing something good, when in reality they are just continuing their injustice while assuaging their own guilt. Just another form of cognitive dissonance.
If your goal is preserving the life of cows, everyone becoming vegan will not help; most farm animals can’t survive without human intervention.
Most farm animals have been selectively bred for traits that fit human needs, at the expense of the animal’s own quality of life. For example, chickens being bred to produce so many eggs that they become calcium deficient and their bones break under the weight of their own bodies. Sanctuaries provide safe spaces for these animals to live out the rest of their lives in the most comfort possible, while going vegan is important for a future where we’re no longer breeding these poor beings into an inherently hellish existence.
Yes, much better to have wild animals gutting each other and devouring live prey than to have any farm animals at all. Greatest plan.
Wild animal suffering is a hot debate in the vegan communities these days. There is no cut and dry answer for that. However, whatever we do or don’t do to alleviate or eliminate wild animal suffering says nothing about whether we also create and maintain our own system of animal suffering. We can end the human exploitation of animals, and doing so can teach us a lot about ending our exploitation of each other as well.
I’m not really concerned with whether animals are being exploited by humans anymore than I am the same of plants or fungi. I do think animals shouldn’t suffer because I consider pain to be of negative utility even when experienced by non-persons. With that said, I don’t think the goal of reducing or eliminating animal suffering is better-served by the total elimination of livestock than by ensuring humane farming practice. On the off-chance it wasn’t obvious, I don’t think the utility calculation is clear-cut because of the aforementioned problem of wild animals suffering.
Would you rather live a normal life and at some point be mauled to death, or live your entire life in a prison and at some point be killed more painlessly?
Yes, animals suffer and die in the wild. They also suffer and die in captivity, just in different measures, but I would argue they suffer more as farm animals.
If by “normal life” you mean a life riddled with far more anxiety and danger than I currently have, then I guess it would depend on the prison, but I’m leaning towards prison. This is particularly true if I were to lack boredom and the overbearing curiosity that humans have. Turns out, most animals (especially herbivores) don’t get bored and don’t experience curiosity in the same way humans do. It’s almost like we’re different species with different brains.
Also, most animals aren’t people, and my answer doesn’t actually change the utility values.
No, not at all, it’s the safest life available to them, in terms of likelihood for disease and life expectancy.
If you really want prison, it’s available to you and you do get food and medical care free.
Herbivores still get bored and try to escape, so they probably don’t love it.
I would love a source that they don’t though. It’s my understanding that that’s why zoos are hard to run.
maybe try getting a professional to look into that psychopathy of yours
Maybe you should look into why it’s bad to be ableist, asshole. I’m autistic, not psychopathic; I use logic when approaching abstract ethical problems. Fuck you.
This is very true. Look at pigeons, for example. Used to value pigeons as a tool for communication and they even saved lives, but when technology advanced with things like the telegram, we abandoned pigeons. Cows have been domesticated for tens of thousands of years, meaning they are dependent on us for survival, and even if we don’t use then for food, we will still have to take care of them as cows have many things wrong with they’re biology such as the fact that they will die if not milked, and no, the calf can’t keep up with that as the modern cow produces far more milk than they did in the wild so long ago. In essence, cows would either become white elephants or go extinct if we didn’t care for them.
“They have to suffer or else they would be extinct” is a very easy argument to make about other beings when you’re not the one doing the suffering. Personally, I would rather not exist than have a few short years of abysmal suffering and no chance to have a meaningful life.
I never said they would have to suffer, I’m saying without a purpose that society finds useful, the majority of society will stop caring about them.
There would be other animals there instead
Oh wow, do these goalposts have legs?
Who set the goalposts of cows only? If we’re playing logical fallacy bingo, then that’s a straw man.
Okay, I’ll be serious for a moment because logical consistency is important to me.
I am responding to the image above. The image above is making the suggestion that higher rates of veganism means that cows will get to live. I am not arguing here in any capacity that we should only care about cows, I am making the statement that the premise suggested in the image, that there are cows that would be alive if there were more vegans is flawed at best.
If the image showed a fox, you’d be saying they think you eat foxes. It’s not a good faith interpretation of the argument being presented - you might as well infer that they’re only talking about men in suits, too.
People eating less cows would drastically reduce the cow population. I’m sure they would be culled, with entire plants electing to kill the cows rather than sustain them unprofitably.
“I’m going to be a cunt to people who are making an effort”
You’re giving us a bad name. 80% of people eating 50% less meat is a lot better and easier to achieve than 20% of people eating eating no meat.
I’m in the same boat with a lot of commenters here, of trying to reduce my consumption for ethical reasons. Throughout my life I’ve tried being vegan and I’ve tried being vegetarian and always failed and now am just minimizing and it’s working very well for me.
Nonetheless, that picture gave me a chuckle. Life’s a ride, might as well have as good a time as possible and that usually coincides with being uptight as little as possible.
I’ve posted more in depth responses to ‘reducitarianism’ elsewhere. In one comment I made an analogy to quitting smoking, and how ‘reducing’ my cigarette count only led to a rebound where I smoked even more than before.
It’s well known in the scientific literature that people are so inaccurate at self-reporting what, and how much of what, they eat, that questionnaire-based studies are specifically designed to compensate for these inaccuracies. So anecdotal claims of people reducing their animal consumption mean very little, particularly when data seems to indicate the opposite.
And like Ed Winter’s post gets into, you need to put the concept of reduction within the concept of justice. Fewer animals being bred and slaughtered sounds nice, but what about for the animals still being abused and murdered? Do you find it acceptable when corporations promise only to reduce carbon emissions by about 10% by 2035? Or how would you feel if police unions claimed they would disproportionately arrest black people 20% less than they used to?
Sorry but ‘reduction’ is nothing but a self-soothe to make people feel like they’re doing something good, when in reality they are just continuing their injustice while assuaging their own guilt. Just another form of cognitive dissonance.
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production
That’ll just make them throw a tantrum and stop trying to quit.
Haha this is funny