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.
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.
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.
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.