5 ms·

Without picking a side, one notable difference is the sustainability of ranching. To my knowledge it hasn't driven many species to the brink of extinction (thou

Without picking a side, one notable difference is the sustainability of ranching. To my knowledge it hasn't driven many species to the brink of extinction (though maybe it has contributed indirectly by changing the habitat?)

aianus 11y ago
The sustainability of an evil act is a con, not a pro.
- elektromekatron 11y ago
  On that logic, murderers would be better if they killed everyone, as then murder would not be sustainable.
  - aianus 11y ago
    Certainly there are situations where killing is more ethical than prolonged suffering. We kill injured or sick animals to 'put them out of their misery' all the time. Isn't killing someone preferable to enslaving and torturing them and forcing them to reproduce so that you may do the same to their descendants?
    - eimai134 11y ago
      I agree - factory farming and even most "humane" farms are horrid. It would be better if we didn't eat meat (for our health, the environment, and ending world hunger). Then a smaller number of these animals could be pets or live on nature preserves.
quickquicker 11y ago
One case that comes to mind is that of wolves in Montana: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/science/earth/conflict-over-wolves-yields-new-dynamic-between-ranchers-and-conservationists.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/science/earth/conflict-ove...