5 ms·

Not sure what OPs requirements are, but mine are along these lines: "If animals like free-range cows have lives that are not worth living, almost all wild anim

by elhudy 8y ago

Not sure what OPs requirements are, but mine are along these lines: "If animals like free-range cows have lives that are not worth living, almost all wild animals could plausibly be thought to also have lives that are worse than non-existence. Nature is often romanticised as a well-balanced idyll, so this may seem counter-intuitive. But extreme forms of suffering like starvation, dehydration, or being eaten alive by a predator are much more common in wild animals than farm animals. Crocodiles and hyenas disembowel their prey before killing them[1]. In birds, diseases like avian salmonellosis produce excruciating symptoms in the final days of life, such as depression, shivering, loss of appetite, and just before death, blindness, incoordination, staggering, tremor and convulsions.[2] While a farmed animal like a free-range cow has to endure some confinement and a premature and potentially painful death (stunning sometimes fails), a wild animal may suffer comparable experiences, such as surviving a cold winter or having to fear predators, while additionally undergoing the aforementioned extreme suffering[3]." -Thomas Sittler. "How Should Vegetarians Actually Live?"

meowface 8y ago
His point about wild animals is very accurate, but that's not considering that animals bred in captivity ("free"-range or otherwise) would not have been if not for meat demand. It's debatable whether non-existence is preferable to being raised and then killed, but the dichotomy isn't between wild animals vs. free-range animals. I think this is more an argument for an eventual plan to deal with wild animal suffering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_animal_suffering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_animal_suffering), not an argument that whatever we do to free-range animals is acceptable because it's no worse than the suffering wild animals experience. Of course it's not very pragmatic for humanity to make a dent in that problem in the near future, especially without causing externalities, but just because it's hard doesn't mean the alternative is to say "they all have shit lives anyway, who cares what we do with them?"
- elhudy 8y ago
  >His point about wild animals is very accurate, but that's not considering that animals bred in captivity ("free"-range or otherwise) would not have been if not for meat demand. It's debatable whether non-existence is preferable to being raised and then killed, but the dichotomy isn't between wild animals vs. free-range animals The idea is is as follows. Might be worth just reading the article: "If ethical vegetarians believed animals have lives that are unpleasant but still better than non-existence, they would focus on reducing harm to these animals without reducing their numbers, for instance by supporting humane slaughter or buying meat from free-range cows. I will argue that if vegetarians were to apply this principle consistently, wild animal suffering would dominate their concerns, and may lead them to be stringent anti-environmentalists." http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2016/03/oxford-uehiro-prize-in-practical-ethics-how-should-vegetarians-actually-live-a-reply-to-xavier-cohen-written-by-thomas-sittler/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2016/03/oxford-uehiro-p...
  - ppseafield 8y ago
    This article starts with a false premise: "Vegans are against the suffering of animals." But really the point, at least for myself as a vegan is that "Vegans are against the suffering of animals at the hands of humans." Often vegans are also environmentalists in that human effort has put additional major stressors on wildlife - deforestation, oil spills, human-accellerated climate change, plastic pollution, etc. Factory farming by humans happens in addition to wildlife suffering. Wildlife suffering happens with or without humans, but humans active choose to breed and kill animals when we don't necessarily need to. We could just not do that.
    - elhudy 8y ago
      >Wildlife suffering happens with or without humans, but humans active choose to breed and kill animals when we don't necessarily need to. We could just not do that. You don't support humane slaughter or buying meat from free-range cows, because you think not being brought into existence is better than a happy life with an abrupt ending? What if supporting humane slaughter led to less animals being factory farmed, which is agreeably relatively better conditions for the farmed animal population as a whole? That would then be lessening the suffering of animals in the hands of humans. >Often vegans are also environmentalists in that human effort has put additional major stressors on wildlife - deforestation, oil spills, human-accellerated climate change, plastic pollution, etc. Factory farming by humans happens in addition to wildlife suffering. That's great for keeping a clear conscience. But realistically is it believable that this will slow down the impending climate change? It seems to me that a vegan's idea of helping animals/climate is to disconnect from the situation entirely. That might allow for avoidance of responsibility and a moral high-horse, but economically, it isn't realistically helping to lay the groundwork for lessened suffering and a cleaner environment.
      - the_gastropod 8y ago
        > You don't support humane slaughter or buying meat from free-range cows, because you think not being brought into existence is better than a happy life with an abrupt ending? I'm always amazed when this argument is raised. I can't fathom anyone actually believes more life, for the sake of life, is "better". It strikes me as a bad faith argument. There is a colossal difference between ending a life and preventing one from happening. > That's great for keeping a clear conscience. But realistically is it believable that this will slow down the impending climate change? About 21.8% of the world's population is vegetarian [1]. Let me flip your question: Do you think if those billions of people began consuming meat, the world would be the same? Of course not. Assuming meat production could rise to fit this 21.8% increase in demand (it likely couldn't), the planet would be much worse off. So, yes. Although an individual's choice to not eat meat doesn't do much, in aggregate, it's massively important. "The inactive must justify their sloth by picking nits with those making an attempt" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country
john_teller02 8y ago
Do human beings have to add to that suffering? Ask yourself.
munk-a 8y ago
As you're on hacker news I assume you're familiar with the trolley problem[1], by factory farming animals we are falling into the same ethical dilemma, we've chosen to pull the lever - but it's not clear in this scenario if we're actually saving lives, this is more of a trolly problem where there are five people tied down on each line, but someone offers you 1000$ to pull the lever and send it down the other line[2]. We are shifting the responsibility for these animal's deaths onto our hands so that we can benefit with yummy meat, so I find the argument above to be immensely weak. The consideration that animals may become extinct if they aren't useful seems a more worthy one, but less valid in the modern world. Also, I'm not vegan or vegetarian - I am internally content with my moral and ethical choices regarding meat and have carefully considered them. [1] If not, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem [2] Assuming that person's motivations are opaque, if we know they want to save or specifically kill someone then the problem gets miles more complex - if it makes it easier, maybe imagine a piece of china on the track that the train will go down - so your choice is five people or five people and some nice china.

by elhudy 8y ago

meowface 8y ago

His point about wild animals is very accurate, but that's not considering that animals bred in captivity ("free"-range or otherwise) would not have been if not for meat demand. It's debatable whether non-existence is preferable to being raised and then killed, but the dichotomy isn't between wild animals vs. free-range animals. I think this is more an argument for an eventual plan to deal with wild animal suffering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_animal_suffering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_animal_suffering), not an argument that whatever we do to free-range animals is acceptable because it's no worse than the suffering wild animals experience. Of course it's not very pragmatic for humanity to make a dent in that problem in the near future, especially without causing externalities, but just because it's hard doesn't mean the alternative is to say "they all have shit lives anyway, who cares what we do with them?"

elhudy 8y ago
>His point about wild animals is very accurate, but that's not considering that animals bred in captivity ("free"-range or otherwise) would not have been if not for meat demand. It's debatable whether non-existence is preferable to being raised and then killed, but the dichotomy isn't between wild animals vs. free-range animals The idea is is as follows. Might be worth just reading the article: "If ethical vegetarians believed animals have lives that are unpleasant but still better than non-existence, they would focus on reducing harm to these animals without reducing their numbers, for instance by supporting humane slaughter or buying meat from free-range cows. I will argue that if vegetarians were to apply this principle consistently, wild animal suffering would dominate their concerns, and may lead them to be stringent anti-environmentalists." http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2016/03/oxford-uehiro-prize-in-practical-ethics-how-should-vegetarians-actually-live-a-reply-to-xavier-cohen-written-by-thomas-sittler/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2016/03/oxford-uehiro-p...
- ppseafield 8y ago
  This article starts with a false premise: "Vegans are against the suffering of animals." But really the point, at least for myself as a vegan is that "Vegans are against the suffering of animals at the hands of humans." Often vegans are also environmentalists in that human effort has put additional major stressors on wildlife - deforestation, oil spills, human-accellerated climate change, plastic pollution, etc. Factory farming by humans happens in addition to wildlife suffering. Wildlife suffering happens with or without humans, but humans active choose to breed and kill animals when we don't necessarily need to. We could just not do that.
  - elhudy 8y ago
    >Wildlife suffering happens with or without humans, but humans active choose to breed and kill animals when we don't necessarily need to. We could just not do that. You don't support humane slaughter or buying meat from free-range cows, because you think not being brought into existence is better than a happy life with an abrupt ending? What if supporting humane slaughter led to less animals being factory farmed, which is agreeably relatively better conditions for the farmed animal population as a whole? That would then be lessening the suffering of animals in the hands of humans. >Often vegans are also environmentalists in that human effort has put additional major stressors on wildlife - deforestation, oil spills, human-accellerated climate change, plastic pollution, etc. Factory farming by humans happens in addition to wildlife suffering. That's great for keeping a clear conscience. But realistically is it believable that this will slow down the impending climate change? It seems to me that a vegan's idea of helping animals/climate is to disconnect from the situation entirely. That might allow for avoidance of responsibility and a moral high-horse, but economically, it isn't realistically helping to lay the groundwork for lessened suffering and a cleaner environment.
    - the_gastropod 8y ago
      > You don't support humane slaughter or buying meat from free-range cows, because you think not being brought into existence is better than a happy life with an abrupt ending? I'm always amazed when this argument is raised. I can't fathom anyone actually believes more life, for the sake of life, is "better". It strikes me as a bad faith argument. There is a colossal difference between ending a life and preventing one from happening. > That's great for keeping a clear conscience. But realistically is it believable that this will slow down the impending climate change? About 21.8% of the world's population is vegetarian [1]. Let me flip your question: Do you think if those billions of people began consuming meat, the world would be the same? Of course not. Assuming meat production could rise to fit this 21.8% increase in demand (it likely couldn't), the planet would be much worse off. So, yes. Although an individual's choice to not eat meat doesn't do much, in aggregate, it's massively important. "The inactive must justify their sloth by picking nits with those making an attempt" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country

john_teller02 8y ago

Do human beings have to add to that suffering? Ask yourself.

munk-a 8y ago

As you're on hacker news I assume you're familiar with the trolley problem[1], by factory farming animals we are falling into the same ethical dilemma, we've chosen to pull the lever - but it's not clear in this scenario if we're actually saving lives, this is more of a trolly problem where there are five people tied down on each line, but someone offers you 1000$ to pull the lever and send it down the other line[2]. We are shifting the responsibility for these animal's deaths onto our hands so that we can benefit with yummy meat, so I find the argument above to be immensely weak. The consideration that animals may become extinct if they aren't useful seems a more worthy one, but less valid in the modern world. Also, I'm not vegan or vegetarian - I am internally content with my moral and ethical choices regarding meat and have carefully considered them. [1] If not, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem [2] Assuming that person's motivations are opaque, if we know they want to save or specifically kill someone then the problem gets miles more complex - if it makes it easier, maybe imagine a piece of china on the track that the train will go down - so your choice is five people or five people and some nice china.