4 ms·

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 a

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 7y 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 7y 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
  - elhudy 7y ago
    >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" My point is NOT "if everyone practiced vegetarianism, climate change would be unaffected." I completely agree with you that the world would be a better place if "everyone were to suddenly switch to being vegan." The point is that in aggregate, not much is ever going to change in the short term, and to believe otherwise is wishful thinking. We have a large sample size of folk who simply don't care about the well being of animals, and a smaller portion of folk who do. That portion hasn't actually changed much over time, even though information about animal farming practices has because much more readily available [1]. It can thus be assumed that changing the way animals are raised and delivered will have a bigger impact on their well-being, than will those who do not eat meat continuing not to eat meat. > "The inactive must justify their sloth by picking nits with those making an attempt" A disingenuous attempt at mocking me, considering I have taken large steps in my own life toward vegetarianism. I just hold realistic rather than idealistic hopes for the future of omnivores and the environment they derive their food sources from. [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2018/08/03/you-might-think-there-are-more-vegetarians-than-ever-youd-be-wrong/?utm_term=.a7a864c9dfe1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2018/08/03/you-m...
    - the_gastropod 7y ago
      > It can thus be assumed that changing the way animals are raised and delivered will have a bigger impact on their well-being, than will those who do not eat meat continuing not to eat meat There's no reason we can't do both! > A disingenuous attempt at mocking me, considering I have taken large steps in my own life toward vegetarianism. I just hold realistic rather than idealistic hopes for the future of omnivores and the environment they derive their food sources from. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to mock you. I interpreted your argument as a classic "make perfection the enemy of good" argument. It's fantastic you are making efforts to do your part.
- ppseafield 7y ago
  > you think not being brought into existence is better than a happy life with an abrupt ending? You're forming the question again in the same way as the article: "You think not being brought into existence is better than a happy life with an abrupt ending?" When really the question is: "You think it's better that humans choose not to bring animals into existence in order to kill them is better than humans choosing to bring animals into existence in order to kill them?" And yeah, I think it is better not to breed animals just to kill them, when we could also not. > 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? False dichotomy: poor factory farm conditions vs. better factory farm conditions. There is also the option of no factory farms at all, which would be the least amount of suffering at the hands of humans. > That's great for keeping a clear conscience. But realistically is it believable that this will slow down the impending climate change? Actually, it's in the top global climate change causes, so, yes. And there's an avalanche effect of not having to grow 9 times the crops to feed the livestock: less pesticide runoff, less land needed to grow food so less incentive for deforestation and overall habitat destruction, less hauling and shipping required which burns less fuel... Honestly: do you really think you're doing the animals a favor by raising them in factory farms? You really care about these cows and pigs, so you eat them? Would you be willing to pay the cost - the real cost, not including subsidies funded by taxpayer dollars - for them to have long, nice, natural lives? Because meat is already expensive, and it's artificially cheaper, and the animals only live about 10% of their natural lives. Chickens can live about 8-10 years but are killed at about 18 months when their egg laying starts to diminish. Cows are killed around the same time, but can live up to 20 years. Would you choose to be fed okay food, in a pen, until you were about 15, then killed?
  - elhudy 7y ago
    >False dichotomy: poor factory farm conditions vs. better factory farm conditions. There is also the option of no factory farms at all, which would be the least amount of suffering at the hands of humans. When it comes down to it we can just agree to disagree on this point. I believe in a more intermediate future where meat comes from animals that, yes, while being bred for consumption, are happy animals that lived happy lives; lives which would be better than any lack of existence. I believe most meat eaters would realistically support this future as well - if not through their purchasing power then at least potentially by law. Lastly, I believe that getting to this future is through strong support of farmers who have already achieved it. >Would you choose to be fed okay food, in a pen, until you were about 15, then killed? This might surprise you but actually I would be inclined to say yes. I would absolutely chose that life over no life [1]. Have you raised farm animals before? They generally feel safer and less agitated in a "pen" of sorts because they view it as protection. They get to socialize all day - and don't usually have to worry about predators or food. Humans aren't motivated by the same environmental dynamics as cows or chicken. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huT5__BqY_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huT5__BqY_U

elhudy 7y 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 7y 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
- elhudy 7y ago
  >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" My point is NOT "if everyone practiced vegetarianism, climate change would be unaffected." I completely agree with you that the world would be a better place if "everyone were to suddenly switch to being vegan." The point is that in aggregate, not much is ever going to change in the short term, and to believe otherwise is wishful thinking. We have a large sample size of folk who simply don't care about the well being of animals, and a smaller portion of folk who do. That portion hasn't actually changed much over time, even though information about animal farming practices has because much more readily available [1]. It can thus be assumed that changing the way animals are raised and delivered will have a bigger impact on their well-being, than will those who do not eat meat continuing not to eat meat. > "The inactive must justify their sloth by picking nits with those making an attempt" A disingenuous attempt at mocking me, considering I have taken large steps in my own life toward vegetarianism. I just hold realistic rather than idealistic hopes for the future of omnivores and the environment they derive their food sources from. [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2018/08/03/you-might-think-there-are-more-vegetarians-than-ever-youd-be-wrong/?utm_term=.a7a864c9dfe1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2018/08/03/you-m...
  - the_gastropod 7y ago
    > It can thus be assumed that changing the way animals are raised and delivered will have a bigger impact on their well-being, than will those who do not eat meat continuing not to eat meat There's no reason we can't do both! > A disingenuous attempt at mocking me, considering I have taken large steps in my own life toward vegetarianism. I just hold realistic rather than idealistic hopes for the future of omnivores and the environment they derive their food sources from. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to mock you. I interpreted your argument as a classic "make perfection the enemy of good" argument. It's fantastic you are making efforts to do your part.
ppseafield 7y ago
> you think not being brought into existence is better than a happy life with an abrupt ending? You're forming the question again in the same way as the article: "You think not being brought into existence is better than a happy life with an abrupt ending?" When really the question is: "You think it's better that humans choose not to bring animals into existence in order to kill them is better than humans choosing to bring animals into existence in order to kill them?" And yeah, I think it is better not to breed animals just to kill them, when we could also not. > 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? False dichotomy: poor factory farm conditions vs. better factory farm conditions. There is also the option of no factory farms at all, which would be the least amount of suffering at the hands of humans. > That's great for keeping a clear conscience. But realistically is it believable that this will slow down the impending climate change? Actually, it's in the top global climate change causes, so, yes. And there's an avalanche effect of not having to grow 9 times the crops to feed the livestock: less pesticide runoff, less land needed to grow food so less incentive for deforestation and overall habitat destruction, less hauling and shipping required which burns less fuel... Honestly: do you really think you're doing the animals a favor by raising them in factory farms? You really care about these cows and pigs, so you eat them? Would you be willing to pay the cost - the real cost, not including subsidies funded by taxpayer dollars - for them to have long, nice, natural lives? Because meat is already expensive, and it's artificially cheaper, and the animals only live about 10% of their natural lives. Chickens can live about 8-10 years but are killed at about 18 months when their egg laying starts to diminish. Cows are killed around the same time, but can live up to 20 years. Would you choose to be fed okay food, in a pen, until you were about 15, then killed?
- elhudy 7y ago
  >False dichotomy: poor factory farm conditions vs. better factory farm conditions. There is also the option of no factory farms at all, which would be the least amount of suffering at the hands of humans. When it comes down to it we can just agree to disagree on this point. I believe in a more intermediate future where meat comes from animals that, yes, while being bred for consumption, are happy animals that lived happy lives; lives which would be better than any lack of existence. I believe most meat eaters would realistically support this future as well - if not through their purchasing power then at least potentially by law. Lastly, I believe that getting to this future is through strong support of farmers who have already achieved it. >Would you choose to be fed okay food, in a pen, until you were about 15, then killed? This might surprise you but actually I would be inclined to say yes. I would absolutely chose that life over no life [1]. Have you raised farm animals before? They generally feel safer and less agitated in a "pen" of sorts because they view it as protection. They get to socialize all day - and don't usually have to worry about predators or food. Humans aren't motivated by the same environmental dynamics as cows or chicken. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huT5__BqY_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huT5__BqY_U