3 ms·

> 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 articl

> 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
- iN7h33nD 7y ago
  You don't live a happy life being raped and having a child taken away at birth so that milk can be produced for humans. All animals cannot live "happy" lives. Demand won't allow it. There is no future where all animals can be happy and the level of meat consumption can stay the same. So you would choose to live a happy 15 years and then die. Unfortunately most animals that we farm cannot and do not live happy lives, and they don't get a choice. You would more realistically be living to 15 until slaughter with torture, rape, and your children being taken away to further the cycle. Never existing seems better. There is another option though, not raping, torturing, and slaughtering for humans to consume. Humans won't wither away without animal products. In the not so distant past slaves were given "happy" lives by there owners. They were lesser beings so they should be happy to be alive at all right?
  - elhudy 7y ago
    >There is no future where all animals can be happy and the level of meat consumption can stay the same. I'm not in disagreement with this...just because you're cynical about the future of husbandry doesn't mean I can't be optimistic about it. I'm unsure how repeatedly stating facts about the worst of the current state of factory farming is going to change my mind about how we can potentially lessen demand and migrate production from factory farms through not supporting them. It's actually the exact same concept as becoming a vegetarian but with different expected results.
    - iN7h33nD 7y ago
      How will a future where are animals that humans consume leading happy lives decrease demand? Doesn't decreasing demand counter your point about creating more lives being a better thing, since that would lead to less lives? Even if I was optimistic about farming being able to have animals leading happy lives, it would still ignore many negative factors dealing with animal consumption: 1. The environmental impact from animal consumption would increase if all animals lead happy lives and consumption stayed the same. 2. Dairy products could no longer be produced as that would lead to unhappy animals 3. The sustainability of eating animals, we produce feed for them, and then we eat them. It would make much more sense to only produce feed for us.

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

iN7h33nD 7y ago
You don't live a happy life being raped and having a child taken away at birth so that milk can be produced for humans. All animals cannot live "happy" lives. Demand won't allow it. There is no future where all animals can be happy and the level of meat consumption can stay the same. So you would choose to live a happy 15 years and then die. Unfortunately most animals that we farm cannot and do not live happy lives, and they don't get a choice. You would more realistically be living to 15 until slaughter with torture, rape, and your children being taken away to further the cycle. Never existing seems better. There is another option though, not raping, torturing, and slaughtering for humans to consume. Humans won't wither away without animal products. In the not so distant past slaves were given "happy" lives by there owners. They were lesser beings so they should be happy to be alive at all right?
- elhudy 7y ago
  >There is no future where all animals can be happy and the level of meat consumption can stay the same. I'm not in disagreement with this...just because you're cynical about the future of husbandry doesn't mean I can't be optimistic about it. I'm unsure how repeatedly stating facts about the worst of the current state of factory farming is going to change my mind about how we can potentially lessen demand and migrate production from factory farms through not supporting them. It's actually the exact same concept as becoming a vegetarian but with different expected results.
  - iN7h33nD 7y ago
    How will a future where are animals that humans consume leading happy lives decrease demand? Doesn't decreasing demand counter your point about creating more lives being a better thing, since that would lead to less lives? Even if I was optimistic about farming being able to have animals leading happy lives, it would still ignore many negative factors dealing with animal consumption: 1. The environmental impact from animal consumption would increase if all animals lead happy lives and consumption stayed the same. 2. Dairy products could no longer be produced as that would lead to unhappy animals 3. The sustainability of eating animals, we produce feed for them, and then we eat them. It would make much more sense to only produce feed for us.