5 ms·

> That's not the most unethical thing that is happening in the world I'm just going to refer to the factory farming article from 80000hours: https://80000hour

> That's not the most unethical thing that is happening in the world I'm just going to refer to the factory farming article from 80000hours: https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/factory-farming/ https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/factory-farming/ Considering that "Each year, 50 billion animals are raised and slaughtered in factory farms globally. Over a billion animals live in factory farms at any point of time in the United States. Most experience serious levels of suffering.", I would argue that it's hard to find anything comparable in magnitude to that tragedy if one allows that farmed animals are even a 1/100th fraction as conscious as humans. I would... probably not enjoy being proven wrong this time :S

yters 7y ago
Do the animals experience more suffering than if they lived in the wild? Is industrial slaughter more or less traumatic than death in the wild? Are there any benefits animals experience living in captivity vs living in the wild? Is there anything positive about more such animals getting to live in the first place due to demand for meat?
- Half_pint 7y ago
  People rarely seem to ask these questions when it comes to dogfighting. Somehow we agree it's bad to breed dogs in captivity to suffer when it's a behavior we don't engage in... but when it requires personal change everyone is suddenly Descartes asking the deep questions.
- rhn_mk1 7y ago
  Those are good questions, but about a different topic (except the last one). The choice here is not between raising animals for eating in factories as opposed to raising them in the wild. It's between raising them in factories versus not bringing them to life at all. Wild animal suffering is a different beast altogether. Your last question is on the point though. Do the animals raised for meat have lives worth living?
  - yters 7y ago
    Is it better for a being to not exist entirely than suffer? If so, then would this imply that if animals suffer even more in the wild that they should be wiped out?
    - bootlooped 7y ago
      Yes. If you had the choice between having a child that would live its entire life in agony, or not having that child, I think it's obvious which is better. No. For the same reason that murdering your 4 year old is not ethically equivalent to using birth control.
      - yters 7y ago
        Should we sterilize animals in the wild since they suffer too, possibly even more than animals in captivity?
        nojvek 7y ago
        why would animals in wild suffer more than in captivity? In captivity animals go through hell, tiny living spaces, shit and eat in same place, hormones injected, little freedom. Tons of videos on youtube if you feel like watching some gore. It's not about taking suffering away. Animals born in the wild live their life naturally. Animals created by us in farms are raised for one thing, for human consumption. If an animal wants to run away in wild and do it's thing, it has that choice. In captivity, we force the choice humans made for them. Basically if we have slightest amount of empathy for our pets and are willing to apply that to other animals, eating meat doesn't look enticing.
        yters 7y ago
        By that criteria, I can't say pets necessarily have a better life, either.
        linnaeus 7y ago
        > why would animals in wild suffer more than in captivity? Not necessarily more in every case but they do suffer in many different ways. Nonhuman animals in the wild are routinely exposed to: starvation, dehydration, disease, injuries, predation, parasitism and extreme weather conditions: > The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life > It's not about taking suffering away. Animals born in the wild live their life naturally. A "natural" life does not necessarily mean a good one. > Animals created by us in farms are raised for one thing, for human consumption. If an animal wants to run away in wild and do it's thing, it has that choice. The choice to do what? The vast majority of nonhuman animals receive no help with their suffering. There are exceptions of course like when we help by rescuing trapped animals, vaccinating and healing injured and sick animals, caring for orphaned animals etc. But the general rule is a very short life (most nonhuman animals in the wild don't live to adulthood) with far more suffering experienced than happiness. > Basically if we have slightest amount of empathy for our pets and are willing to apply that to other animals, eating meat doesn't look enticing No disagreement here, but the same empathy should be given to nonhuman animals suffering in the wild and we should help to reduce their suffering as much as practically possible. Widespread interventions aren't practical now due to a lack of knowledge and resources but our future descendants may well be in a better position to make an effective difference. Further reading: * https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-animal-suffering/ https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-ani... * https://www.animal-ethics.org/wild-animal-suffering-section/situation-of-animals-wild/ https://www.animal-ethics.org/wild-animal-suffering-section/... * http://www.olemartinmoen.com/wp-content/uploads/TheEthicsofWildAnimalSuffering.pdf http://www.olemartinmoen.com/wp-content/uploads/TheEthicsofW...
- bootlooped 7y ago
  You could use the same questions to attempt to sow doubt about whether or not human slavery is wrong, and I think that is the most disturbing thing about this line of argumentation.
  - yters 7y ago
    Perhaps different moral standards apply to humans?
jonfw 7y ago
People aren't going to start keeping the equivalent numbers of livestock as pets. If factory farmed animals fall out of fashion, most of these animals will all die without reproducing and their bloodlines will cease to exist. I agree that factory farming isn't ideal, but it seems to me that it is less ideal from the perspective of the animal for their entire bloodline to be terminated. To make a strong argument against factory farming, you have to provide a feasible alternative that IMO doesn't exist. The question really comes down to whether or not you consider the opportunity to experience life, even a particularly difficult life, as a blessing.
- Half_pint 7y ago
  Do you think it's a blessing for dogs engaged in dogfighting to exist rather than not?
- Relys 7y ago
  "The question really comes down to whether or not you consider the opportunity to experience life, even a particularly difficult life, as a blessing." A life born of slavery, torture, and slaughter is not a life worth living. An animal doesn't really have the idea of a bloodline or legacy (just the primal urge to reproduce). The rationalization that a life of suffering is somehow doing the animal a favor is just asinine.
  - jonfw 7y ago
    Personally, I would accept any form of life before I chose not to exist at all, because I view life itself as a blessing. I understand that this isn't a philosophy that I share with everybody but you should still be respectful of it. Just how shitty of a life do you need to have to not be worth living? People who spend their lives in prison don't usually kill themselves. You can read stories about people captured as prisoners of war who have no hope that they will ever escape, but they don't attempt to kill themselves. Are they being "asinine"?
    - bigwavedave 7y ago
      Really? Personally, if I died and there was a deity that gave me a choice to either be reincarnated into a slave that would be tortured from birth to death only to be eaten by my slavers at the end or the deity would go back in time to make it so my parents never met, I'd wholeheartedly choose the latter.
Iv 7y ago
I just don't attribute the same value to animal life than to human life. I don't even attribute the same value to life of different species. I don't think that worm farms are as bad as cow farms. I tend to buy organic/free range animal products. I think factory farms are terrible, I would not mind seeing them gone, but imposing free range would be terrible for the environment. Free range ones are not too unethical as they provide to animals close to the best they could hope for if they were free.
- jobigoud 7y ago
  > imposing free range would be terrible for the environment It would have to be coupled with other measures to limit resources depletion, but it's the right thing to do imho. It would raise the price much higher, factoring in humane treatment. Sales would drop due to this higher price, there wouldn't be as many farm animals as now.
  - Iv 7y ago
    See? That's the thing. I agree that in the absolute that's a good thing, but done badly, that could just make us lose the fight against climate change by removing tons of forest to feed cattle. That's why I wish we solve the environmental issues first, as well as the food security of the whole population.

yters 7y ago

Do the animals experience more suffering than if they lived in the wild? Is industrial slaughter more or less traumatic than death in the wild? Are there any benefits animals experience living in captivity vs living in the wild? Is there anything positive about more such animals getting to live in the first place due to demand for meat?

Half_pint 7y ago
People rarely seem to ask these questions when it comes to dogfighting. Somehow we agree it's bad to breed dogs in captivity to suffer when it's a behavior we don't engage in... but when it requires personal change everyone is suddenly Descartes asking the deep questions.
rhn_mk1 7y ago
Those are good questions, but about a different topic (except the last one). The choice here is not between raising animals for eating in factories as opposed to raising them in the wild. It's between raising them in factories versus not bringing them to life at all. Wild animal suffering is a different beast altogether. Your last question is on the point though. Do the animals raised for meat have lives worth living?
- yters 7y ago
  Is it better for a being to not exist entirely than suffer? If so, then would this imply that if animals suffer even more in the wild that they should be wiped out?
  - bootlooped 7y ago
    Yes. If you had the choice between having a child that would live its entire life in agony, or not having that child, I think it's obvious which is better. No. For the same reason that murdering your 4 year old is not ethically equivalent to using birth control.
    - yters 7y ago
      Should we sterilize animals in the wild since they suffer too, possibly even more than animals in captivity?
      - nojvek 7y ago
        why would animals in wild suffer more than in captivity? In captivity animals go through hell, tiny living spaces, shit and eat in same place, hormones injected, little freedom. Tons of videos on youtube if you feel like watching some gore. It's not about taking suffering away. Animals born in the wild live their life naturally. Animals created by us in farms are raised for one thing, for human consumption. If an animal wants to run away in wild and do it's thing, it has that choice. In captivity, we force the choice humans made for them. Basically if we have slightest amount of empathy for our pets and are willing to apply that to other animals, eating meat doesn't look enticing.
        yters 7y ago
        By that criteria, I can't say pets necessarily have a better life, either.
        linnaeus 7y ago
        > why would animals in wild suffer more than in captivity? Not necessarily more in every case but they do suffer in many different ways. Nonhuman animals in the wild are routinely exposed to: starvation, dehydration, disease, injuries, predation, parasitism and extreme weather conditions: > The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life > It's not about taking suffering away. Animals born in the wild live their life naturally. A "natural" life does not necessarily mean a good one. > Animals created by us in farms are raised for one thing, for human consumption. If an animal wants to run away in wild and do it's thing, it has that choice. The choice to do what? The vast majority of nonhuman animals receive no help with their suffering. There are exceptions of course like when we help by rescuing trapped animals, vaccinating and healing injured and sick animals, caring for orphaned animals etc. But the general rule is a very short life (most nonhuman animals in the wild don't live to adulthood) with far more suffering experienced than happiness. > Basically if we have slightest amount of empathy for our pets and are willing to apply that to other animals, eating meat doesn't look enticing No disagreement here, but the same empathy should be given to nonhuman animals suffering in the wild and we should help to reduce their suffering as much as practically possible. Widespread interventions aren't practical now due to a lack of knowledge and resources but our future descendants may well be in a better position to make an effective difference. Further reading: * https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-animal-suffering/ https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-ani... * https://www.animal-ethics.org/wild-animal-suffering-section/situation-of-animals-wild/ https://www.animal-ethics.org/wild-animal-suffering-section/... * http://www.olemartinmoen.com/wp-content/uploads/TheEthicsofWildAnimalSuffering.pdf http://www.olemartinmoen.com/wp-content/uploads/TheEthicsofW...
bootlooped 7y ago
You could use the same questions to attempt to sow doubt about whether or not human slavery is wrong, and I think that is the most disturbing thing about this line of argumentation.
- yters 7y ago
  Perhaps different moral standards apply to humans?

jonfw 7y ago

People aren't going to start keeping the equivalent numbers of livestock as pets. If factory farmed animals fall out of fashion, most of these animals will all die without reproducing and their bloodlines will cease to exist. I agree that factory farming isn't ideal, but it seems to me that it is less ideal from the perspective of the animal for their entire bloodline to be terminated. To make a strong argument against factory farming, you have to provide a feasible alternative that IMO doesn't exist. The question really comes down to whether or not you consider the opportunity to experience life, even a particularly difficult life, as a blessing.

Half_pint 7y ago
Do you think it's a blessing for dogs engaged in dogfighting to exist rather than not?
Relys 7y ago
"The question really comes down to whether or not you consider the opportunity to experience life, even a particularly difficult life, as a blessing." A life born of slavery, torture, and slaughter is not a life worth living. An animal doesn't really have the idea of a bloodline or legacy (just the primal urge to reproduce). The rationalization that a life of suffering is somehow doing the animal a favor is just asinine.
- jonfw 7y ago
  Personally, I would accept any form of life before I chose not to exist at all, because I view life itself as a blessing. I understand that this isn't a philosophy that I share with everybody but you should still be respectful of it. Just how shitty of a life do you need to have to not be worth living? People who spend their lives in prison don't usually kill themselves. You can read stories about people captured as prisoners of war who have no hope that they will ever escape, but they don't attempt to kill themselves. Are they being "asinine"?
  - bigwavedave 7y ago
    Really? Personally, if I died and there was a deity that gave me a choice to either be reincarnated into a slave that would be tortured from birth to death only to be eaten by my slavers at the end or the deity would go back in time to make it so my parents never met, I'd wholeheartedly choose the latter.

Iv 7y ago

I just don't attribute the same value to animal life than to human life. I don't even attribute the same value to life of different species. I don't think that worm farms are as bad as cow farms. I tend to buy organic/free range animal products. I think factory farms are terrible, I would not mind seeing them gone, but imposing free range would be terrible for the environment. Free range ones are not too unethical as they provide to animals close to the best they could hope for if they were free.

jobigoud 7y ago
> imposing free range would be terrible for the environment It would have to be coupled with other measures to limit resources depletion, but it's the right thing to do imho. It would raise the price much higher, factoring in humane treatment. Sales would drop due to this higher price, there wouldn't be as many farm animals as now.
- Iv 7y ago
  See? That's the thing. I agree that in the absolute that's a good thing, but done badly, that could just make us lose the fight against climate change by removing tons of forest to feed cattle. That's why I wish we solve the environmental issues first, as well as the food security of the whole population.