5 ms·

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.

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...
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    Many cat adoption centers won't let people adopt cats if they'll let them outside. And those cats are living a better life than squirrels. I disagree with that, but the way I'd put it is, eating wild animals (modulo overfishing) is unquestionably morally right, but with captured animals, well, you noted that they're injected with hormones. That doesn't make the animals unhappy. I think you should concentrate on what the animal's mental state is, and not get distracted by aesthetics.
    - belltaco 7y ago
      >eating wild animals (modulo overfishing) is unquestionably morally right How did you come to that conclusion? I don't think it's anywhere close to "unquestionably".
      - SamReidHughes 7y ago
        I didn’t use “unquestionably” in any sense which is obviously false, like, say, some sense that would imply I’m unaware of vegans. I came to that conclusion by gut instinct.

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...
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  Many cat adoption centers won't let people adopt cats if they'll let them outside. And those cats are living a better life than squirrels. I disagree with that, but the way I'd put it is, eating wild animals (modulo overfishing) is unquestionably morally right, but with captured animals, well, you noted that they're injected with hormones. That doesn't make the animals unhappy. I think you should concentrate on what the animal's mental state is, and not get distracted by aesthetics.
  - belltaco 7y ago
    >eating wild animals (modulo overfishing) is unquestionably morally right How did you come to that conclusion? I don't think it's anywhere close to "unquestionably".
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      I didn’t use “unquestionably” in any sense which is obviously false, like, say, some sense that would imply I’m unaware of vegans. I came to that conclusion by gut instinct.