3 ms·
Here is a question I would genuinely like answered. Isn't there a major tension between the environmental point of view and animal rights point of view? The en
by jostylr 7y ago
Here is a question I would genuinely like answered. Isn't there a major tension between the environmental point of view and animal rights point of view?
The environmental viewpoint seems clear and reasonable; keeping large animals alive is expensive in terms of resources and waste. So get rid of them. Reduce the population of cows from a billion to a million.
But this seems to go against the idea of animal rights. After all, to make an environmental improvement, we would need to eliminate most of the cattle, i.e., kill them and not replace them. If you care about the conditions of a cow's life, is it moral to solve the problem by eliminating that life?
How are these two viewpoints allies?
- mattmaroon 7y agoAttrition. Animals don’t live that long.
- jostylr 7y ago20 years is natural lifespan of a cow. Supposedly 2030 is some kind of limit for climate change.
- latch 7y agoI don't think anyone is conflicted by this? Like you say: kill them and don't replace them. They're going to be slaughtered anyways. This year we slaughter 39 million, next year 25 million, the year after that 10 million, ... I don't think anyone [serious] (of those two groups) is going to complain too hard.
- bluntfang 7y agoWhy do you feel like humans need to be responsible for upkeeping cattle populations, who's sole existence is for human consumption? As others have said...consume them and then don't replace them seems like a good plan.