3 ms·

Does it change the fact that they are mass-murdered for cosmetics?

• esperent 6y ago
  Yes, a lot. Even if you're a die hard animal rights activist, can't you see that 3.2 million deaths from a population of a hundred million (say) is a much smaller deal than 3.2 million from a population of ten million? One means possible extinction of a species, the other does not.
  • gherkinnn 6y ago
    While I agree with you, extremists (aka die hards) tend to take very deontological stances. Almost by definition, one might argue.
  • LudwigNagasena 6y ago
    If you are not an animal rights activist, it may be hard to see why preserving a species matters at all. It seem to be of no importance. And as long as humans are concerned, it may even be the reverse, heuristically. The bigger species is (measured by total weight, for example), the more important it may be for sustaining the ecosystem.
  • bufferoverflow 6y ago
    I'm not talking about extinction. I'm talking about suffering and death on a large scale only because of cosmetics.
    • esperent 6y ago
      I agree with you, that's an unnecessary evil and should be stopped. I'm just saying there are levels of bad here: A. suffering and death on a large scale only because of cosmetics but more sharks are born to replace those that are killed. B. suffering and death on a large scale only because of cosmetics AND possible extinction of the species. Both are bad, both should be stopped... But B. is worse and needs more immediate efforts to stop it.