4 ms·

I wonder, from a cows point of view, if being eliminated as a species is preferable to being eaten one at a time at some point in their life cycle. Because thi

I wonder, from a cows point of view, if being eliminated as a species is preferable to being eaten one at a time at some point in their life cycle. Because this appears to be advocating for genocide. Or bovinecide (is that the right word)? <Edit>Apparently this is being taken as an argument for meat eating. It's not, I suspect we will lay off eating animal flesh as a species fairly soon. Just a theoretical question. Something to think about. Because simple "everyone should just XXX!" often have wider implications.

the8472 5y ago
Wouldn't be the first time, nobody remembers the great horse genocide of 1908 either.
- mythrwy 5y ago
  Equicide? At least people still kept some horses around for recreational riding etc. What will happen to cows?
  - lucidguppy 5y ago
    Wildlife now only makes up 5% of the biomass of mammals on planet earth. Where is the outcry for the thousands of species that go extinct. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/17788/how-much-of-earths-biomass-is-affected-by-humans/ https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/17788/how-muc... Why don't people give up the meat until this has all been figured out?
yboris 5y ago
It's so sad that even now people misunderstand the concerns of most people advocating reducing (or eliminating) meat from everyone's diet. In the grand scheme of things, "being eaten" (that is getting killed prematurely) isn't as great a problem as the severe abuse animals undergo before they are killed. If there was a choice to make, I'd rather never exist, than to be brought into existence on a factory farm, confined, abused, rape-inseminated, have my children be taken away, be hauled by a tractor because I can no longer stand up, etc. Please watch "Earthlings" to better understand the way humans treat animals: http://www.nationearth.com http://www.nationearth.com
jonnycomputer 5y ago
In general, I'm confused by the counter-factual ethics required to work this out. For example, if we stop eating meat and dairy, then we would have no incentive to raise cattle. And without that incentive, cattle populations would drop dramatically; they would be limited to special preserves or zoos, or very marginal land. The species might not even survive. We don't have a stellar record of keeping large nuisance animals around if they have no economic value to us. It's not even clear (to me) that domestic cows are capable of surviving in the wild. So, in its most extreme form, the question posed is it more ethical to continue eating cattle and sustaining the species, or abstaining and letting the species go extinct? I don't know.

the8472 5y ago

Wouldn't be the first time, nobody remembers the great horse genocide of 1908 either.

mythrwy 5y ago
Equicide? At least people still kept some horses around for recreational riding etc. What will happen to cows?
- lucidguppy 5y ago
  Wildlife now only makes up 5% of the biomass of mammals on planet earth. Where is the outcry for the thousands of species that go extinct. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/17788/how-much-of-earths-biomass-is-affected-by-humans/ https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/17788/how-muc... Why don't people give up the meat until this has all been figured out?

yboris 5y ago

It's so sad that even now people misunderstand the concerns of most people advocating reducing (or eliminating) meat from everyone's diet. In the grand scheme of things, "being eaten" (that is getting killed prematurely) isn't as great a problem as the severe abuse animals undergo before they are killed. If there was a choice to make, I'd rather never exist, than to be brought into existence on a factory farm, confined, abused, rape-inseminated, have my children be taken away, be hauled by a tractor because I can no longer stand up, etc. Please watch "Earthlings" to better understand the way humans treat animals: http://www.nationearth.com http://www.nationearth.com

jonnycomputer 5y ago

In general, I'm confused by the counter-factual ethics required to work this out. For example, if we stop eating meat and dairy, then we would have no incentive to raise cattle. And without that incentive, cattle populations would drop dramatically; they would be limited to special preserves or zoos, or very marginal land. The species might not even survive. We don't have a stellar record of keeping large nuisance animals around if they have no economic value to us. It's not even clear (to me) that domestic cows are capable of surviving in the wild. So, in its most extreme form, the question posed is it more ethical to continue eating cattle and sustaining the species, or abstaining and letting the species go extinct? I don't know.