4 ms·
The scale and necessity are not sidenotes - those are the substance of the problem. Killing 100 animals out of necessity? Fine. Killing 1 animal for more abstra
by ethanbond 4y ago
The scale and necessity are not sidenotes - those are the substance of the problem. Killing 100 animals out of necessity? Fine. Killing 1 animal for more abstract-than-subsistence needs (connection with nature, culture, etc)? Still seems dramatically less bad than killing billions of animals mechanically and without necessity.
- whimsicalism 4y agoI think the thing you are missing is the number of people in existence. I say that as a vegan.
- GoldenRacer 4y agoDoes factoring in population size really change things that much? 55 billion animals being killed in the US every year divided by the US population of 330 million is 167 animals killed per capita per year. So the average American is paying slaughter houses (somewhat indirectly) to kill an animal nearly every other day. That frequency doesn't seem a little excessive to you?
- whimsicalism 4y agoJust so we're clear, 45 billion of those "55 billion animals" are shellfish. Another 5 or so are fish. We don't kill anywhere near that many in slaughterhouses every year. I'm merely pointing out that 100 animals killed for necessity would certainly not feed 8 billion people on the planet.