3 ms·

Without defining welfare, you aren't really making a point. I'd argue the following: Imagine that tomorrow a new species pops out, they are technologically su

Without defining welfare, you aren't really making a point. I'd argue the following: Imagine that tomorrow a new species pops out, they are technologically superior to humans in every way - they are generally more capable, and they completely dominate any attempt at rebellion we put up. Afterwards - they offer us a choice between two options: Option 1: They eliminate us entirely. We compete with resources with them, and they don't like it. They will hunt us down with not with malice - but something much worse: complete apathy. They will kill us on sight, destroy our environment, mindlessly slaughter us as they form the planet in the shape of their liking. Option 2: They happen to find us quite tasty. They will still do the above, but they will also set aside preserves where they keep a large number of us fit and fed and generally allow us to do as we please. We can have children, hold ceremonies and holidays, continue to exist and live. The downside? Every now and then they will harvest a fair number of us to eat - because they find us quite tasty. Which option would you take? Because frankly - I might well choose options number 2. Further - I'd suggest quite strongly that this is the set of options humans have currently given to basically every large animal that our habitat overlaps with (and that's most of them). We are rapidly exterminating basically every species that competes for resources with us. If we stop eating cows - there aren't going to be many cows left. Full stop. Ex: Between the 1500s and the late 1800s, we dropped the total number of wild bison in the US from >30million to ~400. 4 fucking hundred. Today we're "preserving" them, so the number is back to around 500,000. Of those 500,000 - only about 11,000 are "wild" in any sense of the word, and most exist in national parks.

sweetheart 4y ago
You are more than capable of figuring out why the scenario you laid out has very little, if anything, to do with how we treat animals. I have responded the comment you just wrote _literally_ hundreds of times. I am so tired of it. You can figure it out, you seem smart.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  So respond here - since I seem so smart - and lets have the discussion. Otherwise you're dicking off because you don't want to engage with the content. I engaged at your request, and this is the best you can do... run away while claiming you're correct? Hardly a compelling response. Again - my firm belief is that if we weren't raising them as livestock - many of them would be borderline extinct. So I've defined welfare as "they are alive, and here, and my children can interact with them." Hopefully - we can continue to move those livestock into better conditions as we become more wealthy as a society. You're defining it as "how dare we make something bleed". I think your definition is childish.
  - sweetheart 4y ago
    My email is in my profile. If you want to discuss it we can schedule time to video chat. I was not exaggerating when I said that I have explained this concept hundreds of times and I am so tired of it.
ribosometronome 4y ago
Option 2 isn't exactly reflective of how most animals are kept. If you were rewrite it to have similar conditions, it would be a far less rosy picture of rape, young being taken away at birth (because they and our milk is delicious to aliens), hands being docked at birth so humans don't cause trouble/start fights, etc. Not exactly a fun picture I would want to opt descendants into. It also ignores that, in your parallel, we are the aliens. The aliens could make an option 3:: don't eat humans. And all they lose is something they find tasty.
- sweetheart 4y ago
  The fact that some people need to have it explained to them that just because you _could_ cause someone more harm doesn't justify causing them a lesser amount of harm is just mind blowing.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Option 2 is fairly realistic for several species we keep in captivity when care is taken during the raising of the animal - ethical sourcing, exactly as the root comment of this thread mentioned. Is it going to be perfect? No, but it's a life, and they live it. I eat meat. I also go out of my way to pay more for meat that's been raised in conditions that aren't the bare minimum we can do. Now let's talk more seriously about this part: >It also ignores that, in your parallel, we are the aliens. The aliens could make an option 3:: don't eat humans. And all they lose is something they find tasty. Because honestly - I think you're taking a complete cop out here, and I think you basically stuck your fingers in your ears and went "nah nah nah nah" when reading the two options. We aren't just raising those animals because they're tasty, and if we stopped they could go back to live in never-never land and be happy and healthy and independent. We're allocating resources to their care because it's an efficient way to use those resources compared to the benefit we derive from those animals. When we don't raise animals like this - historically, in EVERY fucking case since we left the hunter-gatherer stage, we destroy their habitat and repurpose it for something else - usually something that makes it inhospitable to those animals. We burn it down to clear it for crops. We pour concrete over it to make our homes. We hunt those animals not because we might eat them, but because they might harm us inadvertently, or bring disease into our communities, or harm our crops. This is not a fairly tale - resource allocation is a real thing. If we don't allocate resources to raising livestock - we sure as fuck aren't going to leave those resources lying there for those same animals living outside captivity. We're going to allocate them to something else. Basically - we're competing with those animals, and livestock is a form of mutualism that benefits both sides (arguably - us far more than the animals, but mutualism is hardly ever equal). We make sure they get food, water, shelter, space. We use their output - whether that's their labor, their hide, their meat, their milk, etc. Side note - we do the same fucking thing with other humans, by the way. We just structure that mutualism in a different form.

sweetheart 4y ago

You are more than capable of figuring out why the scenario you laid out has very little, if anything, to do with how we treat animals. I have responded the comment you just wrote _literally_ hundreds of times. I am so tired of it. You can figure it out, you seem smart.

horsawlarway 4y ago
So respond here - since I seem so smart - and lets have the discussion. Otherwise you're dicking off because you don't want to engage with the content. I engaged at your request, and this is the best you can do... run away while claiming you're correct? Hardly a compelling response. Again - my firm belief is that if we weren't raising them as livestock - many of them would be borderline extinct. So I've defined welfare as "they are alive, and here, and my children can interact with them." Hopefully - we can continue to move those livestock into better conditions as we become more wealthy as a society. You're defining it as "how dare we make something bleed". I think your definition is childish.
- sweetheart 4y ago
  My email is in my profile. If you want to discuss it we can schedule time to video chat. I was not exaggerating when I said that I have explained this concept hundreds of times and I am so tired of it.

ribosometronome 4y ago

Option 2 isn't exactly reflective of how most animals are kept. If you were rewrite it to have similar conditions, it would be a far less rosy picture of rape, young being taken away at birth (because they and our milk is delicious to aliens), hands being docked at birth so humans don't cause trouble/start fights, etc. Not exactly a fun picture I would want to opt descendants into. It also ignores that, in your parallel, we are the aliens. The aliens could make an option 3:: don't eat humans. And all they lose is something they find tasty.

sweetheart 4y ago
The fact that some people need to have it explained to them that just because you _could_ cause someone more harm doesn't justify causing them a lesser amount of harm is just mind blowing.
horsawlarway 4y ago
Option 2 is fairly realistic for several species we keep in captivity when care is taken during the raising of the animal - ethical sourcing, exactly as the root comment of this thread mentioned. Is it going to be perfect? No, but it's a life, and they live it. I eat meat. I also go out of my way to pay more for meat that's been raised in conditions that aren't the bare minimum we can do. Now let's talk more seriously about this part: >It also ignores that, in your parallel, we are the aliens. The aliens could make an option 3:: don't eat humans. And all they lose is something they find tasty. Because honestly - I think you're taking a complete cop out here, and I think you basically stuck your fingers in your ears and went "nah nah nah nah" when reading the two options. We aren't just raising those animals because they're tasty, and if we stopped they could go back to live in never-never land and be happy and healthy and independent. We're allocating resources to their care because it's an efficient way to use those resources compared to the benefit we derive from those animals. When we don't raise animals like this - historically, in EVERY fucking case since we left the hunter-gatherer stage, we destroy their habitat and repurpose it for something else - usually something that makes it inhospitable to those animals. We burn it down to clear it for crops. We pour concrete over it to make our homes. We hunt those animals not because we might eat them, but because they might harm us inadvertently, or bring disease into our communities, or harm our crops. This is not a fairly tale - resource allocation is a real thing. If we don't allocate resources to raising livestock - we sure as fuck aren't going to leave those resources lying there for those same animals living outside captivity. We're going to allocate them to something else. Basically - we're competing with those animals, and livestock is a form of mutualism that benefits both sides (arguably - us far more than the animals, but mutualism is hardly ever equal). We make sure they get food, water, shelter, space. We use their output - whether that's their labor, their hide, their meat, their milk, etc. Side note - we do the same fucking thing with other humans, by the way. We just structure that mutualism in a different form.