3 ms·
>but hardly encompasses more suffering. I think that's hard to say. But I also think "the alternative" to farmed life is somewhat ignored by vegans/peta activi
by Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>but hardly encompasses more suffering.
I think that's hard to say. But I also think "the alternative" to farmed life is somewhat ignored by vegans/peta activists.
On the one hand, as you say, death is more painful by the claws/teeth of a predator; that is certain. But life itself with little shelter (but usualy some) is the natural state of afairs for most mammals. To say that that is suffering is to say that life itself is suffering, which I think is counterintuitive as suffering is evolutionarily a means of preasuring an animal to escape from the suffering. Not to say that isn't possible. It's hard to say if the natural resiliance (assuming it exists) that mammals have to little shelter and food carries over to say being croweded into small enclosures.
If anyone has any (scientific) articles on this topic I would be interested.
- ebiester 4y agoThe alternative, for the purposes of a farmed animal, is an animal that never lived. If the entirety of the life of an animal is suffering, as is the case in many factory farms, it's fair to suggest that not having that animal ever live reduces the total amount of suffering in the world.
- e44858 4y agoThat’s a slippery slope, because by that logic we should destroy all life, because life always causes suffering. Maybe a better alternative is to provide better conditions for farm animals. I’ve raised chickens in my backyard, and they seemed pretty happy to exist.
- markstos 4y agoThe vegan principle is about non-interference with non-human animals, it doesn't necessarily minimize suffering.