3 ms·
If we accept that we are responsible for minimizing the suffering of both domestic and wild animals, isn't the logical conclusion that we need to drive those sp
by jewayne 3y ago
If we accept that we are responsible for minimizing the suffering of both domestic and wild animals, isn't the logical conclusion that we need to drive those species to extinction as quickly as possible, thus completely ending their suffering?
I mean, you are explicitly talking about ending our symbiotic relationship with the domestic chicken. We certainly would not have 20 billion chickens in the world if we all stopped eating eggs.
- cpx86 3y agoThat is an interesting argument. Do you believe that the same would apply to humans? I.e. if someone wishes to minimize the suffering of humans, is the logical conclusion that they should pursue omnicide?
- jewayne 3y agoTo be clear, I don't believe in that goal in either case. But yes, the only way to truly end human suffering would be to end the humans.
- sprucevoid 3y agoFactory farming of chickens and other animals causes massive aggregate suffering and should be ended, full stop. But chickens can continue to flourish in animal sanctuaries, where they live their own lives without being killed or exploited as food resources. As for wild animals and suffering, that's a big topic. I think for now we need lots more thinking and research, on what is feasible and reasonable there. Reducing suffering is one important consideration among others.