2 ms·

Farm animals wouldn't even have existed in the first place if it wasn't for farming them. They wouldn't have experienced their life at all. I personally think h

Farm animals wouldn't even have existed in the first place if it wasn't for farming them. They wouldn't have experienced their life at all. I personally think hunting is horrible, that's going after something that is alive without you having a say in it. But say for farmed cows, living in a field for a while, that's better than not existing at all. You cannot judge if it's worth it from the cow's perspective, it got to live, enjoy the sun, eating in the field, doing cow stuff, same as us. Even with the hardships in my life I'd rather have existed, for however long I can, than not existing at all. So you see it's not as simple to look at and judge farming. If it was for you those animals wouldn't even have experienced this reality. It some cases you may be right, depending on their conditions obviously.

analog31 1mo ago
What's not existing like?
- 47635274172635 1mo ago
  I know what existing is like, and I like it. Cows seem to like it when they sit in the grass looking at a sunset. Beats nothing.
  - analog31 1mo ago
    Do cows experience non-existence the way that non-existent humans do, or more like non-existent rocks, or something in between?
    - 47635274172635 1mo ago
      You cannot experience non-existence. I don't even think you understand what you mean by non-existence the way you used it in that phrase. At most you can use it as contrast to existence, which can be enjoyable or not. If your existence is the least bit enjoyable it beats not existing. at least for me, and plenty others if you ask them. We also know not existing is desired by others with worse lived experience. Which they think that whatever it even is, not existing, must be better than their lived experience. It's basically a way to stop existing, moving into non-existence. So we can only discuss about existing. If you have any ideas about non-existence that's cute and interesting and you should maybe write a book about it or something. >experience of non-existing rocks. This is not really a philosophical argument as it is misuse of logic and words. I'll let you figure out why.
ethersteeds 1mo ago
This is an interesting thought experiment, though I generally come to opposite conclusions. I personally think that hunting a wild animal situates the hunter in the broader context of the natural world, in which organisms live by their wits and try to outrun others doing the same. Conversely, farmed animals owe their existence as you say to our cultivating them. But where you see a moral release in that connection, I see a corruption of life into industrial inputs. A hunted animal many times will catch scent or sound and take flight, winning their life for another day. Livestock can't change their destiny by wit or will. Their entire existence is within the technological apparatus of our species. The corruption becomes evident in evolution cleaved from the organism's interest and placed in service of our appetites. In turkeys with breasts too large to be able to balance standing up, let alone walk. Such animals can only reproduce by artificial insemination and only eat when food is placed directly in front of them. Power dynamics such as these tempt us to tell just-so stories about lives well lived. Can we say for them that their lives are preferable to not existing at all? We're surely not neutral.
- ninalanyon 1mo ago
  > hunting a wild animal situates the hunter in the broader context of the natural world, in which organisms live by their wits and try to outrun others doing the same. It's not exactly a fair fight though. In modern hunting the hunter might not always win, but he never loses. > Can we say for them that their lives are preferable to not existing at all? I doubt it. But we don't have to breed animals for maximum meat production at lowest cost in the shortest time. For instance the largest chicken producer in Norway [1] has declared that in future it will only produce slow growing chicken. [1] https://www.nortura.no/b%C3%A6rekraft-i-nortura/omsorg-for-mennesker-og-dyr/dyrevelferd/dyrevelferd-p%C3%A5-g%C3%A5rden/nortura-legger-om-til-sakterevoksende-kylling https://www.nortura.no/b%C3%A6rekraft-i-nortura/omsorg-for-m...
  - 47635274172635 1mo ago
    I am fine with more expensive but higher quality life experience for farmed animals.
- 1mo ago
verisimi 1mo ago
> You cannot judge if it's worth it from the cow's perspective, it got to live, enjoy the sun, eating in the field, doing cow stuff, same as us. Yep, same as us.
- YeGoblynQueenne 1mo ago
  Except it's a cow, so not the same as us. I mean, presumably.
  - 47635274172635 1mo ago
    If the cow doesn't have the same living experience as we do, to some extent, then you have no argument for not farming them, since it doesn't matter, because "there's nobody in there" as it were. You need to make up your mind.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 1mo ago
      I'm sorry, make up my mind about what? I think you have me confused with someone else?
  - verisimi 1mo ago
    Yes, we operate at a different level, and don't serve the same purpose (humans are not food). Similarities are that we are engineered (psychologically, 13+ years of schooling), operate in an artificial environment not a natural one. All sorts of manipulative tricks are used in order to convince us to gift the fruits of our labour. Typically most people hand over > 45% of their effort (taxes) for over 30 years. If the best value humans offered could be provided in just two years of physical growth (like meat cows), we would be facing different terrain and expectations.
YeGoblynQueenne 1mo ago
Peter Singer, father of the animal liberation movement, also now says that farming animals for food but giving them a good life "may be permissible": More radically, Singer suggested that meat-eating may be permissible if “farms really give the animals good lives, and then humanely kill them, preferably without transporting them to slaughterhouses or disturbing them. In Animal Liberation, I don’t really say that it’s the killing that makes [meat-eating] wrong, it’s the suffering.” https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2021/05/peter-singer-why-case-veganism-stronger-ever https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2021/05/peter-singer-why-... Full disclosure: I have profound disagreements with Singer's utilitarian philosophy.

analog31 1mo ago

What's not existing like?

47635274172635 1mo ago
I know what existing is like, and I like it. Cows seem to like it when they sit in the grass looking at a sunset. Beats nothing.
- analog31 1mo ago
  Do cows experience non-existence the way that non-existent humans do, or more like non-existent rocks, or something in between?
  - 47635274172635 1mo ago
    You cannot experience non-existence. I don't even think you understand what you mean by non-existence the way you used it in that phrase. At most you can use it as contrast to existence, which can be enjoyable or not. If your existence is the least bit enjoyable it beats not existing. at least for me, and plenty others if you ask them. We also know not existing is desired by others with worse lived experience. Which they think that whatever it even is, not existing, must be better than their lived experience. It's basically a way to stop existing, moving into non-existence. So we can only discuss about existing. If you have any ideas about non-existence that's cute and interesting and you should maybe write a book about it or something. >experience of non-existing rocks. This is not really a philosophical argument as it is misuse of logic and words. I'll let you figure out why.

ethersteeds 1mo ago

This is an interesting thought experiment, though I generally come to opposite conclusions. I personally think that hunting a wild animal situates the hunter in the broader context of the natural world, in which organisms live by their wits and try to outrun others doing the same. Conversely, farmed animals owe their existence as you say to our cultivating them. But where you see a moral release in that connection, I see a corruption of life into industrial inputs. A hunted animal many times will catch scent or sound and take flight, winning their life for another day. Livestock can't change their destiny by wit or will. Their entire existence is within the technological apparatus of our species. The corruption becomes evident in evolution cleaved from the organism's interest and placed in service of our appetites. In turkeys with breasts too large to be able to balance standing up, let alone walk. Such animals can only reproduce by artificial insemination and only eat when food is placed directly in front of them. Power dynamics such as these tempt us to tell just-so stories about lives well lived. Can we say for them that their lives are preferable to not existing at all? We're surely not neutral.

ninalanyon 1mo ago
> hunting a wild animal situates the hunter in the broader context of the natural world, in which organisms live by their wits and try to outrun others doing the same. It's not exactly a fair fight though. In modern hunting the hunter might not always win, but he never loses. > Can we say for them that their lives are preferable to not existing at all? I doubt it. But we don't have to breed animals for maximum meat production at lowest cost in the shortest time. For instance the largest chicken producer in Norway [1] has declared that in future it will only produce slow growing chicken. [1] https://www.nortura.no/b%C3%A6rekraft-i-nortura/omsorg-for-mennesker-og-dyr/dyrevelferd/dyrevelferd-p%C3%A5-g%C3%A5rden/nortura-legger-om-til-sakterevoksende-kylling https://www.nortura.no/b%C3%A6rekraft-i-nortura/omsorg-for-m...
- 47635274172635 1mo ago
  I am fine with more expensive but higher quality life experience for farmed animals.
1mo ago

verisimi 1mo ago

> You cannot judge if it's worth it from the cow's perspective, it got to live, enjoy the sun, eating in the field, doing cow stuff, same as us. Yep, same as us.

YeGoblynQueenne 1mo ago
Except it's a cow, so not the same as us. I mean, presumably.
- 47635274172635 1mo ago
  If the cow doesn't have the same living experience as we do, to some extent, then you have no argument for not farming them, since it doesn't matter, because "there's nobody in there" as it were. You need to make up your mind.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 1mo ago
    I'm sorry, make up my mind about what? I think you have me confused with someone else?
- verisimi 1mo ago
  Yes, we operate at a different level, and don't serve the same purpose (humans are not food). Similarities are that we are engineered (psychologically, 13+ years of schooling), operate in an artificial environment not a natural one. All sorts of manipulative tricks are used in order to convince us to gift the fruits of our labour. Typically most people hand over > 45% of their effort (taxes) for over 30 years. If the best value humans offered could be provided in just two years of physical growth (like meat cows), we would be facing different terrain and expectations.

YeGoblynQueenne 1mo ago

Peter Singer, father of the animal liberation movement, also now says that farming animals for food but giving them a good life "may be permissible": More radically, Singer suggested that meat-eating may be permissible if “farms really give the animals good lives, and then humanely kill them, preferably without transporting them to slaughterhouses or disturbing them. In Animal Liberation, I don’t really say that it’s the killing that makes [meat-eating] wrong, it’s the suffering.” https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2021/05/peter-singer-why-case-veganism-stronger-ever https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2021/05/peter-singer-why-... Full disclosure: I have profound disagreements with Singer's utilitarian philosophy.