5 ms·

Re: cows, that argument is exactly the one they use to justify bullfighting. Nobody would grow bulls if it weren't for the torture show. It would seem that the

Re: cows, that argument is exactly the one they use to justify bullfighting. Nobody would grow bulls if it weren't for the torture show. It would seem that the whole animal kingdom relies on human farming for their existance. Sure there'd be less cows around if we didn't eat them, but they'd lead an actual life. Birth rates are correlated to poverty and lack of education everywhere, even (especially) in places without proper welfare systems. Want to reduce birth rates? Motivate and enable women to pursue fulfilling careers.

Tichy 17y ago
"Nobody would grow bulls if it weren't for the torture show." Well I didn't want to argue for or against eating meat, just provide an example of far reaching consequences. I don't know what is worse, cows being exploited and abused or them not existing at all. Funny, in the end all plans to improve the world end up with "just blow the whole thing up with atomic bombs", don't they? That would be the only way to end all suffering for good. I am a vegetarian btw - but not because I want to see cows disappear... But really, how do you think cows and bulls would survive? I suppose we could have a reservation (a zoo) to keep some around, to fulfill our duty to keep them happy? Or we could feed humans, so that they have less children, and more space becomes available for free roaming cows? Seems like a huge gamble to bet on that scenario. To paraphrase my cows example: what I mean is that usually you can't have your cake and eat it. "Want to reduce birth rates? Motivate and enable women to pursue fulfilling careers." That seems like a more promising approach than breaking into MIT to steal food.
- euccastro 17y ago
  There are animals living freely without humans growing them. In my area there are boars, horses, rabbits, badgers, mice, rats, gebrils, wolves, and all sorts of birds large and small. Not very far away (like 200km), deers and bears. Don't get me started on sea life. Oh, and cows too, in natural reserves (we have zoos too, but I'd rather shut them down.) Some of the abovementioned animals are hunted, but that's not the reason they are there. What country are you from, that you don't have room for a little wildlife? Luxembourg, Holland? That said, it's not all black and white. Between having animals spend all their lives in a cage and leaving them free and wild forever in their natural habitat, there is the option of free range herding. I have recently seen a herd of cows go to the beach in Wales, and take a bath amongst amused surfers and tourists (e-mail me for pics). In these times I count those cows relatively lucky, even if they are eventually killed for food. While I don't support the guys who broke into MIT, I don't think their goal was to reduce birth rates. After having accusing the OP of simplism, one would expect more cohesion and rigor in your counterarguments.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    The cow thing was not a counter argument. Anyway, we do have wild animals, just not cows. That wild cows exist is news to me - I almost suspected that they are a human creation and not fit for survival of their own (unlike buffaloes). " I don't think their goal was to reduce birth rates." Their goal was to feed the hungry. I mentioned that even feeding the hungry is not as simple a mechanism as it sounds, for example because of rising birth rates. In short if you think about eliminating hunger, you should probably think about birth rates. Is that really so uncohesive a line of thought?

Tichy 17y ago

"Nobody would grow bulls if it weren't for the torture show." Well I didn't want to argue for or against eating meat, just provide an example of far reaching consequences. I don't know what is worse, cows being exploited and abused or them not existing at all. Funny, in the end all plans to improve the world end up with "just blow the whole thing up with atomic bombs", don't they? That would be the only way to end all suffering for good. I am a vegetarian btw - but not because I want to see cows disappear... But really, how do you think cows and bulls would survive? I suppose we could have a reservation (a zoo) to keep some around, to fulfill our duty to keep them happy? Or we could feed humans, so that they have less children, and more space becomes available for free roaming cows? Seems like a huge gamble to bet on that scenario. To paraphrase my cows example: what I mean is that usually you can't have your cake and eat it. "Want to reduce birth rates? Motivate and enable women to pursue fulfilling careers." That seems like a more promising approach than breaking into MIT to steal food.

euccastro 17y ago
There are animals living freely without humans growing them. In my area there are boars, horses, rabbits, badgers, mice, rats, gebrils, wolves, and all sorts of birds large and small. Not very far away (like 200km), deers and bears. Don't get me started on sea life. Oh, and cows too, in natural reserves (we have zoos too, but I'd rather shut them down.) Some of the abovementioned animals are hunted, but that's not the reason they are there. What country are you from, that you don't have room for a little wildlife? Luxembourg, Holland? That said, it's not all black and white. Between having animals spend all their lives in a cage and leaving them free and wild forever in their natural habitat, there is the option of free range herding. I have recently seen a herd of cows go to the beach in Wales, and take a bath amongst amused surfers and tourists (e-mail me for pics). In these times I count those cows relatively lucky, even if they are eventually killed for food. While I don't support the guys who broke into MIT, I don't think their goal was to reduce birth rates. After having accusing the OP of simplism, one would expect more cohesion and rigor in your counterarguments.
- Tichy 17y ago
  The cow thing was not a counter argument. Anyway, we do have wild animals, just not cows. That wild cows exist is news to me - I almost suspected that they are a human creation and not fit for survival of their own (unlike buffaloes). " I don't think their goal was to reduce birth rates." Their goal was to feed the hungry. I mentioned that even feeding the hungry is not as simple a mechanism as it sounds, for example because of rising birth rates. In short if you think about eliminating hunger, you should probably think about birth rates. Is that really so uncohesive a line of thought?