- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
According to the debate, they had their reasons. But still – when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.
Veganism is not even about absolutism, it’s about reducing animal cruelty to the extent possible and practical. Throwing out a leather belt you already own would not lead to any reduction in animal harm, I’d even call it an action that would go against veganism.
I once met a caravan of “Roadkill” vegans. They would not eat anything animal related unless it was for sure going to go to waste. They had pamphlets on how to make sure if the meat was spoiled or not, processing guides on how to get the most use of animals, all kinds of info I found very surprising from what I had known of veganism.
Makes sense. I don’t order pork but if something comes with surprise bacon I’ll eat it–the pig is already dead. And I’ll be angry at Applebee’s for adding unlisted bacon to their macaroni and cheese. (Seriously, you have no vegetation options and when I try the “make a meal out of sides” trick you add betrayal bacon? I’m glad millennials are killing Applebee’s.)
What if I told you the cessation of animal husbandry will result in greater misery and possible extinction of our current domesticated animals?
Basically all domesticated animals except pigs cannot thrive in the wild any longer. Releasing them would be a cruelty greater than a quick death in a slaughterhouse.
When we first domesticated animals we made a sacred pact with them: If they provide for ours, we will care for theirs, and it’s an ancient pact older than any living culture.
You’re working under the hypothetical that mankind would just one day stop consuming animal products and every animal would be released into the wild. That’s not what would happen.
There are two possibilities: policy-driven or consumer-driven, both essentially work the same way. We would at some point stop breeding new farm animals, be it because it’s outlawed or because demand for animal products would go down. Either way, this would be a gradual process over decades. Every animal that is already bred would of course still be slaughtered, just like they are now. This would lead to the extinction of the domesticated branches of some animal families, true. However, as they add absolutely nothing to biodiversity, there is no loss to nature. Their free cousins still exist roaming the planet anyway such as the red junglefowl and the wild boar.
Also, feral chickens, feral dogs, feral pigeons, and feral cats among many more feel hurt by your statement they couldn’t survive in the wild. For many domesticated animals it’s simply not feasible to release them to the wild not because they couldn’t survive on an individual level but because of their sheer number no potential habitate could survive it.
You’re very much romanticizing what happened here. A pact requires consent. Animals can’t consent, so there is no pact. Especially not a sacred one, I mean, what the fuck?
I wouldn’t go as far as calling what we’re doing slavery either for the same reason, human concepts of free will and consent don’t really work with animals. But if you think, we’re actually caring for these animals, I have a bridge to sell you.
I would say your simply wrong.
It is not more moral to keep billions of animals alive, and in miserable conditions, solely for the purpose of consuming them, despite any romanticized idea of keeping a completely artificially selected species around.
And also, that there isn’t a world where we completely give up meat eating anyways, and even less of a world where we let them go extinct.