Is animal farming always wrong?

[Graeme M]

Just to make it clear, I am not advocating animal farming and do embrace vegan principles. I am also reasonably familiar with the concepts of veganism.

My question here is more about the fact that right now, in the world we have, it's not clear to me that stopping all animal farming would be a net benefit. Yes, of course vegan ethics proscribe the use of other animals etc. But until that is a law, it will continue to be the case that animals are farmed.

Abolitionists argue that because farming is categorically wrong, we should focus only on achieving abolition and not be distracted by welfarist type arguments. I tend to disagree with that because the path to an abolitionist world is long and windy and I think there are considerable negative impacts along the way.

In particular, I do think that some animal farming is probably best in the world we have right now even if by vegan measures it is immoral. So the answer to my question from where I stand is that animal farming might be always wrong in an ethical sense but for the moment in some contexts it may be a step along the way to encourage the right kind of farming. So no, I don't believe it is always wrong. In fact, I also think that we *could* have vegan farming.

I like nobody's point about justice, but in the world we have is justice done when we clear the land for crops or when we kill many animals to grow those crops? I am not convinced of that. When I look at the efforts of some farmers to restore their lands ecologically and to raise animals in an integrated fashion to improve the ecological function of their land, I am impressed. Far more so than by a field of chickpeas.

In regard to nobody's question, I am not sure I see the clear demarcation here. Vegans argue that transitioning away from animal farming might mean that many animals are killed because they are no longer productive, yet vegans argue this is OK because in the longer run, fewer animals will be alive to suffer and be exploited. So non-existence is preferable to a short and unpleasant life. The aim is to eliminate animal suffering. By extension, killing all life on the planet would alleviate all suffering. Where should we draw the line in that argument? Would we be just to cause a dairy farmer to close his farm and sell all his animals to slaughter? I am not defending any particular strategy, just interested in your thoughts on this.

 

[silva]

Your argument of ending animal farming overnight and how that would resolve itself is such an imaginative thought play, there isn't any reality in that circumstance.
Many drugs that save peoples lives have been formulated and tested on animals. How about an arguement on what would happen if they were all banned? Unreasonable, of course, we know the route is to mandate new procedures.
The landscape isn't going to become barren of animals and changed overnight

 

[Graeme M]

Silva, I am not sure why you've focused on that. I haven't proposed that as far as I can see so unless you are responding to someone else's comment I am at a loss to understand your point.

My question was pretty simple. Even though veganism as an ethic is opposed to the commodity status of animals, I suggest that the genesis for even that case rests on the capacity for suffering. Veganism is aimed at reducing or preventing the experience of pain and suffering by other animals. If animals could not suffer, as for example we believe plants do not, we would not be concerned by such use. Just as we are not for plants.

Eliminating "factory" farming would be a hugely positive step as it would eliminate the suffering of the farmed animals and it would reduce the suffering of wild animals harmed in the production of feed.

Free range farmed animals on the other hand can, in principle (and in practice in some places), be managed in such was as to reduce or even eliminate suffering. In addition, such farms are substantially more ecologically desirable than the same area under soy or chickpeas. There seem to be benefits to free range farming that do not accrue for concentrated feed systems or monoculture food cops.

If we agree that humanity generally will not adopt veganism any time soon, if ever, it could be the case that animal farming is not wrong when practised according to vegan principles. Yes, this is essentially the welfarist case, but personally I am not opposed to this. I would be much happier if Australia eliminated pig and poultry farms in favour of free range sheep and cattle and I would encourage and support those farmers who adopt vegan principles as their practice guidance.

I have yet to meet a vegan who has seriosuly considered the possibility that animal farming might not be wrong, in the context of the longer term strategy, if practised under vegan principles. I think there is a difference between veganism and welfarism that is distinctive in such a scenario.

 

[silva]

Silva, I am not sure why you've focused on that. I haven't proposed that as far as I can see so unless you are responding to someone else's comment I am at a loss to understand your point.

My question was pretty simple. Even though veganism as an ethic is opposed to the commodity status of animals, I suggest that the genesis for even that case rests on the capacity for suffering. Veganism is aimed at reducing or preventing the experience of pain and suffering by other animals. If animals could not suffer, as for example we believe plants do not, we would not be concerned by such use. Just as we are not for plants.

Eliminating "factory" farming would be a hugely positive step as it would eliminate the suffering of the farmed animals and it would reduce the suffering of wild animals harmed in the production of feed.

Free range farmed animals on the other hand can, in principle (and in practice in some places), be managed in such was as to reduce or even eliminate suffering. In addition, such farms are substantially more ecologically desirable than the same area under soy or chickpeas. There seem to be benefits to free range farming that do not accrue for concentrated feed systems or monoculture food cops.

If we agree that humanity generally will not adopt veganism any time soon, if ever, it could be the case that animal farming is not wrong when practised according to vegan principles. Yes, this is essentially the welfarist case, but personally I am not opposed to this. I would be much happier if Australia eliminated pig and poultry farms in favour of free range sheep and cattle and I would encourage and support those farmers who adopt vegan principles as their practice guidance.

I have yet to meet a vegan who has seriosuly considered the possibility that animal farming might not be wrong, in the context of the longer term strategy, if practised under vegan principles. I think there is a difference between veganism and welfarism that is distinctive in such a scenario.

You really seem to have a twisted take on what it means to be vegan. It doesn't mean to change the course of nature. It means to not disturb what is not yours to disturb--you know, like we don't try and stop lions from eating gazelles, but don't breed gazelles (or anyone else.....) just to keep in confinement and kill for no reason than we like how it tastes
Life is not without suffering, if we all were to just resolve not to be the cause of suffering we could well mitigate it--that would include not keeping slaves or killing without cause

You continue to promote unsubstantiated claims and falsehoods. There is no reason the same land needs to be turned to monoculture crops, and there is no such thing as animal farming practiced according to vegan principles--that is by definition an oxymoron

Would I rather have animals raised to be killed for food grazing freely and killed in a less awful way? Well, I most likely will vote for Biden in the next election, so yeah, sure. Do I feel it's right? No

 

[Sax]

Yes, treating living beings as property to be killed for profit is always wrong.

That's about all the intellectual depth this question deserves.

 

[Lou]

Free range farmed animals on the other hand can, in principle (and in practice in some places), be managed in such was as to reduce or even eliminate suffering. In addition, such farms are substantially more ecologically desirable than the same area under soy or chickpeas. There seem to be benefits to free range farming that do not accrue for concentrated feed systems or monoculture food cops.

Not in principle or practice.
If you can provide some evidence, we can further this discussion.

As i brought up earlier in this thread, You can use a subsistence farmer in a third world country as an example where animal agriculture is not wrong. A guy who keeps a goat or a chicken in order to feed or benefit his family may not be "vegan". but it is not so bad.

the other example is that in Africa some land is too arid to farm and Africans will keep a herd of cows. for some of these people, cows are their only income. there are no feedlots and the cattlemen don't overgraze their land - that is one of their most important assets.

Free-range animal agriculture in first world countries is mostly a joke. Cage-free chickens still live in crowded conditions. And they live very short lives.

You might be able to make a good argument for free-range cattle. There are huge areas in the west that are unsuitable for farming but can sustain cattle. Presently almost all the cattle on the ranges are collected when they are about 5 months old and sent to feedlots and then just a few months later they are harvested. Nothing vegan, humane, or even sustainable about that model.

I've looked and looked for a scientific study about how many cattle can be raised on rangeland without feedlots and I have yet to find a good report. However, I have played around with the numbers a bit and I think the USA could support about 3% of the current number of cattle on just rangeland. That turns out to be about one hamburger almost every week.

I think you hinted or made allusions to the type of organic farming that occurs on Joel Salatin's farm (Omnivore's Dilemma, Food, Inc). And that kind of farming does appeal to me. There is little to no fertilizer needed. the cows, chickens, and pigs provide most of the farm's inputs. the chickens are slaughtered on the farm in something that could be described as humane. but the pigs and cows still get shipped off to a slaughterhouse. the farm appears to be both sustainable and economically feasible. but only on this small scale. although I would be in favor of more farms like this. I still won't be buying any animal products from there but maybe some vegetables.

 

[PTree15]

Silva, I am not sure why you've focused on that. I haven't proposed that as far as I can see so unless you are responding to someone else's comment I am at a loss to understand your point.

My question was pretty simple. Even though veganism as an ethic is opposed to the commodity status of animals, I suggest that the genesis for even that case rests on the capacity for suffering. Veganism is aimed at reducing or preventing the experience of pain and suffering by other animals. If animals could not suffer, as for example we believe plants do not, we would not be concerned by such use. Just as we are not for plants.

Eliminating "factory" farming would be a hugely positive step as it would eliminate the suffering of the farmed animals and it would reduce the suffering of wild animals harmed in the production of feed.

Free range farmed animals on the other hand can, in principle (and in practice in some places), be managed in such was as to reduce or even eliminate suffering. In addition, such farms are substantially more ecologically desirable than the same area under soy or chickpeas. There seem to be benefits to free range farming that do not accrue for concentrated feed systems or monoculture food cops.

If we agree that humanity generally will not adopt veganism any time soon, if ever, it could be the case that animal farming is not wrong when practised according to vegan principles. Yes, this is essentially the welfarist case, but personally I am not opposed to this. I would be much happier if Australia eliminated pig and poultry farms in favour of free range sheep and cattle and I would encourage and support those farmers who adopt vegan principles as their practice guidance.

I have yet to meet a vegan who has seriosuly considered the possibility that animal farming might not be wrong, in the context of the longer term strategy, if practised under vegan principles. I think there is a difference between veganism and welfarism that is distinctive in such a scenario.

Your premise for reducing animal suffering does not address the fundamental principle of vegans' avoiding animal exploitation. You really can't have "vegan animal farming" because regardless of the level of suffering, vegans don't commodify animals, and any level of animal farming assumes that humans are basically enslaving animals for their own use. The reduction in animal suffering by vegans comes by way or their not engaging in consuming animals or any products derived from them.

 

[nobody]

Here is how I would answer the question "Is animal farming always wrong?".

It's always wrong but I make an exception in the case of vermicompost. In that case, it may be technically wrong, but I give a pass and say it is morally excusable to farm worms for manure (referred to as "castings") only, as long as the worms themselves are never sold or used for any other purpose, such as fishing bait. With this type of system, worms die of old age, sometimes living over a decade.

My farm would have like 5 different crops going, separated by water features and a lot of fruit trees interspersed and a large vermicompost operation which would fulfill all my soil fertility needs. My worms would be treated kind of like pets. They would live in soil that is elevated on tables and protected from predators and temperature extremes and they would be given crop waste and rotting fruit from the fruit trees and composted manure from whatever adopted pet rabbits or farm animals lived on the property (who would be spayed or neutered as necessary in order to prevent pregnancies.) My land would be fertile and ecologically desirable and I wouldn't need to get all this blood of farm animals on my hands in the course of improving my land.

 

[Graeme M]

Just to keep the focus on the main argument. I am suggesting that it might be possible to farm animals in ways that are morally defensible, at least in the short term. So, farming "cage-free" chickens probably won't fly as morally defensible. However, if vegan principles informed the food system, the manner in which animals are farmed could be substantially improved. Veganism will not be the norm this year, next year, probably not this decade, maybe not this century. So farming will continue. Rather then always opposing animal farming, encouraging the adoption of vegan principles in farming could be beneficial.

As noted, there ARE circumstances in which animal farming is acceptable, or at least defensible, such as the third world scenarios. It may also follow that such is also the case in the first world, given constraints that exist.

I have argued that all facets of veganism turn on pain and suffering. Exploitation of animals, property status and so on, all reduce to alleviating pain and suffering. If an organism can not experience pain and suffering, there seems little special duty to them beyond the broader moral imperatives (such as looking after the environment). That is how we treat plants and fungi. Owning an animal doesn't matter if the animal cannot be harmed by that ownership. If you think it does matter, what would be your basis for that belief?

Silva, you made the point that lands freed from animal farming do not need to be turned over to crops. Yes, I said that above. There are myriad other possible uses for that land, and many may be as damaging or as immoral. One very likely use would be to rewild nature, an argument advanced by such as George Monbiot as a mitigation strategy for fossil fuel emissions. I suggested that when we return cultivated land to nature, that is a human choice to do so. Current rewilding projects in Europe for example differ in their goals and strategies, in cases going as far as genetically engineering proxies for ancient species such as aurochs and even mammoths.

Those efforts are human directed. Land returned to a wild state will very likely result in substantial wild animal suffering, so if our concern is harm and suffering per se, then replacing farmed animal suffering with wild animal suffering may not be better. My argument is that for a given area, cattle and sheep farmed under holistic regimes may be a net better solution in ethical terms than to turn that land over to say mining, cropping, urban development or rewilding. In particular, it is possible to ensure a generally better condition of welfare/happiness for farmed animals than for wild animals (even if that isn't the typical experience of farmed animals).

Put another way, why should vegan principles stop at just whether or not farmed animals suffer. Other uses for lands are also open to scrutiny and moral cases can be made for the use of those lands. Wild animals also suffer, and may do so to a greater extent on wild lands or in lands under crops.

PTree15, why do vegans not commodify animals?

Nobody, that sounds pretty good and makes sense and I cannot see anyone would object on vegan grounds. I would also suggest that it is extremely unlikely that worms feel pain in ways that count morally, so I'd not lose sleep over their use. I might be wrong though! There is an interesting website that attempts to identify the linkelihood that invertebrates feel pain - they do conclude that some do and many do not. Cannot recall what they said of worms.

 

[Poppy]

The premise that somehow slaughter can be done with vegan principals is incomprehensible. And slaughter is simply the sole purpose of raising animals in the first place. They're all going to be slaughtered. Your claim that more wild animals will be harmed in vegan farming than in traditional farming is lame, since nearly 50% of our agriculture is grown to feed the animals we're then going to slaughter. Other uses of that land would have a hard time comparing to the damage the mass density of contained animals create. Most of us hate the way animals in traditional agriculture are raised (castrations without pain meds, horns chopped off, cruel confinement, ground up baby male chicks, tails docked, rape impregnation) but even if those animals are "nicely" raised on micro farms, they're still going to be slaughtered - in a terrifying and excruciating way far short of what would be their natural life.

 

[Veganismo]

Nature is inherently unpleasant - quite a few writers have suggested that on balance, most wild animals live unpleasant lives. There are even those who believe we have a moral obligation to reduce wild animal suffering. While many farmed animals experience unpleasant conditions, it is quite possible to farm animals who enjoy a relatively pleasant life. On top of that, farmers can, and do, devote considerable time and resources to ensuring high welfare for their animals. If we have a farm of some size on which we run cattle, well cared for with plentiful access to food, water and health care, it is reasonable to presume those animals will experience less pain and suffering than the equivalent number of wild animals who might live there if the farm did not exist. Very possibly, there would be even more wild animals in that area in that case which could swing the scales even further in favour of farming..

Simply put, we can do more to alleviate animal pain and suffering by farming animals in a particular area than leaving it to nature.

I don't mean to pile on; it looks like you've seen substantial pushback. I appreciate the question for sure, it's good to think about these things, if only to sharpen our thinking. I would, however, take some issue with whatever authors have concluded that animals live unpleasant lives. Sounds like something Joe Rogan would say, that he is "saving" his hunted prey from terrible lives of disease, injury, etc. With our current understanding of animal lives (very surface level IMHO), I would doubt anyone who concludes that their lives are unpleasant or pleasant. Sure, deer probably get terrified by marauding wolves, break their legs, have mange, watch their children die, etc. But, they also probably feel a sense of tranquility as they relax in the shade on hot days, nuzzling their babies, get excited when they find an unexpected patch of clover (or tomatoes in my garden), enjoy procreation, feelings of accomplishment when they make it across the raging river, etc. Given the number of species and their diverse experiences, I don't think anyone has or could do the math and reach a conclusion regarding net pleasantness versus unpleasantness which, in any case, would surely be defined in human terms.

Lastly, given the problems that human beings experience, I would not want to compare OUR net pleasantness/unpleasantness with with wild animals in general. I guess the conclusion then would be....eradicate all life?

Anyway, I do appreciate you raising the question, it is important for me to consider possibilities that I don't agree with at first glance.

 

[silva]

What oh what should we do with all the people who don't have enough proper food to eat, who have medical needs they can't address for lack of money, who live in places where they fear crime and violence, who have jobs where they are discriminated against and threatened if they retaliate?
Gosh, maybe we could have people of greater means take these folks under there wing, give them work, and housing, and the kind of care they deem fit? I'm so sure they would be so grateful they wouldn't mind the rules their benefactors would impose, after all, they're being fed, housed and clothed

Vegan principles exclude using animals as commodities. Please refrain from incorrect verbage

 

[Graeme M]

Poppy, I am not defending the status quo, I think most of us would agree that much animal farming is objectionable. My claim is that in some contexts, animal farming may be the better strategy and hence is not necessarily wrong. The argument that all farmed animals will die seems unreasonable - all animals die. And many wild animals die before maturity, awfully. Does it not occur to you that a world without humans and filled to the brim with wild nature is in fact a world filled with pain and suffering and early death?

In terms of the land, consider that I am not arguing for the status quo, I am arguing for farming of animals to be better aligned with vegan principles. In time, perhaps humans can be convinced not to eat animals, but so far there isn't a lot of evidence this is likely. Bringing vegan principles to bear in the food system would have to be a huge improvement and could see less animal farming in time. And what farming happens might be done better. Farmed animals can be raised to live good lives, the farmer has capacity to do best by her herd, and slaughter can be far more "humane" than any death that could occur in nature. In this regard, I maintain that farming guided by vegan principles is an improvement over classic welfarism in farming.

Veganismo, I haven't deeply researched wild animal suffering, but I have read enough to know that it is generally regarded that wild animal suffering is a substantial ethical concern to some. I agree that wild animals also have good times, but consider a herd of zebras and a herd of cattle run by an ethical farmer. All zebras will die. Many will suffer injury and disease. Some large proportion will be eaten. I will speculate that zebras on average, capable of let us say 20 years of life, rarely achieve half that on the measure of total births over time. Yet the farmed cattle will suffer very little illness and injury and will not die as horribly. As well, we cannot improve the zebras' lot, but we can do better as farmers to ensure the best possible welfare. Now, the weakness to that argument is one of cause, I think. The zebras get no say in things, that is wild nature at work. The farmer on the other hand does not have to create animals to be killed, so even though the cattle will have good lives, the question I wouild ask is whether she has good reason to create these animals. Whatever befalls them is her doing, so one hopes her reasons are sound. MacDonalds burgers, I'd suggest, are not good reasons. But there may be other reasons more valid and defensible.

Silva, maybe they would. I have a well to do Pakistani acquaintance who was pretty sure their servants were happy. In many ways, it is exactly how I live in my Western nation where I am subjected to the rules of the government, must work to live and am not completely free to make my own choices.

Why do vegan principles exclude using animals as commodities? Do you also oppose plants as commodities? Perhaps the answer is to eradicate commodities. That will be a big job.

 

[silva]

In all my years on this and it's other forums I have never wanted to put someone on ignore. There were always posts that I felt worthy of discussion and debate even when I disagreed with most of there premises.
There's always a first!

 

[Veganismo]

Veganismo, I haven't deeply researched wild animal suffering, but I have read enough to know that it is generally regarded that wild animal suffering is a substantial ethical concern to some. I agree that wild animals also have good times, but consider a herd of zebras and a herd of cattle run by an ethical farmer. All zebras will die. Many will suffer injury and disease. Some large proportion will be eaten. I will speculate that zebras on average, capable of let us say 20 years of life, rarely achieve half that on the measure of total births over time. Yet the farmed cattle will suffer very little illness and injury and will not die as horribly. As well, we cannot improve the zebras' lot, but we can do better as farmers to ensure the best possible welfare. Now, the weakness to that argument is one of cause, I think. The zebras get no say in things, that is wild nature at work. The farmer on the other hand does not have to create animals to be killed, so even though the cattle will have good lives, the question I wouild ask is whether she has good reason to create these animals. Whatever befalls them is her doing, so one hopes her reasons are sound. MacDonalds burgers, I'd suggest, are not good reasons. But there may be other reasons more valid and defensible.

Reasonable points, and there is no doubt that wild animal suffering is substantial and sad. However, there is nothing stopping us from trying to improve the lot of zebras in the wild (whether we need to or should is a separate issue), and on the other hand, EVEN THOUGH there is nothing stopping us from improving the lives of farm animals, we haven't done much. I would venture to say that the life of the average farm animal has gotten much worse, decade by decade, for hundreds of years at least.

Do you think that your average dairy cow, raised on a dairy farm, has a better life than the average wildebeest? I would strongly disagree. I would certainly rather be a sage grouse living my life in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains (coyotes and cold weather and all) than a meat chicken in a warehouse. It's not even really a close call, is it?

I'm a wildlife photographer and I spend most of my days in those very foothills watching the bison, pronghorn, coyotes, grouse, hawks, trout, owls, and bears, and there is not any doubt in my mind that they have better lives than the dairy cows, meat or egg chickens, or farm raised salmon. I used to fish, and when I think of all those innocent trout that I plucked from the pure Montana rivers, I don't imagine any of them were thinking "Oh thank God that's over!"

Thanks for the stimulating discussion. It might be against the rules (I'm new, sorry if so!), but I wrote an essay about a particular deer that visits my yard, I believe it is apropos:

Lame Deer

Lots of pain, lots of suffering, lots of beauty, lots of love.

 

[Graeme M]

Silva, do feel free to place me on ignore. Before you do, would you care to share your thoughts on why veganism opposes the commodity status of other animals?

Veganismo, nice post. I shall respond later cos I have some thoughts about it.

 

[Graeme M]

Veganismo, here are some thoughts on your comment.

Yes, we *could* do more to alleviate wild suffering, but that is a big task and it might be somewhat open whether we should. After all, a significant part of evolution is competition between organisms and death is essential to that process. Suffering is a strategy for limiting damage and increasing odds for survival. Still, that is a bit tangential to my claim.

What I was suggesting is that IF there is sufficient reason to continue to farm animals and we do so, then reducing their suffering is as worthwhile for them as it would be for the wild animals who exist. How could we argue in favour of alleviating wild suffering while ignoring the suffering of farmed animals? Eliminating animal farming is a great strategy, but broadly speaking not a successful one for now. Wouldn't encouraging vegan attitudes within the farming system (and consumers) pay greater dividends?

Regarding the average dairy cow, well, I guess it depends on where that cow is. I would suggest that in Australia where I am, the average dairy cow's life is on balance a good one.Is it better than the average wildebeest? I would think so, though I'd need to find the evidence for it. But possible reasons include lack of risk of predation, prompt treatment of injury and disease, constant supply of healthy food, potentially a comfortable relationship with the herd, plenty of time to enjoy the things you claim wild animals enjoy and so on. The only thing that is really unpleasant is cow-calf separation, but I don't know how bad that is. I have empirical reasons for thinking not as bad as some suggest, if the right management techniques are followed.

I agree that wild animals have better lives than caged chickens, intensively raised pigs, farmed salmon and so on, but it isn't my claim otherwise. To return to the point above, is the life of the average wild deer or other prey species better or worse, do you think, than the life of a bovine or sheep in a well managed herd? I am friends with a local sheep and cattle farmer and as best I can tell, her herd seems very happy and losses are very low. I think they enjoy better lives than many prey species.

 

[Graeme M]

By the way, Veganismo, I liked your story about the lame deer. Truly touching and as you observe, testament to the strength we can find within. I'm glad you shared it.

But it is relevant to our discussion. Can we know how her life is experienced? She had a fawn, she bore it and is raising it. She has struggled to stay alive. But in this, she has no choice. Is her life one of great suffering, on the whole, which she stoically endures because there is no relief, no escape, no option available to her? Or is perhaps her pain of only minimal import? How could we know? If though, her experience is the former, then the story illustrates the wild suffering I refer to. The dairy cow in our mythical herd, were she to suffer a similar injury, would likely be culled. Which is better? Again, it is hard to know, but the dairy cow has more help available to her than the doe even if, like the doe, her ultimate fate is outside her control and influence...

 

[Vegan Dogs]

When I was in High School and studying for the SATs, I was taught a tip. Correct multiple choice answers that start with "always" or "never" are almost always wrong.

So I won't say that animal farming is always wrong.

I can actually think of a few exceptions. For instance, in third world countries, a subsistence farmer may keep chickens or a goat or a sheep or a beehive. The eggs, the goat's milk, the sheep's wool, or the bee's honey can make a real difference in the family's well being.

In some arid grasslands, the land can not be farmed. A family might keep some cattle or goats that can live off the land and provide income for the family.

We might argue about whether or not this is an otpimum set up but I wouldn't classify that kind of animal farming as wrong.

many Africans eat farmed dog meat. assume you are ok with that too ?

 

[Vegan Dogs]

I haven't found a decent discussion on this topic before, though perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.

The modern world is much transformed by human activity and one major aspect to this is how animal farming has become a major part of the way ecologies operate. Here in Australia, many centuries of inappropriate farming have substantially degraded the landscape however new techniques such as "regenerative" farming promise to address those problems. However, the concern I have is more to the effect about what happens in the absence of animal farming, were that to eventuate.

If we were to abandon range type farming (ie extensive operations rather than intensive indoor practices) several things might unfold. One is that the land might be left to rewild, but in the absence of some species that have since been lost, and the presence of many new species, the land may become rather less than ecologically productive. It may become just a mess of wild thickets and so on with very little real diversity. Alternatively, it may become very fecund with many species living and interacting. Another possibility is that the land is lost to urban development, farming, wind farms, dams, whatever or even be used for crops.

When we farm animals, we can do so in ways that maximise the effective use of the land while maximising (in the context) the ecological benefits of the land. Is it better to cover the land in crops, or to mine the lnd, or build houses on it, rather than to farm animals in ways that maximise benefits to all?

On the other hand, when thinking about rewilding, if our concern is to reduce suffering, we need to face the fact that 100 acres of wild land will contain a lot of wild animal suffering. 100 acres of farmed animals will probably have rather less suffering, and we can also work to reduce the suffering by the farmed animals. In fact, it might be the case that a well managed farm is a net benefit in terms of pain and suffering.

With these thoughts in mind, is animal farming always wrong?

you specifically wrote...

if our concern is to reduce suffering, we need to face the fact that 100 acres of wild land will contain a lot of wild animal suffering. 100 acres of farmed animals will probably have rather less suffering, and we can also work to reduce the suffering by the farmed animals. In fact, it might be the case that a well managed farm is a net benefit in terms of pain and suffering.

so...that is what you wote,,,

...so what are you suggesting ? we destroy all wild life because you THINK their lives are more suffering than a captive farm animal life ?

have you considered that the very definition and nature of a WILD ANIMAL is that they FEAR HUMANS ? and so you would only want domesticated breed animals that had been forced to accept humans alive ???

so kill all fearful unable to live in captivity wild life is your suggestion ? what nonsense is my reply. a love of power and control is all i see in such a proposition.



your whole proposition stinks basically due to just those 2 unexplained away issues.