The animal product industry creates life

[Forest Nymph]

It seems to me to be a case of pros and cons, nothing is black or white, I'm trying to figure it out, I value all opinions

Well we are giving you solid information and arguments and you haven't refuted much of anything, other to insist that an agricultural animal, even if it has a short life, if raised in ideal conditions, is preferable to that animal never existing.

The problem with what you're saying is that many agricultural animals are artificially bred, it is a part of the torture process to rape the animals.

Hypothetically you could raise your own chickens and allow them to mate naturally, but even the most "humane" high level huggy-wuggy goat dairy farms in Northern California remove baby goats from their mothers immediately after birth. They say it's better this way, it's good for them, it's cruel to allow them to get attached for three days or a week before taking the babies away. The babies are then bottle fed in a separate pen. They are allowed to be near their mothers but there are barriers that prevent them from nursing all the same.

Unless you are 100 percent sure of where your animals were raised (and the vast majority of Americans are not) you cannot assume that the animals were treated well, whatever the hell that means to you. In fact I think some of the only meat eaters who have an inkling of where or how their animals were raised are strict religious Jews who keep kosher (this is not even a substantial number of Jews anymore, a lot of Jews have been secularized and seduced by American diets, and their idea of keeping kosher is to simply never eat pork).

The Whole Foods levels of humane meat are ludicrous and they've been busted more than once for giving a pound of flesh they sold a higher humane rating than was actually the reality.

Of course, my last word on this is that there's no nice way to kill a being that is healthy, young and doesn't want to die. I think anyone who isn't at least a lacto-ovo vegetarian is mildly delusional.

 

[Scott Joplin]

I guess it comes down to is a short life better than no life at all. All other things being equal, you would have to say no.

I don't understand why a short life is not better than no life

 

[Lou]

I don't understand why a short life is not better than no life

I'm sorry, I worded that wrong. All other things being equal, a short life is probably better than no life at all.

 

[Scott Joplin]

Well we are giving you solid information and arguments and you haven't refuted much of anything, other to insist that an agricultural animal, even if it has a short life, if raised in ideal conditions, is preferable to that animal never existing.

Yes, I'm not in a position to refute what you say, and I'm not insisting anything I'm asking a question, I understand that asking questions can seem provocative but that's a risk I'm willing to take to get my head round this

 

[Scott Joplin]

I'm sorry, I worded that wrong. All other things being equal, a short life is probably better than no life at all.

Ok, thank you

 

[Scott Joplin]

I think this is relevant to some of the philosophical points that have been raised The Repugnant Conclusion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Sax]

I don't understand why a short life is not better than no life

Animal agriculture reduces wild animal populations. The land that grows all that food for livestock used to be natural habitat. A life of autonomy is preferable to a life of enslavement.

The environmental damage done by animal agriculture decreases the amount of life our planet can sustain. For what? Is it worth it?

 

[Scott Joplin]

A life of autonomy is preferable to a life of enslavement.

Possibly. For some animals they might be safer in captivity. I see pros and cons

 

[rogerjolly]

Hello again Scott,

"Would it have been better if they had never existed in the first place?"
This is an unanswerable question. How could it be better or worse if they never existed?

I agree with this except I would have said meaningless rather than unanswerable. Now, so far you appear to be only repeating questions or asking new ones without giving any of your own opinions. I have never yet met a person who is seeking truths to not have opinions.

So, I would like to make a bargain with you.

Your side will be to actually agree with Lou and me that it is totally meaningless to ask if something can be better or worse for an animal that never existed.

I will then attempt to answer your second puzzle, “I don't understand why a short life is not better than no life.”

Go on. I dare you to give a yes or no. Be brave. But whatever you do please don’t say, “I see pros and cons.”

Roger.

 

[Scott Joplin]

I think it is better to have existed than not

 

[Pops]

Personally, if it came down to existing in a small cage or tie-stall, as dairy cows do, I think I'd rather not have existed, myself.

Do they look happy? Do you think they are having a great time? Would you like to exist for your short life in one of these cages?

 

[Scott Joplin]

Obviously not and that's not what I mean. I did mention a lamb earlier as a possible example of a life worth living. The standard of welfare has to be high to even contemplate that it's ok. It would be nice to hear something other than the usual stereotypes but I won't hold my breath

 

[rogerjolly]

So, I would like to make a bargain with you.
Your side will be to actually agree with Lou and me that it is totally meaningless to ask if something can be better or worse for an animal that never existed.
I will then attempt to answer your second puzzle, “I don't understand why a short life is not better than no life.”
Go on. I dare you to give a yes or no. Be brave. But whatever you do please don’t say, “I see pros and cons.”

I think it is better to have existed than not

Hey man. This is a Philosophy Forum. Please address my question instead of making up your own question to answer. Leave that to the politicians. Your reply to me would have been no more relevant had you said, “I have always much preferred the Stones to the Beatles.”

And I will up the offer on my side. I promise I will mention lambs and you won’t have to hold your breath because I further promise none of “the usual stereotypes”.

Roger.

 

[Scott Joplin]

Ok, I misunderstood what question, no I don't agree it is totally meaningless

 

[Pops]

Okay, let's take the lamb then. Their life, as a lamb bred for food, is so short I doubt it would be worth the while, considering what comes in the end.

They are only 6-8 months old when they are slaughtered, where their normal lifespan would be between 12-14 years. That hardly seems fair to me.

Let me ask you, do you remember much about your life as an infant? Do you recall all the good times you had? It wouldn't be much different for a lamb. It takes 3 of those months to wean the lamb. Furthermore, if you were going to be executed at the end of that incredibly short life, how would you feel about that?

 

[Scott Joplin]

A friend of mine is a sheep farmer, she is very good and caring. I've watched the lambs and they don't appear to have a bad life, obviously it is short. They don't know they are going to die.

 

[Veganite]

she is very good and caring.

No one can be that caring if you're killing them. It's all about money and profit, not caring. She cares about her product is the fact of it. It's an investment, nothing more. That's why these animals get a number tag through the ear, and not a name. It's a product that pays her bills. Even if she named them, it's still just a product.

*

 

[Forest Nymph]

A friend of mine is a sheep farmer, she is very good and caring. I've watched the lambs and they don't appear to have a bad life, obviously it is short. They don't know they are going to die.

Your argument amounts to "my friend isn't a bad person."

A lot of defensive meat-eater arguments actually come from a place such as, "my parents/family cared for me and they gave me meat, so it's obviously okay because I love my parents/family." Yours isn't terribly different.

As naive and guileless this sort of thinking is, it's also irrational and self-serving. There are children in elementary or middle school who are able to separate the concept of animal-killing in agriculture being wrong from saying their parents are bad people. That adults still walk around with this type of irrational, insecure loyalty boggles my mind. I was just never like this past the age of seven or so, and definitely not past high school.

A lot of people who defend meat eating use the idea of "defending other people" as an excuse to prop their arguments upon. Obviously there are realistic circumstances where veganism might not be possible, but most of them are outside of the normal experience of life in a first world developed country.

I have seen "it's racist" and "it's classist" and "it's mean to judge others for what they eat" and so much of this garbage, I tend to wonder if these same individuals actually work in their communities for social justice, voted for Bernie Sanders, or are really and truly a Zen Buddhist monk/nun who never judges anyone, and the answer is obviously usually no, this argument of "veganism is not humanist" is usually founded in complete and utter selfishness.

 

[Scott Joplin]

It's ok, I don't mind being judged, people judge others all the time for all kinds of reasons. I was just saying what I've seen in reply to Pops' questions

 

[Veganite]

It's ok, I don't mind being judged, people judge others all the time for all kinds of reasons. I was just saying what I've seen in reply to Pops' questions

I think you're eluding the questions and discussion, as Roger suggested. Your replies are vague and elusive at best. You ask questions, but offer no engaging discussion. It might not be trolling, but it's not interesting either. I mean, you come into the proverbial lions den, and ask provocative questions, and then stand back and offer no rebuttal or very little. I have to wonder what your point is here. Do you have one? Do you want to discuss this topic or not? If not, I will close the thread.




*