Most captive animals exist because we tend to them. Are you suggesting that we let them die of starvation or simply eliminate them (as PETA does with many of their 'rescued' animals)?
A reasonable person might suggest we not purposefully birth 150 billion+ animals every year just so they can be killed. The "let them starve" argument is a strawman, since the whole world would not eschew animal products overnight, but rather as a gradual progress.
You suggested gradual elimination, which is an elimination process. I would argue that neither fallacy apply.
I wonder what proportion of animals would chose non-existence over existence if they could understand such concepts. That's quite the decision to make for them.
May I suggest you look at some footage from slaughterhouses to make that determination for yourself? Or, if you're particularly stoic, I dare you to watch Earthlings.
He claims we are not adapted for eating meat, then backpedals by saying we have adapted for eating meat since the Ice Age, then pretends like this trend can't continue
He claims we aren't adapted for hunting meat, relying solely on physical features to back this claim and ignoring our mental capacity, specifically the capacity for organization and tool use.
His 2nd point is "We don't need it to survive". No shit. We're omnivores.
I couldn't continue because the first two points were clearly conjecture and one-sided and render the likelihood of the validity of the rest to be approaching zero.
Would you like to explain your reasoning in your own words?
Tools are a product of culture, not evolution, thus are not a reliable indicator of what our species' natural diet is. We're frugivorous apes, so the appropriate food is fruit.
> Furthermore, we lack the natural tools for killing and eating prey – we lack the requisite speed, agility, claws and teeth for taking down any prey of sufficient size to be useful
is the subject of my criticism. It is not relevant to any discussion about diet, either. And it ignores our intelligence as a "tool".
There is ample space for the animals to roam, and they are shielded from the elements and predators.
As a result of sustainable rationing, a family doesn't eat meat each night but maybe once a week or month.
Do you truly consider this scenario oppressive?
Yes, because you have violated the free agency of animals and their own right to exist unmolested by humans. It's the treatment of sentient creatures as mere commodities, justifying the means for an end, that's the source of great calamity and suffering. Non-human persons aren't on this planet for the satisfaction of humans. To think so is to basically be stuck in Christian-inspired attitudes which are old and deprecated.
The concept that using animals for any form of resource is oppressive, even if a fair bargain is struck and the animal's needs are met, is highly idealistic in it's own ways, even if they aren't related to Christian values.
People have been cooperating with other animals for much, much longer than Christianity has been around. So yes, that notion is very, very old. I wouldn't say it is depreciated, however.
Animals also commit infanticide and lick their own buttholes. What we do to animals is not cooperation. It's a holocaust.
I'm just glad that a good portion of humanity has the intelligence to understand which evolved behaviors are and aren't appropriate. Maybe eventually we'll all figure it out. Your argument just doesn't stand up because, like humans, some animals have homicidal tendencies and others don't.
The global corporate food industry is a behemoth, but I still don't understand how the scenario I provided to you above, or sanctuaries, or zoos, are "holocaust". Please elaborate.
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(biology)
What right to exist unmolested by humans?