All humans eventually die, and most natural deaths are far more horrifying than how we would be able to murder other humans, especially in modern times (though even traditional slaughter is nothing compared to dying of cancer, stroke, being murdered in a car crash, etc.)

So, I think that it is important how the humans are grown (prisons are absolutely horrible, unacceptable places to live in, and should ideally become illegal sooner rather than later, regardless of the consequences on the price of labor). But I really don't think there is any reason to feel bad about the murder of 25 year old people who have led a decent life, even if it may be shorter than they would expect in nature (the huge proliferation of the human species is kind of payment for that, in a way).

This is a silly straw-man.

First of all, most humans in society die relatively peaceful deaths (and this proportion would increase if we supported euthanasia, which I am in favor of in certain cases).

Second of all, humans form powerful attachments to their kin and peers, and the death of a human brings great and lasting sadness to all other humans in their group. This is not something observed with cattle and most other animals (though there are exceptions), except for short periods of time.

Thirdly, there are some admittedly specieist arguments to be made in favor of the value of human cognition as compared to that of a cow or pig or any other animal that currently exists on Earth. At the very least, you could say that every human has the potential of being a great artist or otherwise improving the lot of all current and future humans (and perhaps even cows) in a way that an individual cow does not.

The leading causes of death are diseases, cancers, dementia, road injuries, etc. These are inarguably more "horrifying" deaths than how we could kill people with methods such as those used for euthanasia, which is the point the original comment was making.

If a human has no friends, and their death would not bring great and lasting sadness to other humans, is it ok to murder them?

If a human is mentally or physically incapable of improving the lot of other people, and is in fact a burden on society, is it ok to murder them?

Murdering a lonely person or a handicapped person still brings significant distress to other humans.

Murdering animals also brings significant distress to humans. Just not all humans.

There are a lot of things that bring distress to a small minority but we don't argue that it should be stopped on a societal level.

70 billion farm animals are the small minority, and 8 billion people are the majority?

Is it ok to cause suffering to humans who are minorities because they are minorities?

No, vegans are the minority in the above example.

A minority of people are caused distress by having their children vaccinated because they think vaccines cause autism. Should we stop causing suffering to this minority by stopping all vacciantions? Or is it ok to cause suffering to humans who are minorities because they are minorities?

When people choose not to be vaccinated, they endanger those who are unable to be vaccinated. Foregoing vaccination harms others.

The normalized consumption of animal products endangers all people due to the impact it has on the environment in which we live. We are currently living through yet another pandemic caused by the consumption of animals. We are currently dealing with the effects of climate collapse worldwide, helped along by inefficient resource usage for things like animal agriculture.

Consuming plants instead of animals is a trivial change to make both at the individual and societal level and does not harm others.

|Second of all, humans form powerful attachments to their kin and peers, and the death of a human brings great and lasting sadness to all other humans in their group. This is not something observed with cattle and most other animals (though there are exceptions), except for short periods of time.

straight up false. cattle mourn death and seperation from their calves very obviously, for days. Heres just a small example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Woulyd9NWFM&list=PLtc3iQTP5E... some cursory googling will support this. Whos to say they dont carry that burden for the rest of their lives? I only show outward emotion for a brief time period after a death, but I certainly have sadness for a long time after and it would be hubris to think something as intelligent as a pig or a cow would be unnaffected enough to justify that for 5 minutes of taste

To those downvoting: do you believe that dogs are able to mourn when their companions die? There are myriad examples of this occurring. If so, do you believe that dogs are the only animal capable of this?

Now do one for plants.

Plants are not conscious and do not feel pain. But even if your argument is in good faith and you genuinely believe that the plight of plants is equivalent to the suffering of animals, then that is still an argument for veganism, as producing a kilo of animal flesh requires several kilos of plant matter, thus increasing the total amount of suffering relative to simply eating plants directly.

>the plight of plants is equivalent to the suffering of animals

You assume that the plight of humans is equivalent to the suffering of animals.

Humans are animals. Humans do not feel pain differently from other animals. Humans do not suffer differently from other animals. This is why intentionally causing animals like cats and dogs to suffer is illegal and viewed as abhorrent. The only reason this is not extended to other animals like cows and pigs is convenience.

>Humans are animals.

I'll give you that.

>Humans do not feel pain differently from other animals. Humans do not suffer differently from other animals.

Humans do not feel pain differently than say, a mollusk?

The vast majority of animals raised to be killed and eaten are fowls, pigs, cattle, sheep, and goats. No, humans do not feel pain differently than these animals any more than they feel pain differently from cats or dogs.

Sorry for being rude. No, my [non-]argument wasn't in good faith - it was in response to a parody comment, after all.

But you seem serious this time. The problem with that line of reasoning is: sure, you can (quite literally) weigh the pros and cons of veganism like you did. But why stop there? To sustain a kilo of human flesh you still need several thousands of kilos of plant matter. The ultra-utilitarian solution surely must be getting rid of human flesh? Now I'm not so sure your previous comment was really a parody.

Given that plants aren't conscious and do not feel pain, any line of reasoning that is predicated on the assumption that plants are conscious and feel pain is irrelevant.

Your argument is just antinatalism, but for farm animals. Every animal will suffer in its life. Eradicating an entire population to reduce suffering is pretty extreme. Other arguments for veganism, like the environmental one, are much more palatable.

Where, exactly, did I argue for the eradication of an entire population? Ending the exploitation of animals does not require eradicating them.

I think you could make the argument that it's possible to ethically raise animals in a way where it's a good deal for both sides, as long as an animal suffers less than it would suffer in nature. If causing unnecessary suffering is unethical, then the opposite should be a moral imperative, so this simple mathematical argument leads to the conclusion that ethically raising animals should be morally superior to veganism.

The extension of this argument exposes the absurdity, as it would imply that we go out and domesticate nature. Stop lions from killing their prey in the Savannah, etc... and convert them to a vegetarian diet.

This is something I do wonder, though. Is that absurd. Is it actually absurd. Might that not actually be what the morally and ethically correct course of action is.

We know nature is cruel. We know nature is absolutely horrendous and horrific. Why do we just accept that as a given?

Why does domestication sound absurd? It's not usual, but also not unprecedented. Homo sapiens had domesticated itself into eating vegetable burgers, after all.

I agree - I definitely think that how we treat deer in the UK as a food source and as a wild population is a sensible way of 'farming' animals.

My only concern is with domesticated stock. Cows couldn't possibly survive in nature, and would suffer greatly, for example. If we're concerned with raising animals for food that also live enriched lives, do we also have an obligation to breed them in ways that enrich them?

> Cows couldn't possibly survive in nature, and would suffer greatly, for example.

Would they? What do humans provide that domestic cattle couldn't handle on their own?

I don't really find this kind of simple ethical calculus convincing, but I would say that a world where some people continue eating meat and keep raising cows, pigs, chicken, sheep, goats and other animals that would die off if they weren't consumed seems better to me than a purely 100% vegan world. On the other hand, as someone's personal choice instead of worldwide decision, I don't think it seems plausible that being vegan is "less moral" than being an ethical farmer.

> a world where some people continue eating meat and keep raising cows, pigs, chicken, sheep, goats and other animals that would die off if they weren't consumed seems better to me than a purely 100% vegan world

I'm not a vegan, but I've heard this argument before and find it to be confounding. Are we saying that livestock suffer less because they are safe in the knowledge that their species is being conserved? Why would a non-human animal have this kind of existential rumination? (Excuse the pun) And let's say this concern is of real importance, if factory farming ended do you think wild populations of cows, goats, etc. would go completely extinct? (Keep in mind people keep animals as pets, so that's also another means of conservation)

I don't have an argument I find perfectly convincing myself for this either. I can mention that the ultimate value of life is propagation and survival, so most likely this is the consideration that gives me this feeling, but I explicitly called this a feeling and haven't claimed it is a clear rational argument.

As for wild populations, I'm not sure, but my understanding is that most cows have been bred to produce more milk than their calves eat, and that their udders become painful if not milked; and that sheep's hair tends to similarly grow much more than in wild breeds, leading to major problems if they are not sheared by humans. I may be wrong, and even if I'm not they may still live long enough to breed and perhaps reverse these artificial adaptations in a few generations.

I have encountered what appeared to be a domesticated sheep that had gone wild in a nearby nature reserve. Its hair had grown to smother its face, and when we startled it it began running in random directions, only to headbutt a tree and continue on another random direction. I can't imagine that it would be about to survive well in this state, so you're probably right. Though it somehow had been surviving, nonetheless

I think this is a vague line of reasoning. We want to give animals quality of life, because it’s a humane thing to do, but also slaughter them, which is inhumane. So which is it: is the life of animals just as important, or less?

The same line of reasoning can be applied to humans. We can have really shitty deaths categorised as ‘old age’, yet euthanising is controversial.

> but also slaughter them, which is inhumane

This is the very thing I completely disagree with. All living things die, and almost all animals die by being killed by other animals.

Why is it "inhumane" when this killing is done by a human with a sharp knife or electrocution, but it is "humane" when done by a wolf tearing at their throat, or by insects eating them alive?

And euthanasia of people is controversial for many complex reasons, but it is relatively well accepted by most secularists for cases of extreme pain, at least, which is how animals normally die.

The lion needs to kill to survive.

We in the modern world don't need to kill anymore to survive.

We have the choice, so why choose to kill an animal just for culinary pleasures?

So your proposed alternative is we keep raising these animals, but euthanize them when they get to some age / fall sick?

No, the alternative is to not to keep breeding farm animals in the billions, which is a major cause for natural habitat loss [0].

Instead have more R&D into creating meat like substances that doesn't require to kill an animal and doesn't require such a huge carbon footprint - and we are getting there slowly.

And that's the mission of Ethan Brown (Beyond Meat founder) - he said you won't be able to change the culture of meat eating, but if you offer people something that's as good or better and cheaper then people will switch.

Again, the main question really is why inflict pain and kill an animal if you don't need to?

We are not hunter gatherers anymore.

The above comment excludes people who still need to eat meat to survive.

----

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUMGBwgGYWw&t=100s

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/natur...

I think the original argument is a good one, but lets try another.

If we had fully lab grown meat that was identical to the real thing. How many of us would convert? In theory, we all would.

In reality, we still covet mined diamonds, so we'll probably still irrationaly claim there's a difference long after there really is.

> If we had fully lab grown meat that was identical to the real thing. How many of us would convert? In theory, we all would.

Why would we all, even in theory? If we could farm animals humanely, grazing them in areas where crops anyway can't be planted, letting them range, giving them a good life where they don't fear predators, don't freeze to death in winter or die of hyperthermia in the summer etc., and then kill them humanely (by which I mean, with as little pain as possible) when we decide, why would that be less moral than killing off the entire species (more or less) and living off lab-produced meat?

Even if it would be possible for the farmed animal to really have a fulfilling life (which I don't think is possible in the current, industrialized world), there are still humans who are caring for the animals, there are humans who are killing and dissecting them, and they too are affected by the inhumane process, and I think our empathy should extend to them too.

> which I don't think is possible in the current, industrialized world

This is a concern I share.

> there are still humans who are caring for the animals, there are humans who are killing and dissecting them, and they too are affected by the inhumane process, and I think our empathy should extend to them too.

As far as I know, farmers don't suffer any kind of psychological damage from caring for and slaughtering animals, and haven't throughout human history. Again, factory farm workers are a different problem.

Then you should watch the Dark Side of Dairy documentary.

A farmer started to cry and asked for the camera to be turned off - when he was asked what happens to the mother and baby cow.

Or look on Youtube farmers talking about 'There is a person in there' when talking about their farm animals. Or farmers who have given up on exploiting animals and switched to different kinds of farming.

This is a good read. Not very emotional, but good description of one of the jobs. One interesting bit: "the vast majority of farmers don’t do it. They might be rearing the livestock for meat and understand that the animals’ ultimate destination is an abattoir, but that doesn’t mean they like killing.... It’s the same as with an old dog: they could do it themselves, but they can’t."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/13/the-knac...

Would you actually get meat of a quality good enough that people would want it if you did that?

Currently, most meat-producing animals are overfed and killed young. Would an animal that gets fed a healthy diet and killed once it's had a long and fulfilling life actually produce meat people would want?

See philosophical cow. There was a much larger philosophy article I read about this but I can’t seem to find it. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/03/th...

If you give a cow a choice between being a gazelle and getting eating by a lion or a cow and being fed and taken care of but eventually being killed, which would they choose? If you gave a cow a choice between the elimination or decimation of its entire species (cows have been altered to be not fit for nature) which would they choose? It’s not as cut and dry as you would think. There are definitely people who would pick to eliminate the entire human race. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_M... , so maybe we would have voluntary cattle extinction movements as well.

A belief that birth/procreation is a negative is known as antinatalism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism