Animal genocide

[Augustus]

If all humans stopped eating meat and other animal products, the numbers of certain animals would decline massively as they would no longer be farmed.

Assuming they are treated well while they are alive, is it more ethical to give these animals a chance at life (and perhaps reproduction) before they are slaughtered, or is it more ethical to prevent them from ever being born at all?

Why?

 

[PruePhillip]

If all humans stopped eating meat and other animal products, the numbers of certain animals would decline massively as they would no longer be farmed.

Assuming they are treated well while they are alive, is it more ethical to give these animals a chance at life (and perhaps reproduction) before they are slaughtered, or is it more ethical to prevent them from ever being born at all?

Why?

Are you going to kill and eat other living forms, or are you going
to subsist on a pure mineral diet of carbon, phosphorus, calcium
etc.?

 

[Estro Felino]

It is also right to underline that, if meat consumption becomes less massive, we can spend much more time on improving animal welfare on farms.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The best would be if all animals were free (as they were intended to be)
And that man did not try to rule over them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If all humans stopped eating meat and other animal products, the numbers of certain animals would decline massively as they would no longer be farmed. ...

To exploit the term 'genocide' for such a discussion is crude and hurtful.

 

[PruePhillip]

The best would be if all animals were free (as they were intended to be)
And that man did not try to rule over them.

Ever seen a video of a plant in an electric vehicle, shifting the
vehicle to optimize its sunlight?
Ever read anything on how mimosa plants recoil when dropped
but learn to trust their carer if this is done gently?

You see, plants are living creatures - just like animals. Only
difference is they don't have as much mobility. That's all.
Mobility.
They don't want to be killed and eaten.
We can kill animals that can't move, and leave those alone
which can move, is that what you are saying?

This is Richard Ryder's and Peter Singer's "speciesism"
Only they didn't apply it to plants, or any other life kingdoms -
that's because they are.. er... speciesists.

Maybe you ought to go live in India where cows wander over
the roads.
And ps genocide is used to describe mass killing of humans.
Don't dilute the word.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If all humans stopped eating meat and other animal products, the numbers of certain animals would decline massively as they would no longer be farmed.

Assuming they are treated well while they are alive, is it more ethical to give these animals a chance at life (and perhaps reproduction) before they are slaughtered, or is it more ethical to prevent them from ever being born at all?

Why?

Neither answer reflects my views.

Also, I think "treated well" is quite a subjective standard. I'm sure there are several ideas in our membership as to what constitutes such treatment.

 

[Augustus]

Are you going to kill and eat other living forms, or are you going
to subsist on a pure mineral diet of carbon, phosphorus, calcium
etc.?

It's not actually happening, it's a question on RF. For fun.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Ever seen a video of a plant in an electric vehicle, shifting the
vehicle to optimize its sunlight?
Ever read anything on how mimosa plants recoil when dropped
but learn to trust their carer if this is done gently?

You see, plants are living creatures - just like animals. Only
difference is they don't have as much mobility. That's all.
Mobility.
They don't want to be killed and eaten.
We can kill animals that can't move, and leave those alone
which can move, is that what you are saying?

This is Richard Ryder's and Peter Singer's "speciesism"
Only they didn't apply it to plants, or any other life kingdoms -
that's because they are.. er... speciesists.

Maybe you ought to go live in India where cows wander over
the roads.
And ps genocide is used to describe mass killing of humans.
Don't dilute the word.

It would be good to go to India to live yes because there are many spiritual beings there who could teach a lot.
Amanaki is seeing the killing of both animals and humans as wong deed, As explained in a different thread, Animals are sentient beings to Buddhists (Theravada teaching) But since the body does need some form of nourishment Buddha did say eating plants was accepted. But does it create karma? yes but far less than killing sentient beings.
And when the attachments to the need of having meat in every meal have been let go of, there is no problem to avoid the meat in the food.
But not everyone thinks like this of course.

 

[Augustus]

Neither answer reflects my views.

What are your views?

Also, I think "treated well" is quite a subjective standard. I'm sure there are several ideas in our membership as to what constitutes such treatment.

Use your standard then

 

[Darkforbid]

Well if humanity moved to a meat free diet the need to covert land into farm land would destroy a massive amount of the natural world

 

[Spirit of Light]

Well if humanity moved to a meat free diet the need to covert land into farm land would destroy a massive amount of the natural world

Why? how about all the areas Animals are held now? those areas would be perfect to cultivate farming of vegetables and fruit

 

[SalixIncendium]

What are your views?

Giving an animal a chance at life through natural procreation is fine, but in animal husbandry, animals are bred for food. That, IMO, is not giving an animal a chance at life. It's forcing life for the purpose of human consumption.

Use your standard then

For me, "treated well" implies non-confinement and the freedom to roam in the wild with minimal human impact. So to summarize, the they were to continue to procreate on their own and live free, then I would be fine allowing them to flourish or arrive at their natural demise.

 

[Augustus]

Giving an animal a chance at life through natural procreation is fine, but in animal husbandry, animals are bred for food. That, IMO, is not giving an animal a chance at life. It's forcing life for the purpose of human consumption.



For me, "treated well" implies non-confinement and the freedom to roam in the wild with minimal human impact. So to summarize, the they were to continue to procreate on their own and live free, then I would be fine allowing them to flourish or arrive at their natural demise.

So it is better that they are not born than bred for food on a farm?

 

[Rival]

Well if humanity moved to a meat free diet the need to covert land into farm land would destroy a massive amount of the natural world

Not necessarily. In fact not even close. Much of what is grown on arable farms goes directly to feed cattle. Were there no cattle, there'd be loads of spare fields.

 

[Augustus]

Why? how about all the areas Animals are held now? those areas would be perfect to cultivate farming of vegetables and fruit

A lot of animals graze on land that isn't very good for growing crops.

 

[PruePhillip]

Giving an animal a chance at life through natural procreation is fine, but in animal husbandry, animals are bred for food. That, IMO, is not giving an animal a chance at life. It's forcing life for the purpose of human consumption.



For me, "treated well" implies non-confinement and the freedom to roam in the wild with minimal human impact. So to summarize, the they were to continue to procreate on their own and live free, then I would be fine allowing them to flourish or arrive at their natural demise.

To "roam in the wild" conjures up vast area of natural forest converted
to farm land. Certainly these domesticated animals are not going to
survive in virgin territory for which they aren't even adapted? You mean
free range.
Like solar panels, wind farms and organic farming - you need A LOT OF
LAND.

 

[Spirit of Light]

A lot of animals graze on land that isn't very good for growing crops.

The land had to be recultivated to enable the food to grove there, yes. Maybe some places the soil had to be replaced. but this is better than to slaughter animals, and vegetable food has better absorption in the body, so humans could benefit from eating only vegetarian food.

 

[Darkforbid]

Why? how about all the areas Animals are held now? those areas would be perfect to cultivate farming of vegetables and fruit

Because the millions of people that make their livelihood from animal farming,, would need to move into plant based farming. And no much of the land used is arid and unsuitable for sustainable crop production

 

[SalixIncendium]

So it is better that they are not born than bred for food on a farm?

I think so. What would be the purpose of breeding them on a farm if not for food?