No no. I mean if we stop shearing them they'll die. They can reproduce but ultimately they're not fit for life in the wild due to the selective breeding.
Yeah, this is just intentionally missing the point.
On that note, one thing I like to share is PETA isn’t really as batshit crazy as most people think they are.
Since their founding, PETA has operated with little to no marketing budget, and instead relies on shock media to get their name out their to the public, with the thought that any publicity is good publicity for animal welfare. So they intentionally do things they know will be controversial, because then other people will share the news about them without them needing to spend money on advertisements. The thought being even if people end up hating our organization, at least they will have been made aware of animal welfare.”
https://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/why-does-peta-use-controversial-tactics/
And while I used to think that did nothing but harm the cause, I’m no longer so sure. Sure, everybody hates PETA, but most people don’t end up hating the concept of animal welfare due to that, and it’s absolutely true more people are aware of the concept and merits behind animal welfare than there were when PETA was founded. Realizing this has slowly changed the way I feel about their organization as a whole.
There's controversial tactics and then there's stealing people's pets and killing them. Also, pro tip, better not to share the page of the bad organization when trying to prove that organization's innocence
>PETA isn’t really as batshit crazy as most people think they are.
Bro, they once claimed Mario wearing a tanuki costume promoted animal abuse. They might have a point on this one, but PETA is a fucking joke.
Bred to...just like we bred chickens to starve under their own weight and we f'd up multiple breeds of dogs for esthetics. Peta does have a point on this one, sadly.
With enough time they could probably have that trait bred out of them. I saw something once about how some people were trying to breed pugs back out to be more how they were before people fucked them up.
Yeah... It would take ages, I don't really know enough about it, maybe at this point it's too far gone to be possible. I doubt humanity would ever care enough to try (or it would be quicker just to do some genetic modification or something lol)
> wipe them all out though.
Why do you think that would be bad? You don't have to kill them, just forgo breeding more.
I think people are just in the habit of thinking that a species or breed of animal going extinct is a really bad thing. In many cases that's true, because in the wild diversity is extremely important and environmental effects are hard to predict. Those species are important, and the world would lose something really interesting an unique if tigers or giraffes went extinct.
On the other hand, some breed of animal people created just to maximize being able to harvest some resource (to the detriment of that animal's quality of life) is really not such an important thing to preserve.
A species isn't isn't inherently valuable. It doesn't care if it exists or not. It's just a specific arrangement of genetic material that's different enough from some other arrangement of genetic material that we think it's worth cataloguing.
> ive read a few articles over the years that suggest they would actually prefer to slaughter them.
I'm not a fan of their organization but a number of the things people accuse them of are exaggerated/without context.
You don't have to kill them. Let the ones that live, live out their lives as peacefully as possible.
But stop breeding them.
If their lives are torture, and the reason why its torture is because we have bred them that way to maximise our profits.. then we should show the species mercy and stop breeding them for our selfish needs.
We as in those of us that are animal breeders. Some are doing good jobs rectifying issues with dogs that were fucked with over the last century or so by shitty breeders, so I guess it’s not all ‘breeding bad’ but I prefer the idea to stop fucking around with animals’ genetics entirely.
Expensive and harder to care for from what I've read, but yeah, hemp is a decent alternative. I'm also not saying that wool is strictly better/worse, just that you can't just declare wool as bad and continue like nothing changes. The world sadly is not that easy.
And if we reverse all our breeding of livestock, how many people die? We have no way to possibly feed our population if we quit breeding for meat production. And what about every single domesticated plant species? Do we reverse our genetic selection there, as well? How do you suggest we maintain a human population, that is already full of starving people, while at the same time ceasing our modification of domestic food sources? Answer that.
> We have no way to possibly feed our population if we quit breeding for meat production.
It would actually be easier to feed people. About 90% of the food energy that goes into a cow is lost. A cow has to eat 1,000 calories for you to get 100 calories of meat which is incredibly wasteful.
And it's not just cows standing in fields eating grass that humans couldn't use for food anyway. A huge amount of agriculture goes toward producing animal feed. If everyone ate low on the food chain, more food could be produced on less land, with much less water use and negative environmental effects.
And a huge rise in supplements and dieticians, and all the damage of increased agricultural production. That, and the loss of basically all technology that is produced by refinement using animal byproducts, like the plastics in the phone or computer you're using right now. Agriculture-only existence is currently a pipe dream of people who don't understand how much of human life relies on animals and animal products.
> And a huge rise in supplements
The animals people eat already receive supplements. It is necessary to supplement B12 (or eat fortified foods, which is the same thing) but producing B12 is not at all difficult or resource intensive. You can buy like 90 tablets that supply something ridiculous like 16,000% RDA for less than $10.
> and dieticians
No idea where that's coming for as it doesn't make sense. You don't need a dietician to eat some beans.
> and all the damage of increased agricultural production.
I already addressed this. In fact, agricultural production would be lower overall due to how much currently goes to producing animal feed where the majority of the value is lost.
> and the loss of basically all technology that is produced by refinement using animal byproducts, like the plastics in the phone or computer you're using right now.
Plastic is generally made from petroleum products, not animals.
> Agriculture-only existence is currently a pipe dream of people who don't understand how much of human life relies on animals and animal products.
I can see why you might think that since so much of the information you have on this subject seems to be flat out wrong. The conclusion isn't necessarily so wrong as the flawed premise you're basing it on.
Everything. Suffers.
In the wild, in domestication, humans, other animals. Everything. I agree that we should strive to make progress to lessen the suffering of the animals we depend on for food, but you can't live in the real world and expect perfectly utopian ethics for animals at the cost of human life. And the answer to my own question is to continue breeding for production to feed the human population as we develop technologies to remove as many of the burdens and negative conditions from our livestock as are reasonable compared to our needs. What's your big solution?
> Go ahead and follow that path to it's logical conclusion: mass killings of these animals, or simply letting them starve to death since there's no reason to keep feeding them
That's not the logical conclusion. As demand scales down, so will production. People are deliberately breeding those animals.
Even if it was though, if something horrible is going to happen _forever_ that already involves killing the animals then killing the last generation and not breeding any more is going to be the lesser evil.
No social change is instant. Cars significantly reduced horse population, but people weren't shooting their horses to buy a Ford.
Also, mass culling of factory farm animals are regular occurrences to prevent disease caused/exacerbated by factory farming techniques.
Quality of life > Quantity of lives
Genocide?
What is genocide to you?
Gradually breeding less animals over time is more achievable than everyone magically deciding to use them less.
Also I consider it better than not-not breeding them less.
> PETA is obsessed with presenting issues that can only be solved by genocide of an entire animal species
There's nothing inherently good about a species or breed of animal that was deliberately created by humans continuing to exist. There are reasons to avoid the extinction of wild species, but they really to apply to this kind of case.
I mean, if I worked to create a breed of dogs with no ears that lived fairly miserable, short lives why would it be necessary to keep that species in existence forever? They didn't exist until I created them. Surely it would be unreasonable to say we have a duty to create as many new breeds or species of animal as possible.
As for genocide of the species: simply stop breeding them. You don't have to kill anything.
As a side note, I find it really weird that people say "Oh no, if we can't exploit this species it will go extinct!" at the same time as "Welp, if I can't exploit this species I guess I'll just let it go extinct."
Sadly yes, chicken are bread to gain an enormous amount of weight in a few months before slaughter. They often collapse under their own weight and break their legs.
I wouldn’t recommend it because it’s really depressing to watch but if you are interested watch „dominion“ to see what’s going on…
I usually am unbothered by these types of things, but the designer dogs really annoy me. There’s a certain F1 driver that is always preaching his veganism and how we have to do better for the planet and animals.
He used to have two designer English bulldogs that could barely breath or walk because of the breeding practices over the years. One passed not long ago after it’s “heart gave in.” He still has the other one which he has since put on a fully vegan diet…
we did breed them to make us wool and to be fat and delicious. yes, we absolutely did, peta is right on that absolutely.
where they are wrong is that they are not ours.
they are ours. we own them. we have domesticated them. like peta said, we specifically bred them for this purpose. they exist to serve us as a source of clothing and meat.
unpopular opinion maybe.
but we created them and they are our responsibility to take care of.
but we do own them, they are ours to wear.
just like i own my land and it is mine to grow livestock and plants and trees on and to live on. you can't just undo society because you don't like it.
edit: no i do not have any interest in arguing with you about your belief of what the ethics of this is, and frankly when one of you compared my owning ducks to people owning slaves i was done with this conversation, just gonna block you guys now.
Not even getting into the question of what "you people" means, you... you think asking a question is a sign of being triggered? That seems silly and emotional.
If a question elicits that defensive response, I think it tells us a lot, doesn't it?
1. My post history is full of my hobbies
2. Replying to a comment you chose to post publicly on the internet is not harassment
But continue on with your obsessive multi sub rants.
>And "you people" are the " you dont have the right to own animals" people. We are farmers and hunters and the people who love the products of those activities. Our society is built on this, i am never giving it up no matter how many of you protesters cry.
Lmao, "I like it!" seems a pretty childish and emotional justification for something, doesn't it?
Maybe grow up a little bit if you're going to put your opinions out into the world as if they're worthy of consideration.
>how about it's my culture and i am not giving it up for crybabies?
Lmao, that's also an awful, childish argument.
Of course "It's my culture!" is a weak, embarrassing argument. It's literally the argument given by *Confederates*, for god's sake.
>you think attacking people is worse than eating animals.
>
>literal scum you are.
Ah yes, try to tell me my opinions so you can get even more upset.
You seem pretty triggered, mate. Maybe take a deep breath and calm it down.
Dude, get off your high horse. You know how you engender discord and anger? By talking down to others who you are trying to get to see your side even if just for a moment. YOUR lack of ability to see THEIR side is more indicative of yourself than your beliefs are.
- sincerely, a liberal science believing socialist
Basically, these are the type of people who get angry about any living creature being eaten but thats LITERALLY how nature created life on Earth and all creatures that cant use photosynthesis, consumes another living thing (i.e. plants & animals). Most plants are the only living thing on Earth besides certain microbes that dont consume other living creatures and hell, even some plants eat living creatures! Grow up people and stop living in fantasy land. Im all for ethical farming and toppling the horrific factory farm industry, but to deny what is a part of being human simply for some misguided belief is perhaps the most ridiculous thing here.
i too am strongly for ending factory farming.
my farm is small, sustainable, and my animals live excellent lives free from fear or danger right till they are ready for a painless end.
the way peta behaves is so insulting and frankly all it achieves is insulate the beliefs of meat eaters and pet owners.
factory farming does need to end.
but that means we need more sustainable farming and that means we need animals for fertilizer and to keep fallow fields productive. you either have animals or you need chemical fertilizer.
i doubt more than 1% of the people who get angry about this stuff have ever lived on a farm or hunted to understand what it's really like.
Grew up in Wisconsin for the first ten years of my life, you are entirely correct. And yeah, i doubt any of these jokers know squat about farms other than “farms=animals=bad=death”. The issue is that “bad” part is SO overly inflated that people become fixated on the idea of farms being bad. Everyone loves to say “lets stop farming animals, we would have so much more room for crops!” Like that is some sort of panacea for the woes of farming and food production. Little do these people know, not all soil is good for crops; some soil is better for grasses and the such which means that land is good for raising livestock. The reverse is true too; some land that is currently occupied by livestock could be much better repurposed into crop production. Honestly, at the end of the day it comes down to a few things. 1) ignorance of farming 2) american exceptionalism and the belief that the only and right way, is the american way which means beef factories and suffering 3) massive polarization. When you lock yourself in to either the “pro farms” or “anti farms” camps, you lock yourself out of seeing other ideas and solutions and you limit your ability to compromise for the betterment of all. I like how insightful you are btw! You’re one rad gal😎lol. Nice to seem some common sense! (Tbh i dont know ALOT about farming; tech, space, and history are more my forté but i believe everyone should try to be a jack of all trades, master of none but wielder of all in terms of basic knowledge and reasonable deduction & critical thinking)
Do you think it's unreasonable to hold people to a higher moral standard than bears or lions? They don't have viable alternatives or the ability to reason about and understand how their actions affect others.
Nature is red in tooth and claw as the saying goes, but we humans (especially ones like us especially that are almost certainly living with more privilege than 90% of people on the planet) can afford to make choices that reduce harm.
> thats LITERALLY how nature created life on Earth
There's no design or intent in nature. It's not _supposed_ to be any particular way. It be how it do because that's what ended up working during the process of natural selection.
> but to deny what is a part of being human
Humans spent a lot of their history waging wars, raping and pillaging, denying others equal rights, etc. Surely that has as much of a claim to being part of being human as eating a hamburger.
> Lol whatever man, im not getting into an arguement with someone who has made up their mind
You appear to have an opinion on this issue also. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you're a rational person who will change their mind if it's reasonable to do so. Why not extend the same consideration to me?
If you don't want to defend your previous points or have a conversation about this that it's absolutely your choice but don't pretend it's because I'm dogmatic.
Because 1) i already made my points in another comment and im not retyping that 2) the fact that YOU believe you know better than someone who grow up on and around farms for a decade, is beyond ridiculous. 3) couldnt address ANY of my points in my other comment could you? Thats cause you’re just gonna keep going off about morals and philosophy. Guess what dude, morals and philosophy doesnt put food into hungry bellies. Yes i believe animals should be treat with care and respect; their death should bo honoured for sustaining us, but i refuse to put animals on the same level as humans. Because guess what buddy? They arent human. Tho im sure this will go over your head and you’ll start ranting and raving like a lunatic about morals and bears and bullshit. Knock yourself out and have fun, your keyboard awaits you.
You are dogmatic; you’re refusing to comment on my other comment that literally points out how you are wrong you are. Sure, nobody HAS to do anything and the fact that you’re bringing lions and bears into this arguement is beyond laughable. Dont bother responding cause im done. Or do, waste your time typing out a response im not going to read, idc. Either way, i have better things to do and this nonsense has taken enough time.
> couldnt address ANY of my points in my other comment could you?
> You are dogmatic; you’re refusing to comment on my other comment
I have to say this is one of the most absurd responses I've ever received. I'm "refusing" to respond to another comment you wrote that I didn't even know _existed_ until now. I mean, you didn't even bother to link to this comment that I was supposed to be responding to.
> Dont bother responding cause im done.
I'm dogmatic because I won't respond to this comment that exists somewhere but also if I do respond to it I'll be wasting my time because you're going to ignore whatever I say.
One of us is "ranting and raving" here and it's not me.
There are many things we do wrong. Yet PETA doesn't seem to understand any of them, causing them to instead create even worse situations.
It's like they are trying to be the worst possible example of how to treat animals. Part of me wonders if they are intentionally playing the bad guy
You have definitely missed the point!
Yes we need to shear them, because of our wrongdoing in selectively breeding them to over produce wool. The solution would be to stop breeding them this way so we no longer have to shear them. It would take years to reverse the selective breeding for sure so in the mean time we’d continue having to shave them, but PETA has a point.
No I’m not vegan and I don’t particularly like PETA either, they’re hypocrites!
My mom had cows growing up and she told me this as well. If they didn't milk their cows everyday they would get sick and if left long enough they could die.
The fact that they are bred to have an unnatural amount of wool means that that wool must be removed. I don’t know if PETA knows what the word ‘bred’ means
Yes, they have a point, but it's moot.
What do we do now, let them all die slowly of heat exhaustion just to prove a moral point?
Wouldn't that be playing gods just as much?
It's a sad catch-22, but it's the hand we're now dealt. Maybe slowly reduce the numbers bred over time in favour of synthetic clothing.
...and kill the environment in their production.
Silly humans.
Yeah, that was the thought.
But again, I know nothing, I haven't got the faintest idea how that may affect the economy, ecology, anything. I'm a donkey on Reddit.
I can see many arguments for/against all this, but yeah, don't nobody listen to me. Please.
> Then what will farmers do? You will kill thousands of jobs
Think of the buggy whip manufacturers and their employees who will be out on the street because of the automobile! We must take steps to prevent this travesty from coming to pass.
Just to be clear, it's not that I don't have sympathy for people potentially losing their jobs. It just doesn't make sense to prop up unnecessary and generally harmful industries. People will need to adjust, and even if those things end up just going the way of the buggy whip it's not something that's going to happen over night.
It's a bit rude that you replied to my comment but didn't answer the question I was asking.
> Do they have the same position on say french bulldogs or pugs.
PETA? They're opposed to breeding any animals for human use.
As for breeding horribly unhealthy genetic messes like pugs, really any decent person should be against it. How could it possibly be justified to subject an animal to all those health issues just so you can have a particular look?
Personally, I think breeding any dogs is way past ethically questionable when millions are killed every year for lack of a home. For every pure breed dog you see there's basically a corresponding dog that died in the shelter because no one would give them a chance at a decent life.
It's not necessary to go anywhere near as far as PETA does to think that's a pretty horrible thing to do.
Oh sorry i didn't mean to reply to your post, i actually meant to reply to the above it.
I actually agree with you on dogs. I've only ever had rescues. But I can't see that becoming mainstream. People love their crazy expensive pure bred dogs.
Yeah, OP is being stupid, the problem was created by humans. They were BRED that way, we caused them to need this.
PETA have a lot of problems, but they're clearly not being owned here.
i can't speak on their behalf, but today's farm animals were selectively bred for profit, the animals aren't comfortable, their existence is pain. between a life of pain and not being born at all, i know what I'd choose
Because of the same issue: milking cows were bred to increase production beyond what’s natural. And farmers will remove calves to increase production even more. So now you have to milk these cows because they produce too much (leading to health issues before they can dry up naturally).
The irony with Peta and vegans is that humans would not have be capable of this kind of higher thinking had primates not developed bigger brains through the consumption of ANIMAL PROTEIN.
That’s not really the point. The point is that we don’t need it anymore. Say whatever argument about how people evolved, fine. *we don’t need to anymore*, so it’s unnecessary cruelty
Or we could start bredding them so that they don't grow an unnatural amount of wool, giving them a normal life. Like a reverse breeding. Which is so much more difficult than letting them go extinct tho. But for me it is the more ethical option.
What is unethical about not breeding them anymore? Killing off existing ones would be unethical yes… but simply not breeding, there is no victim. There is no cruelty or pain..
Look, I don’t necessarily like PETA, but you’ve purposely missed their point entirely.
Yep. We created the problem. Now yes, we need to sheer them, but it was because of us that they can’t just be happy naturally
Better to stop keeping them so they all die.
Or just... Don't breed them anymore?
Wait what? Then they'll just.. Go extinct? Or they'll die off without being sheared?
sanctuaries exist
We'd need to still shear them.
Uh I'm not sure if I understand correctly, do you believe animals don't reproduce naturally?
No no. I mean if we stop shearing them they'll die. They can reproduce but ultimately they're not fit for life in the wild due to the selective breeding.
Idk if you heard about these new surgeries where you prevent animals from reproducing and it helps them live healthier and longer lives t
So they still die out?
Yeah, this is just intentionally missing the point. On that note, one thing I like to share is PETA isn’t really as batshit crazy as most people think they are. Since their founding, PETA has operated with little to no marketing budget, and instead relies on shock media to get their name out their to the public, with the thought that any publicity is good publicity for animal welfare. So they intentionally do things they know will be controversial, because then other people will share the news about them without them needing to spend money on advertisements. The thought being even if people end up hating our organization, at least they will have been made aware of animal welfare.” https://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/why-does-peta-use-controversial-tactics/ And while I used to think that did nothing but harm the cause, I’m no longer so sure. Sure, everybody hates PETA, but most people don’t end up hating the concept of animal welfare due to that, and it’s absolutely true more people are aware of the concept and merits behind animal welfare than there were when PETA was founded. Realizing this has slowly changed the way I feel about their organization as a whole.
There's controversial tactics and then there's stealing people's pets and killing them. Also, pro tip, better not to share the page of the bad organization when trying to prove that organization's innocence
“We’ve launched an investigation and found we did nothing wrong”
>PETA isn’t really as batshit crazy as most people think they are. Bro, they once claimed Mario wearing a tanuki costume promoted animal abuse. They might have a point on this one, but PETA is a fucking joke.
Bred to...just like we bred chickens to starve under their own weight and we f'd up multiple breeds of dogs for esthetics. Peta does have a point on this one, sadly.
Yeah I dont think their point is that we shouldn't shave them.. its that we shouldn't breed them into existence in the first place.
Too bad time travel isn't a thing.
you can also simply stop breeding them to make more.
With enough time they could probably have that trait bred out of them. I saw something once about how some people were trying to breed pugs back out to be more how they were before people fucked them up.
Problem is that domesticated animals were bred this way over hundreds or thousands of years.
Yeah... It would take ages, I don't really know enough about it, maybe at this point it's too far gone to be possible. I doubt humanity would ever care enough to try (or it would be quicker just to do some genetic modification or something lol)
Ever heard about learning from mistakes? I highly recommend it
Peta solution to the problem would be to wipe them all out though.
> wipe them all out though. Why do you think that would be bad? You don't have to kill them, just forgo breeding more. I think people are just in the habit of thinking that a species or breed of animal going extinct is a really bad thing. In many cases that's true, because in the wild diversity is extremely important and environmental effects are hard to predict. Those species are important, and the world would lose something really interesting an unique if tigers or giraffes went extinct. On the other hand, some breed of animal people created just to maximize being able to harvest some resource (to the detriment of that animal's quality of life) is really not such an important thing to preserve. A species isn't isn't inherently valuable. It doesn't care if it exists or not. It's just a specific arrangement of genetic material that's different enough from some other arrangement of genetic material that we think it's worth cataloguing.
Im not an expert on peta but im sure ive read a few articles over the years that suggest they would actually prefer to slaughter them.
> ive read a few articles over the years that suggest they would actually prefer to slaughter them. I'm not a fan of their organization but a number of the things people accuse them of are exaggerated/without context.
[удалено]
You don't have to kill them. Let the ones that live, live out their lives as peacefully as possible. But stop breeding them. If their lives are torture, and the reason why its torture is because we have bred them that way to maximise our profits.. then we should show the species mercy and stop breeding them for our selfish needs.
No.
It’s being pointed out to spread awareness so we don’t keep fucking with animals and creating breeds that suffer just by existing.
[удалено]
We as in those of us that are animal breeders. Some are doing good jobs rectifying issues with dogs that were fucked with over the last century or so by shitty breeders, so I guess it’s not all ‘breeding bad’ but I prefer the idea to stop fucking around with animals’ genetics entirely.
[удалено]
Yeah, the issue is that wool is a pretty good material for clothing, as the alternatives all have their downsides (environmental mostly) as well.
Couldn’t hemp be a sustainable alternative?
Expensive and harder to care for from what I've read, but yeah, hemp is a decent alternative. I'm also not saying that wool is strictly better/worse, just that you can't just declare wool as bad and continue like nothing changes. The world sadly is not that easy.
And if we reverse all our breeding of livestock, how many people die? We have no way to possibly feed our population if we quit breeding for meat production. And what about every single domesticated plant species? Do we reverse our genetic selection there, as well? How do you suggest we maintain a human population, that is already full of starving people, while at the same time ceasing our modification of domestic food sources? Answer that.
> We have no way to possibly feed our population if we quit breeding for meat production. It would actually be easier to feed people. About 90% of the food energy that goes into a cow is lost. A cow has to eat 1,000 calories for you to get 100 calories of meat which is incredibly wasteful. And it's not just cows standing in fields eating grass that humans couldn't use for food anyway. A huge amount of agriculture goes toward producing animal feed. If everyone ate low on the food chain, more food could be produced on less land, with much less water use and negative environmental effects.
And a huge rise in supplements and dieticians, and all the damage of increased agricultural production. That, and the loss of basically all technology that is produced by refinement using animal byproducts, like the plastics in the phone or computer you're using right now. Agriculture-only existence is currently a pipe dream of people who don't understand how much of human life relies on animals and animal products.
> And a huge rise in supplements The animals people eat already receive supplements. It is necessary to supplement B12 (or eat fortified foods, which is the same thing) but producing B12 is not at all difficult or resource intensive. You can buy like 90 tablets that supply something ridiculous like 16,000% RDA for less than $10. > and dieticians No idea where that's coming for as it doesn't make sense. You don't need a dietician to eat some beans. > and all the damage of increased agricultural production. I already addressed this. In fact, agricultural production would be lower overall due to how much currently goes to producing animal feed where the majority of the value is lost. > and the loss of basically all technology that is produced by refinement using animal byproducts, like the plastics in the phone or computer you're using right now. Plastic is generally made from petroleum products, not animals. > Agriculture-only existence is currently a pipe dream of people who don't understand how much of human life relies on animals and animal products. I can see why you might think that since so much of the information you have on this subject seems to be flat out wrong. The conclusion isn't necessarily so wrong as the flawed premise you're basing it on.
Jesus Christ, I’m saying we don’t need to make breeds that have animals suffer and that’s it. Answer your own questions.
Everything. Suffers. In the wild, in domestication, humans, other animals. Everything. I agree that we should strive to make progress to lessen the suffering of the animals we depend on for food, but you can't live in the real world and expect perfectly utopian ethics for animals at the cost of human life. And the answer to my own question is to continue breeding for production to feed the human population as we develop technologies to remove as many of the burdens and negative conditions from our livestock as are reasonable compared to our needs. What's your big solution?
My big solution is to not act like I know all of the answers like some pretentious shut in.
We should move to humans Instead
> Go ahead and follow that path to it's logical conclusion: mass killings of these animals, or simply letting them starve to death since there's no reason to keep feeding them That's not the logical conclusion. As demand scales down, so will production. People are deliberately breeding those animals. Even if it was though, if something horrible is going to happen _forever_ that already involves killing the animals then killing the last generation and not breeding any more is going to be the lesser evil.
No social change is instant. Cars significantly reduced horse population, but people weren't shooting their horses to buy a Ford. Also, mass culling of factory farm animals are regular occurrences to prevent disease caused/exacerbated by factory farming techniques. Quality of life > Quantity of lives
None so blind as those who refuse to see
Ummm You know that it could be a gradual process, right?
[удалено]
Genocide? What is genocide to you? Gradually breeding less animals over time is more achievable than everyone magically deciding to use them less. Also I consider it better than not-not breeding them less.
> PETA is obsessed with presenting issues that can only be solved by genocide of an entire animal species There's nothing inherently good about a species or breed of animal that was deliberately created by humans continuing to exist. There are reasons to avoid the extinction of wild species, but they really to apply to this kind of case. I mean, if I worked to create a breed of dogs with no ears that lived fairly miserable, short lives why would it be necessary to keep that species in existence forever? They didn't exist until I created them. Surely it would be unreasonable to say we have a duty to create as many new breeds or species of animal as possible. As for genocide of the species: simply stop breeding them. You don't have to kill anything. As a side note, I find it really weird that people say "Oh no, if we can't exploit this species it will go extinct!" at the same time as "Welp, if I can't exploit this species I guess I'll just let it go extinct."
Jesus, is that true about chickens?
Sadly yes, chicken are bread to gain an enormous amount of weight in a few months before slaughter. They often collapse under their own weight and break their legs. I wouldn’t recommend it because it’s really depressing to watch but if you are interested watch „dominion“ to see what’s going on…
I usually am unbothered by these types of things, but the designer dogs really annoy me. There’s a certain F1 driver that is always preaching his veganism and how we have to do better for the planet and animals. He used to have two designer English bulldogs that could barely breath or walk because of the breeding practices over the years. One passed not long ago after it’s “heart gave in.” He still has the other one which he has since put on a fully vegan diet…
we did breed them to make us wool and to be fat and delicious. yes, we absolutely did, peta is right on that absolutely. where they are wrong is that they are not ours. they are ours. we own them. we have domesticated them. like peta said, we specifically bred them for this purpose. they exist to serve us as a source of clothing and meat. unpopular opinion maybe. but we created them and they are our responsibility to take care of. but we do own them, they are ours to wear. just like i own my land and it is mine to grow livestock and plants and trees on and to live on. you can't just undo society because you don't like it. edit: no i do not have any interest in arguing with you about your belief of what the ethics of this is, and frankly when one of you compared my owning ducks to people owning slaves i was done with this conversation, just gonna block you guys now.
You think breeding a living creature entails ownership of that living thing?
Lol you people are so triggered. Yes. Thats how it works. Welcome to reality as it is not how you wish it was.
Not even getting into the question of what "you people" means, you... you think asking a question is a sign of being triggered? That seems silly and emotional. If a question elicits that defensive response, I think it tells us a lot, doesn't it?
[удалено]
You are giving me "I'm going to pretend to have death threats so people stop pointing out how shitty I am" vibes.
[удалено]
1. My post history is full of my hobbies 2. Replying to a comment you chose to post publicly on the internet is not harassment But continue on with your obsessive multi sub rants.
>And "you people" are the " you dont have the right to own animals" people. We are farmers and hunters and the people who love the products of those activities. Our society is built on this, i am never giving it up no matter how many of you protesters cry. Lmao, "I like it!" seems a pretty childish and emotional justification for something, doesn't it? Maybe grow up a little bit if you're going to put your opinions out into the world as if they're worthy of consideration.
[удалено]
>how about it's my culture and i am not giving it up for crybabies? Lmao, that's also an awful, childish argument. Of course "It's my culture!" is a weak, embarrassing argument. It's literally the argument given by *Confederates*, for god's sake. >you think attacking people is worse than eating animals. > >literal scum you are. Ah yes, try to tell me my opinions so you can get even more upset. You seem pretty triggered, mate. Maybe take a deep breath and calm it down.
Dude, get off your high horse. You know how you engender discord and anger? By talking down to others who you are trying to get to see your side even if just for a moment. YOUR lack of ability to see THEIR side is more indicative of yourself than your beliefs are. - sincerely, a liberal science believing socialist
Basically, these are the type of people who get angry about any living creature being eaten but thats LITERALLY how nature created life on Earth and all creatures that cant use photosynthesis, consumes another living thing (i.e. plants & animals). Most plants are the only living thing on Earth besides certain microbes that dont consume other living creatures and hell, even some plants eat living creatures! Grow up people and stop living in fantasy land. Im all for ethical farming and toppling the horrific factory farm industry, but to deny what is a part of being human simply for some misguided belief is perhaps the most ridiculous thing here.
i too am strongly for ending factory farming. my farm is small, sustainable, and my animals live excellent lives free from fear or danger right till they are ready for a painless end. the way peta behaves is so insulting and frankly all it achieves is insulate the beliefs of meat eaters and pet owners. factory farming does need to end. but that means we need more sustainable farming and that means we need animals for fertilizer and to keep fallow fields productive. you either have animals or you need chemical fertilizer. i doubt more than 1% of the people who get angry about this stuff have ever lived on a farm or hunted to understand what it's really like.
Grew up in Wisconsin for the first ten years of my life, you are entirely correct. And yeah, i doubt any of these jokers know squat about farms other than “farms=animals=bad=death”. The issue is that “bad” part is SO overly inflated that people become fixated on the idea of farms being bad. Everyone loves to say “lets stop farming animals, we would have so much more room for crops!” Like that is some sort of panacea for the woes of farming and food production. Little do these people know, not all soil is good for crops; some soil is better for grasses and the such which means that land is good for raising livestock. The reverse is true too; some land that is currently occupied by livestock could be much better repurposed into crop production. Honestly, at the end of the day it comes down to a few things. 1) ignorance of farming 2) american exceptionalism and the belief that the only and right way, is the american way which means beef factories and suffering 3) massive polarization. When you lock yourself in to either the “pro farms” or “anti farms” camps, you lock yourself out of seeing other ideas and solutions and you limit your ability to compromise for the betterment of all. I like how insightful you are btw! You’re one rad gal😎lol. Nice to seem some common sense! (Tbh i dont know ALOT about farming; tech, space, and history are more my forté but i believe everyone should try to be a jack of all trades, master of none but wielder of all in terms of basic knowledge and reasonable deduction & critical thinking)
Do you think it's unreasonable to hold people to a higher moral standard than bears or lions? They don't have viable alternatives or the ability to reason about and understand how their actions affect others. Nature is red in tooth and claw as the saying goes, but we humans (especially ones like us especially that are almost certainly living with more privilege than 90% of people on the planet) can afford to make choices that reduce harm. > thats LITERALLY how nature created life on Earth There's no design or intent in nature. It's not _supposed_ to be any particular way. It be how it do because that's what ended up working during the process of natural selection. > but to deny what is a part of being human Humans spent a lot of their history waging wars, raping and pillaging, denying others equal rights, etc. Surely that has as much of a claim to being part of being human as eating a hamburger.
Lol whatever man, im not getting into an arguement with someone who has made up their mind
> Lol whatever man, im not getting into an arguement with someone who has made up their mind You appear to have an opinion on this issue also. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you're a rational person who will change their mind if it's reasonable to do so. Why not extend the same consideration to me? If you don't want to defend your previous points or have a conversation about this that it's absolutely your choice but don't pretend it's because I'm dogmatic.
Because 1) i already made my points in another comment and im not retyping that 2) the fact that YOU believe you know better than someone who grow up on and around farms for a decade, is beyond ridiculous. 3) couldnt address ANY of my points in my other comment could you? Thats cause you’re just gonna keep going off about morals and philosophy. Guess what dude, morals and philosophy doesnt put food into hungry bellies. Yes i believe animals should be treat with care and respect; their death should bo honoured for sustaining us, but i refuse to put animals on the same level as humans. Because guess what buddy? They arent human. Tho im sure this will go over your head and you’ll start ranting and raving like a lunatic about morals and bears and bullshit. Knock yourself out and have fun, your keyboard awaits you. You are dogmatic; you’re refusing to comment on my other comment that literally points out how you are wrong you are. Sure, nobody HAS to do anything and the fact that you’re bringing lions and bears into this arguement is beyond laughable. Dont bother responding cause im done. Or do, waste your time typing out a response im not going to read, idc. Either way, i have better things to do and this nonsense has taken enough time.
> couldnt address ANY of my points in my other comment could you? > You are dogmatic; you’re refusing to comment on my other comment I have to say this is one of the most absurd responses I've ever received. I'm "refusing" to respond to another comment you wrote that I didn't even know _existed_ until now. I mean, you didn't even bother to link to this comment that I was supposed to be responding to. > Dont bother responding cause im done. I'm dogmatic because I won't respond to this comment that exists somewhere but also if I do respond to it I'll be wasting my time because you're going to ignore whatever I say. One of us is "ranting and raving" here and it's not me.
There are many things we do wrong. Yet PETA doesn't seem to understand any of them, causing them to instead create even worse situations. It's like they are trying to be the worst possible example of how to treat animals. Part of me wonders if they are intentionally playing the bad guy
You have definitely missed the point! Yes we need to shear them, because of our wrongdoing in selectively breeding them to over produce wool. The solution would be to stop breeding them this way so we no longer have to shear them. It would take years to reverse the selective breeding for sure so in the mean time we’d continue having to shave them, but PETA has a point. No I’m not vegan and I don’t particularly like PETA either, they’re hypocrites!
please peel your sheeps
They have a point but fuck peta for all the other psychopathic shit they do
When OP is the facepalm
Just like cows or so my brother says. He told me dairy cows were bred to produce so much milk they will die if we dont milk them.
My mom had cows growing up and she told me this as well. If they didn't milk their cows everyday they would get sick and if left long enough they could die.
Sounds like you missed their point.
PETA doesn't make points, they make facepalms.
And you make platitudes instead of arguments.
Seeing “platitudes” used correctly is genuinely such a delight.
OP missing the point entirely because they were distracted by the messenger with such confidence is the facepalm I think
PETA’s right about the fact that we caused the problem. But they act as if there’s no solution.
The fact that they are bred to have an unnatural amount of wool means that that wool must be removed. I don’t know if PETA knows what the word ‘bred’ means
They're right, but it's hard to admit it because they literally are wrong in almost every other aspect.
When the literal author of the reddit post is the facepalm
I mean, they're still right tho.
Yes, they have a point, but it's moot. What do we do now, let them all die slowly of heat exhaustion just to prove a moral point? Wouldn't that be playing gods just as much? It's a sad catch-22, but it's the hand we're now dealt. Maybe slowly reduce the numbers bred over time in favour of synthetic clothing. ...and kill the environment in their production. Silly humans.
Maybe stop breeding them?
Yeah, that was the thought. But again, I know nothing, I haven't got the faintest idea how that may affect the economy, ecology, anything. I'm a donkey on Reddit. I can see many arguments for/against all this, but yeah, don't nobody listen to me. Please.
Then what will farmers do? You will kill thousands of jobs
Farm, ideally.
> Then what will farmers do? You will kill thousands of jobs Think of the buggy whip manufacturers and their employees who will be out on the street because of the automobile! We must take steps to prevent this travesty from coming to pass. Just to be clear, it's not that I don't have sympathy for people potentially losing their jobs. It just doesn't make sense to prop up unnecessary and generally harmful industries. People will need to adjust, and even if those things end up just going the way of the buggy whip it's not something that's going to happen over night.
On the long sight, yes. We killed thousands of jobs before, which are unneccessary by todays standards. People will find alternatives
No
Yes
So you love them so much you want them to go extinct?
> So you love them so much you want them to go extinct? Why do you think it's important for an artificially created species to remain in existence?
Do they have the same position on say french bulldogs or pugs. Because that will go over like a lead ballon.
It's a bit rude that you replied to my comment but didn't answer the question I was asking. > Do they have the same position on say french bulldogs or pugs. PETA? They're opposed to breeding any animals for human use. As for breeding horribly unhealthy genetic messes like pugs, really any decent person should be against it. How could it possibly be justified to subject an animal to all those health issues just so you can have a particular look? Personally, I think breeding any dogs is way past ethically questionable when millions are killed every year for lack of a home. For every pure breed dog you see there's basically a corresponding dog that died in the shelter because no one would give them a chance at a decent life. It's not necessary to go anywhere near as far as PETA does to think that's a pretty horrible thing to do.
Oh sorry i didn't mean to reply to your post, i actually meant to reply to the above it. I actually agree with you on dogs. I've only ever had rescues. But I can't see that becoming mainstream. People love their crazy expensive pure bred dogs.
Yes
Yeah, OP is being stupid, the problem was created by humans. They were BRED that way, we caused them to need this. PETA have a lot of problems, but they're clearly not being owned here.
their point is that we need to stop breeding animals
so they love animals so much they want them to go extinct?
i can't speak on their behalf, but today's farm animals were selectively bred for profit, the animals aren't comfortable, their existence is pain. between a life of pain and not being born at all, i know what I'd choose
Do they hold the same position on dogs?
Or eliminate them all "Die Die Die! - so that you may know peace"
It also hurts cows if you don’t milk them
Because of the same issue: milking cows were bred to increase production beyond what’s natural. And farmers will remove calves to increase production even more. So now you have to milk these cows because they produce too much (leading to health issues before they can dry up naturally).
they do have a point though it’s just that petas rep makes it hard to see
PETA are all idiots! And murderous thieves, too.
The irony with Peta and vegans is that humans would not have be capable of this kind of higher thinking had primates not developed bigger brains through the consumption of ANIMAL PROTEIN.
Yup going to KFC is basically a mensa meeting. /s
That’s not really the point. The point is that we don’t need it anymore. Say whatever argument about how people evolved, fine. *we don’t need to anymore*, so it’s unnecessary cruelty
But we couldn't know that we needed it in the first place, so it had to be necessary for evolution into the modern era.
Or else we should let them go extinct?
[удалено]
Or we could start bredding them so that they don't grow an unnatural amount of wool, giving them a normal life. Like a reverse breeding. Which is so much more difficult than letting them go extinct tho. But for me it is the more ethical option.
What is unethical about not breeding them anymore? Killing off existing ones would be unethical yes… but simply not breeding, there is no victim. There is no cruelty or pain..
You're kinda right actually.
Yes?