For pigs, this is entirely plausible. While i'm also very opposed to our current factory farming practices, since i'm fairly nihilistic about ending meat consumption for high functioning mammals in my lifetime, we could absolutely and trivially easily make their lives pleasant before slaughtering them for their delicious bacon. Yes, it would cause bacon to be more expensive, but it's definitely doable. This is simply impossible for orcas under the current paradigm.
Even as someone who supports animal rights and welfare, i could see myself being okay with orcas in captivity, if we're talking about oceanic reservations, say, the size of Connecticut, but at that size, it'd be impossible for us to make them do tricks and crap that people go to sea world for.
I try to take a more game-theoretic approach. Support those that are doing more to change the culture of how we treat animals to minimize the harm that exists and will persist. This may even arguably go as far is purchasing potentially objectionable animal products from those that are trying to change the social norms of farming.
The animal rights argument is perfectly good to have in the halls of academia, but in the world we live in, those of us who are good consequentialists may vastly differ in our approaches to how we should respond to the marketplace we live in to most effectively reduce the suffering that persists. It's also arguable that a diversity of approaches will be more effective due to the vast open-ended questions of how approaches will be accepted by the greater population. I for one think that convincing people that we should raise our "bacon" humanely will do vastly more for the reduction of suffering in the world than would telling people we should ban it because it's clearly immoral to consume.
Several vigorous campaigns existed to improve the conditions for pigs. Look at England for an example, where changes in English law were voluntarily followed by Danish and Dutch pig farmers so they could compete on welfare standards.
See also "free range" eggs and higher welfare farm standards.
Plenty of people like eating meat but will only buy meat from animals that have higher welfare standards.
Future generations will judge us very poorly on this.
Generally, I find such speculative statements worthless. It's another way to say "I really think this should be obvious and that my idea will eventually be widely accepted to be correct". That's all well and good, but everyone thinks that about their own thoughts. It really doesn't contribute anything to the argument; it's an attempt to shame your opponent into agreeing with you by invoking his future childrens' potential disdain.
I also think that if you really want to know what future generations will think of something, you should refer to what prior generations thought of it. By this standard, future generations are likely to taunt us mercilessly for caring so much about what we imagine to be a whale's internal monologue.
Obviously some things we can't tell, like what clothes fashions will be in 50 or 100 years. But when you get down to matters of morality and ethics, I believe we do see a clear progression over time. And we can predict it, to some extent. That's the first reason I think we'll be judged harshly here.
A second reason is that we can already see this trend happening. More and more people care about cruelty-free farming, as well as are becoming vegetarians or vegans. Of course, that trend might stop or reverse. But we have reasonable grounds to think it might continue. If it does, then eventually current society will look pretty bad.
A third reason is that this isn't an arbitrary issue that we happen to see a trend on. A lot of people that eat meat realize there is something wrong with things like factory farming. They ignore it, and it's easy to ignore for the most part. But when they think about it, they realize it's immoral. Most people are good in the sense that they do not want to harm other living beings; caring about animal suffering is just a natural outcome of that. In other words, most people don't need to be convinced on the merits of the issue. What most don't yet realize is the huge extent of the problem, and that there are good alternatives.
See also this article for further reasoning along these lines: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35667355
Are there any reliable stats for this that also take into account what it likely to be increased meat consumption in places like China and other developing countries?
"Morality" and "ethics" do not have clear objective definitions, nor do they exist on a straight continuum. Most practical applications of morality and ethics are complex and involve a substantial portion of grey area. Morality and ethics change based on the perspective of the culture; they change based on time and place. This should show that, barring a few simple cases, they are not objective verities.
However, most humans do end up falling back to the same social structure and basic social codes. They do, after a few generations, admit defeat and openly reject what many a century prior had considered the society's moral manifest destiny. It is true that over time, numerous cultures and societies have attempted to modify these basic structural arrangements, but invariably these entities dissolve and humanity as a whole continues in a manner that is quite similar to how it has always continued.
When you're discussing how future generations will perceive things, it is best to do it with a historical perspective that considers more than a single place and more than 100 years of history. I believe that if one does this, the likelihood that any specific social agenda that's not the basic one dictated by the fundamentals of human biology and sociology (the universal rules around pairing, mating, and raising children) will be accepted as self-evident truth becomes quite remote.
>Most people are good in the sense that they do not want to harm other living beings; caring about animal suffering is just a natural outcome of that. In other words, most people don't need to be convinced on the merits of the issue. What most don't yet realize is the huge extent of the problem, and that there are good alternatives.
There's a big difference between opposing the extreme tactics of factory farms and opposing animal captivity in general. Blackfish's producers and supporters oppose captivity in general, and are trying to generate outrage with the orca as their first test case.
Modern sheep are. If they're not sheared regularly and their fleece is allowed to grow, they end up suffering quite a lot - they are not suitable for living in the wild, and in the other direction, are also not particularly suitable as pets.
Yes, nature is not a thing with intentions, but modern sheep are a combination of natural processes and humans (who do have intentions) meddling with things.
It's not like dogs who have evolved to live with humans and are generally treated well.
Also the article's point and general theme seems kind of weak :
>In line with this, several decades of observation show that orcas are not naturally violent towards humans. There are no recorded cases of a wild orca killing a human.
This implies (and the surrounding text) - that this behavior is a result of captivity changing their behavior.
How often do orcas and humans meet in a setting that would allow them to harm a human in a similar way they would - say a penguin ? Would it be plausible that they would do a similar thing in the wild in a similar setting given enough opportunities (since trainers interact with them constantly) ?