Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0-_-0 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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

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?

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com