Reducing harm and animal extinction

[appleby143]

I was discussing this subject with a vegan who didn't want to comment so I thought I would ask this community.

Most vegans I've spoken to seem to be fine with letting various animals go extinct instead of being bread for consumption (i.e cows/chickens etc) because this "reduces harm" overtime and in the future.

This reasoning sounds like it would be better for all things to cease to exist since it would reduce the most amount of harm possible.

Side note:
I understand there are farms that treat animals worse than others, however, it should be said that there are certainly lots of animals that would prefer life in captivity > consumption to the conditions in the wild.

Thoughts?

[brimstoneSalad]

Hi appleby,

This has been discussed a bit on this forum.
Here's one thread where the idea of "happy meat" being better than in-vitro meat was discussed:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2583

This reasoning sounds like it would be better for all things to cease to exist since it would reduce the most amount of harm possible.

There are people who believe that and want to end life entirely because they believe it's mostly suffering. These are generally bad arguments, and there's no legitimate reason to completely ignore the good things in life just because there's some suffering too.

See this post for a debunking of that "asymmetry":
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=2215

The reasons not to eat meat are empirical:
In animal agriculture the ratio of good to bad is generally very poor; you're creating a lot of suffering, both for the animal and for humanity by contributing to environmental harm, and even yourself (if you're eating a lot of animal products, which has health implications), and adding very little of positive value to the world. You may enjoy the taste, but there are certainly other things that taste good too which you should eat instead.

I understand there are farms that treat animals worse than others, however, it should be said that there are certainly lots of animals that would prefer life in captivity > consumption to the conditions in the wild.

That's unlikely. People massively overestimate the suffering in wild animals, particularly in large wild mammals.
There's certainly a lot of suffering among rodents and if they can suffer at all among insects (this is contentious), but large animals live longer in the wild and rarely face predation. You also have to consider psychology: prisoners are not happy just because they are fed and have somewhere warm to sleep, and neither are animals. Brains are innately organs of purpose, we need challenges to be fulfilled.

Anyway, those are not the alternatives here. These animals are not just going to be turned loose, they are just not going to be bred at all.
Large amounts of those farmlands will probably return to forest (which will host other wild animals), but we can't understate the environmental benefits to that, and as human compassion grows we may be able to make their lived better too (like by eradicating certain diseases, which is something we're already working on with some wild populations).

[Jamie in Chile]

I was discussing this subject with a vegan who didn't want to comment so I thought I would ask this community.

Most vegans I've spoken to seem to be fine with letting various animals go extinct instead of being bread for consumption (i.e cows/chickens etc) because this "reduces harm" overtime and in the future.

This reasoning sounds like it would be better for all things to cease to exist since it would reduce the most amount of harm possible.

Side note:
I understand there are farms that treat animals worse than others, however, it should be said that there are certainly lots of animals that would prefer life in captivity > consumption to the conditions in the wild.

Thoughts?

These farms animals, once they no longer exist, will free up a lot of land (since humans eating plant foods directly uses less land than growing plants and feeding them to animals) meaning the earth can support more wild animals or humans, the true beneficiaries of a vegan diet. The choice is between a world that can support huge quantities of farm animals suffering in captivity, or more humans and wild animals.

It cannot be OK to kill an animal for food on the basis that it was bred for that purpose. If it were, it would OK for human parents to have children in order to eat their own children. And it would be hard for us to object if intelligent aliens came to earth and bred humans in factory farms (assuming these were bred in additon to the existing population and wouldn't otherwise have existed). Even if it is preferred for the farm animals to live, that does not morally justify killing or eating the animal or the whole process, from our perspective.

[Plantbasedlife]

Even if the world ceased to breed animals for human consumption would there still BE goats, pigs, chickens, cows etc? Would future generations allow them to exist? They are domesticated species now, its likely they could not survive in most areas, there isn't enough habitat to support them. Eco systems would be thrown off balance, predation, symbiosis & wildlife as we know it would be dramatically altered. Rogue herds would form from uncontrolled breeding so there would need to be subtantial human involvement to control & regulate how or if domesticated animals could integrate into wildlife.

[brimstoneSalad]

Even if the world ceased to breed animals for human consumption would there still BE goats, pigs, chickens, cows etc?

Yes, these animals all have wild relatives, like wolves are the wild relatives of domesticated dogs. But unlike wolves, wild goats, pigs, chickens, and bovine (although in the last case sometimes different species or subspecies) aren't quite as threatened because farmers haven't hunted them to extinction to protect their farms.

These animals are also represented in zoos and wildlife preserves.

Would future generations allow them to exist? They are domesticated species now, its likely they could not survive in most areas, there isn't enough habitat to support them.

There are too many of them right now. In smaller numbers there are enough habitats to support them: and currently do. As I said, they have wild relatives already.

Eco systems would be thrown off balance, predation, symbiosis & wildlife as we know it would be dramatically altered.

No it wouldn't. Ecosystems would be restored by reclaiming land from animal agriculture.

If you're worried about ecosystems, and species, keep in mind that animal agriculture is the #1 cause of species extinction in the world.

Rogue herds would form from uncontrolled breeding so there would need to be subtantial human involvement to control & regulate how or if domesticated animals could integrate into wildlife.

Again, they already have wild relatives. Wild goats don't disappear because we stop breeding the mutant versions we have created. Likewise for chickens and red junglefowl which are their close relatives in the wild.
The genetic problems we have bred into farmed animals are like bulldogs with smashed faces and other health problems; it is a cruelty to breed them when they have healthy relatives. No extinctions need occur, we just end the mutant breeding.

[Plantbasedlife]

We wouldn't be overrun with domestic farm animals because the 'mutant' versions would just be allowed to die off completely? So for example 'mutant' cow breeds of the world are wiped out but we still have buffalo & yak? Goat breeds are gone but we have some in the mountains. Horses don't have wild ancestors do they?) (Other than prehistoric) I do agree though, I think that's the best case scenario but seems unlikely on a universal scale. Perhaps far past my lifetime and probably my children's children.

[Jamie in Chile]

The issue of what to do with the domestic farm animals is a non-issue. It will never be an issue for at least most of them. Animals are bred for meat and the less demand there is the less meat. As people steadily convert to veganism over the decades, the animal population will steadily decline in response.

[brimstoneSalad]

We wouldn't be overrun with domestic farm animals because the 'mutant' versions would just be allowed to die off completely? So for example 'mutant' cow breeds of the world are wiped out but we still have buffalo & yak?

Well, that's a bit of an understatement of wild diversity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovinae

I doubt those species would die off completely; they would probably be preserved in reserves and sanctuaries in small numbers, as well as zoos (where they already are).

Horses don't have wild ancestors do they?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_horse

[Plantbasedlife]

Where does the line get drawn though? There are approx 800 bovine breeds, (some have evolved native to their regions and are not products of genetic mutation), 200 some odd goat breeds etc. So you are suggesting only the breeds typically used in animal agriculture wane out of existence?
As for wild horses there's only one true wild breed, the "Przewalski" (native to Mongolia)& despite what Wikipedia has to say domestic horses are not actually descendants of this breed. A recent study in 2011 discovered through genetic testing that przewalski horses have ancient origins and are not the direct progenitors of domestic horsess. All other wild horses of today consist of feral horses such as Mustangs which are comprised of
escaped domestic horses that formed their own viable band.

Back to the original discussion, I feel it would be one giant grey area

[brimstoneSalad]

Where does the line get drawn though? There are approx 800 bovine breeds, (some have evolved native to their regions and are not products of genetic mutation), 200 some odd goat breeds etc. So you are suggesting only the breeds typically used in animal agriculture wane out of existence?

I don't know what you're asking here.

Extinction is typically only relevant for species. Other genes account for genetic diversity within a species, and adequate genetic diversity can be achieved with a few hundred individuals (breeds are mostly collections of genes that exist in others in different combinations). If you really want to save all of those genes you can do it with blood samples and on computers. It would make sense to source these surviving cow samples (that remain in sanctuaries, for example) from among a large variety of breeds though, so they can be healthier (there is utility to some genetic diversity).

Do you think there's some innate value to genetics themselves beyond their utility to species?

Do you think every breed of dog, even the most abusive ones (like bulldogs, or the very large or small with their own health problems) should be preserved for some reason of intrinsic value of the genetic combinations rather than the individuals?

As for wild horses there's only one true wild breed, the "Przewalski" (native to Mongolia)& despite what Wikipedia has to say domestic horses are not actually descendants of this breed.

I'm saying these animals have extant wild relatives in the same species. I don't expect wild horses (even those descended from domestic ones) to go extinct due to lack of breeding domestic horses if they have been surviving on their own.

Isn't Przewalski still the same species (as a subspecies) as domestic horses? Seems like it wouldn't necessarily be a problem for the species if even all of those descended from domestic horses died out (although I don't think that's going to happen).

Back to the original discussion, I feel it would be one giant grey area

Why? Do non-sentient genes have moral value, or do sentient individuals?