Brief Introduction

[teo123]

Is the fact that humans have rarely had trouble with animal killing until now a counterpoint?

I don't think it is fair to compare modern factory farming to the way meat was produced a century ago. Back then, cows used to live for 15 years or more. Today, they live for 5 years, less than they do in nature (7 years). Furthermore, antibiotic resistance was not a problem back then. The reason ancient philosophers did not write much about ethics of eating meat is that, well, it was not nearly as problematic back then.

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

Is the fact that humans have rarely had trouble with animal killing until now a counterpoint?

I don't think it is fair to compare modern factory farming to the way meat was produced a century ago. Back then, cows used to live for 15 years or more. Today, they live for 5 years, less than they do in nature (7 years). Furthermore, antibiotic resistance was not a problem back then. The reason ancient philosophers did not write much about ethics of eating meat is that, well, it was not nearly as problematic back then.

By 'had trouble' I mean did they have an ethical issue with killing animals for the animals' sake?
These modern practices are contextually relevant but they can be mitigated/eliminated with changed practices.
As it happens, I have an instinctual revulsion for the lack of cleanliness and the overabundance of cheap meat. I understand this is not based on my concern for the animals but because I have a romantic view of my 'ideal farm'.

[teo123]

Do you not think it's understandable (and wise) to apply more scrutiny to a belief system that has not long been fabricated versus the very foundation of a working society?

How do you know what are foundations of our working society? You know, I really hate it when people make such arrogant assumptions. Right-wingers in the USA tend to believe guns are a foundation of their working society, European left-wingers tend to believe gun control is a foundation of a working society. And, to some neutral observer, both seems to go wildly against evidence (as gun ownership and crime is not at all correlated, so the causation must lie somewhere else).

[teo123]

Is the fact that humans have rarely had trouble with animal killing until now a counterpoint?

I don't think it is fair to compare modern factory farming to the way meat was produced a century ago. Back then, cows used to live for 15 years or more. Today, they live for 5 years, less than they do in nature (7 years). Furthermore, antibiotic resistance was not a problem back then. The reason ancient philosophers did not write much about ethics of eating meat is that, well, it was not nearly as problematic back then.

By 'had trouble' I mean did they have an ethical issue with killing animals for the animals' sake?
These modern practices are contextually relevant but they can be mitigated/eliminated with changed practices.
As it happens, I have an instinctual revulsion for the lack of cleanliness and the overabundance of cheap meat. I understand this is not based on my concern for the animals but because I have a romantic view of my 'ideal farm'.

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean.
Some ancient philosophers, such as Pythagoras, actually had a problem with killing animals itself. Now, I do not know what most vegans today think, if killing an animal knowing it will cause no suffering or loss of pleasure is justified. This is similar to the abortion debate, and I do not think it is relevant here.
I see no reason to think enough meat for all of humanity can be produced humanely and without destroying the environment (notice that grass-fed beef requires 3 times more methane to be emitted per pound).
I do not know what the last two sentences are supposed to mean.

[thebestofenergy]

These modern practices are contextually relevant but they can be mitigated/eliminated with changed practices.
As it happens, I have an instinctual revulsion for the lack of cleanliness and the overabundance of cheap meat. I understand this is not based on my concern for the animals but because I have a romantic view of my 'ideal farm'.

You're way out of your depth when you make these claims, and it's indicative that you haven't tried to put stuff into numbers.

No, they cannot really be mitigated/eliminated, because the demand is too high and the profit margin too narrow.
There are too many land animals farmed, and too many crops that have to be grown for them.

Want the space for the animals to be improved, so they can have a bit of a breathing room instead of being stuck in 1 tight cage for the vast majority of their lives?
Like grass-fed beef?

Giving an estimate of 1.8 acres of grazing land per cow (which seems a common rule of thumb), multiplied by 1 billion (which is the number of bovines present at any given moment in the planet) = 1.8 billion acres of land.
1.5 billion acres is estimated to be the current land usage for total agriculture, while grazing would require 1.8 billion acres just for the cows.

Better conditions require better space, which is unfeasible. Literally.
The space is already incredible constricted as is, with animal agriculture being the primary cause for deforestation by far already. Take that a step further and raze to the ground the rest of the rainforests, and we put the nail in our coffin.

So, giving more space to animals is out of the question.
What about lifespan?

Animals' lives are cut short because after a certain period they aren't profitable anymore.
A cow can only be efficient at giving birth and making milk for a certain period, male calves are useless, chickens can only give eggs for a certain period, male chicks are useless, pigs would be pointless to be kept alive after they're fattened up enough, etc.

By keeping animals to make them live longer the industry would have a net loss guaranteed, and it would be an unsustainable practice as a business. So letting animals live longer than a short amount of time (in case of male calves and male chicks) or less than a handful of years (in case of cows, pigs, and chickens) is out of the question too - as it would just make them lose money for no reason.

What else? Antibiotics (antibiotic resistance) and hormone injections?
They're both needed. Antibiotics to prevent infections from the extremely tight and dirty spaces they're kept in, and hormones to make them grow fast enough. And it's unfeasible to increase space, so antibiotic resistance and diseases caused by animal agriculture are there to stay. So taking those out is out of the question too.

Not sure what your idea of mitigation/elimination is in regards to.

That said, I have two questions for you:

1. why even care about the practices in animal agriculture, if you aren't concerned for the animals?
2. what is great about your view of the 'ideal farm' that doesn't have to do with animals being better off than average?

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

Do you not think it's understandable (and wise) to apply more scrutiny to a belief system that has not long been fabricated versus the very foundation of a working society?

How do you know what are foundations of our working society? You know, I really hate it when people make such arrogant assumptions. Right-wingers in the USA tend to believe guns are a foundation of their working society, European left-wingers tend to believe gun control is a foundation of a working society. And, to some neutral observer, both seems to go wildly against evidence (as gun ownership and crime is not at all correlated, so the causation must lie somewhere else).

This was the point that novel ideas should receive more suspicion, all else being the same. The gun debate is obviously younger than, for instance, the concept of a state having just authority over a piece of land. I am illustrating why I believe particular things more strongly than others despite having no firm moral basis for either.

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean.
Some ancient philosophers, such as Pythagoras, actually had a problem with killing animals itself. Now, I do not know what most vegans today think, if killing an animal knowing it will cause no suffering or loss of pleasure is justified. This is similar to the abortion debate, and I do not think it is relevant here.

The discussion was about whether man, as a collective, has an innate consideration for animal welfare. I'm not particularly interested in a few eccentrics throughout history.

I see no reason to think enough meat for all of humanity can be produced humanely and without destroying the environment (notice that grass-fed beef requires 3 times more methane to be emitted per pound).

All this means is that current rates of consumption are not sustainable. I'm not arguing against that. This says nothing about the morality that is inherent in the act of killing/harming animals. This is what I am questioning.

I do not know what the last two sentences are supposed to mean.

That I have personal preferences but they have nothing to do with animal welfare. I have an aesthetic prejudice for something. That is all.

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

You're way out of your depth when you make these claims, and it's indicative that you haven't tried to put stuff into numbers.
...
No, they cannot really be mitigated/eliminated, because the demand is too high and the profit margin too narrow.
There are too many land animals farmed, and too many crops that have to be grown for them.

I never claimed I defended current consumption/practices. I am merely questioning moral obligations towards animals. The rates of consumption and production practices can be changed hence 'mitigated'.

That said, I have two questions for you:

1. why even care about the practices in animal agriculture, if you aren't concerned for the animals?
2. what is great about your view of the 'ideal farm' that doesn't have to do with animals being better off than average?

1. Because they relate to quality of human lives.
2. My 'ideal farm' is merely an aesthetic prejudice which is personal to me. It should have no bearing on morality or law. I think my mention of this was a mistake as it has caused more confusion that it was worth. Please ignore it.

[teo123]

This says nothing about the morality that is inherent in the act of killing/harming animals.

And isn't it a red-herring here? What you are effectively doing is arguing for eating meat, by replacing the meat industry that exists with some vaguely imagined unicorn that does not cause animal suffering and environmental damage, and arguing for that unicorn instead. Meat, as it is produced today, causes a lot of evil, and living in a phantasy does nothing to change that. To the contrary, it makes it worse by distracting people from problems that need to be solved. And I say vaguely imagined unicorn because it is vaguely imagined. On that ideal farm, what is to be done about poisonous plants? Have you thought about that?

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

This says nothing about the morality that is inherent in the act of killing/harming animals.

And isn't it a red-herring here? What you are effectively doing is arguing for eating meat, by replacing the meat industry that exists with some vaguely imagined unicorn that does not cause animal suffering and environmental damage, and arguing for that unicorn instead. Meat, as it is produced today, causes a lot of evil, and living in a phantasy does nothing to change that. To the contrary, it makes it worse by distracting people from problems that need to be solved. And I say vaguely imagined unicorn because it is vaguely imagined. On that ideal farm, what is to be done about poisonous plants? Have you thought about that?

I eat meat because I don't believe in the moral obligation to be vegan. I am happy for my government to put these restrictions on animal practices for the benefit of humans but I reject the conclusion that I should be morally compelled to never harm an animal. This has been my position since the start of the thread. Please read it in its entirety.