Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rich
I'm pro-biodiversity so I don't want any animals to go extinct but I also believe in natural selection so if an animal can't exist on its own without human intervention then perhaps it doesn't deserve to exist. Cows, chickens, and pigs are fairly distinct in that we've reduced the numbers of most other animals by destroying their habitat where as we've artificially inflated their numbers which is causing large environmental impacts. So what I'd want is to see their numbers decrease to a more natural equilibrium. I'd be disappointed if the last groups of chickens, pigs and cows were living on a remote island and humanity came along and killed them but if they were living on that island and died out over time due to natural selection I have no problem with that.
|
But the thing is that while wild animals might replace some marginal grazing land most of the land will be turned into other agriculture, irrigated and still used to produce food. So I don't think you see a gain of biodiversity by removing our massed produced food options.
The natural equilibrium of cows, pigs and chickens is zero in their current forms. Veganism is pro the ending of certain human domesticated animal species. That isn't necessarily unethical but it is supporting the extinction of the species not the eliminating of suffering of the species and I think that is a important distinction when discussing the ethics of eating meat.
I also thing that Cows and Pigs have won natural selection. They have chosen in a genetic sense to trade their edibleness in exchange for existence. They are the most dominant of the animal species. One my argue that they don't get to exude there animalness or are depressed or tortured but that is anthropomorphizing them. From the natural selection stand point they are winning. One might also say that dogs have made the same "choice" as cows. They don't get to be their most dogness and have had to adapt or be put down but their genetic line is successfully passed down.