Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rich
I wasn't trying to argue that there would be increased biodiversity by removing current food practices, just saying if chickens, cows, and pigs didn't exist there would be less biodiversity.
Natural selection is always changing so cows and pigs may be winning right now but that would change if humans stopped eating them as much.
Extinction vs living a life of suffering is an interesting argument and I'm sure people would fall on both sides of it but I don't think it has to be one or the other. I won't argue that these animals currently rely on humans to survive and that its possible they go extinct without us raising them but they might adapt and find new ways to survive without us. If we stop eating meat and they start going extinct and people think that's an issue then maybe we do something about it but just continuing with a practice that promotes suffering of animals because they may go extinct otherwise certainly doesn't make any sense. I don't mean to imply that this is what you are arguing for, just saying we should be less concerned about an animal going extinct when it is no where near that level.
|
I'm not sure animals suffer in the food I eat. Probably the processed Deli meats and the bacon but I choose to pay a bit more and get local farmed meat for the most part. The ironic part of that is its probably less sustainable from a whole earth stand point. As the amount of meat we can produce is higher from the factory farmed process
I think the strongest argument against eating meet is it takes significantly more energy to feed ourselves on meat then on plants. So from a reducing out footprint on earth not eating meat is probably the best way of reducing our impact. (that or eliminating leisure travel).