I do think we have a super complex relationship with animals, especially domesticated animals.
I’d like to get to a point where we need to have this conversation.
It’s unfortunate how often I’ve heard this post’s argument in the wild. It’s always been strange to me how people seem to equate “I’m vegetarian” with “everyone should be vegetarian.” As if it’s a given that if one holds a position or belief, they must invariably want to force it on others. It’s a sad state where people can’t comprehend individuals wanting to just do their own thing.
I’m talking as someone who’s never preached, doesn’t go looking for conversations about vegetarianism/veganism, who just occasionally responds to someone’s question of, “What are you having for lunch?” I don’t tell people I’m vegan IRL until it becomes important, because the admission often comes with an interview and/or silly arguments that appear out of the blue. I’m just trying to get through my day, like everyone else. I’m not looking to convert you, I’m not trying to make eating meat illegal, there’s no mass cow genocide in the works, I’m simply sitting here eating hummus. Chill.
A lot of people will attach a morality to their belief structure to basically validate their personal opinions. So it’s not a difference of opinion you are immoral if you don’t eat how I eat because I’m choosing the morally good diet. It’s why it’s hard to have disagreeing discourse these days as people have formed their identity around their beliefs and their beliefs are justified by a contrived moral framework so there can’t be a disagreement as this would be both a personal attack on their identity as well as a moral attack and admission of moral failure and who would listen to the opinion of an immoral person
This is an abstraction of a phenomenon that’s been happening in increasing amounts over the last couple decades and the sperging vegan is a very amusing example of this
there are animal genocides going on tho
Ummm…
Just keep breeding the angus until they’re well again.
Well no shit. That applies to most animals we humans care for, even the ones who we don’t typically eat. Try throwing a hairless cat or a pug out into the wild. They can’t manage without us no more.
Interestingly enough you don’t have to be so specific as Black Angus. All cows are totally extinct in the wild. They derive from the Eurasian auroch which went extinct in most places of its original range over 3000 years ago. The absolute last one died in 1627 in Poland, but even that one was probably not pure auroch. If everyone went vegan we would probably still keep a few cows around in zoos but we would have no where near the amount we have today. If we wanted to reintroduce something similar we would have to rely on reintroducing european buffalos, which are another species but still native to Europe.
That’d be an interesting post-apocalypse setting. The world outlawed farming animals, because it was cruel. As a result, most species of livestock have gone extinct. Now, the technology that has allowed for a life without livestock has failed, and the people left have to figure out what new species can be farmed.
the technology that has allowed for a life without livestock has failed
That would be the ability to grow crops? So only wild plants would grow for some reason? Impossible to farm anything then really, only viable lifestyles are scavenging, foraging and hunting
I mean more some future where we have synthetic meats, vertical farms, and things like that. Presumably crops selected for a vertical farm wouldn’t do as well outside of one.
Also, there is good reason farming animals has been done historically. Some crops aren’t available all year, and animals, like cows, can grow from just grass, which we can’t digest. They produce a product that’s available all year. Also, currently we don’t really need things like wools, as we’ve invented alternatives (mostly based on petroleum). If those alternatives are gone, we still need textiles.
So, even if we’re in a future form of humanity and all of our present farming methods failed, sowing seeds and harvesting crops would be the first kind of farming to be “restored” or “rediscovered” or whatever, because it’s vastly more efficient, and assuming you’re recovering from some sort of disaster scenario, feeding as many people as quickly as possible would probably be the goal. They’d probably grow rice and soy or something.
Animal farming is really for luxury goods, except in very remote places where crops can’t be grown
Not really. Rice, soy, wheat, and corn do not grow all year round, and that’s assuming those are retained. It took a long time to selectively breed the grains that we know as rice and corn to be as productive as they are. They started pretty similar to grasses. Farming will still be good, and they can be preserved with things like fermentation and pickling, but farming animals was not just done as a luxury.
The idea of what would happen to livestock if meat was outlawed was something I never contemplated in my early activist years. It’s a conundrum for a well intentioned vegan. There’d inevitably be a black market, or a lot of poaching of game. Most production meat animals live in CAFOs, not fields, and are entirely dependent on that system. There’s not enough range to let them go live their lives out, and if you did loose them on the range, the ecological impact would be horrific. Nobody’s going to feed them for the rest of their lives out of the goodness of their hearts, and those that would could never afford to do so. We also waste a lot of farmland feeding them in the first place. And then there’s companion animals. Cats are obligate carnivores and while dogs can survive on a vegan diet, they shouldn’t be forced to do that. I’ve met a lot of radical vegans but I’ve met very few (literally, like two) who opposed the idea of humans cohabitating with a cat or dog on the grounds any coexistence is exploitation. So without dog/cat food, what’s your choice? Let them hunt on their own? Well most dogs won’t, and we all know how bad domestic cats are for native wildlife. I have no clean solution for all this, only that harm reduction is the goal. And I’ll take my lumps from the idealists who think reduction is half-assed.
You can have cows on just land with no feed outside of winter hay you grow locally. You just have to have drastically lower herd population and they’re leaner and smaller. Basically double the price. But not unreasonable.
True. And forgive my American perspective, but from an indigenous species perspective, those liberated herds shouldn’t be competing with our native wildlife for that space from a restorative environmental point of view. I’m in wild horse country, some of the earliest equine fossils are from my state, but their domestic-turned-wild descendants were non-existent here before the Spanish brought them over. Wild horses have found a niche and between human history, colonist as well and indigenous, have a place in our story. They’re problematic; they’re iconic. Unleashing domestic cows to go roam would present a whole slew of new problems. Look at what feral hogs have done, or how pythons have impacted Florida, or on the vegetation side, what cheatgrass has done to our sagelands. All this is human hubris. Even if we can recognize our fuck ups were not going back to what it was before, but how do we not keep making the same mistakes over and over even if our intentions are noble?
The answer is bison
But to the problem of converting to veganism on a larger scale, I think you’d just gradually phase out by banning further breeding and the cow population could dwindle down. It wouldn’t solve a lot of the other adjacent problems though.
Like, send bison to kill the cows? Or the cows will go live with the bison? If the answer is bison, in not sure what the question is.
In the US the native herbivore with the “cow-niche” is the American bison. If we would restore ecosystems and replace captive grazers with wild grazers, increasing the wild bison population is the answer and much preferable to having wild cows (who don’t even exist in the first place, the wild version is extinct as mentioned). Of course bison is not an answer to what to do with the cows that already exist in the US of course.
However if a decision was made to ban all animal agriculture I would be a strong opponent of not rewilding any cows. They are not native and they are not even fit for living in the wild anymore. Just take a Holstein milking cow for example. What use does producing 40liter of milk per day have in the wild? None! Calves can’t drink even close to that amount. The lactating moms would get mastitis. They are not even fit to only make milk for just their calves anymore. Let the domestic cows die out in that case.
Wild agricultural cow would be pretty easy prey for wolves and cougars. They’re too different from native auroch or Buffalo. The Indian and moreBuffalo. Skinny cows can do well in warmer climate though compared to furry buffalo, they’re much closer to the auroch style.
If the answer is bison, in not sure what the question is.
“Tasty free range steak” perhaps?
Cats are obligate carnivores
Not anymore. Scientists solved that problem by creating synthetic taurine, which was the last nutrient making cats obligate carnivores. If obligate carnivore means you can’t feed it a healthy vegan diet, then that’s gone. They’re not obligate carnivores anymore. We used science to destroy that law of biology.
Synthetic taurine does not stop cats from being obligate carnivores, it just provides a non-animal based amino that fits their digestive needs. And that’s great for cats that cohabitate with responsible, mindful humans. But it doesn’t suppress millions of years of gut instinct that drives them to hunt nor make them incapable of digesting animal based foods. If they weren’t obligate we wouldn’t be obligated to engineer a work around.
You’re talking about an essential definition. I’m talking about a functional definition. If the conversation is about cats in captivity, essential definitions don’t matter. The only thing that matters is the functional definition. Cats were functionally defined as obligate carnivores because it helped people communicate the fact that you can’t feed a cat a healthy vegan diet. That’s no longer true, so it doesn’t need to be communicated, so the functional definition no longer applies.
Essential theories of truth suck because they don’t help you solve problems. Pragmatic theories of truth are awesome because they help us solve problems. According to a pragmatic theory of truth, cats are no longer obligate carnivores, because scientists made synthetic taurine.
They still don’t cease to be functionally obligate, you’ve just changed the definition of carnivore. Nothing about the cat itself changed, its body still requires an amino that previously was only available through animal flesh. And the designation “obligate carnivore” wasn’t an anti-vegan communication, it was an observation because we didn’t invent cats, or even quite domesticate them, they sorta coexist at various levels with humans depending on how we choose to shape that relationship.
But here’s my question when it comes to animal cruelty with regards to companion animals, which aren’t something most vegans argue in favor of abolishing but rather advocate for treating as peers. You can feed a cat synthetic taurine, you can keep a cat inside, neutered/spayed, but you still haven’t changed what a cat is- a half-domesticated predator that shares a life with you. They don’t have the thousands of years of selective breeding dogs have. Where’s the point that human intellect and good intentions to reduce harm comes full circle and ends up being unintentionally cruel because you end up forcing human values on a non-human entity? Your cat doesn’t understand human definitions of what drives it or how its digestive system works, it just does cat things. If you want it to not be a cat, you have to create not-cats, which is an entirely different animal than what we have and doesn’t solve the problem of all the stray/feral cats that do exist. Do we cull them? Collect and sterilize them until eventually they age out and go extinct? It’s the same dilemma of livestock. Without human intervention they wouldn’t exist as we know them, but now they do exist, but they’d have no real need to exist nor should they be released into the wild should we chose to discontinue our relationship. Even in the places where their wild ancestors roamed, those ancestors and the environments that shaped them are for the most part lost, and a dairy cow is not an aurochs in a post-glacial European forest, and never would have been what came next if left to the normal pressures of nature/climate/environment.
I don’t necessarily agree with your argument here either because cats love junk food as much as humans and will live on nothing but friskies gravy if you let them.
That cats don’t understand the nutritional value of a free meal doesn’t mean they’ve lost their instinct/drives to engage in feline behavior. Not every kill is because they intend to eat it, the internet is full of pictures of people grossed out because their cat brought them a half dead rodent, bird, or snake. Barn cats often lean more on the feral side but will still take you up on a free meal if provide it. The toys we buy for our pet cats are designed around engaging their predatory behavior and channeling it into not lethal play. If you keep a cat locked inside and are its only source of food, it will eat whatever you provide and adjust its behavior to the life offered. If you don’t provide opportunities for enrichment and feed it garbage it probably will end up unhealthy and obese, but I’d still question how often it’s seeking to alleviate it’s boredom stalking and killing bugs when you’re not looking. One of the biggest concerns for wildlife is that cats are domesticated enough to understand the convenience of a human-sourced bowl of free food to fill their bellies but being well fed doesn’t suppress the instinct to hunt. They’ll kill when the opportunity arises because they have the instinct to and it alleviates boredom even if they have no intention of eating it. You’re correct that the responsibility is on the human, because the human understands all this and is responsible for controlling the environment and diet.
This is true for any animal kept in captivity. If you’re the only source of food eventually they will eat what’s available even if it’s detrimental. If you don’t provide for their behavior needs they’ll indulge those drives in ways you don’t want. Dogs will dig, shred, and develop anxiety. Parrots will pluck themselves naked. A lot of fish and reptiles won’t eat the wrong thing and have a low tolerance for the wrong environment, they just die.
Seriously though, if someone doesn’t want to have a carnivore as a pet, just don’t get one then, there’s plenty of animals that make great pets and are also “vegan”. Rabbits for example are really personable and can be a great alternative as a free roaming house pet
This is also true for many plant cultures, because we tend to prefer commercially viability to diversity
Since when did Velma become Shaggy’s mom?
She was originally intended to be his sister, but it never came up in the show and later shows separated them. And then put them back together in a decidedly non-sibling fashion.
Ah yes, breeding sentient creatures to murder thousands and thousands of generations, is better than killing one generation. Is anyone actually moronic enough to get convinced by this argument?
Also, that’s assuming that if everyone stopped eating meat all at once (huh) then we would decide to kill the cows rather than to let them live. So humanity as a whole suddenly grew a conscience, and yet they go murder hobo on the cows for no valid reason.
The funny thing about anti-vegans is that you don’t need to ever ask if they’re anti-vegan, they’ll slap you in the face with fallacies that make Trump look smart.
What ‘argument’, it’s satire.
And it’s an argument that people actually use, whether this comic is satire or not. I’ve even seen a bunch of people using it on lemmy.
Who said anything about murdering the cows? This comic has only stated that their genetic deformities will prevent them from surviving without human assistance. Letting them live is the same as killing them.
The most common understanding of genocide is purposfully exterminating the population. It does not matter how it dies out. If it all the subjects are killed, sterilized, purposfully mixed with other population or sent to space. Noone has to die for a genocide to occur.
So we are not discussing: killing a generation vs. killing multiple generations. But rather: exterminating a specie vs killing members of that specie but maintaining a population.
One is “crime” against specific subjects and the other is “crime” against a group.
Casting a judgment on which is worse is however not something I would do.
But I do think people of nationalities with rough histories are thankful that only their ancestors suffered and the nation as a whole still exists.
However most do not have to die when they grow up…
But I think, I would rather lived until grow up and I get eaten as compared to never have existed at all…
how about getting ground up at the ripe age of 1 day old?
I do not know. I was never in that situation.
But If I try to imagine… …even if my life would be hard as hell… I would probably still prefer being born as to not exist at all… Having a consciousness is one of a kind experience…
Also cows of my uncle have it quite nice. All day wandering inside a huge fence, having a lot to eat, hang out with their kids… Cows do not have a freedom to leave, but they have everything else. To me it seems a better life than lots of humans. For example take a young wife of a rich oligarch. She cannot leave, but she has anything that she needs.
what industrial meat, egg or milk production or similar situation have you been in?
tbf these animals’ lives are not “hard” really, they get all the food, growth hormones and antibiotics they need, they just don’t really get to move. oh and they get forcefully impregnated and every offspring gets taken away, or if that’s not possible, (ie male or infertile) they get killed, in the house where all the blood and screaming is
btw previously i was referring to chickens, they grind up male chicks alive because they don’t need as manywhat industrial meat, egg or milk production or similar situation have you been in? . I do not know. I was never in that situation. For some reason you expect that I would be shocked or that I could not stand such experience. But we have obviously a different standards on what an acceptable cruelty towards animals is. Maybe explaining what is happening was something that changed your opinion. But if you would try to convince as many people as possible and save as many animals as possible you should definitely change your strategy. Because most meat eaters know that and how much animals suffer. And we do not care. Because animal suffering is obviously not enough a priority to change even eating habits. This is genuine advice. Do with it what you want.
they get forcefully impregnated As almost every wife in arabic country. And they would still prefere to exist. And also as most animals in animal kingdom. What they experience is way closer to rape than is to voluntary action as we understand it.
they just don’t really get to move As lots of sick and/or old people. And most still prefere to exist.
every offspring gets taken away As it is with moms whose kids die because of sickness or accidents. And they still most often prefere to exist.
in the house where all the blood and screaming is As any solder and hospital worker (or buther) And they still prefere to exist.
Some people experience lots od things mentioned above. And I am not claiming those are good things. I am not arguing killing of animals is awesome or we should not abandon it.
I am arguing you are underestimating how much existence is worth. Some people value it less (probably you?), and would kill (euthanize) themselves if they would have to experience stuff mentioned above. But I argue lots and probably most people would still prefere to exist even though they lived horrible life you mention.
I argue that having a horrible, short life that is terminated forcefully is worth more than not existing at all. And this is by a standard of lots of people. We do not even know what percentage of people think this. And we are way more clueless about animal opinion on the matter.
deleted by creator
But then we’ll get a pug situation but with cows
I’ve read this actual rebuttal on a vegan post. Lol
I was surprised to hear Noam Chomsky make that argument once.
Would you be surprised Noam Chomsky was an Epstein buddy?
I was actually reading that section of his Wikipedia page just the other night. Quite disappointing. I figured it was a big social circle at MIT and Epstein was a big benefactor. But I can’t excuse how close they appear to have been.
My wife was a vegetarian her whole life, until I corrupted her. Her objection to meat was factory farming – not necessarily murdering cows, but effectively raising þem in inhumane conditions and torturing þem to deaþ. Being extinct is probably preferable to being born into a factory farm.
My wife was a vegetarian her whole life, until I corrupted her
Does this mean you turned your wife vegan or into eating meat? I can’t tell since it could be read either way. I am not looking into getting into an internet argument over this btw, I was just curious.
For a few years after meeting her, I tried to be vegetarian, but I hated it. Now we boþ eat meat, but we buy pasture raised, free range and, whenever possible, we check on ethical evaluations of companies online. Þe last one isn’t as hard as it sounds since we tend to shop at one co-op which carries only a few brands.
Love the use of thorn! Your wild thorn has made my whole day stranger! How did you get that on your keyboard?
Cheers!
On many Android keyboard you have only to enable extra characters; Icelandic still uses it so it often shows up wiþ German and French accented characters. Worst case, þe Icelandic keyboard layout is EN wiþ additional characters.
On Linux, I use an .XCompose containing it under eiþer XOrg or Wayland. You can find .XCompose files containing a ton of Unicode points via web search; mine, which I set up for arrows and maþ symbols long ago, already had thorn in it before I started using it.
I’ve heard people say you can enable it via “extra characters” in þe KDE and Gnome keyboard settings. I can’t help wiþ Apple or Windows.
Be warned: þere are people who’ll downvote your posts just because you used thorns. It doesn’t boþer me, but you should know.
Thank you! The world needs more thorn!
Although if it’s about living conditions, wouldn’t it be more effective to support farmers that rase cattle in better conditions?
Would you say that people not getting dogs would actually be worse than people getting dogs and slicing their throats at 1-2 years old?
Imo people who care about animals are opposed to people cutting their throat open, instead of supporting it.
The fact that is considered good conditions for the animal, and that systematic violence get twisted into welfare, is such an incredibly grim reality…
Þat’s what we do now; I don’t know about efficacy, þough.
