[endangered]

I don't think this is a fair comparison because we breed these animals for farming, so technically we could breed as many as we need to sustain our habits.

On the other hand there is no way to breed whales. There is some finite number of them in the wild and we cannot actively endeavor to create more.

Commercial farming of farm animals will not cause the extinction of farm animals; commercial farming of whales will cause the extinction of whales.

[maxxxxx]

" I don't think this is a fair comparison because we breed these animals for farming, so technically we could breed as many as we need to sustain our habits."

They still suffer greatly. Maybe a little extreme but by the same logic we could breed humans for slavery and say that it's OK because they got bred for it.

"commercial farming of whales will cause the extinction of whales. "

Not if done with proper quotas. It's not different from any other type of fishing.

Again, I don't even eat meat, but we should be a little more rational.

[coryfklein]

> Not if done with proper quotas.

And there lies the rub! People ignoring quotas are the whole reason this kind of fishing needs strong cooperative regulation.

> It's not different from any other type of fishing.

Actually, it is categorically different. You'd be hard pressed to hunt salmon to extinction even if you tried because they spawn hundreds of eggs per female each year. The same cannot be said for any species of whale.

[d0100]

> Maybe a little extreme but by the same logic we could breed humans for slavery and say that it's OK because they got bred for it.

The day an animal can articulate that, I'll agree with you.

Until then such comparison bears no meaning.

[goodrubyist]

That's wrong. What matters is the capacity to suffer. There are humans who do not have the mental capacity to articulate such a thing either. I'd highly recommend as it deals with such arguments in greater length. http://lockeanliberal.com/2014/11/02/what-a-conservative-col...

[d0100]

Suffering wasn't brought up. Just the comparison of being bred for food vs slavery.

[maxxxxx]

"The day an animal can articulate that, I'll agree with you."

They can if you keep your eyes open just a little.

[malloryerik]

So if I can't speak the language of my torturer, my suffering rightly has no meaning to them?

[option_greek]

We also don't make everyone who can't speak our language suffer.

[d0100]

Historically, we do. However, we are able to communicate even if we don't know a specific language.

[spraak]

So a retarded person would likely not be able to articulate that. Is it ok to murder them, then?

[innocentoldguy]

> we breed these animals for farming, so technically we could breed as many as we need to sustain our habits.

I'm not sure this justification works. After all, if someone started breeding dogs or African Greys for human consumption in the U.S. in a way that was sustainable, people would still be outraged by it.

[moate]

In fact they find SUCH a difference between "pet" animals and "farm" animals that we ban horse, dog, and cat meat for human consumption. Because you shouldn't eat cute things or something.

[honkycat]

In my opinion, the people who constantly bring up the point you are responding to know full well. Read the rest of the comments here: It's repeated over and over. "Why do we care about whales if we don't care about cows?"

And then people like me and you respond with this same response: "Cows are not going extinct." They don't want to hear an answer, they want to shill veganism.

I've made the same reply a few times in this thread, and both times my comments were down-voted and flagged less than a minute after posting.

edit: Am I saying these people are coordinated? Yeah. Absolutely I am.

[sc4les]

So it’s only immoral if the number of the animals is really low? Seems like an arbitrary trait to determine whether animals deserve to live or not

[ineedasername]

The implication of your comment you're arguing that allowing a species to risk extinction is somehow equivalent to breeding animals for slaughter as a food source. That a person cannot both be at ease with such farming of animals an at the same time, without contradiction, see value in preserving some other species from risk of extinction.

This is a rather obtuse outlook on your part. It should not be difficult to see that these positions on killing animals are not logically equivalent, or logically exclusive of each other.

Even forgetting about any concept of morality or ethics for a moment, from a purely utilitarian viewpoint raising animals for food isn't mutually exclusive with wanting to preserve the balance in an ecosystem in which whales play a part, and whose disruption could have far-reaching implications.

[bootlooped]

All other things being equal, killing an animal that is in danger of extinction is worse than killing one which is plentiful.

[elygre]

Agree. But generally irrelevant here, since the minke is not in danger of extinction.

[tomp]

How many cows, chickens etc do you think would survive if humans all of a sudden decided to stop breeding and exploiting them? It's not like those animals can survive in the wild (unless, of course, humans continue protecting them and killing their predators).

[monochromatic]

Extinction is a problem. Culling isn’t.