[kranner]

I think the terror of understanding that your companions are disappearing day by day and any day now your number will be up combined with the final moments until execution probably exceed the fun of running about in fields. We may have no way to know. But then we have no right to assume this isn’t the case.

[sethammons]

Consider this exact situation, as you described it (edit: minor change, sub execution for some other death), plays out for aging humans. Dying is usually not pleasant and it happens to us all.

[chongli]

Yes, and many people don't get the quick death of a captive-bolt pistol to the forehead. Many people die in a hospital after years of suffering from gradual organ failure, dementia, cancer, or other terminal diseases.

Besides that, I don't think we know if cattle are aware that when their herdmates disappear that they are dying. Herd animals in the wild such as zebras and wildebeest witness their herdmates being killed by predatory cats on a daily basis, something I think would be far more traumatizing than just having them disappear on a truck. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

[kranner]

But the point here is that these creature are executed and that too either young or in the prime of their lives.

[gridlockd]

You dodged the question. Is it better to live a life in terror than not having lived at all?

If these animals lived in the wild in such numbers, they would eventually overbreed and starve, unless there was a predator animal that kept their numbers in check.

[kranner]

Ok, in my opinion it would be better for them not to have existed at all.

[sethammons]

Does that not translate to all life? Humans included? No kids for you? Honestly asking. Not being snide. Lots of people feel this way.

[kranner]

I haven’t considered the case for humans, but probably yes. All life might include simple organisms that don’t have the capacity to suffer, and in their case it obviously won’t matter. Yes, no kids for me.

[PretzelPirate]

That isn’t a good question. You are asking if a creature who doesn’t exist is less happy than a creature who exists to suffer.

The creature who doesn’t exist has no sentience and shouldn’t be considered as a perspective in the decision.

On top of that, the choice isn’t to breed these creatures in captivity by the millions or have them living in the wild by the millions. The choice is to breed millions of animals who will live a life of suffering, or do nothing, and no one exists to suffer. We aren’t going to see a huge wild farm animal population come into existence if we stop breeding them - nature could never support their population.

[gridlockd]

> You are asking if a creature who doesn’t exist is less happy than a creature who exists to suffer.

No, you are changing the question. I'm not asking "a creature that doesn't exist", I am asking you which is better: To never have lived, or to have lived in terror. I'm also not talking about happiness. Life isn't about happiness and life in nature isn't "happy" either.

Perhaps you can answer a different question: Would you rather die (i.e. not exist) than live such a "life of terror"? If you knew you were slaughtered at age thirty, would you kill yourself at any earlier age?

> We aren’t going to see a huge wild farm animal population come into existence if we stop breeding them - nature could never support their population.

Even so, nature's answer for population control is starvation and predation. Natural life is a constant struggle for survival. Life on a farm is not such a struggle.