Most people are wrong! By any defensible ethical system, it's wrong to kill sentient beings when you don't have to. This goes double when it's terrible for the environment.
Why is it wrong to kill animals (humanely) if you don't have to? A cow will live and die blissfully unaware that it's purpose is to be eaten by humans. Is a death by a captive bolt gun worse than death by coyote or disease?
Of course the discussion should be around the conditions that livestock spend their time living in because animals obviously are "happier" when living in natural conditions, but as far as I am aware animals do not have any preference on when or how they die (as long as it is not painful and drawn out).
it's very interesting to me how many people seem to have all of the sudden become very concerned about the perceived consciousness of plants.
My question usually is: "Your interpretation of 'plant consciousness' and consciousness in general aside - do you personally see no difference between a flower and a cow?"
Are you saying that you actually believe it is by definition ethical to do things that society agrees is good for people (regardless of what actually is good for people or for animals)?
Or are you saying that what society deems ethical (regardless of what actually is, in fact, ethical) tends to align with actions that are good for people?
Cows are more like me. A flowers are less like me. So I'm biased against flowers because they are less like me. But I don't know if it's more ethical to act based on my bias.
Of course the discussion should be around the conditions that livestock spend their time living in because animals obviously are "happier" when living in natural conditions, but as far as I am aware animals do not have any preference on when or how they die (as long as it is not painful and drawn out).