[lordnacho]

Same here, in some ways I regard myself as a pre-abolition slave owner/user (analogy breaks down somewhat, is it the farmer who is the slave owner?). I get the feeling society will change and this thing that used to be common will slide towards being seen as despicable, worthy of having your statue thrown in the water.

Originally I was reducing my meat intake for health reasons but thinking about it more and more it does seem to be a cruel thing to kill animals for meat, and doesn't seem necessary. I still do it at a reduced rate because I'm basically not strong willed enough and I want to be part of society, which has very few qualms about raising animals for slaughter. I also can't deny the stuff tastes good, and one thing I've seen with addictive traits is it's very hard to separate your desires from your moral judgement: if you want something, you will think of an excuse to get it. So now I just acknowledge the hypocrisy and eat a bit of meat now and again.

One loophole I thought about was wild animals. Maybe someone has thought about this more than me, but wild fish and roaming animals would be condemned to either predation, disease, or starvation if we didn't hunt them. Does that change the moral calculus? I'm not sure.

[wyre]

In regards to your loophole I’m reminded of the pretty famous Yellowstone study that showed when wolves are not artificially reduced by hunting their entire environment stabilized. Or is your loophole inferring that animals should be hunted so they can avoid their natural fate? Knowing that animals run away from their hunter I would think their natural fate is preferable to the animal than getting shot and killed.

[lordnacho]

Of course in the moment they don't want to be killed, but they are going to get killed either by the hunter or a predator.

I guess what I mean is that (in short), animals that are bred to be eaten didn't have to exist in the first place, we are literally creating them and making them suffer, both in life and in death. So we're creating suffering out of nothing.

Animals that live in the wild are gonna meet a bad end regardless, so how much are we creating that suffering?

[wyre]

Who are you (or anyone) to say how a wild animal’s end should be? If animals are anything like humans (also an animal), they would most likely want to live as long as possible and prefer a natural death over a shortened human-caused death.

Any creation of life is creating suffering. The first Noble Truth of Buddhism is that there is suffering. Accepting that truth the rational action would be to minimize the suffering. Factory farms cause suffering to its inhabitants everyday, much more than the suffering caused from being born. Watch Earthlings [1] to learn about how animals at farms get treated.

[1] https://vimeo.com/209647801?embedded=true&source=vimeo_logo&...

[lordnacho]

That's actually where I started thinking this way. My point was a side point though, I had already addressed the farm animals.