[hshdhdhj4444]

Future generations are gonna look back at us for our treatment of animals, especially farmed animals, much the way we look back at our slave owning ancestors.

And just like we wonder how so many otherwise morally upstanding people participated in such an obviously abhorrent system as human slavery, they will think the same about people in our generation.

Unfortunately, it turns out that social norms are extremely powerful and even recognizing one is acting purely out of those social norms in ways that would be very obviously insanely unethical if looked at even slightly objectively is very difficult.

[Imustaskforhelp]

I actually agree.

I have said this in another comment but I feel like its up to us. Slavery wasn't eradicated suddenly and became suddenly morally bad, I think that slowly but steadily we got better though till the point that now everyone mostly considers slavery morally evil.

Lets hope the same can be the case with animals as well.

I can't emphasize the impact of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gqwpfEcBjI&t=25s (earthlings documentary) had on me. I am mostly vegan (well aside from some eggs which I also can easily quit), I highly recommend it.

[aksss]

I believe there are more slaves today than ever in the history of the planet simply due to population growth. While everyone WE know thinks slavery is morally evil, most of the world does not hold that view. In fact, I would say the default human view (looking at all cultures across time memorial) is that slavery is the rule not the exception. That doesn't go away with modernity, it goes away with culture.

[flkiwi]

There’s also a significant conversation about mere illegality and social rejection not actually doing much to address the underlying tendency to exploitation that (a) has prevented reconciliation and relief for formerly enslaved people and their descendants for more than a century and (b) is woven through the labor model common even in the West. Exploited paid laborers aren’t in the same category as enslaved persons, but we shouldn’t fall into the trap of believing that economic injustice has been meaningfully addressed.

[aksss]

No, we’re talking about actual slavery in modern times, not exploited labor. Actual slavery is still very much a thing.

[ants_everywhere]

To make room for slavery mentally you have to believe that some people are subhuman or at least beneath the threshold for human rights.

What's surprising to me is that it's become more common to describe people you dislike as subhuman and to for people to support violence or cruelty toward them. Similarly there is a trend to see hatred and anger as positive goods.

[aksss]

I would avoid analogizing this to the petty political fads of the west. Actual human slavery is still a very real thing in much of the world. Slavery is likely less about making mental room so much as being raised in an environment where it’s normalized. In other words, the mental room was allocated in the new construction of the world view more often than remodeled.

[account42]

Who is "WE"? The western world is perfectly happy with prison labor and other exploitative "voluntary" working conditions.

[eaurouge]

> most of the world does not hold that view

“most” is a lot. Which parts of the world?

> While everyone WE know thinks slavery is morally evil

Who is “we”?

[squigz]

Out of curiosity, which parts of the world is actual slavery a normal thing?

[niemandhier]

The 13th amendment has a penal exception clause:

“ Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

So one might say, slavery is normal in the USA

[econ]

Depends on how you define it.

If you spend pretty much all waking hours dedicated to some task you don't care about entirely to avoid dire consequences I'd say you are close enough. People might still want to use a different word to describe the same thing but it requires they care more about appearance than substance.

[squigz]

No, you are not close enough. This minimizes the seriousness of actual slavery to an extraordinary degree.

[econ]

It does? In what way?

I think you underestimate the "normal" labor conditions in some places.

[econ]

There is this

https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/

[dTal]

> aside from some eggs which I also can easily quit

Curious why you don't, then. Factory egg production isn't pretty.

[Imustaskforhelp]

Well I had eaten last eggs I guess 2-3 months ago when my father kept on insisting it.

Otherwise i had quit it for an year straight or maybe longer, I just didn't want to say I had quit when I recently ate them (and actually I didn't like them thaat much) I rarely used to eat eggs but when they hurt my conscience I stopped eating it and its quite easy and I was never a true egg eater anyway, maybe on rare occasions which I have also stopped now.

So you could say I have quit :) but its always funny having my father explain to me that they are build in factories ,like, its still messy for those poor animals...

[SapporoChris]

The pendulum could swing the other way and instead animal rights activists could be looked upon with complete disdain. Just like human rights, progress is never guaranteed.

[Imustaskforhelp]

> Just like human rights, progress is never guaranteed.

There is a sense of optimism/hope I have in humanity, not in short term, but long term (decades later)

I hope that the pendulum swings in an optimist manner. As a vegetarian who watched earthlings documentary, I recommend it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gqwpfEcBjI&t=25s

I feel like the pendulum depends on all of us. We all gotta be hopeful and hope that other fellow beings also are like us and that gives hope I guess. We can swing the pendulum whatever side and its up to us in some aspect, so we personally need to do the best we can till the limit of our abilities

[squigz]

Isn't it though? To be sure it very much depends on how you measure progress, but I do firmly believe that there is a slow but inexorable push forward in terms of equality, human rights, and various other issues. Yes, there will be hiccups, but we always move forward.

(I don't comment this to imply there's not a lot of work we have to do, or that there's not seriously fucked up things going on right now; but hope - perhaps, even, a bit of faith - is important.)

[mlrtime]

Dystopian comments are hot right now, but your comment really don't have basis when looking at long periods of time.

We are objectively in a better place now than ever, and that is usually true by picking a time and looking backwards 100+ years.

[bdbdkdksk]

Considering the current US regime would like to revisit Wong Kim Ark (1898), the 19th amendment (1920) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) it's fair to say they're trying undo over 100 years of civil rights progress.

Not to mention the growing ICE detention camp archipelago which is reminiscent of the era of Japanese Interment (1942-1946).

Even economically - though we're in a K-shaped recovery - many of the labour protections and economic promises of the New Deal have been repealed since the Reagan era (by both parties).

[SapporoChris]

I wasn't particularly being dystopian. I was thinking of the quote: "Progress has not followed a straight ascending line, but a spiral with rhythms of progress and retrogression, of evolution and dissolution."

– Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[the_gipsy]

When have dystopian comments NOT been hot? Maybe a few years in the 90's, between the fall of the USSR and the Balkan war?

[axus]

The difference being that enslaved humans actually were equal and are thriving now, the enslaved animal populations will crash when the farming stops. Though better to die free, than live as a slave.

[ozozozd]

Not sure an individual dying and a whole species dying are quite the same thing.

[malcolmgreaves]

> enslaved humans actually were equal and are thriving now

Not true. Black folk in America are not thriving. The ancestors of the confederates have been working hard for generations.

[elif]

Yo I've been a vegan for over 30 years and personally I wish that were true, but honestly I don't see groupthink on this topic ever shifting substantially.

Ideology which confirms ones desires are stronger than socially collective cerebralization about theoretical ideals.

I actually think AI will be granted empathy far sooner than animals simply due to its ability to speak and thus engage in the ideological layer.

[dudeofea]

Cultures that have many offspring usually care less about animal welfare (human and non-human) than those that have less offspring.

Cultures that have many offspring usually become the dominant culture of future generations.

Unless something catastrophic happens, I don't see how you can be right and I can be wrong.

[NoNameHaveI]

"Future generations are gonna look back at us for our treatment of animals, especially farmed animals, much the way we look back at our slave owning ancestors." I predict that in the next 100 years, or less, consumption of animal products will be much the same taboo as tobacco consumption (in the USA) is today. Yes, they will still be around, but if you enjoy them openly, you will be a bit of a social pariah in many circles.

[hollerith]

You don't know what future generations are going to believe. The evolution of beliefs and norms are much too complicated for any person to predict.

The rhetorical ploy you just tried is only slightly more credible than "I'm a time traveler from the future. Here's what the people of the future think of the people of the present."

[b112]

There is an immense difference between factory farming, and traditional farming, of which most countries and places still do.

I don't know what sort of fantasy lifestyle people think wild animals live, but it's constant fear of death all day long, fights with other of its kind over territory, constant predation, disease, pests (including bot flies and worms), starvation during population upswings, dying of thirst during drought, and very short lives.

Compare that with protection from predators, medical care, vaccination, shelter, reliable food and clean water, and stress free lives until a quick and fast death.

Lumping caring farmers in with factory farming is unfair, and again most of the world isn't the US.

For animals such as cows? Peace, contentment, and stress free life is indeed a boon.

Traditional farmers don't install automated cow scratchers for profit. They do it so animals are happy:

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/h3SG72cKA9o

[Recursing]

The vast majority of farmed animals are factory farmed: https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/almost-all-livestoc...

I agree that cows are an exception and live decent lives, but >95% of pigs, chickens, and fish are farmed in atrocious conditions, inside and outside the US: https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-are-factory-farm...

[b112]

Then be angry at factory farming, not eating meat.

There are loads of people that still have a farm, just for them too. Yes, it's generally in rural areas in the West. Yet for thousands of years, people often just farmed to feed themselves!

Factory farming sucks. Yet this can be fixed, note that you don't need to full grass feed (as an example) to end factory farming. You just need room for mild grazing. We can easily feed people as we do now, not have factory farming, but still not have the tens of thousands of acres of grassland to feed a herd for 100% grass grazing.

This is just one example.

End factory farming. You have my support for that. You'll lose it if you take my dinner away. I suspect many are the same.

[shlant]

> Then be angry at factory farming, not eating meat.

When one of the most common responses to pointing out how awful factory farming is "well you can just buy from farms" when the reality is that 99% of consumption comes from factory farms, it's completely reasonable to associate the two

> We can easily feed people as we do now, not have factory farming, but still not have the tens of thousands of acres of grassland to feed a herd for 100% grass grazing.

Going to need a source for that because all the information i've seen shows that there is absolutely not enough land to be able to sustain the current levels of meat consumption.

[b112]

Going to need a source for that because all the information i've seen shows that there is absolutely not enough land to be able to sustain the current levels of meat consumption.

You're sort of mixing up things here. Yes, there is enough land in some parts of the world (Canada, US), but that's not the point.

I specifically said not full grass feed. That's what people believe and assert there is not enough land for. You can still have some grass feeding, conjoined with grain feed. The animals get to be outside, have space to move around, but 1000 acres instead of 100k acres needed for full grass feeding the same herd.

As factory farms already feed those herds, clearly there's enough grain to feed them.

[shlant]

> As factory farms already feed those herds, clearly there's enough grain to feed them.

1. Feed Conversion Ratio is worse for pasture-raised vs. factory farmed so that's not a given - animals being able to move more, waste more calories that aren't being converted to meat

2. You still haven't provided a source for your claim about land usage

[Recursing]

> Then be angry at factory farming, not eating meat.

Yes I fully agree with that, you might be interested in this TED talk (linked in my original comment) https://www.ted.com/talks/lewis_bollard_how_to_end_factory_f... for what you can do about it

[b112]

Wow. ted.com has really fallen to the side of lame. Won't let me play with moderate lockdown for CORS and ublock origin in play. Thanks for the link, I'll try to get it to kick

[chimprich]

> Compare that with protection from predators, medical care, vaccination, shelter, reliable food and clean water, and stress free lives until a quick and fast death.

Comparing farmed animals to wild animals is not really the point. A better comparison is a farmed animal compared to that animal not existing at all. We make the choice to bring them into existence.

Are farmed animals better off existing than not? I think in general the great majority of the 100 billion or so animals we slaughter per year are probably better off not existing. Their lives tend to be short, miserable and pointless.

If you insist on comparing farmed animals to wild animals, though, I don't think it's clear cut. They do live "safer" lives (at least until we kill them, as young as it is economical to do so), but they get to experience severe boredom, curtailment of their natural instincts, and distressing experiences such as separation from their offspring and overcrowding.

[dudeofea]

The same applied to humans before it did to non-human animals. We are prescribing our worldview of "safe" predictable lives to them, just as was done to us.

[scotty79]

This argument can be made about humans. Are modern humans better of existing than not? Our lives also tend to be short, miserable and pointless. Especially compared to just not existing and never having to bother with this world's bs.

[chimprich]

> Our lives also tend to be short

Our lives in the developed world tend to be limited by biology; an average of about 80 years in many countries. Pigs get slaughtered at about 6 months, well before the lifespan they could potentially live to.

> miserable

If you're feeling constantly miserable, then please get some mental health treatment.

> and pointless

Possibly, but we are free to try to find some meaning for ourselves in our lives. Farm animals merely exist to grow as fast as possible and be slaughtered for food. The only point to their existence is to be food.

[scotty79]

You have such a human perspective on things. Pigs are free to find their own meaning to their lives as well. Why should they be concerned what their lives mean to us? Long and short are relative terms. For you 80 years is long, for me it's short. For you, 6 months is short. For a domestic pig 6 months is long because it's 100% of their lifespan. What's the median lifespan of wild pigs?

For us and pigs our lifespans are dictated by the realities of our environment. Humans are part of pigs environment.

As for miserability of existence, there's no treatment for Weltschmerz.

[alexissantos]

Which life would you choose for yourself? Would you be okay if someone else chose for you, especially if the choice was different?

[b112]

Would you ask an amoeba the same thing? A plant? What about an insect? A mouse? Humans are capable of thought that cows are not. Chickens are not.

For example, cows cannot conceive of object persistence. Human infants do not until 2+ years, some parrots do, etc. So what you have to ask yourself, is would the animals even be aware they are captured? And do they have the intellect to care? Or do they entirely live "in the moment", and thus, are happy if healthy, fed, and not being hunted or fearful of a wolf nearby?

Or maybe you might want to ask yourself, would you prefer to be eaten alive? For an animal like a bison, death seldom comes instantly. Death comes while pieces of your body are ripped off of you, as you mewl and scream and cry and bleed to death slowly. Passing out, waking up again only to see you're still being eaten.

Trying to make a choice based upon your mind, your body, your reality is frankly unfair. An example being, there are pack animals and animals that live solo.

By your metric, that is by measuring happiness for an animal by how you would want to live, you'd take those animals that hate living together, and try to force them to? Because that's what you're asking...

What would I want?

So I ask you instead, if we shouldn't interfere, should we then ensure we don't succor or help wild animals in any way? Let's say we stop eating all meat. We do so because "it's wrong to keep an animal captive, even if they are happier and healthier". OK.

So, then by what metric do we have to help animals in the wild? If they have a plague, should we not care or try to help? We have helped wild animals in the past with such things.

Would the animals understand the question asked? Would a cow understand vaccination? Eradication of bot flies?

[Refreeze5224]

I think you're missing a key part of the argument. The question is, do you support inflicting excessive suffering on beings that are capable of suffering? Factory farming intentionally forces billions of animals, each capable of feeling pain and suffering, to more of that pain and suffering than is necessary, all in the pursuit of profit.

It is not a question of eating meat or not. It's about inflicting more pain and suffering than is necessary, for money. Some pain and suffering is inevitable for all animals, but there is absolutely no need to add to it because you like the taste of the results.

[b112]

What on earth are you on about? I specifically differentiate between fsctory and traditional farming. I specifically say one is bad the other not.

[fwip]

Just a quibble - children learn object permanence at around six months of age. Also, I don't think the jury is quite in on cows - I've seen papers that argue both ways.

One way we could quantify cow happiness, if we were interested in doing so, is in the amount of stress hormones they produce.

[b112]

This reminds me of a story, where a utility had buried power lines near a farmer's grazing field. These were milk cows, and he didn't know why but they had stopped giving milk, and seemed sickly.

Vets couldn't figure it out. They seemed healthy otherwise.

Turned out that for some reason, the cows were constantly being low-level shocked.

Most people I know, prefer to think of eating an animal that was happy until it was killed, and killed mercifully. It could be an important metric, much like grass-fed or some other property.

[rafark]

> Future generations are gonna look back at us for our treatment of animals, especially farmed animals, much the way we look back at our slave owning ancestors.

A lot of people already do.

Hopefully technology (robots) and science (lab grown meat) can accelerate this.

[foresterre]

In his book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari called the farming of animals by humans "Nature's biggest fraud", which I always found to be an apt description.

It makes me wonder if humans are the only animals who "farm" other animals in some way (not on the same scale as humans do of course).

At the same time, it makes me wonder, "is being a parasitic animal socially better or worse than animals who farm fellow animals" ;).

[RobotToaster]

There are ants that farm and "milk" aphids https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/did-you-know/farmer-ants-a...

[chongli]

Ants farm aphids and another species of ant farms fungus.

Parasites are ubiquitous in nature and they range from the infamous cuckoo who lays eggs in other birds’ nests to tiny worms that infest the eyes of children to the horrifying tarantula hawk wasp that paralyses a spider and leads it to a burrow and then lays an egg which soon hatches and devours the still-living spider from the inside out!

[jhbadger]

There are many parasitoid wasps, of which the tarantula hawk wasp is only one. It's an sound evolutionary strategy even if their existence even horrified Charles Darwin (and these wasps were obviously the inspiration for the Xenomorph in the Alien movies)

[ethanpailes]

Sperm whales arguably farm by always dedicating at the top of the water column and measurably increasing the fertility of the seas they swim in. It seems possible that is deliberate given how much of their time they spend in the depths.

[ridiculous_leke]

I am with you on principle. But how to get animal protein without harming animals? Can't do milk & related products because of lactose intolerance and other vegetarian sources are not that protein dense.

[aziaziazi]

Do you need that density though ? Also animals products contains basically 0 fibers and not much water so you also gotta plants anyway to get a fit meal.

Some of the best protein choices: - quinoa - tempeh (fermented soy) - tofu (not much fibers here but many minerals and water) - brewer's yeast (but in its own, but you can add it on everything, it’s delicious and cheap) - if you’re into processed stuff (like whey and flours) there’s many’s proteins extracts like peas, soy, beans… also TSP and TPP for cooking convenience.

[scotty79]

Very limited number of decades have passed since we considered torturing other humans prime entertainment do the whole family. Give us a minute.

[lo_zamoyski]

You can find the abuse of animals morally objectionably (I do), but comparing it to human slavery rests on a grossly false moral equivalence between human beings and other animals. Indeed, it usually rests on sentiment or convention rather than a sound and rationally grounded objective ethics.

Chattel slavery was first and foremost morally objectionable, because human beings have rights that conflict with its practice. Rights are rooted in two properties human beings have, namely, the ability to comprehend one's actions and one's situation, and the ability to freely choose between alternatives. If I can understand my actions and I can freely choose to act one way or another, then I am, in principle [1], a moral agent and thus morally responsible for my actions. But for me to be able to fulfill those responsibilities as a moral agent, certain conditions must be met and this claim on others to supply me with those conditions we call rights. Without those conditions, I cannot do what I have a responsibility to do. Non-human animals [2] lack these properties, which is why we do not hold them morally accountable, and because they don't have responsibilities, they do not have rights. (I realize that it has become customary to pull rights out of thin air without the slightest moral scruple or justification about doing so.)

Of course, it would be morally objectionable for us to torment animals, but we are free to make use of animals in ways that do not contract the human good, rightly understood.

[0] The only sound, objective basis for morality is human nature, which determines what actions accord with it and which contradict it. So, it is morally objectionable to torment animals, even though they have no rights, because - in short - it contradicts human nature and thus my good as a human being. Sadism is a serious defect.

[1] I say "in principle", because in practice, as you'll recall, mens rea has legal significance for a reason. If I kill someone by accident, then I did not choose freely to kill him, and so I have not committed murder, only involuntary manslaughter or whatever. If I kill someone, because I believed he was a monster from the 7th dimension trying to kill me, then I did not comprehend my situation and thus the nature of my action. So, in practice, I may fail to exercise what in principle I have the power to do by virtue of my nature as a human being. But other animals do not have this power by nature.

[2] To preempt the inevitable petty drive-by pedant, I define "human" as any animal with these two properties, so according to this view, an intelligent alien from another planet would also be human, despite occupying a place in a separate phylogenetic tree or whatever.

[fkyoureadthedoc]

> [2] To preempt the inevitable petty drive-by pedant, I define "human" as any animal with these two properties, so according to this view, an intelligent alien from another planet would also be human, despite occupying a place in a separate phylogenetic tree or whatever.

Your alien might have some 3rd property that you do not, and thus may farm you.

A future AI that can produce and consume the sum total of all recorded human knowledge within the amount of time that you have a single thought will likely have many emergent properties that you do not, and thus may farm you as well.

> Indeed, it usually rests on sentiment or convention rather than a sound and rationally grounded objective ethics.

Your whole argument rests on sentiment and convention, and would have been summarily rejected by the slave owner based on his own.

[lo_zamoyski]

> Your alien might have some 3rd property that you do not, and thus may farm you.

It is irrelevant, because reason and free will are sufficient to guarantee rights. Whether someone respects them is a separate question.

Also, it is a vacuous posit. You can't approach these properties superficially. Intellect and free will are not some arbitrary, contentless properties in some bag of properties of equally arbitrary status. They determine essentially and intrinsically what it means to be human. They are constitutive of humanity. It means something to have an intellect and free will, and they have consequences for things like body plan. You're approach is basically that of a child playing a game thinking he can just mix and match properties arbitrarily in a bucket without any consideration given to cohesion or causal relations. This is perhaps the effect of teleological blindness, which renders the universe unintelligible and ultimately undermines the viability of the entire discussion.

> A future AI that can produce and consume the sum total of all recorded human knowledge within the amount of time that you have a single thought will likely have many emergent properties that you do not, and thus may farm you as well.

First, AI is not intelligent and doesn't possess agency, as I have already explained elsewhere. To attribute these to AI is pure science fiction and fantasy rooted in a failure to grasp what computation is and what it lacks in relation to intellect. Second, even if we assume what you've written, it's not clear what your point is. What you seem to be describing is an evil being. I mean, I can farm people today, right? But I have no right to do so. I would be committing an immoral act.

> Your whole argument rests on sentiment and convention, and would have been summarily rejected by the slave owner based on his own.

Ha! No, it is absolutely not. It is rooted in natural law theory. NLT is one of or the most defensible moral theory there is.

[jmdeon]

It sounds like you're conflating legal arguments with moral ones. You're saying animals lack rights so it's morally okay to enslave/make use of them?

I'd argue it's much baser than that. Animals have feelings and often feel very bad when kept in enslaved conditions. Since humans can understand the pain they inflict on enslaved animals, then it's wrong of us to continue enslaving them when we have alternatives that are just as healthy for us, if not more healthy.

I would also say your assumption that pigs do not comprehend their actions and cannot choose between alternatives is false.

[lo_zamoyski]

> It sounds like you're conflating legal arguments with moral ones. You're saying animals lack rights so it's morally okay to enslave/make use of them?

I am not conflating moral and legal arguments, though the legal is a determination of the moral (contra something stupid and tyrannical like legal positivism). Genuine law is not arbitrary or established by fiat. There are general moral principles, and the law plays a role in determining their particular, contingent application in a circumscribed and prudential manner within the given circumstances. That is why an unjust law is not a real law and why within one jurisdiction something may be legitimately legal while it is legitimately illegal in another.

So I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

As for enslaving animals, I would reject that it is possible to enslave non-human animals as a matter of metaphysical fact. Non-human animals can be held in captivity or employed for labor, but this is not slavery. To be enslaved presupposes the properties I explained. However, the absence of rights does not mean a right to do whatever you please with animals. It is immoral to torment or to abuse an animal, even if the animal doesn't have rights in this regard.

> I'd argue it's much baser than that. Animals have feelings and often feel very bad when kept in enslaved conditions. Since humans can understand the pain they inflict on enslaved animals, then it's wrong of us to continue enslaving them when we have alternatives that are just as healthy for us, if not more healthy.

We have to make distinctions here. First, one I already used above, is the distinction between rights and morality. That is, the absence of a right does not entail a total absence of moral constraints or considerations in the relevant respect. I have no problem with criticisms of the contingent and particular conditions of, say, factory farming. I would agree that conditions in which animal welfare is better is preferable, but on moral grounds and by prioritizing human good. But these are matters of prudence, not principle. Whereas it is intrinsically evil to employ people in chattel slavery[0], it is not intrinsically evil to hold animals in captivity or to use them for labor.

> I would also say your assumption that pigs do not comprehend their actions and cannot choose between alternatives is false.

Okay, and I would disagree with you - it is an inference, not an assumption on my part - because pigs lack the kind of language that entails the kind of intentionality that would make rationality possible (which is what understanding presupposes), something free choice presupposes. That is, they "choose" based on sense impressions and appetite (in the broad sense of the term).

[0] Emphasis on chattel. Some forms of servitude are not immoral.

[wingtw]

hm, if i understand you correctly (non-native speaker here) you are advocating for plant based diet - and if thats the case, I don't agree with you. It might be possible to live on plant based diet in Mediterranean, but here up north where i reside (and even further in Arctic) it is, I think, next to impossible to survive only on plants - human body, afaik, cannot get everything that is needed in this environment, purely from plants. Taking maybe a very graphic example to get the point across - Eskimos did not learn to hunt whales (which was and is for them very dangerous) for fun but to survive - to counter the cold you need to consume more calories than you can get from (with reasonable amounts of) plants. (of course in arctic, theres whole another issue of growing anything ). Ofc one might say that in today's world everything can be flown in, supplements can be taken - but what's the cost ? to the body, to the environment where the plants/supplements are manufactured...?

[katbyte]

No just that factory farming animals maybe shouldn’t be allowed. I have no problem with eating free range animals that live outside and are humanly treated and slaughtered even if the price goes up. I do have a problem with animal abuse which factory farming is.

[MagicMoonlight]

30 million years in and vegans still haven’t won. Why do you expect that to change?

[gs17]

30 million years of what? Go back a few centuries and you could say the same statement about slavery, since all of civilization is a rounding error on tens of millions of years.

[malcolmgreaves]

> Future generations are gonna look back at us for our treatment of animals, especially farmed animals, much the way we look back at our slave owning ancestors.

Absolutely not.

People are so much more important than pigs. Or dogs. Or any other animal.

This isn’t a comparison a rational, empathetic person would make.

[MyOutfitIsVague]

Most rational, empathetic people generally look down on animal abuse and animal torture. Humans are more important than any other animal to me, but it's not a total dichotomy that makes the suffering of all other thinking, feeling animals meaningless.

Very few rational, empathetic people would be entirely unmoved by their pet dog being killed, and are more than a little perturbed imagining farming dogs for meat like we do other animals, despite the fact that cows and pigs do have feelings, do suffer, do play and have social bonds, and do have similar levels of intelligence to dogs.

We're fortunate enough that we only have one species of human around to worry about. Imagine the political turmoil if we still had many different human species in modern society and had to deal with this kind of debate.

[ultrarunner]

It's already happening. A story about mistreatment of a dog garners reactions like "how can someone act like that to a fur-baby". Same action toward a person and it's elided over as baseline expected violence. By the same token, quasi-deification of animals has happened for a very long time, and all it takes is a mutation of this idea to spread across popular culture.

[account42]

That's just because dogs and other pets are used as ersatz babies and are thus afforded the the same level of moral outrage when harmed. We accept base violence against adults but not against small children.