Conflicted regarding family-owned farms

[AustinGulotta]

I believe there to be a fair comparison between the domestication and use of sentient beings, and the enslavement of various members of mankind. Large food industries that raze through bovine, swine, and foul are -in my mind- similar to horrendous child labour for the production of large quantities of items, or even to the constrained living conditions in North Korea. I'll elaborate a bit more on this if how I connect these is not immediately apparent to others. Family-owned farms, therefore, is -again, in my mind- comparable to household slaves.
I disagree with farms of all sorts, because we have not the right to enslave, control, and dominate any member of our species, let alone another earthling. The conflict lies with family-owned farms. Although I disagree with having the animals there solely for human use, I am not sure what to think, regarding their qualities of life if they weren't there. From the farms which I have visited, I notice that the care and love for the animals is quite high. Sure, a master may love his or her slave, but the slavery itself still is not right. If the animal is in such an environment where it is safer than if it were, say, let free, would it not be cruel to let it go? The topic of animals as pets is a very grey area for me, because I've heard compelling arguments on each side. For example: People may love and care for an animal, and the animal returns feelings of comfort and love. If that animal were not in such an environment, it would likely be ill-equipped to exist in the world alone. If all of these animals were released, the ecosystem would likely suffer. Whether this is the case with a cat, dog, cow, chicken, etc., what's the most morally responsible thing to do? Do we keep them and leave them free to do what they like, sort of like an outside cat? Do we not participate in the purchase or owning of them unless the animal is absolutely sure to live a life of suffering without us? Do we let them all go with the knowledge that life will be hell for a short amount of time, then likely correct itself? I'm entirely unsure what's best for me to do, likely due to a lack of knowledge and experience in this area. I'm much better equipped to debate and create stances regarding religion.
I apologize if my thoughts are scattered and leave the you confused; that's exactly how I feel! At any rate, what are your thoughts regarding this? What resources could you give me that may give me a better base to formulate a strong opinion? Thank you in advance!

[brimstoneSalad]

We stop breeding them as demand for their products drop.

They aren't left in the wild to fend for themselves, they simply would never have been born.

[Jebus]

If the animal is in such an environment where it is safer than if it were, say, let free, would it not be cruel to let it go?

Yes it would be cruel, although not as cruel as killing the animal in a slaughter house.

Brimstonesalad is right in that animal production will be reduced alongside with reduced demand for meat. However, at some point in the future (perhaps when vegans are in a strong majority and hold most government positions) the issue of illegalizing animal slaughter will arise. When/if this happens I am sure some people (including some vegans) will argue that in order to save the economy from collapsing, the meat industry should be allowed to kill and sell off their existing animals. Another opposing group, I believe, will argue that the remaining animals should be neutered and allowed to live out their lives in protected shelters. I don't think anyone would support the idea of releasing the animals and letting them fend for themselves.

This would certainly be one of the most debated issues in human history. Even though the farm animal population would be significantly lower than it is today, the costs involved in keeping these animals alive (and happy) until their natural death would be in the trillions.

[brimstoneSalad]

However, at some point in the future (perhaps when vegans are in a strong majority and hold most government positions) the issue of illegalizing animal slaughter will arise. When/if this happens I am sure some people (including some vegans) will argue that in order to save the economy from collapsing, the meat industry should be allowed to kill and sell off their existing animals. Another opposing group, I believe, will argue that the remaining animals should be neutered and allowed to live out their lives in protected shelters. I don't think anyone would support the idea of releasing the animals and letting them fend for themselves.

It would be like it is in some areas of India. When slaughter (and presumably also breeding and raising) is made illegal in one area, the remaining animals would be exported to another area. Because changes like these almost always happen regionally before they happen nationally (or globally), there will always be somewhere else to slaughter animals where they can be exported as farms are closed and converted into vegetables farms or allowed to return to their wild state.

It's also likely that existing stock would be grandfathered in when the laws were passed, but would not be inherently necessary since it would probably go district by district, and nation by nation if at all.

This would certainly be one of the most debated issues in human history. Even though the farm animal population would be significantly lower than it is today, the costs involved in keeping these animals alive (and happy) until their natural death would be in the trillions.

Maybe due to inflation. There would probably be a few thousand animals left, which might cost in the millions, except for the likelihood of zoos and private individuals purchasing them. Once animal agriculture is ended locally, these animals would become strange and unique zoo attractions; "remember when people used to eat animals?", though demand probably wouldn't peak until the animals were almost gone.