Nature is cruel, therefore exploitation can be better?

[Anon0045]

Nature is quite cruel sometimes and many people, including vegans, will argue that it's so bad that even a life on a farm is great in comparison. The comparison is bad, because people don't take the wild animals and put them on a farms; they destroy their habitats and instead breed and raise a few species of animals on that land. These farmed animals wouldn't need to exist and be exploited in the first place. However, I still question whether it's really true that a life in nature is that bad? It's stressful, and many animals may die slowly and painfully from disease, starvation, cold, predators etc. Let's say that x % die like this or live bad lives in general. Would it then somehow help these animals if they became farm animals instead on the best possibly farms, where they live very short, protected lives yet are slaughtered 100% of the times, and occassionaly suffer from transport, slaughter or cruel farmers, etc. and those types of bad events would be less than x %?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I would say life in nature is less awful. I'd personally say exploitation and nature are approximately equally cruel. However, life in nature gives sentient beings something that life on the farm does not: freedom. The animals in nature have the ability to act out their own desires because they are not being hindered by an undefeatable parasite. Maybe this is really naïve, but that's what I'd say about this.

[Anon0045]

I should add that the animals I'm referring to are farm animals. They could be wild or they could be farmed. I'm also comparing the best possible farms that can exist where it is economically possible. I'm also aware that these animals have been bred to grow in ways that they might not be suited for a life in nature, so I'm comparing how they used to be before they were genetically changed with current farm animals.

I would say life in nature is less awful. I'd personally say exploitation and nature are approximately equally cruel. However, life in nature gives sentient beings something that life on the farm does not: freedom. The animals in nature have the ability to act out their own desires because they are not being hindered by an undefeatable parasite. Maybe this is really naïve, but that's what I'd say about this.

I don't know. Freedom is nice, but it's slightly overrated to me. What matters more is how one experiences life. The issue I have, is comparing the life animals could have after slaughter, to a life they would have in nature, in general. By ending a life, you're not just removing positive experiences, but also the negative ones. In nature, life is a real struggle, even if they enjoy life from time to time. I think that the fact that most animals keep struggling to survive in nature suggests that their lives are worth living. It could be just instinct, sure, but if life is bad enough, you could stop struggling. It doesn't matter if the experiences they have is generally bad in nature, at least as long as they want to live, they should.

[brimstoneSalad]

http://paleovegan.blogspot.com/2012/03/wild-life-worth-living.html

Humane Hominid said it pretty well here.

[Anon0045]

http://paleovegan.blogspot.com/2012/03/ ... iving.html

Humane Hominid said it pretty well here.

Thanks. That was good. Who are we to decide if their lives are not worth living anyway.

[brimstoneSalad]

You might also want to think about the absolute best examples of humans keeping animals: Domestic cats and dogs. In terms of treatment, taking care of them, loving them, playing with them, feeding them, medical care, and NOT killing them for food as soon as they are ripe for the picking.

And yet, sometimes by choice, they leave when the option is available. Why?

This includes animals born into domestication, and adopted strays -- sometimes they return from whence they came, even with quite a substantial knowledge of the environment they are returning to, because they prefer to actualize their own desires, however trivial they may seem, and be "free".

Sometimes it's goes the other way too, and a feral cat will adopt a home by choice, but not usually if locked in all of the time and controlled.

But this is the BEST case.

Take that, and then take away the fact that they aren't killed for food as soon as they're old enough, and there's no reason to believe that even with the best care any animal would consciously choose such a life.
Would you?


Now I'm NOT saying you should let your cats out. There are dangers in the human world (like cars and poisoning) that are greater than in the wild, and they'll also (being predators) kill a lot of small animals. But the behavior of domesticated animals even in the best cases, choosing to be free sometimes, should be an indication of what that means to them. I think you're substantially underrating freedom, and underestimating the horror it is to have a death clock and no chance to avoid that fate and suffer the consequences of your own actions instead. Even if they don't know they'll die soon, you're certainly failing to consider their idealized interests (is it OK to randomly and painlessly kill humans who don't know they'll die?).

[Anon0045]

Stray cats who will leave a comfortable but controlled home for uncertain future, may not know what's good for them, like addicts destroying their bodies with drugs.

Sometimes freedom is very important, but I don't think one can generalize and say that freedom is always what an animal, including humans, prefer. If one has a good life but is slightly restricted, which we all are in society, it might be better than living a completely free life if freedom leads to more hardship (assuming nature is cruel). What I wanted to explore was the alternatives of early death vs tough life and whether the net sum of the experiences were positive/negative for farmed animals in freedom/capitivity. From that narrow viewpoint, I can see how it would be better for the animal to be killed for food if nature is very cruel, but like Humane Hominid pointed out, that's mostly exaggeration. Similarly, it would be better for humans to be killed for food, if the alternatives were worse. But yeah, this is mere calculation/estimation and completely ignoring what the animal/human wants. Even if the end result is worse, the experiences they have are still worth something.

[brimstoneSalad]

Stray cats who will leave a comfortable but controlled home for uncertain future, may not know what's good for them, like addicts destroying their bodies with drugs.

It's not very reasonable to compare their behavior to addicts. They've lived both lives, and they choose the one they enjoy more -- how does that not have merit? Addicts will try to stay clean but fail due to poor will power; they don't really prefer to be addicts.
Anyway, even if it might be, whose job is it to decide that?

Also, I think you missed the point about being killed as a child and not living anything resembling a full life being quite terrible, freedom or not. Being killed at a young age is a much bigger issue. Animals do not want to be killed.

If we were talking about a farm that let animals live full lives, and just used their bodies when they died, that would be a very different matter.

Sometimes freedom is very important, but I don't think one can generalize and say that freedom is always what an animal, including humans, prefer.

I didn't. But you can observe that it goes both ways in terms of behavior. Usually when people are aware of their chains, they become discontent.
For many, freedom is more important than life itself, much less minor creature comforts.

But what you're comparing is:

Captivity AND an early death
Or:
Freedom AND a very likely longer life.

This is Lose-Lose vs. Win-Win however you evaluate the relative importance of freedom and life.

In terms of quality of life, it's likely less on the farm due to boredom and restriction. Animals adjust to the normality of a natural life (and anything better than that). There is such a thing as being miserable, but above that threshold creature comforts have diminishing returns.

If one has a good life but is slightly restricted, which we all are in society, it might be better than living a completely free life if freedom leads to more hardship (assuming nature is cruel).

But that's not all you're comparing. You're compounding variables:

What I wanted to explore was the alternatives of early death vs tough life and whether the net sum of the experiences were positive/negative for farmed animals in freedom/capitivity.

These are two different questions.

But I hope I have shown that animals can and will often freely choose, being relatively well informed, freedom rather than confinement, despite any marginal material benefits of the latter. If on top of that they knew they'd be killed shortly, it's very unlikely any would take that bargain.

If somebody constructed a mansion with luxurious food, massages, unlimited free sex with models, etc. and anything else you could want, and offered that you could life there for one year and then be killed, or continue with your current life, which would you choose?
I suspect that most people would not elect to go for a year of paradise followed by certain death.

And the difference between the farm we'd be considering and the wild isn't even nearly that great.

[Anon0045]

It's not very reasonable to compare their behavior to addicts. They've lived both lives and they choose the one they enjoy more

True, they lived both lives and at some point they will make the decision to not go back. It's also not up to anyone to decide what's best for the cat if the cat is clearly showing what it prefers and can survive well on its own.

Also, I think you missed the point about being killed as a child and not living anything resembling a full life being quite terrible, freedom or not. Being killed at a young age is a much bigger issue. Animals do not want to be killed.

I do think violation of privacy is wrong, and killing is one of the worst violations and terrible. I don't think a lack of life is terrible however. It's similar to when someone has cut down a very old tree. You know it can't be undone or you'll have to wait hundreds of years for another tree to grow that big, and you feel kind of bad because of it.

If we were talking about a farm that let animals live full lives, and just used their bodies when they died, that would be a very different matter.

Yes

Captivity AND an early death
Or:
Freedom AND a very likely longer life.

This is Lose-Lose vs. Win-Win however you evaluate the relative importance of freedom and life.

In terms of quality of life, it's likely less on the farm due to boredom and restriction. Animals adjust to the normality of a natural life (and anything better than that). There is such a thing as being miserable, but above that threshold creature comforts have diminishing returns

If the quality of life on even the best farm is even worse, then there really is no argument to be made for exploiting animals at all. I'm not convinced that is true, but nature definitely is less boring than a farm is. Perhaps some animals prefer a protected life and others don't. Like you wrote, they have different personalities, so it depends.

If one has a good life but is slightly restricted, which we all are in society, it might be better than living a completely free life if freedom leads to more hardship (assuming nature is cruel).

But that's not all you're comparing. You're compounding variables:

What I wanted to explore was the alternatives of early death vs tough life and whether the net sum of the experiences were positive/negative for farmed animals in freedom/capitivity.

These are two different questions.

It was an answer, not a question, to the assertion that freedom is the better alternative, but yes, I did originally make that other comparison. I didn't read freedom to be in that context of short life vs long life, just generally.

But I hope I have shown that animals can and will often freely choose, being relatively well informed, freedom rather than confinement, despite any marginal material benefits of the latter. If on top of that they knew they'd be killed shortly, it's very unlikely any would take that bargain.

If somebody constructed a mansion with luxurious food, massages, unlimited free sex with models, etc. and anything else you could want, and offered that you could life there for one year and then be killed, or continue with your current life, which would you choose?
I suspect that most people would not elect to go for a year of paradise followed by certain death.

And the difference between the farm we'd be considering and the wild isn't even nearly that great.

Yes, I think that what an animal wants is very good proof of what is actually best for the animal, if the animal understands both alternatives.

[brimstoneSalad]

I do think violation of privacy is wrong, and killing is one of the worst violations and terrible. I don't think a lack of life is terrible however. It's similar to when someone has cut down a very old tree. You know it can't be undone or you'll have to wait hundreds of years for another tree to grow that big, and you feel kind of bad because of it.

What?