Philosophical Vegan Forum

We humans have taken in our control the total evolution of the cattle animals like bovine, hen or goat and made them vulnerable. They might have been faster and tougher before we had them domesticated. But by being under the leashes for ages, they have become totally dependent on us. They have become slow, dumb and defenseless. What happens when foxes surround a herd of sheep? Do the sheep fight off the foxes on their own? Do they form hordes like the bulls of Savannah? No! They do nothing more than stroll a bit faster on those good for nothing (except for eating) soft toes. And they wait for the shepherds to scare off the foxes.

They feel safe under us. This could be the reason why hens gave up flight and became fluffier. Maybe they wanted to lure us and wanted us to continue domesticating them. Of course they are not very smart to know what’s reserved for them in the slaughter houses. They just saw their specie having food, protection and shelter under us. They saw their generations populating. That’s the reason their biology stopped resisting against us and instead worked on sticking to us. They are in a symbiotic relationship with us.

But of course, we humans have developed humanity that is incompatible with what we do to them (or should I say, what we take from them in return). And it is actually against nature to have them all killed without giving them a chance. So… are we going to let them go now that we have taken away their defenses from them? Do you really think that would be fair? If our populous goes vegetarian or vegan by majority, there will be no need for the millions and millions of these dependent species in the factories. What do you think are the keepers going to do with them? Of course there will be no money spent for their protection. They will be set free and it is then that these poor animals shall have their suffering upon them. Their heavy and slow bodies will be an easy prey for the predators. Their numbers will decline to the extent of extinction. We are not relieving them from their predators by abstaining from our omnivorous habit but instead replacing ourselves with more fierce and brutal predators.

I am totally against the animal factory farming and their miss treatment. But is it wise to totally abolish the system instead of altering it?
If we take a look into the wild, we see predators make their day by having the weakest (usually the slowest) of their prey. This abides the law of the survival of the fittest. But in the butcher houses we take the strongest and fastest first. So this has to be changed. In short, we should create a system that checks the abilities of these animals in a mass and spare the better ones. The slower however, should be slaughtered in a painless and least brutal manner. This will not only play our part of being fair but also push these animals into developing their defensive skills and maybe someday make them strong enough to face the wild. Of course, this sounds ridiculously impractical but it’s not impossible. If we could make these animals dumb and defenseless for our use then we should also be able to give them back their defenses.

If we have come so far to realize that the cruelty against animals is wrong, we have to also understand that the solution is not as simple as veganism. It is a slow and tough process. Do you agree?
-Sam Arcot (visit my blog, http://www.samarcot.weebly.com/blog)

Sam Arcot wrote: If our populous goes vegetarian or vegan by majority, there will be no need for the millions and millions of these dependent species in the factories. What do you think are the keepers going to do with them? Of course there will be no money spent for their protection. They will be set free and it is then that these poor animals shall have their suffering upon them.

No, they wouldn't be released in the wild.
If demand decreases, supply decreases aswell. If the majority of people go veg*n, farmers are going to breed less animals, because they wouldn't need as many. The number of those animals would slowly decrease, untill they'd probably go extinct.
The world wouldn't go vegan over night. They wouldn't be released in the wild.

Sam Arcot wrote:In short, we should create a system that checks the abilities of these animals in a mass and spare the better ones. The slower however, should be slaughtered in a painless and least brutal manner. This will not only play our part of being fair but also push these animals into developing their defensive skills and maybe someday make them strong enough to face the wild. Of course, this sounds ridiculously impractical but it’s not impossible. If we could make these animals dumb and defenseless for our use then we should also be able to give them back their defenses.

And how do you plan to do that?
It requires a lot of time and a lot of money. There are billions of farmed animals, more than the population of the world.
We would need millions and millions of people doing this, and there would need to be a special place to put those stronger animals, separated from the others. Also, animals have been changed in their genes. A stronger hen wouldn't make a specie that survives better. We would need to change the specie's genes. It wouldn't work in this way.
And finally, how do you convince everyone to start this absurd process? There's no way we can support this with our money.

Sam Arcot wrote:If we have come so far to realize that the cruelty against animals is wrong, we have to also understand that the solution is not as simple as veganism. It is a slow and tough process. Do you agree?

It can actually be as simple as veganism.
It will be a long and slow process before the majority of people will go vegan.

Something like 19 different species are extinct in the wild but still live on farms, for these animals it if up to us to decide weather we should continue to sustain the animals populations with the hope of re introducing them to the wild, or allow them to die off and go extinct. Whenever humans have tried to re introduce a population into a habitat that has gone without them for a long amount of time the results are often less than pretty. Because of this I nominate that the 19 animals extinct outside of farms should not be reintroduced to the wild.

bobo0100 wrote:Something like 19 different species are extinct in the wild but still live on farms,

What are those?

I don't think there are any actual species. Farmed animals can largely interbreed with their wild relatives- as domestic dogs can breed with wolves.


As Energy said, though, if the world goes vegan, it will happen gradually.
Every year, farmers will breed fewer animals. It's not necessary to release them into the wild.

Eventually, there would only be a few hundred or a few thousand cows and chickens, and they would be kept as pets, or in animal sanctuaries where they would be taken care of, and people could visit to see them and remember with fascination that brutal time in history when humans used to actually eat animals.


As Humane Hominid pointed out in his blog (anybody have a link?), it's actually a myth that nature is a very brutal and dangerous place. Most animals are not killed by predators.

Even if we did release all of these animals, it's not like they would be dying off in droves.
The whole premise of these domestic animals being soft and defenseless is greatly exaggerated.

Domestic pigs are VERY successful in the wild (sometimes too successful), as generally are cows (in the wild, they have bulls to protect them- don't forget that, and bulls are by no means defenseless).

Farmers actively remove the horns, teeth, and beaks of animals to make them less dangerous. Stop doing this, and they become able to defend themselves. They also do things like 'pin' wings, to reduce mobility (as it turns out, chickens actually can fly- Google search it, and you'll find some videos easily).

That seems convincing but why is dairy restricted in veganism? And what's wrong with eggs? Eating eggs is like eating fruits from a plant. They are lifeless and we are doing no harm to the animal. It will also keep their population in check.

Welcome back brimstoneSalad, the forum was too quiet without you

Sam Arcot wrote:That seems convincing but why is dairy restricted in veganism? And what's wrong with eggs? Eating eggs is like eating fruits from a plant. They are lifeless and we are doing no harm to the animal. It will also keep their population in check.

We actually have a thread that explains why to go vegan over vegetarian http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... ?f=22&t=79

Sam Arcot wrote:That seems convincing but why is dairy restricted in veganism? And what's wrong with eggs? Eating eggs is like eating fruits from a plant. They are lifeless and we are doing no harm to the animal. It will also keep their population in check.

Well, eggs that are produced on farms aren't fertilized, so it has nothing to do with population.

It may be possible to produce dairy and eggs humanely, but this would be very expensive.

In order to treat the chickens and cows well, and take care of them properly - and take care of them in real retirement (instead of killing them), the cost of the milk and eggs would really rise (maybe ten times the current cost or more).

In a capitalistic system, where costs are cut no matter what, cruelty to cows and chickens is inevitable.

I posted a thread a little about ideas on potential for humane systems here:

http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=22&t=115

The concept is: If you remove profit motive, it may be possible for animals to be treated well (instead of treated like machines).

But if conditions were made good, and profit motive were removed, milk and eggs would become even more expensive.
Once you pay $5 for an egg, doesn't it make more sense to spend 25 cents on tofu instead for the same nutrition?


EDIT: Thanks Energy! Nice to be back on the internet

Sam Arcot wrote:We humans have taken in our control the total evolution of the cattle animals like bovine, hen or goat and made them vulnerable.

False,
evolution goes on with all living things. Sure we have bred animals to be fatter and and calmer, but evolution still goes on without our hand in play.

They feel safe under us.

How do you know what they feel or don't feel?

What happens when foxes surround a herd of sheep? Do the sheep fight off the foxes on their own? Do they form hordes like the bulls of Savannah? No! They do nothing more than stroll a bit faster on those good for nothing (except for eating) soft toes. And they wait for the shepherds to scare off the foxes.

Ive seen sheep huddle in large groups and run as a unit. Herd animals (wild ones included) tend to group and flee. Have you not seen nature documentaries showing the behaviour of herbivore herd animals?

But by being under the leashes for ages, they have become totally dependent on us.

That may be true, but irrelevant going forward.

This could be the reason why hens gave up flight and became fluffier

Or it could not be... the time to believe in something is the moment you have evidence and good reason to believe it is true, not just possible.

Maybe they wanted to lure us and wanted us to continue domesticating them.

An animal of any species cannot will themselves to have traits. No matter how much I want different features, my thoughts alone will not achieve them.

Of course they are not very smart to know what’s reserved for them in the slaughter houses.

How do you know how smart (or dumb) they are? They may not understand what a slaughterhouse is, but that doesn't mean they can't sense whats coming when they are there.

They are in a symbiotic relationship with us.

I guess like human slavery, right? Human slaves have their freedom taken away but have the protection of their master. Win win?

And it is actually against nature to have them all killed without giving them a chance. So… are we going to let them go now that we have taken away their defenses from them?

Against nature? Let them go? Do you honestly think that the world would go vegan overnight and now we are stuck with billions of animals? No. If the world ends up going vegan, it will be a long drawn out process in which the demand for meat will go down, and therefore the supply will match demand. Fewer and fewer animals would be bred.

I am totally against the animal factory farming and their miss treatment.

Does that mean you NEVER eat meat from an animal factory farm? You never eat fast food, or go to a restaurant, or eat at someone's house who doesn't share your views on factory farming?

But is it wise to totally abolish the system instead of altering it?

Yes. Would it have been wise to alter human slavery rather than abolish it? Some will argue we can alter animal use as a means to ending it, but I don't see that as leading to abolition (for the most part).

In short, we should create a system that checks the abilities of these animals in a mass and spare the better ones.

why? We don't need to eat animals to be healthy, and killing the weaker ones is still cruel and unnecessary. Seems like real good morality to prey on the weak.

The slower however, should be slaughtered in a painless and least brutal manner.

And how do you ensure a painless death on a scale large enough to supply the world of their meat? Even a 99% painless success rate (which is highly improbable, if at all possible) would account for millions of animals being killed within that 1% that is not painless. What justification do we have to kill these animals?

This will not only play our part of being fair but also push these animals into developing their defensive skills and maybe someday make them strong enough to face the wild.

There is nothing fair about our use (or possible use) of animals. Im sure we could find better ways (if we needed to) to push these animals into developing defensive skills that would not require us to sell their bodies off.

Of course, this sounds ridiculously impractical but it’s not impossible.

I agree id does sound ridiculously impractical, and entirely unnecessary. We already have a wonderful solution many times better: veganism.

If we have come so far to realize that the cruelty against animals is wrong, we have to also understand that the solution is not as simple as veganism. It is a slow and tough process. Do you agree?

No i do not. Why not take the simple, healthy, environmentally friendly, moral choice and go vegan? Sometimes the most simple option is the best option. More complicated doesn't mean better.

I do not agree, but I am open to opposing viewpoints. But lemme represent this case from a Vegan point of view. Animals aren't dependent on us. They would rather have us off the face of the Earth, to a degree. And they are not dumb animals. Pigs and cattle are highly intelligent animals. Chickens.. well not as much, but do possess the intelligence to know what the heck is going on. And about your foxes comparison, foxes are carnivores. They have a good reason to eat sheep, unlike humans. Sure, we have evolved to be able to eat both meat and plants, but we have the ability to only eat plant-based foods, and not meat. "They feel safe under us." I have never wanted to facepalm so hard in my entire history of existing. I'm not sure that a chicken would feel safe when it has it's beak cut off, or when a piglet is being slammed on the floor. That's all I have to say, but these are interesting things to talk about.

Sam Arcot wrote:I am totally against the animal factory farming and their miss treatment. But is it wise to totally abolish the system instead of altering it? If we take a look into the wild, we see predators make their day by having the weakest (usually the slowest) of their prey. This abides the law of the survival of the fittest. But in the butcher houses we take the strongest and fastest first.

I think falls under the appeal to naturalism or the Naturalistic Fallacy? (Is that right?)

Sam Arcot wrote:So this has to be changed. In short, we should create a system that checks the abilities of these animals in a mass and spare the better ones. The slower however, should be slaughtered in a painless and least brutal manner. This will not only play our part of being fair but also push these animals into developing their defensive skills and maybe someday make them strong enough to face the wild. Of course, this sounds ridiculously impractical but it’s not impossible.

I don't want to jump the gun and give in to Godwin's Law, but this sounds a little nazi like, checking their abilities to find the "superior" ones and allow them to live and kill the "inferiors". Also the problem is not their treatment, it's the fact that we're still deciding when & how they will die when it is isn't even a necessity for humans as individuals nor as a species.