You're viewing part of a thread.
Are you comparing animal husbandry to owning slaves?
Militant vegans are a silly people.
Of course not. Animals are inferior by nature and were made to be owned by humans. It's just the natural order of things. We even have a special word for it. We call it husbandry, isn't that cute? Just like how a husband owns his wife, women being creatures that act on instincts and emotions instead of reason.
You seem surprised that we have a special word for something that humans have been doing before written history.
Do you have any clever musings on the encompassing term, agriculture? Perhaps how it has culture in it and culture is emotions instead of reason.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. I assume the title is IaM14aNDtHisDEEP!
Veganism is the logical extension of abolitionism and feminism. If you've ever wondered what side of history you would've been on, now you know.
“Animal Liberation” may sound more like a parody of other liberation movements than a serious objective. The idea of “The Rights of Animals” actually was once used to parody the case for women’s rights. When Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today’s feminists, published her Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792, her views were widely regarded as absurd, and before long an anonymous publication appeared entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. The author of this satirical work (now known to have been Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher) tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft’s arguments by showing that they could be carried one stage further. If the argument for equality was sound when applied to women, why should it not be applied to dogs, cats, and horses? The reasoning seemed to hold for these “brutes” too; yet to hold that brutes had rights was manifestly absurd. Therefore the reasoning by which this conclusion had been reached must be unsound, and if unsound when applied to brutes, it must also be unsound when applied to women, since the very same arguments had been used in each case....
Difference being if we end animal husbandry Earth simply won't have those animals anymore. More a genocide really.
How many draft horse does the average farmer have now that we have tractors?
Once we lose or reduce these genetic lineages, there is no going back.
Vegans want to pretend they are protecting animals but they aren't, their ideas result in a less genetically diverse biosphere. They are hurting the longevity of our species by attempting to force others down a path that relies on technology they take for granted or more likely do not understand. You see this when they talk about animal feed corn and think we can replace those same fields at the same yields as sweet corn. They aren't agriculturists but want to tell us how agriculture ought to be.
And it's clearly an emotional position because you will reject any logic or reasoning they are present. They feel they are right and their righteousness is part of the argument.
Animal agriculture is the main cause of deforestation and a leading contributor to CO2 emissions. And we don't need to replace every acre of farm land grown for animal feed with farms for human consumption. Animal calories and protein are, at best, 15% efficient. As in it one calorie of meat requires 6 calories of crops. We only need 15% of that farm land to be useable for human edible crops and the rest can be returned to nature. And domesticated animals are selectively bred monsters. Chickens so huge that 70% of them have debilitating leg issues. Pigs are constantly hungry, so much so that pigs intended to live longer than a few weeks (i.e. for breeding) need to be denied food so they don't eat themselves to death. This denial of food often results self multination and aggression. Extinction would be a mercy for these animals. And there should never have been billions of pigs or chickens or cows to begin with. One species of bird should not account for 70% of bird biomass. The majority of mammal biomass should not be found in factory farms.
one calorie of meat requires 6 calories of crops.
ah, but much of the crops that are fed to animals are the byproducts of our own agricultural processes. by feeding them to cattle we get more calories than we would, since we won't eat, for instance, cottonseeds and corn stalks.
That's some of it but not the majority. Our demand for meat is far far greater than byproducts can supply. And we really don't need the extra calories from meat. We could grow far more food by repurposing that land.
https://lemmy.zip/pictrs/image/5c433cba-a635-48ab-b875-3b5530480e89.webp
this seems to say (near the bottom there) that basically everything a cow eats (52 of 54 units or there about) is either grazed grass or crop residues, with only like 2 or 3 of those units (so about 4-6%, in round numbers) comes from crops grown to feed them. i don't really know the dietary composition of a chicken or swine, but, cattle, at least, get essentially no direct crops at all.
We could grow far more food by repurposing that land.
if that were the case, why aren't we? it seems there must be a good reason that in the over half decade since this paper's publication, surely we could have revolutionized our food production. instead, even though veganism saw a steady rise from before the publication of that paper until 2020, it's been in decline since then. somehow i don't think that paper captured the whole scope of our agricultural system.
People don't go hungry because no one's figured out how to produce enough food. People go hungry because of our current economic system. All I'm trying to show is that it is possible to feed a vegan world, and it would actually be easier. Actually creating a world where everyone is fed is a separate topic entirely and for people much smarter than myself.
To be clear, that's a yes on genocide, cloaked by eugenics.
I can only assume you view farmers has evil since they are the ones breeding these animals.
You believe all farm animals are treated poorly and spend their lives suffering or are willing to genocide them all because some are based on information that either you cherry picked or was cherry picked for you. Likely the later
You belief without doubt these animals would rather not exist than be born. That alone more closely aligns you with "the wrong side of history" -- I am unaware of any reports on animals mass suiciding so I'm guessing they are happier than humans, who coincidently commit suicide a large rates...maybe we should cull that herd instead, they are the ones responsible for deforesting the Amazon. I know you'd rather blame the existence of animals but I'm not aware of any cows reasonable for cutting down trees.
The reality is that you care more about how these animals make you feel than how they feel. You've clearly never asked a pig if it wanted to die.
You may be surprised to know that if you were to chase a pig with knife while calmly explaining it's what's best for her, she would be content to trample you rather than accept your mercy killing for being of a sullied bloodline.
I'm not saying we kill every pig tomorrow. I'm saying we stop raping them to balloon their populations to absurd numbers which are inherently unsustainable. You think it's genocide not to artificially inseminate billions of pigs?
Raping? You think farmers are raping their cows? That's the hysteria I was referring to earlier.
Vegans find a talking point that causes them to upset themselves and demands everyone else see it from their perspective. It's emotionally manipulative at best.
Personally, I find it hilarious how you've upset yourself over imagined grievances. Watching a new religion being created in real time is fascinating. Dogma forming and shifting to fill the voids of logic. Sociologically, amazing.
There also aren't a billion pigs in the world. Billions of chickens, yes. Billions of cows, yes. Around three quarters of a billion pigs.
Your inability to do some basic research on your position is incredible. Feelings over facts. Emotions over reason. Project these failings in the other.
If putting bull sperm on the end of a stick and ramming it up a cow's vagina isn't rape then nothing is.
If we apply the definition of rape we use for humans to animals, most animals are rapists. There's not a lot of consent in the animal kingdom.
If you require consent for all interactions then you too are involved in rape when you purchase grains that did not consent to being harvested.
The entire concept is, again, hysterics because extrapolated to the next level it's clear the only choice to prevent the suffering of an other does not exist. Even your death will result in the death of billions of bacteria.
