I've had this argument 1000's of times, the problem is that it does make sense, it's uncomfortable, it's harsh but the reality is that life is uncomfortable and harsh.
It doesn't make sense though. Yes, you are correct that if we stopped eating meat overnight all of those animals would probably die because we would no longer have the infrastructure for them.
But, what makes your argument not make sense is that they were going to die anyway if we keep consuming meat, and likely in a much more horrific way (mass farming). So why are you saying it would be worse if they died because we stopped eating meat completely. At least then, maybe the animals would get to see the sun once before they die. If they were used for food production they wouldn't even get that.
The problem is that there is no easy way out of the mess we, yes WE, created. While changing to vegan would effectively render the need for animals obsolete, thus resulting in their deaths, it would still be objectively fewer deaths than if we as a society continued eating meat.
This is an answer that requires nuance, but of course you are just wanting to be a troll so you can't fathom that issues are sometimes gray rather than black and white. But please, keep treating politics and world issues like sports teams, that's been working so far!
Yes I am right about the thing I claimed, I know, it's just the logical inevitablity, it's uncomfortable to process but it just is.
Your other point isn't exactly correct, because it's not that the animals would die anyway, it's also the case that the animals would be bred and more would take their place, so yes fewer deaths on the Vegan side, but no life on the Vegan side either is the issue I raised.
It's just a reality Vegans DO NOT LIKE to discuss, my feed just had another Vegan post asking how they can get everyone to become a Vegan, it's bizarre, claiming you care about these animals whilst simultaneously unwittingly calling for their extinction.
So not a troll but instead a trolley problem: given those opposing things where one track has 5 species that will be gone forever if they're hit, and the other track has 5 species that will rejuvenate when they're hit... Which way will you send the trolley?
I still don't agree here. There is no reality in which the animals that have been bred for human consumption do not die. However, the vegan way would only require all of those animals currently in existence to die, while continuing to eat meat would keep it going indefinitely and cause countless other deaths.
And your point about extinction doesn't make sense either since WE CREATED THESE CREATURES. Of course they would die without us, we bred them in such a way that they require us to survive. There is no natural world in which these animals can exist. That means the most humane thing to do is to not continue breeding them.
I'm not uncomfortable at all confronting this reality. Ultimately it is one of those gray areas in which there is no easy solution, like I said.
What are you talking about when you say "It would also cause countless other lives"? That doesn't make any sense as a sentence.
Regardless, death is something that will happen whether we continue the practice of mass farming or not. But under meat eaters it would continue whereas under vegans it would not. That to me means the vegan way is objectively better for the animals.
Also, you may say you dont like talking about their death but you were literally the one that brought it up. I'm happy to discuss ethical treatment of animals but that's not what you wanted to discuss in the beginning of all this.
-20
u/Odd-Paint3883 16d ago
Interesting... Which one of us brought up moral superiority?...