Darwinianevolution said:
Again, then the answer is buy food from producers that do take care of their livestock, not just changing people's diet in such a fundamental way. People would be much open to animal's rights if they heard "Buy meat from farmers that take care of their cows" instead of "Stop eating cow". And about the human control thing: Wouldn't it be the other way around? Species that go extinct for reasons not related to human interference should not really afect us in a moral sense, but don't we have a responsability to mantain species created by humanity for the sake of humanity, especially those that would either go extinct in the wild, or they would completely mess up the environement? If the logical conclussion of veganism became the extinction of many species, wouldn't many people (including animal activists) abandon those ideas for the sake of those animals? |
First bolded: yes that is the answer for people that have money to spare but the meat coming from producers that do take care of their livestock is more expensive and that results into people buying the cheaper less controlled meats and making it less expensive is also never an option because the farmers that care about the livestock would go broke because they're the ones that do invest into better feeding and environments for the animals and that needs to be translated into the profits to be viable.
Second bolded:That is a very loaded question and i partly agree with it because yes species that go extinct for reasons not related to human interference should not make us the moral criminals if we let its extinctence just proceed but the animals we control are not comparable with the free animals of the wild and i would rather use the term slave for the donkeys you mentioned earlier so when this extermination translates into no more forced slavery work for lots of unhappy animals than i might be not so sad we could lose a species over that.
