Animal Liberation Now!!

[Immersiveunreality]

Darwinianevolution said:

Immersiveunreality said:

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.

Many farms and businesses related to agriculture and livestock production nowadays use their quality treatment of their animals and plants as both a badge of honour and a selling point, and nowadays with all the fuzz and debate around animal rights, they compete with bigger companies by taking the "environmental" route. There are many means to granting decent lives to farm animals nowadays, plenty of them extended enough they aren't that expensive to get either. I'd even say smaller farmers would adapt faster to legislation than bigger ones, considering they don't have as many livestock as their competition. And if people would go broke by implementing laws protecting animals' well being, how many would lose their jobs if people suddenly stopped eating meat?

And about comparing domestic animals with slavery... That's really pushing the comparison. You're essentially taking the "someone's freedom is tied to another one" part of the concept, with all of the negative connotations attached to it, and applying it to a whole different context. That is a very loaded comparison. And even still, I cannot grasp how people who defend animal rights would agree with letting a species die, when the right to exist is one of the first and most important rights there is.

First bolded: I know but their wish to "compete"is not met at all as most people buying meat in stores do not look into that so yes it can always be a badge of honour but only a selling point for the people that firstly have more money to spend and secondly want to be invested in the wellbeing of animals and most just do not really make a connection between their food and a living being.

Second bolded: Indeed there are many ways to improve animal life on farms and most of it costs money and the fast adapters like you mentioned the smaller farmers to be are also the ones that currently are in most debt because they can not treat animals the same factorylike way like bigger farmers do.(i must mention that i talk about a small portion of Europe so it might be different for other countries.)My brother in law had a company that delivered everything to farmers in this country like food and nutrition and the debt the small farmers had was crazy,those same farmers that took pride in that badge of honour. Most of them went bankrupt because they still couldnt compete with prices of meat coming in from other countries.

Third bolded:People can put more importance in ending suffering and that is why letting a species die comes second place for them.

"The right to exist is one of the first and most important rights there is" This is no right or law of nature or should we use invented human rights on nature and if we do that then we could also blame that on our human control and ego again.