Cows, pigs and chickens can't live without humans?

[marleen]

Sooo, hi, I'm new. Both here and in my vegan transition. Actually I decided to go vegan two weeks ago. And since then I had a few conversations about this with my family and few closest friends I wanted to know.
I could dismiss most of their worries (like protein and other type of deficiencies), but one of my best friends, though really supportive, not that understanding of some aspect of this. Veganism and a vegan friend is really new to her. Few days ago we had a talk about veganism for the second time and she brought up things that I couldn't really answer well. Maybe you could help me with that? (I love her, she is really smart and kind, but I can tell that this vegan thing is really weird for her, so kudos for supporting me still.)
One of the things she said is that she doesn't like ("angry") vegans. I told her that I could understand them as there is so much cruelty going on with animals and some people are more sensitive about it then others and they chose activism as a way of expressing it. She said she couldn't (understand angry vegans). So I went on saying that those people are minority and most of them are nice people, as in there are mean people among every kind of groups, not just vegans, so it's not right to judge all of them based on that. We still continued on talking about stuff like cruelty against animals.
And I don't remember how, but she said something like "(if everyone went vegan) those animals (livestock) can't live without humans. They would die in the wild alone"
And I honestly was speachless and ended up mumbling without thinking that I don't think so and that they wouldn't die and that there would be only fewer of them (as in we wouldn't have to force animals to multiply all the time, so there wouldn't be that many of them, I mean), but honestly I don't know... I don't agree with her on that, but I don't know how to explain it. My knowledge about veganism is still a bit lacking. I want to explain these things better for her...
What do you think? What would you answer in the same situation?
(Also please forgive me if my english is bad.)

 

[nobody]

The wild ancestor of the the chicken and pig, the red junglefowl and the wild boar, still live in nature but the wild ancestors of cattle were called aurochs and they are extinct. The wild forms are the physiological designs that are best for the health of the animals. Domestic animals are bred for features that benefit humans, not animals. The broiler chicken for example, has a whole bunch of health problems that red junglefowl do not, a result of the additional muscle mass it has been bred to grow.

I believe in animal rights and to me that basically means that I believe in the right of animals to not be the property of humans. Therefore, in theory, I am alright with all domesticated animal species going extinct, even dogs and cats. This is because ultimately, there is going to be “evil” that results from their association with us, such as factory farming, lab experimentation, all the homeless dogs and cats and those being euthanized or living in tiny cages in shelters, that fact that cats need meat, being obligate carnivores, so other animals have to die to feed them, etc. The wild ancestors of dogs and cats, grey wolves and African wildcats, live much better lives with a better diet and greater adventure and they do not have to endure all the horrors inflicted by humans such as breeding for a flat face, declawing, tail docking, animal hoarding, the dog and cat meat trade, etc. I have three cats and love cats in general, but I don’t think the “num nums” they get are worth all the terrible stuff that happens to them from their association with us. My cats cannot even go outside unfortunately, because of where I live.

Back to the question, I read that a vegan saves 200 animals per year, including shellfish, on average. I consider myself an animal rights activist because as a vegan, I save those 200 individuals. That is my focus, not “doing my part” in providing food and shelter for a “torture breed” chicken that only needs food and shelter because I am creating a demand for it.


More of this:

Less of this:

 

[Plant Muncher]

Quite honestly I've made the same argument. The domesticated varieties of animals we have today wouldn't survive long without our help. It's true. The livestock numbers would plummet if we all stop eating them. At the same time, it's a daily wholesale slaughter anyway of these animals so if it is going to be a daily slaughter or a one time die off, does it really seem like either is a good choice?

You can tell your friend that the breeding, feeding, watering, and slaughtering process of these animals is causing more global warming than burning fossil fuels and see how she feels about the the practice of industrial animal farming. Each hamburger you buy consumes like 800 gallons of water to produce.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

On the angry point, agree with her that some vegans are angry, and should be less angry, but suggest to her to just the arguments on its merits. You can point out to her that she would not be racist if some people arguing against racism did so in an angry, idiotic way. Remind her that angry vegans are noticed more while the majority of quieter, respectful vegans are not noticed.

Regarding this comment: "(if everyone went vegan) those animals (livestock) can't live without humans. They would die in the wild alone." As a matter of simple logic it is almost certainly wrong. Livestock animals have a short lifespan and therefore even if people became vegan at an unrealistically rapid pace (say 5-10 years everyone becomes vegan) all the animals currently alive would be eaten, and less would be brought into existence to respond to demand and the population of livestock would steadily decline. They are never going to be released into the wild. In a vegan world, we have less land used to feed farm animals to live a degrading live, and more land to support wild animals and humans, the real and true beneficiaries of veganism (although most animal rights activitists and vegans do not seem able to follow this basic argument and genuinely seem to believe that they are saving chickens/cows/pigs, when in fact all they are doing is causing less chickens to be bought into existence).

However, you might want to sidestep all of that philosophical argument in arguing the vegan case, and make a simpler point. Just because they wouldn't be able to live without us, doesn't make it morally OK to cause the suffering we do, and kill them. Just because we bring them into existence in order to kill them doesn't make it Ok to actually kill them.

 

[Plant Muncher]

If you are referring to my comments in your second paragraph, you misquoted me completely. I never said anything about releasing them to the wild. So my logic can't be wrong if it was never my logic in the first place. However, if for instance people literally stopped eating livestock almost overnight because of something like mad cow disease of some other pathogen, the livestock population would collapse because they would run out of food. Who is going to pay to feed useless animals on a scale that would be required when simply eliminating them would be much, much cheaper? The corrupt industrial farming industry? I don't think so. That industry would have already lost its meal ticket and would be mired in bankruptcy. I'm sure that that they would do it out of the goodness of their hearts. <<<<sarcasm>>>>

Some smaller operations like local farmers wouldn't fair any better in a mass livestock disease situation. I don't believe that the world en masse would ever become vegan overnight without something forcing them to do so. People aren't going to gradually become vegans over 5-10 years under any circumstances. If livestock ever became non-consumable, nothing would prevent the rapid decline on their numbers. These animals are nothing like they used to be before we started altering their DNA through generations of animal husbandry. If as you say, they were released into the wild, they would have about the same chance of survival as a toy poodle in wolf country.

On your last point, we don't just bring them into existence, as I said, we have altered their very DNA and have for thousands of years. The damage is done. Their natural environment is destroyed. Their natural instincts are bred out of them. They are pretty much frankencows at this point with no real place in nature. I'm not advocating their slaughter, I'm just saying that not only would their declining numbers be inevitable, it would also be good for the environment in a whole host of ways from the elimination of the degradation their sheer numbers contribute to global warming, the fresh water they consume, to the land and water they pollute through industrial farming. It's better for them and us if we reduced their numbers. It's a win-win.

 

[nobody]

In a vegan world, we have less land used to feed farm animals to live a degrading live, and more land to support wild animals and humans, the real and true beneficiaries of veganism (although most animal rights activitists and vegans do not seem able to follow this basic argument and genuinely seem to believe that they are saving chickens/cows/pigs, when in fact all they are doing is causing less chickens to be bought into existence).

Personally, I use the word “save” loosely to mean “not create a demand for”, not to mean that the animal is spared slaughter and gets to live out its life somewhere in peace. Here is the article I was referring to, by the way, if anyone wants to read it.

I think this idea of not creating a demand for, or “saving” individual animals is very useful, and that article even puts a number on it, 198. A lot of people have a defeatist attitude and believe that if everyone doesn’t go vegan there is no point. But if you care about animals, there is a point. If you try to avoid hitting animals with your car out of concern for them, then you care about animals, so by going vegan, it is like avoiding hitting 198 per year with your car.

Another thing I was going to say about the whole "(if everyone went vegan) those animals (livestock) can't live without humans. They would die in the wild alone" thing is that there are pretty large feral domestic pig populations in the wild all over the world, which are escaped pigs and their offspring and sometimes they interbreed with wild boars. They are considered a nuisance, invasive species and are hunted by people. Chickens usually can't survive in the wild, but I saw a survival show once where some were living in an abandoned town on a volcanic island with no predators. I've never heard of any feral cattle populations.

If the entire planet magically went vegan overnight, I would think that 98% of the animals living in factory farms would be slaughtered and made into cat food and the remaining 2% would be sent to animal sanctuaries to live out their lives. Since the aurochs is extinct, maybe some cattle would be released into the wild to replace them. It would have to be a pretty large population so that they could defend themselves like any herd animal. They would be an invasive species technically, but we did hunt their wild ancestors to death and the last aurochs was seen in 1627 in Poland so, it would be kind of like putting them back into nature after a few hundred years. This wouldn't be necessary with chickens and pigs because their wild ancestors are already living in the wild, as I mentioned.