I'd prefer to see less domesticated animals in the world due to obvious problems. This would mean more wild animals. The "cat lover" in my family disagrees. Where do you stand on this?
Less domesticated animals, more wild animals
- Thread starter rainforests1
- Start date
I'm not sure less domesticated animals necessarily means we'll have more wild ones. But I think less domesticated ones would be a good thing.
There are clearly more of them than people can take care of, as can be seen in animal shelters. Also, factory farm animals count as domesticated.
I agree that far fewer (if any!) domesticated animals would make the world a much better place. Domesticated cats are predators, killing millions of birds and small animals, and are also obligate omnivores, which contributes to factory farming. Dogs are bad, too, as most owners insist on feeding their pet dogs a meat-based diet, even though it's completely unnecessary. Fewer pets would lessen the amount of misery in the world.
And although I love animals and know I'm in the minority on this, I would prefer to live in a world where there were no pets at all. Deep down inside, I don't trust the human species with the well-being of others. We're far too selfish to not take advantage of anything under our power.
Let all animals be wild, live natural lives, and let's enjoy them from our windows.
And although I love animals and know I'm in the minority on this, I would prefer to live in a world where there were no pets at all. Deep down inside, I don't trust the human species with the well-being of others. We're far too selfish to not take advantage of anything under our power.
Let all animals be wild, live natural lives, and let's enjoy them from our windows.
The dogs in my family have been mediocre hunters at best. It could be the exception though. Along with the problems of other animals being killed, for the many that sit at home most of their life, I don't think they'd find that kind of life enjoyable. I'm not completely against people having pets, but it would be nice to see the number much smaller.
Calliegirl
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 5,816
- Lifestyle
- Vegan
I agree that far fewer (if any!) domesticated animals would make the world a much better place. Domesticated cats are predators, killing millions of birds and small animals, and are also obligate omnivores, which contributes to factory farming. Dogs are bad, too, as most owners insist on feeding their pet dogs a meat-based diet, even though it's completely unnecessary. Fewer pets would lessen the amount of misery in the world.
And although I love animals and know I'm in the minority on this, I would prefer to live in a world where there were no pets at all. Deep down inside, I don't trust the human species with the well-being of others. We're far too selfish to not take advantage of anything under our power.
Let all animals be wild, live natural lives, and let's enjoy them from our windows.
I agree with you. Domestication has not led to anything good for the animals, they were surviving very well before we decided to use them for our convenience.
I've heard of wild animals enjoying the company of people occasionally and don't see anything wrong if they want to hang out with you, like a deer who stops by everyday while you're working in the garden, as long as they retain their freedom and you aren't using them.
I think fewer domesticated animals would definitely be better. Remember how many wild animals were wiped out to protect livestock!
This won't happen anytime soon. And as long as you are vegan and rescuing your pets instead of buying them, you're not really part of the problem.
ETA: Also, keep your cats indoors to protect birds and for the cats' safety.
This won't happen anytime soon. And as long as you are vegan and rescuing your pets instead of buying them, you're not really part of the problem.
ETA: Also, keep your cats indoors to protect birds and for the cats' safety.
Clueless Git
Plant powered
As per the frequently occurring bi-valve argument ...
Dietarily, veganism has a seemingly nonsensical cut off point at absolutely anything that falls within the animal kingdom.
The sense in that position is that it prevents the 'slippery slope' from bi-valve to tri-valve to crustacean, to fish, and ever upwards and onwards, from getting a start and gaining momentum.
Thing that amazes me is this:
1. 99.999% of vegans can see that the apparently nonsensical dietary cut off point is the only cut off point that actualy makes any sense whatsoever.
Whilst ...
2. 99.999% of vegans cannot see that pets are the bi-valvesque tip of the wedge that allows the 'slippery slope' of animal ownership and exploitation to get itself up and running.
Dietarily, veganism has a seemingly nonsensical cut off point at absolutely anything that falls within the animal kingdom.
The sense in that position is that it prevents the 'slippery slope' from bi-valve to tri-valve to crustacean, to fish, and ever upwards and onwards, from getting a start and gaining momentum.
Thing that amazes me is this:
1. 99.999% of vegans can see that the apparently nonsensical dietary cut off point is the only cut off point that actualy makes any sense whatsoever.
Whilst ...
2. 99.999% of vegans cannot see that pets are the bi-valvesque tip of the wedge that allows the 'slippery slope' of animal ownership and exploitation to get itself up and running.
Ah, yes, your old argument that homeless cats and dogs would not be an issue if people simply refused to adopt them.
I do think that fewer domesticated animals in the world would mean more habitat for wild animals, yes.
I think that, theoretically, problems such as feeding carnivorous/omnivorous animal companions meat, or the horrible way domesticated animals are often treated (as Poppy points out) might be solved- the first by developing an adequate plant-derived (or synthetic/laboratory) food for obligate meat eaters, and the second by stronger, well-enforced legislation protecting domestic animals. But I might be wrong about one or possibly both of those.
ETA: Clueless Git, I might be mistaken about this too, but my impression is that vegans find the issue of "pets" problematic. However, it is true that many of them adopt meat-eating animals (even though they are from shelters, not from breeders). So I'd say your point is valid.
I think that, theoretically, problems such as feeding carnivorous/omnivorous animal companions meat, or the horrible way domesticated animals are often treated (as Poppy points out) might be solved- the first by developing an adequate plant-derived (or synthetic/laboratory) food for obligate meat eaters, and the second by stronger, well-enforced legislation protecting domestic animals. But I might be wrong about one or possibly both of those.
ETA: Clueless Git, I might be mistaken about this too, but my impression is that vegans find the issue of "pets" problematic. However, it is true that many of them adopt meat-eating animals (even though they are from shelters, not from breeders). So I'd say your point is valid.
Last edited:
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
There is some evidence that the ancestors of today's dogs domesticated themselves in part. Meat-eating humans cause far more suffering than meat-eating pets. Why not focus on getting rid of human carnivores before worrying about what dogs and cats eat?
Maybe it's selfish, but I'll never live without dogs.
Maybe it's selfish, but I'll never live without dogs.
When I go to a pet store and see the huge variety of dog food available these days, I can't help but think of all the suffering that went into it. Lambs, rabbits, salmon, venison, crocodile, kangaroo - it's astounding. Dog owners certainly need to know that there are very safe and healthy alternatives to meat based diets.
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
Just saying, far more suffering goes into feeding humans who won't give up meat. There are more humans, plus they eat far more than your average cat or dog. So it would make more sense to eliminate carnivorous humans before worrying about pets.
Wild dogs and cats will also eat meat.
Wild dogs and cats will also eat meat.
What kind of a diet could a dog have that doesn't contain meat ? My pet has a mixture of dry dog food plus fresh vegetable. Occasionally, I give her grains ; rice, pasta, quinoa or couscous.
My dogs eat a commercial vegan diet. We use Natural Balance, but there are others. I like Natural Balance because I can find it locally and it has small kibble. My vet is absolutely fine with the vegan food, and all of them are very healthy. Poppy is 10, Cowboy is 9 and Reuben is around 6. Since dogs aren't carnivores, they can do fine on a vegan diet.
And yes, in nature, animals kill animals. But pets aren't natural. We bring them into our lives to get something from them - companionship, a cool factor, an excuse to exercise, whatever. So we create even more demand for suffering, beyond what we consume individually, by having pets.
And yes, in nature, animals kill animals. But pets aren't natural. We bring them into our lives to get something from them - companionship, a cool factor, an excuse to exercise, whatever. So we create even more demand for suffering, beyond what we consume individually, by having pets.
Last edited:
I've never seen vegan dog food over here. There is one brand at organic stores that sells vegetarian dog food and it is very expensive.
Hopefully that will change! I know more and more people who are feeding dogs vegan food. A couple of local friends use half vegan/half non-vegan because they're not completely convinced that a full vegan diet is optimum.
But at least that cuts down on the meat based food they're buying.
