- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Reaction score
- 101
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?
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.Why is that ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.