Weird question.

Hashtag_Eevee

Forum Novice
Joined
Mar 20, 2022
Reaction score
17
Age
16
Location
Bristol, England
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
I know this is kinda psychopathic, but just a weird thought I had. Disclaimer: I am vegan and don't want to change, the industry is just Hell and it cannot be justified. Does a vegan lifestyle really reduce suffering from a utilitarian view, since carnism is bad for the environment, therefore reducing the amount of animals that will be born to suffer in the wild? Carnism would end the world, but could we do it in a better way? Animals are individuals, but so are the animals that would be born?? I just feel like I need other people to comment on these, bc they've been lingering and although I know they are wrong they will not go away.
Edit: I just think the main thing i want to ask is the suffering of animals that would be born greater than the trillions dying and suffering now? There are SO many animals in animal ag but SOO many more in the wild (not trying to downplay anything, trillions and trillions of animals dying is a depressing infinite amount).
 
Last edited:
Hashtag
I don’t really understand your question 🙋‍♂️.
You seem to ask a question then answer it.
 
I'm more ok with an animal dying in the wild than dying as a result of mass farming.
 
I know this is kinda psychopathic, but just a weird thought I had.
I think if you were a psychopath you would not be having those weird thought at all. You just wouldn't care.

Disclaimer: I am vegan and don't want to change, the industry is just Hell and it cannot be justified.

I guess you are taking about the livestock industry.
Does a vegan lifestyle really reduce suffering from a utilitarian view, since carnism is bad for the environment, therefore reducing the amount of animals that will be born to suffer in the wild?

if you believe animal lives matter, then the vegan lifestyle does reduce suffering from a utilitarian point of view. if you believe animal lives matter, the vegan lifestyle reduces suffering from most philosophical points of view. One you add in the environmental concerns - probably every philosophical point of view.

I can't figure out how we are reducing the amount of animals that are being born in the wild. But less animal agriculture and less climate change does benefit wild animals too.

Carnism would end the world, but could we do it in a better way?
I imagine you are not looking for a better way to end the world. But maybe a better more sustainable lifestyle. Veganism isn't the only thing. but its probably the easiest and most effective thing.
Animals are individuals, but so are the animals that would be born?? I just feel like I need other people to comment on these, bc they've been lingering and although I know they are wrong they will not go away.

Animals that haven't been born yet don't count in arithmetic of utilitarians. I can't even imagine an ethical argument that would conclude that animals being born to be harvested is better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hashtag_Eevee
As individuals, we can only do so much. But the care and compassion we small individuals putv in our own choices have makes a big difference over time and in concert with others.
I'm not a very good activist, but can set a pretty good plate of food on the table. My husband has dropped his meat consumption by 2/3 over the last year, with no arguments or side glances. There's a start!😍
Whenever a vegan dish or salad accompanies us to church potlucks, there are never leftovers. Maybe "mainstreaming" is a form of advocacy. If people see us making kind choices with our forks and cash all the time, in every day situations, they begin to understand the reasoning behind those actions.

Perhaps it all comes back down to being the change we wish to see.
 
Last edited:
Vegans are against exploiting animals. you can't get rid of animals suffering
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
Animals are individuals, but so are the animals that would be born??

There is no animal that "would be" born until it is born. I am very much in favour of reducing the suffering of living animals, but I don't care a hoot about animals that don't exist. An animal that hasn't been born doesn't suffer; it doesn't not-suffer. It doesn't anything, because it doesn't exist.
 
The reason animals are being reduced in the wild is because of loss of habitat. Every time a forest is burned to grow animal feed, or for grazing, then all of those animals are gone.

Rewilding programs show that even the most devastated areas will come back if we just stop the animal agriculture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesper818 and Lou
The reason animals are being reduced in the wild is because of loss of habitat. Every time a forest is burned to grow animal feed, or for grazing, then all of those animals are gone.

Rewilding programs show that even the most devastated areas will come back if we just stop the animal agriculture.
But I mean as in animals being killed by other animals
 
There is no animal that "would be" born until it is born. I am very much in favour of reducing the suffering of living animals, but I don't care a hoot about animals that don't exist. An animal that hasn't been born doesn't suffer; it doesn't not-suffer. It doesn't anything, because it doesn't exist.
Yh I know I think that too, but also they will exist to suffer anyways, and maybe even more than now??? Idk but I don't want to ignore it.
 
Last edited:
I like driving by cows on the freeway and shouting "Hello! Moo! I don't eat you! Moo!" Though I'm a flexitarian, I try to completely avoid beef, so it's mostly true. Something in me wants them to understand that not all people take them for granted as all-beef patties. I think animals know far more and feel far more than we think. I also feel empathy for the stacks of cattle lined up in massive feed lots that I also occasionally drive by. I think they know what's going on and likely feel a sense of danger. As far as reducing suffering, I'm not worried about the utilitarian dimensions, I just want to reduce suffering as much as possible, to any degree. I could be doing more, sure, but I feel like I'm doing far more than most of the people I know. So I try to give myself credit where it's due, but simultaneously realize that I could do more. I'm not sure if this answers the original question, but hopefully it suggests that others have similar thoughts and struggles as well.
 
It's an interesting question, @Hashtag_Eevee. Someone above said that the main thrust of veganism is to reject the property status of other animals. Suffering and harm is a kind of secondary aim because as Gary Francione argues, we can only attend properly to how we treat others once they are not property. Still, worrying about harm and suffering is important and we find this concern expressed in one of the actual articles of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (that is, we think it is equally as important in human relations as the right not to be enslaved).

I think you are asking this question. Does preventing animal farming reduce the total amount of suffering and death in the world? I think the answer is probably no in regard to ruminant grazing. This is because grazed land tend to be managed lands with fewer predators and prey than in a natural state. In addition, farmers on balance tend to look after their stock better than nature does. Eliminating grazing and returning land to a wild state would mean greater suffering and death.

On the other hand, crop farming should probably result in greater suffering and death because it encourages large-scale pest control with the result that trillions, perhaps quadrillions, of animals are killed in bad ways. I am not sure about this one though because it may be that a representative 100 acres of croplands means far smaller populations of animals than if it were natural lands. But I tend to think coplands increase invertebrate populations.

Overall, the worst things for overall animal suffering and death seem to be crop farming first, followed by natural lands, followed by grazing ruminants.

That's my opinion, of course. I might very well be wrong, I'd be interested in thoughts on why.
 
Last edited:
But I mean as in animals being killed by other animals
I think you are asking this question. Does preventing animal farming reduce the total amount of suffering and death in the world? I think the answer is probably no in regard to ruminant grazing.

I think its absolutely yes,

This is because grazed land tend to be managed lands with fewer predators and prey than in a natural state.

Ahh, but there is the rub. What about those pesky predators. I can tell you. They have been shot, poisoned and trapped.
In addition, farmers on balance tend to look after their stock better than nature does. Eliminating grazing and returning land to a wild state would mean greater suffering and death.

That is very debatable. Check out a stock yard, a dairy farm a pig farm or a hen house.
On the other hand, crop farming should probably result in greater suffering and death because it encourages large-scale pest control with the result that trillions, perhaps quadrillions, of animals are killed in bad ways. I am not sure about this one though because it may be that a representative 100 acres of croplands means far smaller populations of animals than if it were natural lands. But I tend to think coplands increase invertebrate populations.

This is somewhat true but also debatable. I think the thing is that if it wasn't for livestock farming we should actually use less crop land. So less harm to animals.
 
Ahh, but there is the rub. What about those pesky predators. I can tell you. They have been shot, poisoned and trapped.
Yes, but over time I suspect the numbers are not that high. There are always far fewer predators than prey, so for a given area running say sheep over 20 years, what would be the populations of predator and prey and how many would suffer and die? It's not just predation either, it's everyday life. Many offspring of many species die young from all sorts of events. My guess is that there would always be far more animals on a given area of natural land than on a managed land used for grazing.

Monbiot wrote this just the other day:

"Livestock farmers often claim that their grazing systems “mimic nature”. If so, the mimicry is a crude caricature. A review of evidence from over 100 studies found that when livestock are removed from the land, the abundance and diversity of almost all groups of wild animals increases. The only category in which numbers fall when grazing by cattle or sheep ceases are those that eat dung. Where there are cattle, there are fewer wild mammals, birds, reptiles and insects on the land, and fewer fish in the rivers. Perhaps most importantly – because of their crucial role in regulating living systems – there tend to be no large predators."

I think the thing is that if it wasn't for livestock farming we should actually use less crop land. So less harm to animals.
That's true, though as we found recently the area wouldn't reduce by *that* much. Maybe 15-20%? So I suppose the question is, counting all the animals that would be born to suffer and die on the 80% of lands freed up to be rewilded, balanced against the numbers that suffer and die in croplands of almost the same area, would the result on balance be more or fewer animals suffering and dying than is the case now? I'm still thinking it will be more.

I agree it is probably better for animals to be wild and free and die naturally than to be farmed - maybe - but on utilitarian grounds I think it's debateable.

Luckily, veganism doesn't mostly depend on some calculation of overall global happiness versus suffering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
This is because grazed land tend to be managed lands with fewer predators and prey than in a natural state. In addition, farmers on balance tend to look after their stock better than nature does. Eliminating grazing and returning land to a wild state would mean greater suffering and death.

On the other hand, crop farming should probably result in greater suffering and death because it encourages large-scale pest control with the result that trillions, perhaps quadrillions, of animals are killed in bad ways.

It is a pretty picture of a small herd of cows grazing peacefully on a meadow. The reality of modern agriculture is that most of the cropland in the US is devoted to growing animal feed. Eliminating the farming of cattle would significantly reduce the amount of cropland in production, saving some of those trillions of animals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
I don't just mean animal agriculture, I mean a complete change in attitude that means most people respect animals, don't go hunting, don't go fishing, try not to step on insects, they do not catch wild animals (more than 1 trillions die in the wild animal industries yearly) and it means that we may treat other humans better? Does that change your opinion?
 
Btw there are just weird philosophical questions bc at the end of the day, all the things that we do to animals is just so wrong, even if it does actually cause more wild suffering (sort of, bc the alternative is longer human caused suffering then mass extinction I think), its still wrong, like mass human experimentation may save more lives from disease than the lives exploited but it would still be just so wrong
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
I don't just mean animal agriculture, I mean a complete change in attitude that means most people respect animals, don't go hunting, don't go fishing, try not to step on insects, they do not catch wild animals (more than 1 trillions die in the wild animal industries yearly) and it means that we may treat other humans better? Does that change your opinion?
I think it's too hard to say. All we can really hope to do is not make it worse by doing bad things ourselves. I suppose that if everyone became vegan tomorrow, it would mean a lot less pain and suffering caused by human beings. That must count for something.
 
It is a pretty picture of a small herd of cows grazing peacefully on a meadow. The reality of modern agriculture is that most of the cropland in the US is devoted to growing animal feed. Eliminating the farming of cattle would significantly reduce the amount of cropland in production, saving some of those trillions of animals.
Yes, though I'm still not sure how much we have to worry about insects and the like. In terms of vertebrate species it would have to be a LOT better! Re area under crops, Sheppon et al (2018) estimate that about .12 hectare of land is needed to produce a satisfactory vegan diet. From my own guesswork on this I think tjhat's close enough. It will be between .12 and .15. So, how many people does the US feed? I have no idea. Assuming you'd need to produce for the domestic population and maybe twice that for exported products (which is what it is for Australia), the US may need to feed perhaps one billion people. That would mean you'd need between 120 million and 150 million hectares. Currently, about 160 million hectares are under crops. But for domestic population only, we are looking at around just 45 million hectares needed. Mind you, you would also need to produce fibres like cotton, industrial uses like vegetable oils and biofuels and probably pet food.