Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jake Beardsley's avatar

Great post!

I would add that I don’t think there’s a good moral reason for Amos to take wildlife suffering as the standard. The two things really have nothing to do with each other. If I’m deciding whether to stock a farm full of chickens, then what matters is the fate of those individual chickens.

(1) Quality of life in wild animals probably varies across place and time, so there’s no fixed standard to compare farm animals to. Just to make something up, suppose that wild pig starvation gets worse because of climate change. Does that lower the moral standard that I should apply when raising pigs for slaughter? If not, then what’s the appropriate time of evaluation? It seems arbitrary to place it anywhere, and given what’s at stake, an arbitrary outcome is very bad.

(2) Quality of life might vary across wild species in ways that are morally irrelevant for farming/consumption. Suppose that wild chickens tend to be happy but wild pigs tend to have hard lives. Does that make it more okay to abuse pigs than to abuse chickens? Again, that seems like an undesirably arbitrary implication.

(3) You probably know Bentham’s Bulldog’s arguments to the effect that wild animal life is very bad. I hope he’s wrong, but it’s at least possible that, if there is a default experience of cows, pigs, and chickens, it could be a fate worse than never having been born. It seems obviously wrong to raise animals in conditions like that, and that view should not be contingent on difficult empirical questions about wild animal welfare.

Again I think your post is great. I haven’t read Amos’s post, but it sounds thoughtful and interesting. I like his standard a lot better than what most people are doing.

Expand full comment
Garreth Byrne's avatar

Sure i wouldn't eat the pork from Waitrose but there is pork and other meat out there that is of an even higher standard of animal welfare that i would like to see you engage with. For example, fully pasture raised and forest raised pork by small farmers where the pigs are slaughtered locally, or lamb, hogget mutton raised fully outdoors on grass and slaughtered on site. No artificial insemination or systematic impregnation or milk harvesting etc. What about certified sustainable wild caught fish and shrimp, processed when caught or wild deer, hogs, pheasant, duck etc.? Do you find any meat that you could eat? What about eggs from pasture raised chickens?

I think there are plenty of farms ethically raising and slaughtering animals and having them exist provides resilience to our food system so that we are not screwed if certain crops fail, for example, if Ireland had an established fishing industry of the magnitude that the UK or Scotland had in the 1840s less people would've starved to death when the potato crop failed. In fact the Irish may not be around today if they had not been exploiting cows for milk. Lactose tolerance would not have 99% penetrance among those of Irish ancestry if there was no need for it in the past. Likewise, raising sheep and lamb on the sides of mountains where crops don't grow well seems highly practical and again adds resilience to our food system. Crops can fail, be targeted by enemies, be wrecked by natural disasters and floods etc., it would be imprudent to not have back up industries we could rely on. It seems to me a fully vegan West would rely heavily on a centralised food supply chain with many countries being forced to rely heavily on imports (i.e., lacking food sovereignty). Countries exploiting animals would be at a significant advantage in a war vs those who refused just like countries using draft horses in both world wars or riding horseback to travel, plough fields and ride into battle in the past.

It seems to me veganism has been evolutionarily maladaptive in the past and would still be today in a world were say Russia invades Lithuania and WW3 starts but the US and Europe have been completely vegan for 20 years with a more precarious, centralised food system. Certainly we know Russia and China are not going vegan so we'd have less ability to defend ourselves and project power if they could take out a few targets and induce widespread famine. You know, rather than having a fishing industry on a 70% ocean world.

I presume you would have been of the opinion that Ukraine could have been fully vegan in the year 2020? Seems that would've left them more vulnerable to Russia's invasion. Not sure its a risk they should have taken though i presume you wish they would have?

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts