Most farm animals have been selectively bred for traits that fit human needs, at the expense of the animal’s own quality of life. For example, chickens being bred to produce so many eggs that they become calcium deficient and their bones break under the weight of their own bodies. Sanctuaries provide safe spaces for these animals to live out the rest of their lives in the most comfort possible, while going vegan is important for a future where we’re no longer breeding these poor beings into an inherently hellish existence.
Wild animal suffering is a hot debate in the vegan communities these days. There is no cut and dry answer for that. However, whatever we do or don’t do to alleviate or eliminate wild animal suffering says nothing about whether we also create and maintain our own system of animal suffering. We can end the human exploitation of animals, and doing so can teach us a lot about ending our exploitation of each other as well.
I’ve posted more in depth responses to ‘reducitarianism’ elsewhere. In one comment I made an analogy to quitting smoking, and how ‘reducing’ my cigarette count only led to a rebound where I smoked even more than before.
It’s well known in the scientific literature that people are so inaccurate at self-reporting what, and how much of what, they eat, that questionnaire-based studies are specifically designed to compensate for these inaccuracies. So anecdotal claims of people reducing their animal consumption mean very little, particularly when data seems to indicate the opposite.
And like Ed Winter’s post gets into, you need to put the concept of reduction within the concept of justice. Fewer animals being bred and slaughtered sounds nice, but what about for the animals still being abused and murdered? Do you find it acceptable when corporations promise only to reduce carbon emissions by about 10% by 2035? Or how would you feel if police unions claimed they would disproportionately arrest black people 20% less than they used to?
Sorry but ‘reduction’ is nothing but a self-soothe to make people feel like they’re doing something good, when in reality they are just continuing their injustice while assuaging their own guilt. Just another form of cognitive dissonance.
If your goal is preserving the life of cows, everyone becoming vegan will not help; most farm animals can’t survive without human intervention.
Most farm animals have been selectively bred for traits that fit human needs, at the expense of the animal’s own quality of life. For example, chickens being bred to produce so many eggs that they become calcium deficient and their bones break under the weight of their own bodies. Sanctuaries provide safe spaces for these animals to live out the rest of their lives in the most comfort possible, while going vegan is important for a future where we’re no longer breeding these poor beings into an inherently hellish existence.
Yes, much better to have wild animals gutting each other and devouring live prey than to have any farm animals at all. Greatest plan.
Wild animal suffering is a hot debate in the vegan communities these days. There is no cut and dry answer for that. However, whatever we do or don’t do to alleviate or eliminate wild animal suffering says nothing about whether we also create and maintain our own system of animal suffering. We can end the human exploitation of animals, and doing so can teach us a lot about ending our exploitation of each other as well.
“I’m going to be a cunt to people who are making an effort”
You’re giving us a bad name. 80% of people eating 50% less meat is a lot better and easier to achieve than 20% of people eating eating no meat.
I’ve posted more in depth responses to ‘reducitarianism’ elsewhere. In one comment I made an analogy to quitting smoking, and how ‘reducing’ my cigarette count only led to a rebound where I smoked even more than before.
It’s well known in the scientific literature that people are so inaccurate at self-reporting what, and how much of what, they eat, that questionnaire-based studies are specifically designed to compensate for these inaccuracies. So anecdotal claims of people reducing their animal consumption mean very little, particularly when data seems to indicate the opposite.
And like Ed Winter’s post gets into, you need to put the concept of reduction within the concept of justice. Fewer animals being bred and slaughtered sounds nice, but what about for the animals still being abused and murdered? Do you find it acceptable when corporations promise only to reduce carbon emissions by about 10% by 2035? Or how would you feel if police unions claimed they would disproportionately arrest black people 20% less than they used to?
Sorry but ‘reduction’ is nothing but a self-soothe to make people feel like they’re doing something good, when in reality they are just continuing their injustice while assuaging their own guilt. Just another form of cognitive dissonance.
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production