Guest guest Posted May 23, 2003 Report Share Posted May 23, 2003 Hi, I was reading a copy of Vegan Views yesterday, and a question was raised to which I had no ready answer. It is probably an old question, but I'm new to Veganism, and it is one I hadn't come up against before. So can anyone help? (And bear in mind that this isn't my opinion, but rather a point I had no ready counter for.) As vegans, we do not want to use animal products in any way, because to do so is to harm the animal. And, as farming exists at the moment, that is true - from cows used for milk, to hens, to animals slaughtered, to bees, all these creatures are harmed. Therefore we do not use animal products. In an all-vegan world, there would be far fewer animals in the world. But if the goal of veganism is to promote animal happiness/contentment, by having less animals in the world, the potential for the amount of possible animal contentment is reduced. And it can perhaps be argued then that in terms of 'net contentment of animals in the world' it is better to keep an animal treated well and so content for a year or so then kill it, than for that animal never to have been born. Now from a personal, selfish viewpoint I don't want to think of myself as existing through the death of animals. But if raising, caring for then killing an animal leads to more net animal contentment than that animal never having been born, and net animal contentment is a good thing, perhaps in this all-vegan world, I should do so? Of course, such a possibility is a long way off. Animals are treated poorly and suffer, so that they may even have been better off never born. And there are so many animals which need a better life for me to try and take care of, that I need never consider deliberately bringing another one into the world (the whole pets from animal shelters argument). But a time may come when no animals are suffering at the hands of man. At which point, should we then try to increase the numbers of animals, and so contentment of animals, by breeding and caring - and when necessary killing - them? Certainly, there is a good argument that animals who live as pets live longer and more contentedly than those in the wild. Well, that was the argument, give or take. Can anyone respond? John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2003 Report Share Posted May 23, 2003 John I think you are making the mistake of counting the overall contentment of a large number of animals rather than the contentment of an individual animal. I can see no reason for breeding (artificially keeping up the numbers) animals. There would not normally have been fields with herds of cows if they had not been bred specifically for food. The mountains in Wales, Scotland and Cumbria woud look different if they were not overgrazed by an artificially high number of sheep who eat all the tree saplings - hence no trees over large areas. Jo - " John Davis " <mcxg46 Friday, May 23, 2003 5:05 PM An Awkward Argument > Hi, > > I was reading a copy of Vegan Views yesterday, and a question was raised to > which I had no ready answer. It is probably an old question, but I'm new to > Veganism, and it is one I hadn't come up against before. So can anyone help? > (And bear in mind that this isn't my opinion, but rather a point I had no > ready counter for.) > > As vegans, we do not want to use animal products in any way, because to do > so is to harm the animal. And, as farming exists at the moment, that is > true - from cows used for milk, to hens, to animals slaughtered, to bees, > all these creatures are harmed. Therefore we do not use animal products. > > In an all-vegan world, there would be far fewer animals in the world. But if > the goal of veganism is to promote animal happiness/contentment, by having > less animals in the world, the potential for the amount of possible animal > contentment is reduced. And it can perhaps be argued then that in terms of > 'net contentment of animals in the world' it is better to keep an animal > treated well and so content for a year or so then kill it, than for that > animal never to have been born. > > Now from a personal, selfish viewpoint I don't want to think of myself as > existing through the death of animals. But if raising, caring for then > killing an animal leads to more net animal contentment than that animal > never having been born, and net animal contentment is a good thing, perhaps > in this all-vegan world, I should do so? > > Of course, such a possibility is a long way off. Animals are treated poorly > and suffer, so that they may even have been better off never born. And there > are so many animals which need a better life for me to try and take care of, > that I need never consider deliberately bringing another one into the world > (the whole pets from animal shelters argument). But a time may come when no > animals are suffering at the hands of man. At which point, should we then > try to increase the numbers of animals, and so contentment of animals, by > breeding and caring - and when necessary killing - them? Certainly, there is > a good argument that animals who live as pets live longer and more > contentedly than those in the wild. > > Well, that was the argument, give or take. Can anyone respond? > > John > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2003 Report Share Posted May 24, 2003 actually, the welsh hills were deforested mostly during the great boat building centuries eg Elizabeth 1.........and the during the Industrial revolution wood was needed for the processing of iron ore in wales sheep are only to blame for eating possible regrowth, humans started it all off....... catherine >"Heartwork" > > >Re: An Awkward Argument >Fri, 23 May 2003 19:16:38 +0100 > >John > >I think you are making the mistake of counting the overall contentment of a >large number of animals rather than the contentment of an individual animal. >I can see no reason for breeding (artificially keeping up the numbers) >animals. There would not normally have been fields with herds of cows if >they had not been bred specifically for food. The mountains in Wales, >Scotland and Cumbria woud look different if they were not overgrazed by an >artificially high number of sheep who eat all the tree saplings - hence no >trees over large areas. > >Jo >- >"John Davis" > >Friday, May 23, 2003 5:05 PM > An Awkward Argument > > > > Hi, > > > > I was reading a copy of Vegan Views yesterday, and a question was raised >to > > which I had no ready answer. It is probably an old question, but I'm new >to > > Veganism, and it is one I hadn't come up against before. So can anyone >help? > > (And bear in mind that this isn't my opinion, but rather a point I had no > > ready counter for.) > > > > As vegans, we do not want to use animal products in any way, because to do > > so is to harm the animal. And, as farming exists at the moment, that is > > true - from cows used for milk, to hens, to animals slaughtered, to bees, > > all these creatures are harmed. Therefore we do not use animal products. > > > > In an all-vegan world, there would be far fewer animals in the world. But >if > > the goal of veganism is to promote animal happiness/contentment, by having > > less animals in the world, the potential for the amount of possible animal > > contentment is reduced. And it can perhaps be argued then that in terms of > > 'net contentment of animals in the world' it is better to keep an animal > > treated well and so content for a year or so then kill it, than for that > > animal never to have been born. > > > > Now from a personal, selfish viewpoint I don't want to think of myself as > > existing through the death of animals. But if raising, caring for then > > killing an animal leads to more net animal contentment than that animal > > never having been born, and net animal contentment is a good thing, >perhaps > > in this all-vegan world, I should do so? > > > > Of course, such a possibility is a long way off. Animals are treated >poorly > > and suffer, so that they may even have been better off never born. And >there > > are so many animals which need a better life for me to try and take care >of, > > that I need never consider deliberately bringing another one into the >world > > (the whole pets from animal shelters argument). But a time may come when >no > > animals are suffering at the hands of man. At which point, should we then > > try to increase the numbers of animals, and so contentment of animals, by > > breeding and caring - and when necessary killing - them? Certainly, there >is > > a good argument that animals who live as pets live longer and more > > contentedly than those in the wild. > > > > Well, that was the argument, give or take. Can anyone respond? > > > > John > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2003 Report Share Posted May 26, 2003 Hi Jo, But do you think it is a mistake to count overall contentment of animals (so as many as possible being content) rather than the contentment of an individual animal? I suppose it depends on whether your 'aim' is the contentment of animals which are alive, or providing conditions where most/more animals can be content. If the former, then there is no need for breeding. But if the latter, then perhaps a time will come when all animals are 'content' (which is to say not being harmed by man, at least), and at that time we should breed more to increase this net contentment? A bit utopian, admittedly, as this isn't going to happen for life-times, and so more of a thought experiment than anything else, but it got me thinking, anyway... John - " Heartwork " <Heartwork Friday, May 23, 2003 7:16 PM Re: An Awkward Argument > John > > I think you are making the mistake of counting the overall contentment of a > large number of animals rather than the contentment of an individual animal. > I can see no reason for breeding (artificially keeping up the numbers) > animals. There would not normally have been fields with herds of cows if > they had not been bred specifically for food. The mountains in Wales, > Scotland and Cumbria woud look different if they were not overgrazed by an > artificially high number of sheep who eat all the tree saplings - hence no > trees over large areas. > > Jo > - > " John Davis " <mcxg46 > > Friday, May 23, 2003 5:05 PM > An Awkward Argument > > > > Hi, > > > > I was reading a copy of Vegan Views yesterday, and a question was raised > to > > which I had no ready answer. It is probably an old question, but I'm new > to > > Veganism, and it is one I hadn't come up against before. So can anyone > help? > > (And bear in mind that this isn't my opinion, but rather a point I had no > > ready counter for.) > > > > As vegans, we do not want to use animal products in any way, because to do > > so is to harm the animal. And, as farming exists at the moment, that is > > true - from cows used for milk, to hens, to animals slaughtered, to bees, > > all these creatures are harmed. Therefore we do not use animal products. > > > > In an all-vegan world, there would be far fewer animals in the world. But > if > > the goal of veganism is to promote animal happiness/contentment, by having > > less animals in the world, the potential for the amount of possible animal > > contentment is reduced. And it can perhaps be argued then that in terms of > > 'net contentment of animals in the world' it is better to keep an animal > > treated well and so content for a year or so then kill it, than for that > > animal never to have been born. > > > > Now from a personal, selfish viewpoint I don't want to think of myself as > > existing through the death of animals. But if raising, caring for then > > killing an animal leads to more net animal contentment than that animal > > never having been born, and net animal contentment is a good thing, > perhaps > > in this all-vegan world, I should do so? > > > > Of course, such a possibility is a long way off. Animals are treated > poorly > > and suffer, so that they may even have been better off never born. And > there > > are so many animals which need a better life for me to try and take care > of, > > that I need never consider deliberately bringing another one into the > world > > (the whole pets from animal shelters argument). But a time may come when > no > > animals are suffering at the hands of man. At which point, should we then > > try to increase the numbers of animals, and so contentment of animals, by > > breeding and caring - and when necessary killing - them? Certainly, there > is > > a good argument that animals who live as pets live longer and more > > contentedly than those in the wild. > > > > Well, that was the argument, give or take. Can anyone respond? > > > > John > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.