|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:in the short term, who is responsible for caring for the animals raised for meat who are spared the slaughterhouse? In the short term 2-6% of the (US) population are vegetarian or vegan and under capitalism if the demand for animals raised for meat goes down then they don't get spared, the farmers are subsidised so maybe landfill? In the mid term if demand drops then the land used for farming any product gets repurposed to a more profitable product. I gave an example of IKEA buying farms here in NZ to turn into forestry. The long term you describe is not realistically on anyone's radar. Using your argument though, aren't you just as uncomfortable with maximising suffering through the process of the forced breeding of sentient beings that might suffer?
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:i didn't say it was? unless you're equating anti-natalism with family planning, which is a hostile misreading and i can only assume you're trying to pick a fight Well I'd say you are the one equating other people's arguments with "doomer anti-natalism", since distortion park didn't say anything like that. If anyone is doing a hostile misreading, it would appear to be you. And I explained why I asked the question, your argument would appear to make family planning unethical as well since it is " reducing the suffering of sentient beings by reducing the number of sentient beings". So how is it different. Why is having fewer human children okay but breeding fewer livestock animals somehow not?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
For avoidance of ambiguity I read the "procreation of non human animals" bit of that article and nodded the entire way through.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
Content to Hover posted:Using your argument though, aren't you just as uncomfortable with maximising suffering through the process of the forced breeding of sentient beings that might suffer? sure, which is why i'm saying its possible to modulate the level of suffering by methods other than simply reducing the number of beings who suffer. in my ideal livestock-for-meat scenario, we would walk back as much as possible from industrial methods of controlling the population to methods which more resemble the animal's natural lifecycle, even if it does reduce yields of product Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:sure, which is why i'm saying its possible to modulate the level of suffering by methods other than simply reducing the number of beings who suffer. in my ideal livestock-for-meat scenario, we would walk back as much as possible from industrial methods of controlling the population to methods which more resemble the animal's natural lifecycle, even if it does reduce yields of product Do you think there would be more or fewer animals being farmed for meat in this scenario.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And I explained why I asked the question, your argument would appear to make family planning unethical i dont know what to tell you to give you satisfaction. i've already told you that you have an incorrect perception of my argument and i cannot help you any further along your journey towards understanding. you'll have to puzzle out the differences between contraceptives and anti-natalism yourself distortion park posted:Do you think there would be more or fewer animals being farmed for meat in this scenario. probably less, but it doesn't really matter because the idea here is to enforce better care for animals as a method of improving their lives rather than improving their lives by simply preventing them from living bad ones anyway this is getting repetitive and i've said my opinion
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:sure, which is why i'm saying its possible to modulate the level of suffering by methods other than simply reducing the number of beings who suffer. in my ideal livestock-for-meat scenario, we would walk back as much as possible from industrial methods of controlling the population to methods which more resemble the animal's natural lifecycle, even if it does reduce yields of product Demand is an interesting thing. If I am reading you correctly, your issue appears to be with how capitalism and farming interact. If you are willing to pay more and do research it is theoretically possible to eat meat that you would find more ethical. In New Zealand there was a lot of exposure on the treatment of battery farmed chickens. Some video was leaked and the demand for free range eggs went up. The biggest change in response was the adoption of the term "cage free" and some redefinition of battery farming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:i dont know what to tell you to give you satisfaction. i've already told you that you have an incorrect perception of my argument and i cannot help you any further along your journey towards understanding. you'll have to puzzle out the differences between contraceptives and anti-natalism yourself You are the one who equated any deliberate reduction in livestock populations to reduce suffering in a vegetarian world with "doomer anti-natalism" in the first place! I'm just pointing out why that doesn't make sense. Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:as i stated, what i'm uncomfortable with is the idea of reducing the suffering of sentient beings by reducing the number of sentient beings. this hews a little too closely to doomer anti-natalism, "why should i birth a child into this hell world" stuff. I'm only asking you to think through the arguments you're making, but if you don't feel like doing that I can't make you I guess. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
Maybe I could put my argument another way, since I seem to inadvertently be triggering a defensive reaction. There is some number of cows, chickens, pigs, etc that we would have the capacity to humanely care for in land set aside as habitats. That number is not zero. Therefore, a vegan world could humanely care for those no-longer-farmed animals by breeding them down to a number that can be reasonably cared for. (We could also reduce their dependency on humans, for example there's no need to have sheep that die without shearing, we bred that trait infinite hair growth into sheep, we could stop selecting for it or even select against it) Is that unethical? If no, then there's no problem. If yes, controlling the amount a species breeds to match the resources available is unethical, then where exactly do you go from here? If you let herd animals breed as much as they want with no predators, you get to the repugnant conclusion
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe I could put my argument another way, since I seem to inadvertently be triggering a defensive reaction. Totally with you until here. quote:If yes, controlling the amount a species breeds to match the resources available is unethical, then where exactly do you go from here? If you let herd animals breed as much as they want with no predators, you get to the repugnant conclusion I'm not sure you do get to there - it's a thought experiment with specific assumptions, but we have decent evidence and knowledge about what leaving herbivores alone in an environment devoid of preditors will result in, and it isn't a great outcome, and not one that (in the medium term) I think most people would assign a (marginally) positive utility to. This is actually a lot more interesting than the veganism discussion imo, as I'm really uncertain about how we should interact with our environment in a post animal agriculture world. I really want the answer to be "rewilding" but idk!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
distortion park posted:I really want the answer to be "rewilding" but idk! i think we've disrupted the biosphere too much for a natural rewilding. for example, is it a good idea to release genetically modified trees into the environment, to better resist introduced invasive pest species? is it possible for human-bred animal species to thrive in an unmanaged environment? pigs would be fine, sheep would be hosed
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
distortion park posted:
Yeah that's what I'm saying, if limiting the number of sentient beings to match the resources available is unethical, then the only ethical course is to maximize the number of sentient beings, and this can't be correct because it would lead to incredible suffering. If the op didn't mean to say population control is inherently unethical, then I don't get what the problem with vegan world is. We can care for some number of farm animals, so it's just a practical matter of making sure not to breed more of them than that and our success at doing that would depend on how dedicated and consistent we were to protecting animal welfare. I'm sure humanity wouldn't be perfect, but a world where everyone were vegan would obviously be kinder to farm animals than we are now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:i think we've disrupted the biosphere too much for a natural rewilding. for example, is it a good idea to release genetically modified trees into the environment, to better resist introduced invasive pest species? is it possible for human-bred animal species to thrive in an unmanaged environment? pigs would be fine, sheep would be hosed Wouldn't a process of 'rewilding' have to include a transitional period where we stop selecting for, say, infinite hair growth in sheep, or even consciously select against it until you get to the point that the species can survive without human interaction. I'm not really familiar with the term but it seems like something that would have already come up somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:i think we've disrupted the biosphere too much for a natural rewilding. for example, is it a good idea to release genetically modified trees into the environment, to better resist introduced invasive pest species? is it possible for human-bred animal species to thrive in an unmanaged environment? pigs would be fine, sheep would be hosed oh god lol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:What about the invasive species? Just because they're not native, doesn't mean they don't deserve Relocation programs bringing them to restored habitats in their natural biomes? Or synthetic habitats where they can live out the remainder of their lives as naturally as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:assuming we end animal agriculture, what happens to all the cows? where is the place set aside for cows to live wild and free? 1. Society gradually shifts towards less exploitation, less and less animals are bred and killed and eventually animal agriculture will be a small niche industry similar to horse breeding now. This will happen in both a gradual shift to veganism or more likely as lab grown meat gets easier and more cost effective. 2. I become king of the world and and mandate an end to animal agriculture. We stop all breeding immediately and shift the government subsides from animal ag to animal sanctuaries. We let the animals life out their lives and within 20 years they'll be mostly dead and we close that chapter. OwlFancier posted:As I said, though, I think cruelty is an intrinsic state of existence for animals because they don't have any means to escape it on their own, I would personally suggest they have the potential to be better off as livestock than living in the wild, because I don't think ideas like self determination apply to animals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
I don't mean to shut down discussion, but I feel like we're getting off-track. Veganism isn't about making animals happy. It's about not actively harming them. From the OP.quote:Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals. Compare how we relate to other humans. Like, imagine a queer feminist punk. They don't hold themselves responsible for making other people happy. They are allowed to exist as they are. Yes, merely by existing they are taking away resources from others and thus creating suffering inherent in life. But, at the same time, they can refrain from actively harming others and making their lives worse, when possible and practicable. So, it's not your obligation to maximize the happiness of the other humans in your city; for instance, even if people are offended by your appearance, or because you are homosexual, or because you don't plan to marry or have children, you aren't obligated to change that in order to make them happy. But at the same time, you don't murder people to steal their money, or beat them up because you're offended that they're chewing loudly and revenge would be satisfying. Extend that philosophy to non-human animals. That's all I'm suggesting, as a vegan. We don't have to go diving in the ocean and carefully watch over the life of every little octopus and make sure they're well fed, safe, and happy, but we can refrain from personally causing their deaths and I don't think that's morally inconsistent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:We don't have to go diving in the ocean and carefully watch over the life of every little octopus and make sure they're well fed, safe, and happy, but we can refrain from personally causing their deaths and I don't think that's morally inconsistent. I, however, do. Whatever choice we make, animals die. I think that providing them food and shelter and a field to roam around in before killing them quickly for meat, is a better lot than they would be afforded in nature. As well as entirely morally consistent with having say, national parks full of wildlife existing in a cruel state of nature simply because we find the idea romantic, or because we need them to preserve a biosphere for us to live in. I do not think it matters whether you personally cause the harm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I, however, do. Whatever choice we make, animals die. I think that providing them food and shelter and a field to roam around in before killing them quickly for meat, is a better lot than they would be afforded in nature. As well as entirely morally consistent with having say, national parks full of wildlife existing in a cruel state of nature simply because we find the idea romantic, or because we need them to preserve a biosphere for us to live in. You are insisting the choice is in how we harm them. Vegans are arguing you don't have to harm them at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:31
|
|
|
DrBox posted:You are insisting the choice is in how we harm them. Vegans are arguing you don't have to harm them at all. You don't have to but I would certainly suggest that free range agriculture is better for the animals living in it than letting it go wild. I suppose you could also just devote a lot of land to giant petting zoos instead but I also think that you could feed and clothe people with the land while also doing the animals on it a favour on the whole.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You don't have to but I would certainly suggest that free range agriculture is better for the animals living in it than letting it go wild.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Please read this very carefully. The choice is not between letting the cow roam free or breeding and killing the cow. The choice is between breeding and killing cows or NOT breeding and killing any more cows. What would you be doing with the previous pasture land if you aren't putting cows on it? Because I had rather assumed you would be allowing it to be inhabited by wild animals (other than cows) I am assuming that by reducing the amount of agricultural land you would be expanding the amount of wild habitat and thus commensurately the population of wild animals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I, however, do. Whatever choice we make, animals die. I think that providing them food and shelter and a field to roam around in before killing them quickly for meat, is a better lot than they would be afforded in nature. As well as entirely morally consistent with having say, national parks full of wildlife existing in a cruel state of nature simply because we find the idea romantic, or because we need them to preserve a biosphere for us to live in. Does the octopus have any choice in this matter? I'm genuinely not being sarcastic. If it could be scientifically shown that an octopus has an intelligence roughly equivalent to a human 3-year old, what would be your justification for treating them in a way that we would find abhorrent to treat any human, regardless of age or mental capability? Is it not a question of mental capability? What, then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Does the octopus have any choice in this matter? I'm genuinely not being sarcastic. Manifestly no, the octopus does not have any choice in the matter, because it's an octopus, and they cannot communicate choices to us even if they are capable of understanding and making them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What would you be doing with the previous pasture land if you aren't putting cows on it? Because I had rather assumed you would be allowing it to be inhabited by wild animals (other than cows) We can do whatever but that's a separate argument. If you're worried about wild animal suffering then we can turn it into a parking lot if that would make you go vegan today. I would not argue we should keep cosmetics testing labs open because we don't know what to do with the building. I would not want to keep breeding torturing bunnies because they might suffer outside of the lab.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I, however, do. Whatever choice we make, animals die. I think that providing them food and shelter and a field to roam around in before killing them quickly for meat, is a better lot than they would be afforded in nature. As well as entirely morally consistent with having say, national parks full of wildlife existing in a cruel state of nature simply because we find the idea romantic, or because we need them to preserve a biosphere for us to live in. Not sure if you understand how factory farming works, but "providing them food and shelter and a field to roam around in" isn't representative of their lived experience. Capitalism isn't overly motivated to change that any time soon. Hypotheticals aside, given you personally don't control either the post vegan global dictatorship or the industrialised production of meat, do you think your personal actions count? Do you think objectively your actions would be less moral as a vegan?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
I think paving over gigantic stretches of land to make them uninhabitable to all life would be a bit weird when you could just practice agriculture to half decent standards on it instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Content to Hover posted:Not sure if you understand how factory farming works, but "providing them food and shelter and a field to roam around in" isn't representative of their lived experience. Capitalism isn't overly motivated to change that any time soon. Everyone knows what factory farms are and agrees that they are terrible. This is a question of the "morality" of kinder farming practices and whether it's "moral" to do them instead of just letting the animals all brutalize one another.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think paving over gigantic stretches of land to make them uninhabitable to all life would be a bit weird when you could just practice agriculture to half decent standards on it instead. But you were saying you were against wild animal suffering. What exactly is your argument then? You want to breed billions of animals into existence and kill them every year because you think that's a better alternative than simply not doing that? Are you for puppy mills for animal testing too because it's better than breeding puppies and letting them loose on the streets? Harold Fjord posted:Everyone knows what factory farms are and agrees that they are terrible. This is a question of the "morality" of kinder farming practices and whether it's "moral" to do them instead of just letting the animals all brutalize one another. Veganism is against the exploitation of animals where practicable and possible and you are bringing it back to the false dichotomy of "breed and kill them ourselves" or "let them suffer in the wild". How about don't breed animals to exploit and then look at the totally separate issue of wild animal suffering?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
Content to Hover posted:Not sure if you understand how factory farming works, but "providing them food and shelter and a field to roam around in" isn't representative of their lived experience. Capitalism isn't overly motivated to change that any time soon. I mean I live not far from a bunch of fields with cows in them. They seem quite content, I walk through it sometimes to go for walks, seems like an agreeable state of affairs tbh. Quite happy to demolish the factory farms and keep the fields.  Not a cow psychologist but they seem alright to me. I don't think my actions really make much difference being vegan or not. As I said I don't think of the realistic options it actually makes much difference at all what I do because even if I somehow contributed to the scaling back of animal agriculture, I don't think it would make much difference to animal welfare, even assuming that my actions would do that which I don't think they would, especially as my job involves trying to maximise human consumption of all things so like, my own personal consumption seems pretty moot honestly. It is like asking me if I feel bad about stepping on a bug. I like bugs, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think paving over gigantic stretches of land to make them uninhabitable to all life would be a bit weird when you could just practice agriculture to half decent standards on it instead. Earlier in the thread I mentioned the conversion of land currently used for animals to forestry. Paving over gigantic stretches of land isn't exactly a common solution, especially when there is profit to be made.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
Why is it more okay for animals to suffer and kill one another in that forest than it is for us to have some nice farms for a couple of well treated cows?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Why is it more okay for animals to suffer and kill one another in that forest than it is for us to have some nice farms for a couple of well treated cows? Yeah this is the thing, I do not think it is a separate issue, because I think humans are perfectly capable of giving animals what I might call a good existence while also using them to produce things. By scaling back wild animal populations and keeping more of them in a managed environment I think that could quite easily be better for the animals on the whole. And if it isn't I don't think that is a problem with the concept of humans exploiting animals but specifically the way in which we do it. Obviously we need some amount of wild habitat to keep everyone alive and I am certainly in favour of changing land use for that reason, but I just do not see a distinction between wild animal existence and animal existence under direct human supervision, both are fundamentally within the domain of human interference and humans are responsible for both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Manifestly no, the octopus does not have any choice in the matter, because it's an octopus, and they cannot communicate choices to us even if they are capable of understanding and making them. Alright, I disagree but for the moment I'll return to your other response, then. OwlFancier posted:I, however, do. Whatever choice we make, animals die. I think that providing them food and shelter and a field to roam around in before killing them quickly for meat, is a better lot than they would be afforded in nature. As well as entirely morally consistent with having say, national parks full of wildlife existing in a cruel state of nature simply because we find the idea romantic, or because we need them to preserve a biosphere for us to live in. Do you think this way about other humans? I don't. I think it matters whether I personally cause physical harm and death to other humans, and I try to avoid those actions. Yes, no matter what, the world is full of suffering and all humans will suffer and die. I don't think that's a reason to personally hurt other people for my benefit. I would say it is still worthwhile to make the attempt to minimize direct harm to other humans, when possible. I apologize if I've misread your argument, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. Harold Fjord posted:Why is it more okay for animals to suffer and kill one another in that forest than it is for us to have some nice farms for a couple of well treated cows? Who says that's okay? I didn't create that situation, and I wouldn't have if given the opportunity. For instance, I wouldn't take a rabbit out of its warren and feed it to a wolf just for fun. But if I'm not involved, I'm not responsible for the actions the wolf makes in a world that was created without my action. I'm not responsible for the actions wild animals take in Russia. How could I be?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean I live not far from a bunch of fields with cows in them. They seem quite content, I walk through it sometimes to go for walks, seems like an agreeable state of affairs tbh. Quite happy to demolish the factory farms and keep the fields. OwlFancier posted:I don't think my actions really make much difference being vegan or not. As I said I don't think of the realistic options it actually makes much difference at all what I do because even if I somehow contributed to the scaling back of animal agriculture, I don't think it would make much difference to animal welfare, even assuming that my actions would do that which I don't think they would, especially as my job involves trying to maximise human consumption of all things so like, my own personal consumption seems pretty moot honestly. This is a different argument about the futility of personal choices. That's a lame argument when we're arguing the morality of something. Do you agree with the premise then and you're on to the practical argument of if your choice makes a difference? My choices not to bet on dog fights or bull fights is not making a huge difference to those industries but I still think it's the right thing to do. The small amount of vegans so far seem to make some difference. The grocery stores look a lot different than 10 years ago. Harold Fjord posted:Why is it more okay for animals to suffer and kill one another in that forest than it is for us to have some nice farms for a couple of well treated cows?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Do you think this way about other humans? I don't. I think it matters whether I personally cause physical harm and death to other humans, and I try to avoid those actions. I would suggest that the distinction is more a trolley problem kind of thing. If you do one thing to avert one kind of suffering but cause another kind of suffering. Obviously in the absence of any other factors you should choose the path of less suffering. The animal dichotomy to me is basically: 1. Keep animals in controlled (good) habitats in exchange for the extraction of utility for human welfare, i.e what I would call ethical farming practices. Or 2. Leave land to go wild or semi-wild and allow animal populations to reach their own equilibrium where they have to maximally compete with one another and inflict pain and suffering on each other constantly because that is what nature selects for. There are other possible choices for how to use the land but those to me seem like the two most likely ones, as I said I don't think that creating massive omni-death zones or post-scarcity animal utopias are very likely at the moment, and to me the former realistic option seems like the more ethical choice. I don't think the latter becomes somehow outside the scope of moral judgement because humans are not directly getting involved in the animal competition, which is where the direct involvement idea comes from. DrBox posted:Quite happy until they are trucked to the slaughter house as soon as they are big enough. This is also the exception, not the rule in animal agriculture. 99% of meat is factory farmed despite everyone pointing to cows in fields to say everything is fine. Why not stop breeding the cows so we can cut their throats? They are going to die one way or another, I have no objection to killing them humanely in a way that goes on to benefit humans, as human benefit is also good. I am aware that current processes are often not very humane but that to me is an argument for process improvement, rather than against the concept of keeping animals as livestock generally. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Alright, I disagree but for the moment I'll return to your other response, then. You are using "personally" incorrectly to describe the harm caused by me buying a big hunk of meat off a well treated animal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Why is it more okay for animals to suffer and kill one another in that forest than it is for us to have some nice farms for a couple of well treated cows? I tried to look up the percentage of animals that are factory farmed in the US, lots of animal welfare sites suggest it is 99%. I assume that this is a numbers game and chickens make the reality a bit more complex. Cows seem to be around the 80% mark. While I agree with the idea it would be more ethical if there were nice farms and well treated cows, that pretty clearly isn't the reality we live in. (I think OwlFancier is in the UK, it is only 70% there.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It is like asking me if I feel bad about stepping on a bug. I like bugs, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Funny enough I did once know a very hard-line vegan who made the argument that I should never walk off the paved or beaten path when I can; for instance stepping onto grass or weeds would be bad, because I might kill a bug. I would argue that all beings have the right to exist, at the very least, and things that must come as a consequence of our existence (like maybe killing an underground beetle when stepping on dirt) are acceptable since we do have that right to exist. They did not agree. They were anti natalist. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
Content to Hover posted:I tried to look up the percentage of animals that are factory farmed in the US, lots of animal welfare sites suggest it is 99%. I assume that this is a numbers game and chickens make the reality a bit more complex. Yeah we all agree with you about this why are you beating this dead horse? Me going vegan personally or not has no bearing on changing that reality
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:17
|
|