^^ Eating animals. Firmly convinced we're on the wrong side of history on this one - when the world finally stops doing it en mass, either because clean lab grown meat has become economically more viable or environmental concerns are too overwhelming, etc., very convinced we'll look back on it as a horrific practice just as we might slavery today.
Aside: this thread escalated quickly from scamming Apple gift cards on reddit
Hardcore vegans already think it's a horrific practice, but for most people it will just be a diet of the time, especially if future people are eating imitation meat.
I don't think many vegetarians or vegans would disagree that meat was historically important for human survival and development. Meat was (and still is in many parts of the world) one of the easiest ways to attain calories and important nutrients.
The difference for you and I -and everyone else reading this- is that we now have easy access to meat-free alternatives. Plant proteins and mycoprotein are readily available in most developed countries. Machine pressed oils give us cheap access to plant-based fatty acids. Today we can easily get all of our calories and important nutrients without factory farming and/or slaughtering animals.
You're comparing life with non-existence. We (as a vegetarian I include myself in those making this "odd" argument) are comparing a more happy life or non-existence with being a slave, having your offspring forcibly taken from you, living only a few years in often terrible and freakishly unnatural conditions to then be slaughtered, possibly in another freakishly unnatural way, just so that someone who might not even pay any attention while they're eating your remains, can eat lazily, often in a suboptimal way for taste and nutrition.
They have no concept of freedom, and for most animals living in the wild is a terrifying existence where they can get killed every day and struggle to find food. Putting aside battery farming, they have a life of luxury compared to their wild cousins.
It's like you believe animals are like humans, they're not, stop anthromorphising them. They're not like Mel Gibson screaming "you can take our lives".
It also makes we wonder if you've ever lived in the country and met wild animals. They are generally not a happy bunch like you see in kids cartoons.
Trap some and I'm pretty sure you'll find they want to escape. They certainly understand the concept of captivity.
> It's like you believe animals are like humans, they're not, stop anthromorphising them
You could instead stop with the childish mischaracterisation of my views, of which you know little. I do not believe they are humans. I do, however, know via increasing amounts of evidence that they suffer and can experience complex emotional and social lives, and that our treatment of them is largely an unnecessary cause of their suffering.
> It also makes we wonder if you've ever lived in the country and met wild animals.
I worked in a butcher shop, I've been to working farms, I've been to cattle auctions. I wonder if you've only ever got your meat vacuumed packed in plastic and tell people you "love" bacon - but I wouldn't use that as an argument because it would be irrelevant and crass, especially on a forum like this that's supposed to represent discussion based on a higher level of reasoning amongst respectful peers.
> most animals living in the wild is a terrifying existence where they can get killed every day and struggle to find food. Putting aside battery farming, they have a life of luxury compared to their wild cousins.
You're using the same arguments people used to justify keeping slaves. They weren't any good then so I'm not sure why they'd be any better now.
> If you believe in sentience, and the value of it, given their low awareness, either you support never even letting them live or what?
If we accept that living is always morally desirable, no matter how much suffering is involved, then it leads to absurd moral conclusions. For one, it would mean that it would be ok to have a baby, then kill it to sell its organs: after all, the baby wouldn't have existed otherwise. For another, it would mean that we should try to increase the world's population as much as possible, even far past the carrying capacity of the earth, because it's better to exist in a world of extreme poverty, starvation, and war than to not exist at all.
Animals might not be aware of things like love or beauty, but I'm pretty sure that a male chick has an unpleasant experience when it's being macerated, and I don't think the couple of days it's allowed to live make up for it.
Preventing wild animals from killing each other would require by far the largest ecological intervention the world had ever seen, which would involve humans either exterminating half the species on the planet, or domesticating them and feeding them engineered vegetarian diets. In either case, it would certainly cause massive ecological damage, and I don't think we have the technology to do such a thing even if we wanted to.
This suggestion sort of like saying "Oh, you think our country should outlaw wife-beating? Well why don't we conquer the entire world and stop every country from practicing wife-beating?"
As for domesticated animals, I think we absolutely should try to find ways to feed them without killing other animals. There are companies out there trying to make vegan cat food, and although I'm not sure whether it's good enough to keep cats healthy yet, I definitely wish them luck in achieving it.
Do you use this kind of formulation to wonder why you or people you know don't go out raping and murdering?
If not, why are you worried about what other animals do? You are a sentient being with the greatest ability to reason and empathise compared to any other species on the planet - their behaviour has nothing to do with your choices.
Aside: this thread escalated quickly from scamming Apple gift cards on reddit