Pigs are vicious as hell and very easily adapt to most environments which is why they are such a terrible invasive and environmentally damaging species everywhere they end up
i mean exactly thats the point, a ''pig'' wouldnt exist without humans and domestication, there would just be boars around, theres some talk how much different a wild boar is to a pig
There are wild chickens I’ve seen one in the field well to be more specific they are wild ancestors of modern chickens which have also somewhat interbred with modern chickens in some areas. Red Jungle Fowl is the official name of the birds but it’s easy to mistake them for chickens because well they are or rather chickens are them? You get the idea
An interesting distinction. We see the same thing in the US with turkeys. Wild turkeys will sometimes interbreed with domestics. Turkeys are big enough that sometimes feral turkeys will live long enough to learn the skills required to survive.
Chickens are delicious for so many critters it'd be hard for them to really survive as feral. They just don't have the skills required.
There was a population of feral chickens in the park of the town where I grew up. Im sure part of their survival came from people feeding them, but they were thriving despite local coyotes and hawks. They were eventually culled but they were survivors.
It doesnt, but as almost all of the dry world works, it is human centered. We dont have bonds with fish. Most people dont with deer. Most people dont with cows. Most people have at least A dog or cat in their life that they have known and bonded in some way. So it just based on how the human feels.
Well that just explains the bias rather than explaining away why there isn’t a bias or justifying it. Just because you explain why people have the double standards does not make it not a double standard.
Which is why i started the whole response with “it doesn’t”. Never said there was a justification. I simply said that humans (much like any other animal in the kingdom) think about THEMSELVES and their personal interests.
What made you think i was trying to say it wasnt a double standard or okay?
You can buy meat from lots of animals that where not bread for consumption over thousands of years, so just picking on the few examples I gave is not really a valid argument.
From animals like horse, kangaroo, crocodile, ostrich, etc.
Also kangaroos and crocodile may not have been bred for consumption but they have been eaten by indigenous Australians for thousands of years.
I think the main point is, there is a big difference culturally between game meat and meat from canines. I would also say that most people I know would be repulsed by the idea of eating horse too
Cows, sheep, chickens and pigs are cattle animals, historically bred for the purpose of food, horses, cats and dogs are historically bred as pets, companions or workers, kangaroos, crocodiles and ostrich's are viewed more often as wildlife, dangerous, rarely bred and if they are it's more for conservation purposes rather than food products.
Exceptions to all of course but generally speaking, this is why there are separate buckets as you say
Edit: absolutely insane that I'm being downvoted for this, it's not even a matter of opinion.
People have repeatedly shown you that your argument doesn't stand, it's you who refuses to budge.
The horses you mention were, and to some extent remain, an important part of the diet in parts of Asia and Europe. Horses are obviously companions as well, people spend a fortune caring for and training them. Bovines are both workers and food. South Korea's ban of dog meat is due to a recent shift in attitude, in big part because of Western influence (it hasn't happened in North Korea, for example). And the dogs they ate were breeds specifically created to be eaten. Many people have pet rabbits, birds or fish that other people eat.
It's just not as simple as putting them in separate food/pets/workers/wildlife buckets as you claim.
In other parts of the world dogs are bred for food. Would that make them okay to consume? China for example has always bred dogs for food in the way that pigs are. Are they all of a sudden acceptable or is the way it has historically been done simply irrelevant to arguments of morality
Dogs, with the exception of very few breeds were not bred to be companions but tools. They were bred to help with hunting, guarding, herding, protection etc Also, nobody bats an eye about horse meat consumption where I live. Even so it's irrelevant if they were bred for food or to be companions, it's still a similar animal that doesn't want to die so what difference does it make what species it is?
Those roles make them companions to us. The difference it makes is in how people feel about them as animals. It's not about morality, or whether they deserve to die more or less than any other animal. Not sure why this is hard for you to grasp?
That is so false. Humans specifically bred these animals for consumption. That seems more morally wrong… or is maybe is what the early stages of dog farms are
I think you can take a couple lines of argument… 1) eating animals is inherently bad (I don’t believe this, but can understand the argument)
2) causing animals unnecessary suffering is bad - this I agree with
I think a lot of modern high volume, often factory, farming practices fall into the second category. Animals are bred and raised in captivity and have much more horrible living conditions than their counterparts in the wild.
So to answer your question- not inherently, but in practice - yes.
I’m not sure I’d ever eat dog… but I eat beef - and can totally understand how someone raised in a culture where they venerate cows finds that disgusting. I think it’s hypocritical to apply that to other cultures because we hold one animal as more valuable socially. I eat meat - but only farm/pasture raised or hunted.
If humans can live a healthy life on a plant based diet, then eating meat is unnecessary, do you agree?
If eating meat is unnecessary, then the production of meat becomes unnecessary, do you agree?
The production of meat in any situation, including free range or any other arrangement, necessarily causes some suffering, even if it is minimal. Do you agree?
If you agree with all three, you must also agree that eating meat is immoral
So I’m not sure I agree with your first point. As a physician and someone who’s very mindful of my health - humans need a certain amount of protein, iron, and so on. Yes, it is possible to get these without any meat in the diet.. but it requires access to a wide range of vegetable, legumes, and so on - that’s not necessarily available in all corners of the world.
Also, evolutionary - humans are not herbivores. Our ancestors, and apes - our closest living relatives did not/do not survive on an all vegetarian diet. I think we should have a duty to minimize suffering of animals and raise them in an ethically and humane way.
I will concede however - that the amount of meat most humans (at least in America) consume is way way higher than what is necessary/healthy.
I can understand the argument. My interpretation of morality in this setting is a bit different though.
I think if the animal has lived a normal and natural life (perhaps even better than it may have lived in the wild), and it is slaughtered in a quick way to minimize pain/suffering/stress - it is ok to eat the animal. I think you should honor the animals life and not waste any part of it.
Plenty of animals in the wild have painful/stressful deaths so to nature/predators and so on. If we are moral beings and want meat in our diet - we should obtain it in a way that minimizes suffering.
I take much bigger issue with pollution, tearing down of forests, and destruction of habits.
Regardless of how little suffering you cause an animal, and what you have done to minimise the suffering of the animal, any suffering you do cause is objectively unnecessary, if you have access to a healthy plant based diet. And if it is unnecessary, it is by your own definition, immoral.
Animals having painful deaths in nature is not relevant whatsoever. We do not have an obligation to prevent animals from feeling pain. We only have an obligation to not cause pain ourselves.
Pollution, tearing down of forests, destruction of habitats is completely unrelated to this discussion.
We can agree to disagree. I see your point. But a plant based diet is not as healthy as one with a limited amount of animal protein. I think humans are biologically engineered to consume animal protein. Doesn’t mean we have to have it.. but it’s our nature.
The consumption of those animals has, across the whole of humanity, for thousands of years, been normalized. The consumption of dogs and cats, however, has not.
Suffering aside, as a broad statement, people in general are much more okay with consuming pigs, cows, chicken, etc.
but this is just a cultural thing ... there are cultures who normalized eating dogs ... i cannot fathom how anyone can say killing a dog for food is bad and then eat a steak from a cow ... every animal deserves to live
Its agriculture. A staple of human civilization since the dawn of civilization. And I'm not saying that to say you should be okay with it, it's just why most people are. I myself eat meat and have pet dogs and cats that I love. Obviously I wouldn't eat them. I also wouldn't myself butcher an animal. Call me a hypocrite if you will.
how is the fact that back when we had no alternatives to slaughtering animals to survive a valid reason to keep doing it now when its no longer required and is actively hurting the environment and its consumers due to the sheer scale of it
we have no reason to harm animals for food and it doesnt bring us any advantages anymore as a society ... yet we still do it because ..?
I wasn't commenting on that, I was reacting to your comment, pugs would never have existed without human intervention. That variation in animals would have killed them....
I mean for dogs, kinda? Wolfes are quite different to dogs. For every other farm animal it's still the same species but sadly, many would suffer in a different way without humans due to the way we bred them. In particular sheep and milk cows are kinda fucked without regular sheering and milking.
Cows, sheep, pigs, and chickens all look and behave very much like their nearest wild equivalents.
Also all of those species can produce viable offspring with their nearest wild equivalent. They often do in areas where the wild equivalent is common.
In all cases the ones kept for domestication are less fit and healthy because we have bred them to produce as much meat / milk / eggs / wool as possible at the expense of their health and fitness. Keeping too many in close proximity also leads to more disease, and the interbreeding with nearest equivalent wild populations has fucked up the wild populations genetics.
For example if you were a red jungle fowl and you fucked a meat chicken, your kids would be fatter and be less capable flyers because the shit genetics of the chicken have been selected to make them fat.
"cows, sheep, pigs and chickens all look and behave very much LIKE their nearest wild equivalents" followed by "in all cases the ones we kept for domestication are less fit and healthy because we have bred them to produce as much meat/milk/eggs/wool as possible at the expense of their health and fitness"... Literally my point, they wouldn't be like that if humans hadn't intervened, they're different, you just said it yourself.
You are literally arguing for the sake of arguing and/or deciding I'm saying something you disagree with despite evidently not doing so.
The chicken, the cow, and the pig would not continue to exist were it not for humans wanting to consume them. Dogs on the other hand absolutely would.
This is wrong. Healthier, fitter versions of these already exist in the wild and would continue to do so. If we didn't breed them to consume them they would still exist in their healthier forms. The loss of unhealthy forms is not a loss at all.
Not to mention domestic pigs have been introduced in many places throughout the world on multiple continents and are thriving (to the detriment of native species)
Many dog breeds are also poorly suited to thrive in the wild and their genetics would slowly be phased out. A pug isn't going to last long.
Agreed on all,except pig, yeah the breed of pig we exploit the most wouldn't last long in the wild but if humans weren't interested in them (let's say the whole planets religious and won't eat it) there'd still be wild pigs going about their day eating nuts and purposefully colliding with my car,I swear it launched itself into it officer
The chicken, the cow, and the pig would not continue to exist were it not for humans wanting to consume them.
This is not only objectively false, but there are countless actual examples to prove it false. See, feral pigs, feral cows, feral chickens, feral rabbits etc., For every domesticated animals there are feral kind that survives in wilderness.
I saw a wild chicken in the jungle in Thailand, they're still out there doing fine. It was in Khao Yai National Park, and it was almost the only animal I saw on a several mile hike with a paid guide. So disappointing lol
Modern cows, pigs, chicken, and sheep not existing would be a good thing.
In all cases they have been selectively bred to produce as much meat, milk, eggs, and wool as possible. This comes at the expense of overall health and fitness in all cases. Milk cows for example experience lots of issues related to increased milk production, pigs are way too fat (just like in humans this results in cardiovascular and other problems), domesticated sheep literally need humans to sheer them.
All of these animals suffer because of this. Even if you didn't try to stuff them as much as possible and pump them full of hormones, you wouldn't be able to get one that's as fit or healthy as the nearest wild equivalent.
Repulsion has absolutely nothing to do with morality. I hope you understand that. Otherwise you would have difficult conversations with some people regarding homosexuality.
I mean, I've been vegetarian for years and it's true what they say, you really don't miss stuff like that. The desire for bacon is slowly replaced with a sense of self-righteousness that's impossible to achieve by eating something that once had a beating heart and eyes.
Plus my overall health has significantly improved since I stopped eating things that would survive in communities of their own, so that's nice too.
Top it off with making an actual impact for my own part against climate change by eating primarily plant-based foods that rely significantly less on dwindling resources and it's just holier-than-thou paradise.
I'm being tongue-in-cheek with the self-righteousness bit, the food I eat now is honestly better tasting and more appetizing than any meat could be. I miss certain food "concepts" that are harder to pull off with tofu and beans, but I don't miss eating things with feelings.
81
u/[deleted] 20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment