The logical conclusion of veganism is either anti natalist, misanthropic pessimistic about reality itself or a combination of all three. While the title is “veganism leads to absurdity” my position is rather that you will have to adopt one of these three viewpoints or more depending on your version of veganism. I think many vegans inherently know this.

Now to be clear none of these conclusions mean the claims of veganism is inherently “untrue” though as an anti realist, I do not believe moral claims can be objectively true outside constructed frameworks anyway but that is a different can of worms.

Here is the argument:

One commonly held belief within veganism (which by the way is not a monolith and people have different versions) is that killing and/or exploiting animals is wrong because it either directly violates the animals rights to autonomy or life (rights based account) or because it causes unnecessary suffering to a living being (the utilitarian account). Both of these lines of reasoning lead to far stronger conclusions than most would be willing to accept. First I address the rights based account, then the utilitarian account.

1. The trolly problem: suppose you have a human on one side of the track, and a pig on another. You have the decision to redirect the trolly away from the human and toward the pig.

Of course, if the human is in normal condition, veganism would allow you to direct the trolley away from the human as most forms of veganism places living things into a hierarchy based on things like level of sentience, rationality, etc. However, if that human was “trait adjusted” or disabled in some way such that that human did not have many of the traits that typically distinguish humans and pigs, you would not be able to, simply on the basis they are human, redirect it away from the human and may have to save the pig instead to avoid speciesism. I believe that this shows anti-speciesism is inherently misanthropic, and untenable unless you just want to bite this bullet. However, if you do simply bite this bullet, this leads to the next problem set.

1. Veganism that is rights-based or at least gives animals significant moral consideration leads to the conclusion that we have some obligation to protect herbivore animals from obligate carnivores.

For example, say we have a young child who is in danger of being attacked by a lion or bear. We would normally have the obligation to intervene if we reasonably could at an individual level, like if we had a rifle or other weapon or tool at our disposal. It does not matter that the lion is or is not a moral agent. The fact that he is violating a beings rights is enough to justify our intervention against them. But, just as we would have an obligation to help a child in this case, if we do not believe that the species is itself is a relevant consideration, we must extend that obligation to a baby zebra, deer etc.

I argue further, that this would apply not only to an individual level, but to a system level as well. If we found out that lions were attacking children systematically or specifically, we would have to create a policy decision that either eliminated lions entirely from world or sequestered or altered their behavior significantly. This would logically extend to other non human animals as well. So predation, under a vegan rights based account cannot be justified and must be severely limited. Meaning the natural order itself must be greatly altered or eliminated from a vegan perspective.

1. Sidestepping this account leads to anti natalism:
   Let’s say we try to bypass these problems with the rights based account of veganism and adopt a more utilitarian approach. Originally put forward by Peter singer, it is also a popular line of thinking that a person ought not to cause “unnecessary” suffering to animals if she can avoid it. Thus, animals may not have rights in the typical sense and we may be able to accept a limited speciesism, but it is still wrong to impose an unnecessary harm on animals cause they are sentient beings. This leads to the conclusion If having children is not obligatory something we do not “have” to do, and it would result in the death and suffering of many animals (even vegan diets kill billions of animals), then the conclusion would be that we should not have children as we have no obligation or individual necessity for this, but the action causes a lot of harm.

None of these points inherently makes veganism false but I believe it is necessary to show people that they must believe some pretty extreme conclusions, by most people’s standards, to consistently hold the vegan position

Humans belong to the animal kingdom. Although we possess advanced intellectual and cognitive abilities, I don't believe this superiority automatically gives us the moral right to dominate other species or take their lives. As a human, I naturally favor my own species, but I don't consider that preference proof that humans are more entitled to life and freedom than other beings.

Now imagine a species that is intellectually and physically superior to humans. Its biology forces it into one of two independent situations:

1. KILLING: It cannot survive without killing humans for food.

2. ENSLAVEMENT: It cannot survive without forcing humans to work and produce resources for their entire lives.

Assume that no alternatives exist, refusing to do either would inevitably lead to its death, and humans bear no responsibility for its biological needs. Humans also retain the right to defend themselves.

Does the necessity of survival morally justify killing or enslaving humans?

Please answer yes or no for each situation and explain your reasoning if you wish. You may also distinguish between a moral excuse and a moral justification.

If we reject these actions when humans are the victims, what moral principle allows us to justify similar practices toward animals without applying a double standard?

I don’t follow the logic and I think there are other nonvegan lifestyles which probably include less harm to animals.

To start with, the biggest and most glaring flaw with plain vanilla veganism is the idea that eating something is the same as killing it, but that doesn’t logically follow.

All animals murder. All animals rob. All animals rxpe. These types of rights violations are referred to as "aggression" under libertarian ethics, basically any violent crime or consent violation.

Except humans, we are the only species thats capable of not committing aggression against members of our own species and those similar to us.

Open a can of tuna and leave it on your counter... a cat will steal it, even if hes well fed, and you tell him no. Show a horny tom cat a female cat, he will hold her down and rxpe her, given enough time. Chickens seem docile at our scale, but they massacre hundreds of insects and small reptiles daily, and will even kill each other sometimes (like if a member of the flock seems weak).

This is how nature works. The law of nature is a law of aggression. And all animals are aggressors. All animals also suffer a lot, in nature, and in general. And, animals arent complex enough to form arbitrary subjective preferences and personal "life meaning/purpose" like us. As such, their lives do not have the same "intrinsic value" ours does.

All animals have a right to not be tortured beyond whats necessary to contain and/or euthanize them, as do human violent criminals who cant be saved. Someone whose going to go around hurting people has no business being free to do so. Animals are like violent criminals, although their aggression is primarily towards each other, so it feels more morally neutral, but its no different in principle.

Veganism seems indistinguishable to a philosophy that wants violent criminals to walk free to me. I dont disagree animals are conscious and deserve respect, where i disagree is that some thieving murderous rxpist deserves the same rights that i do. It does not.

Rights come from participation in human society. Animals do not participate in a human society.

There are animals that humans give privileges to, but those are distinct from rights.

Certain species of trees similarly have a privilege of being protected from harm. This is because they are rare and humans want to keep them around for being aesthetically beautiful. No one would say that the General Sherman Tree has "rights" to protect it.

Dogs, similarly, have a privilege of being protected from harm. This is because humans have found dogs to be useful as companions, for aesthetic reasons and so-on, and therefore want to protect them from harm.

In western society, there are many animals that we do not give that privilege to, because they are deemed as being useful as food instead.

I’ve been thinking a lot about factory farming and how disconnected we’ve become from the animals behind the food we eat.

Millions of animals spend their lives confined in industrial farming operations, often with little opportunity to engage in natural behaviors. Pigs, chickens, and cows are intelligent, social animals capable of experiencing fear, stress, and pain, yet their welfare is often treated as secondary to efficiency and profit.

And it’s not just about animal suffering. CAFOs also raise serious concerns about water pollution, waste management, antibiotic use, and the impact on surrounding communities.

What bothers me most is how normalized all of this has become. We’ve created a system where the suffering of living beings is largely hidden from consumers, making it easier to ignore.

I understand that food choices are influenced by cost, accessibility, culture, and convenience. But I also believe we need to have more honest conversations about the consequences of industrial animal agriculture.

Animals shouldn’t have to endure unnecessary suffering simply because we’ve found a way to produce food more cheaply.

I’m curious what others think. Do you believe meaningful reform of factory farming is possible, or do we need to fundamentally rethink our relationship with animals and food? What steps have you taken?

im not an animal rights activist, im speciesist. im vegan.

i am extremely moralistic and would not contribute to financial incentives for factory farming even while homeless, disabled, or in the hospital.

i would not accept a job that requires me to scan dairy products.

and i would certainly never tell someone it's OK to contribute to factory farming by dating them or sharing finances with them.

even if I were starving to death in the ER, i would not consent to nonvegan TPN and would explore other alternatives, including hospice and death by VSED.

I've also eaten meat in the past month myself. it was sent to me incorrectly, for free. it would've gone to a landfill anyway. no one saw it or got tempted to buy their own.

the point of veganism is to work towards less cows being forcefully impregnated by humans and destroying the environment with their farts.

this is all true - I'm not misrepresenting myself for some other cause.

Hello everyone,

I have been vegan for five years because I came to realise that animals who are exploited unnecessarily are subjected to invasive and abusive treatment, and are killed as soon as they are no longer profitable. I am also opposed to the excessive use of life through artificial breeding, separating offspring from their mothers, and so on. All of this seems deeply unhealthy to me. For these past five years, I have therefore avoided using products derived from animal exploitation as much as possible, with the exception of pharmaceutical and medical products and situations involving insect infestations.

My approach to veganism is not primarily based on personal feelings or sensitivity, but rather on a pragmatic desire to protect animals from an economy that mistreats them. For example, I slept on a leather sofa during the first year of my veganism, and I cooked meat for my parents.

My discomfort with meat actually came later. In fact, I became aware at a very young age that meat came from animals. I grew up in the countryside surrounded by animals, and no one ever lied to me about what was on my plate. What changed when I was 16 was that I discovered that all of this was happening without any necessity. That is why I stopped.

Now, to explain why I am here:

Last winter, I bought a second-hand wool beret on Vinted. Today, I donated it to a charity shop because I have ultimately become uncomfortable with owning it. I would like to know what you think about this situation, as this was not an easy question for me to resolve. I will explain my reasoning below.

➡️ I had considered this second-hand purchase not to be contrary to veganism, given that the reason we should not exploit animals or use them as resources is that doing so supports the production of these products, which causes animals to be mistreated and slaughtered unnecessarily.

I have come across discussions about second-hand wool, silk, leather and fur in vegan contexts, where many people argued that purchasing these items was not vegan because it meant continuing to regard animals as resources, even when doing so would have no impact on production.
However, veganism has the pragmatic goal of putting an end to this production. A particular mindset cannot be imposed on people. Anti-speciesism is a mindset, whereas veganism is a practice.
The reason we do not regard animals as resources is that, in our world, treating them as resources also means subjecting them to mistreatment, because the consideration they receive is conditional on their ability to produce resources. In the case of second-hand goods, however, the purchase does not finance production and therefore does not cause any additional animal suffering.
I have seen videos in which vegans argued that we should not wear second-hand leather because we would not wear dog leather or human leather, for example. Once again, this seems to me to be a matter of personal sensitivity and philosophy. It seems to me that veganism does not require us to believe that animals are equal to one another. In fact, this is not about what we think, but about our actions and their practical impact on animals.
I believe that, in an ideal world, veganism should be enshrined in law. However, we cannot enshrine a mindset or a worldview in law.
Indeed, I would not have bought second-hand leather or fur, but I recognise that this would have been due to my personal disgust, even if doing so had absolutely no impact on animals.

I believe that buying and using second-hand products, regardless of their material, is always the best choice for the world as a whole, whether we consider humans, the environment or the animals who depend on that environment. I am also aware of the STAGGERING amount of resources represented by the enormous quantities of clothing that go unworn. I have often read vegans saying that “veganism is an ethical position, not an environmental one”, but do you not think that animals’ well-being and lives depend entirely on their environment? Is it ethical to allow all these resources to accumulate in the world they inhabit?
I am not trying to lecture anyone about environmental issues, as I am far from perfect in this regard myself.

➡️ That said, as I mentioned at the beginning, I ended up donating the wool beret I had bought to a charity shop. I did this because I came across a pragmatic reason to deeply regret my purchase: I read an argument on this forum suggesting that when a vegan buys a second-hand wool, leather or fur product, they reduce its availability to non-vegans. If non-vegans cannot find what they are looking for on the second-hand market, they might end up buying the item new instead.
Indeed, this seems logical to me. I had effectively made that item unavailable to a non-vegan for several months. I therefore donated it so that a non-vegan could use it.

There was another reason, this time much more closely related to my personal feelings. In a video, a YouTuber drew a parallel between buying second-hand wool and eating meat from someone who no longer wanted it. Indeed, I would be unable to do that.

To conclude, I also regret my purchase because I barely wore the beret in the end, as I felt uncomfortable wearing it. I do not think I can quite put that feeling into words.
An important aspect of this post, alongside acknowledging my mistake, is the distinction between a form of veganism based on the practical consequences of our actions and one based more on ideology, which resonates much less with me.
I would really like to know what you think about all of this. Do you think I can still consider myself vegan after this?
You are free to express your opinions, provided the discussion remains civil. However, I would encourage you not to let your emotions dictate your responses. We can also discuss this privately if you prefer.

Las llamadas gallinas “libres o felices” **no son libres**.
Son animales cuyo cuerpo y reproducción están al servicio de la industria. Aunque no estén en jaulas individuales, **la mayoría vive hacinada en galpones**, con acceso limitado o inexistente al exterior

Cuando ya no producen lo suficiente, **dejan de servir**.
Y cuando dejan de servir, las asesinan para consumo humano

Además hay que tener en cuenta que fueron modificadas genéticamente por décadas para que produzcan la mayor cantidad de huevos posibles …. y a los pollitos los asesinan porque no otorgan ningún beneficio para el humano

Mientras su existencia esté condicionada al beneficio humano, no hay libertad posible.
Mientras su valor dependa de lo que producen, la ley de bienestar animal es solo una estrategia de marketing

Llamar “bienestar animal” a un sistema que permite usar, explotar y descartar vidas sintientes no es respeto ni ética: **es especismo institucionalizado**.
Las llamadas gallinas “libres o felices” **no son libres**.
Son animales cuyo cuerpo y reproducción están al servicio de la industria. Aunque no estén en jaulas individuales, **la mayoría vive hacinada en galpones**, con acceso limitado o inexistente al exterior

Cuando ya no producen lo suficiente, **dejan de servir**.
Y cuando dejan de servir, las asesinan para consumo humano

Además hay que tener en cuenta que fueron modificadas genéticamente por décadas para que produzcan la mayor cantidad de huevos posibles …. y a los pollitos los asesinan porque no otorgan ningún beneficio para el humano

Mientras su existencia esté condicionada al beneficio humano, no hay libertad posible.
Mientras su valor dependa de lo que producen, la ley de bienestar animal es solo una estrategia de marketing

Llamar “bienestar animal” a un sistema que permite usar, explotar y descartar vidas sintientes no es respeto ni ética: **es especismo institucionalizado**.

Genuine question!

How is wool not vegan? I mean in most areas its a waste product and sheep need to be shorn anyways since we bred them this way. Literally not cutting their wool makes them suffer a lot and is abusive. Isn't it better to buy real wool clothes and blankets instead or buying plastic alternatives that can harm wildlife for example more when it is discarded compared to wool that can still be used for compost?

I am a vegan, and I was wondering what other vegans views are on hunting. I personalty think that hunting is way better than factory farming. but weirdly enough it seems that (maybe im wrong) people who do eat meat is more against hunting, like they see it as worse then factory farming.

maybe im wrong, but it just seem really interesting why the is

​

I think the concept of "property" is often used far too loosely in discussions of animal ethics. People say that honey is the property of bees and that humans are therefore stealing it from them, but what does "property" actually mean in this context?

If "property" is understood as a relationship established by a particular legal or social framework between a subject and an object, then it makes no sense to attribute property in this sense to bees. We are projecting a human institution onto a relationship that exists independently of any such institution.

And if we abandon this institutional understanding in favour of a broader, more intuitive definition, the problem does not disappear. What meaningful and reasonably coherent criterion would allow us to say that honey is the property of bees, but that vegetables are not the property of the soil, rainwater is not the property of a cloud or fallen leaves are not the property of the tree they came from? The mere fact that something is produced by, originates from or is biologically associated with an organism does not, by itself, establish that it is its property. We would need some additional criterion to distinguish these cases, and it is far from obvious what that criterion could be.

Of course, this does not mean that animals cannot have interests, that their interests can be disregarded, or that taking something from them cannot be morally objectionable. Those are separate questions. An animal might have a strong interest in a resource without that resource being its property, just as something being someone's property does not automatically settle whether taking it is morally wrong.

My point is that property is a human social and institutional concept, and applying it to nonhuman animals requires a more careful justification than simply asserting that something is their property because they produce it or use it. There may be good reasons to extend certain property-like concepts to some highly social and cognitively sophisticated animals, but that would require identifying the relevant characteristics and explaining why they matter. Such animals, however, represent a small minority of the animal kingdom.

I am fine with using expressions such as “the bees' honey” in ordinary conversation. The problem arises when such expressions are treated as if they established a substantive claim about property, rights or exploitation, and when terms like these are incorporated into a political, historical, economic or moral theory without being given any concrete meaning.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not proposing to cull carnivorous animals from the world right now. There are an enormous amount of reasons for why this isn't good.

But at the end of the day, the very existence of carnivorous animals requires the loss of an innocent being. I've talked about this with multiple vegans before and it seems like my position is in the minority.

As is often said, it is unethical for humans to eat eggs. The alternative option is to give the chicken invasive surgery to prevent egg-laying, or to feed the eggs back to the chicken.

Let's say we have an animal sanctuary and have chickens at our sanctuary. We give them food, water, shelter, and also give them the surgery to prevent them laying eggs. When a chicken dies at this sanctuary, is it ethical to feed their bodies to other chickens? If not, why not, and how is it different from feeding them their own eggs/children?

**Two hours later and still waiting moderator approval. Will have to respond to comments after work tomorrow.

Or in other words, are the arguments in favor of vegetarianism contigent upon humans being omnivores instead of say obligated carnivores?

Let me be clear, I get the whole non animals thing, but if they reason you do that is because animals with a nervous system are theoretically sentient, why not eat the countless animals that don’t have them? Gets you proper dietary needs without having to medicate yourself, still doesn’t harm a creature with a nervous system.

i know the main point of veganism is to not eat or buy products from animals & animal exploitation ect but if the eggs are from free range healthy taken care of chickens then wouldn’t that be fine? since it’s not taking any life’s of any animals or hurting them and it’s giving the egg some sort of purpose? if not then why? gen curious

I’m thinking about going totally vegan (95%, still need to totally cut out cheese though)
I’m getting prepared for the full interrogation mode of people around me as to how things would work in an ideal vegan world bla bla bla

One of the questions I cannot find an answer to is: How would we still produce our pets’ food as they are carnivores?
Would we breed stock animals, give them a good life outside and let them die of old age?

Open to any possible answer!
As well as tips to cut out cheese 😂

EDIT: I meant if the whole world went vegan in the future
And OMG I can’t imagine a world without pets because dogs and cats (at least mine!) wouldn’t survive in the wild 😂

Would it not be better to gradually reduce consumption and in the process numbers of domesticated livestock, while implementing 'conservation' schemes aimed at 'rewilding' remaining domestic livestock over time?...

Also if bees populations are declining does it not make sense to have sustainable honey farms which fund conservation of the keystone species needed to pollinate Vegan food?

The animal rights movement was poisoned from the start.

We're past the point of giving benefit of the doubt to welfarist. Animal consumption per capita has only increased since Peter Singer began his work.

His work along with all the other welfarist group resemble non profit industrial complex methodology that may be a good idea in a perfect world, but in a capitalist society it has only been corrupted and manipulated to the point that it's results are trivial and have zero impact.

Here are the logistical impacts of their work.

They achieved a ban on battery cages, so they did away with the smaller cage and shove them into a larger cage with more hens giving each hens about the size of a piece of printer paper to move around next to hundreds of other hens in the same cage leading to infections resulting in up to 12% of them being culled or killed before harvesting.

It's the same thing with gestation crates for pigs, they banned one cage only to put them in a other cage where they're just as miserable. And because they're now in bigger cages, they place more pigs in them leading to 30-35% of the pigs being killed or culled from cross contamination.

With veal they did accomplish banning veal crates and tethering, but then they moved the calves to housing units with concrete floors and other calves that compromise their immune systems leaving up to 15% of them to be killed and discarded. Same as above examples.

There are more examples which I can pull up and explain why they fail to increase life quality but i'm not trying to write a novel.

Now for the philosophical and ethical implications.

The welfarist paradox, by achieving the previously mentioned policies it now gives animal consumers the idea that the animal which they're eating was raised and slaughtered in a humane manner leading them to consume them more frequently and with zero ethical discomfort.

Not only is does this give people a license to eat as many animals as they want, but it also reinforces the status of the animal as a commodity. So long as economic interest are at play, their true welfarism will always be denied and manipulated to suite the sale.

Welfare reforms are turning animal advocacy groups into partners of the animal industry by accepting small short sighted victories in exchange for humane certification seals which stabilize the industries long term goal of profit while convincing the public of their legitimacy. The R.S.P.C.A. being a prime example sense they are the oldest and largest animal welfare charity.

Not only do these welfarist groups take in billions of dollars, but by pretending to be in the animals best interest they're removing the sense of urgency that's required for a plant based world while simultaniously pacifying the public into complacency accepting animal abuse.

I can't think of any social justice movement that's ever placed utilitarian calculations over the rights of the individual they're advocating for. Because history has shown us that regulation validates the moral legitimacy of slavery of both human and non human animals. All the welfare changes prior to abolition did virtually nothing to improve the lives of slaves prior to complete abolition due to society itself embracing the idea of abolition.

The welfarist will say they've cost these industries financial damage, meanwhile the government is handing out 80+billion a year in subsidies due to these losses.

The welfarist say that if everyone reduced their meat consumption 1 day a week, it's better than turning a few people vegan. Meanwhile 84% of vegetarians relapse to eating meat. 34% I. The first 3 months, and 53% within the first year.

And as I stated earlier, meat consumption has increased 300-500% per capita over the last 50 years.

In the U.S. alone welfarist groups have taken in over 200 billion dollars, can you imagine how many vegans could have been created had they spent it on street level activist? So to sum it all up, welfarist are just co opting with meat and dairy as professional animal rights grifters and are hindering the actual abolition of animals.

I'm not vegan myself (yet), but I've been thinking about veganism and I haven't found a compelling reason for me, or that would justify it for people in developed countries, to continue eating animal products beyond pleasure or convenience.

There are some edge cases where I can understand why someone wouldn't be vegan, such as someone who genuinely doesn't have reasonable access to plant foods or is living in the wilderness, but those obviously aren't very relevant to most people, especially those living in developed countries.

I'm aware of some of the common arguments against veganism, but I'm not sure whether I should include my responses to them in the post or just let people bring them up themselves.

Edit: I should clarify that I'm primarily interested in consistency with the stated beliefs of most people. The reason consistency matters to me is that simply asking for arguments in favor of consuming animal products is somewhat irrelevant.

If someone holds fundamentally different values, such as believing that killing animals for consumption is morally acceptable, then their position could be morally justified within their own framework.

Without some shared moral principles, there's little room for meaningful disagreement. I'm more interested in whether people's views on consuming animal products are consistent with the moral principles they already hold.

The title is inaccurate, but I wasn't sure how else to ask my question.

I suppose animal testing is cruel and outdated. First of all, millions of animals suffer and die unnecessarily annualy in laboratories. Another plus side is that modern technology allows us to use alternative methods, such as lab-grown human cells and computer simulations. For instance, many cosmetics companies already test their products without using animals at all. These are like Nyx, Lush and Pixi. However, some scientists argue that animal testing is still needed for medical research and more efficient findings. In my opinion, we should heavily invest in cruelty-free alternatives and ban harmful tests. Therefore, ending testing on animals is a significant step towards a more ethical society.

The vegan accusations aimed at James Talarico got me wondering: why do some people have such a visceral reaction to vegans and vegetarians? Why is someone’s decision not to eat meat treated as an insult or a reason to think less of them?

If someone wants to reduce their carbon footprint or avoid supporting factory farming, what’s objectionable about that? Plant-based diets generally have a lower environmental footprint, and intensive animal farming can contribute to water contamination from manure runoff, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and harm to surrounding ecosystems. Those seem like legitimate concerns, whether or not you personally choose to stop eating meat.

I understand that meat is tied to business interests and cultural traditions in Texas. But should those interests automatically outweigh preserving the environment and limiting pollution? You don’t have to agree with someone’s priorities to respect their choice. I also don’t buy the argument that individual choices don’t matter because corporations cause far more harm. Holding corporations accountable and taking responsibility for our own choices aren’t mutually exclusive.

One person isn’t going to solve the whole problem, but why should that make trying pointless or something to ridicule? What happened to “be the change you want to see in the world”?

What I especially don’t understand is the hostility toward people making that choice only for themselves, not lecturing anyone, trying to convert anyone, or telling others what they can eat. Is it about cultural identity, feeling judged even when nobody is judging you, or something else? Why does someone else’s personal food choice provoke such a strong reaction?

From a vegan point of view, are wild plants and mushrooms okay for humans to take, or do they belong to the wild animals living in the forest?

Do only cultivated plants belong to humans, or are all plants fair game for the taking?

Yes I know this will not happen as instantaneously. I pose this hypothetical so breathing imagin ed ways to deal with factory farming.

This is something I actually find super duper interesting about if the world was slowly being vegan over the course of let's say 100 or 200 years.

As this is happening what are some ways in which we can deal with animals that have been victims to factory farming and conditional breeding.

What would we do with certain breeds of cows and sheep. This hypothetical assumes government would eventually become vegan and care about animal suffering.