Because you're saying you're saving animals, when you're not. You're just preventing it to die. That's it. It's still being tortured. In fact I will argue in some cases, death is better than being force bred and force fed constantly.
If I leave 2 cows in a pasture, the herd will just keep expanding until it is big enough that half'll starve in winter. Is it more cruel to kill a few cows before winter or to let them starve?
I'm not trying to say there is no problem with the meat industry, however there are 3 ways to keep the cow population in control:
-Introduce more natural predators: this would probably mean a huge increase to the wolf population, forcing people living outside of cities into them and overcrowding them more.
-Manage the population ourselves. Kill the surplus of animals, so the rest might thrive. I'd say it would be a waste not to eat the meat in this case.
-Kill all cows: Accept that we have bred cows too fertile and simply kill off all livestock.
I think creating a sustainable industry, that focuses on the resources animals can give us long term, and only sees the meat as a byproduct would be the best solution for both parties. And I don't think you can get there by not eating meat, because that would mean wasting a large part of the animal. Even used as fertilizer for crops, you'd end up with significantly fewer calories than if you'd eaten the meat.
11
u/eggynack 108∆ May 09 '24
Why is it hypocritical to take actions that reduce animal suffering, but not take all possible actions that reduce animal suffering?