I saw a post on lemmy about how we could prevent 133 holocausts by promoting animal rights and veganism. The article opened by doing some math about how many dogs you could torture and kill in order to be equivalent to taking a human life, and then how many animals humans kill, and concluded that we’re committing holocaust equivalents many times over.
I have respect for people who question the status quo and think seriously about morality. Thinking about slavery, it used to be argued “this is the natural order,” “this is actually the moral thing to do” and so on. It wasn’t easy then to stand up for what we now see as the obvious moral position. So I have some receptivity to this type of argument.
That said, I think back to when I was a Christian (atheist now), and was fully bought into the anti abortion movement. They argued that fetuses were human, that we were committing fetus holocausts all the time. Taking that view to its logical conclusion, one could justify things like killing a few (abortion doctors, judges) to save many (fetuses).
The author of the vegan piece was not advocating for such things. But one could ask why not. I think the fact the conclusion (133 holocausts) is so far outside accepted views should prompt some examination of the starting premises. (Is any killing of an animal for food the same as torturous factory farming, should we do something about animals that eat other animals etc)
I’m glad I read the piece because there’s value in hearing other perspectives. We can’t see ourselves and our own blind spots. I would have responded in-thread but that community description said “not a place for debate”, so tossing out this thought here.
Well the vegans have a few critical issues with their logic.
The average vegan diet actually kills more animals due to pesticides, monocrop agriculture, soil quality degradation, etc etc than that of that of an omnivorous diet. But nobody cares about this because who cares that a couple trillion bugs, beetles, spiders, worms etc died when a couple million cute fluffy little animals died. If it was about saving life then they could do more by not getting a smartphone u know how many human child slaves died to make this thing?
The environmental impact is a mute point because we physically do not globally have enough existing farmland that can support the crops required to produce enough protein sustainably, eg u can farm cattle on a million acres of half desert good luck growing crops their.
Then their the whole evolution argument. We beat every single animal in the African planes not because we where smarter fasted stronger better but because more calories = bigger brain = smarter, we got said additional calories because we discovered 2 things. Smack bone with rock get marrow. 2 put meat in fire more calories. We literally won evolution because we can eat meat more efficiently than other animals could.
Then their is the whole consent thing. Bees can up a leave a hive at any point they want, they do not because they pay honey taxes to the smart monkeys who in exchange offer absolute protection. Bees consented to us eating their honey therefore honey is vegan.
Then u get to the point where u realise evolutionarily most of the species we eat we artificially created and protected putting them in the most successfull evolutionary niche in the history of our planet. That being human support class ie food. Are we using them or are they using us? It looks like a symbiotic relationship to me. Whats the difference between this and the bacteria in my gut cos i sure as shit didnt ask my shit if it consented to be my literal fucking shit.
And finally the pro lifer chicken argument. Why cant u kill a non fertilised chicken egg but u can kill a fertilised human egg? Is it the consent of the eggs creator thats required? Chickens dont exist naturally they are an artificial species that we created so i guess if we can consent to eat a chickens egg on behalf of the chicken really depends on what came first the chicken or the egg?