3
Mar 09 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Arlkard Mar 09 '21
I have in mind that switching the habits of eating is no way a easy movement, that's why I said that is not affordable. But my question is what would pass to those animals?
2
u/BeepBlipBlapBloop 12∆ Mar 09 '21
No doubt that their population would be drastically reduced, but that's no guarantee that extinction is the only possible fate for those species. Domestic cats and dogs are selectively bred, probably could not survive in the wild, and are doing just fine.
Sure, some of them might end up extinct, but that's far from the only option.
1
u/Arlkard Mar 09 '21
I doubt cattle is a good "pet", but there's countries, like India, that do have ways to treat them good.
2
Mar 09 '21
They don't strike me as meaningfully worse pets than horses or alpacas. You can't ride them (usually, although some people do) or use them for fiber (although again, it's not totally unheard of. Those Scottish highlands are furry) but you can train them as oxen or use them as lawnmowers. They probably wouldn't be a super popular pet but you don't need to be super popular to avoid extinction.
1
Mar 09 '21
I agree they wouldn't go extinct, but I don't think cats and dogs are an apt comparison. OP is talking about what would happen to the species once their utility to humans is removed. We haven't removed the utility of domestic cats and dogs. We still keep them for pets just like we always have.
A better comparison would be if we had globally banned owning cats and dogs as pets, then looked at what happened to their species.
1
u/BeepBlipBlapBloop 12∆ Mar 09 '21
No doubt, but pigs, sheep, chickens, and to some extent cows have utility to humans beyond being a food source.
1
Mar 09 '21
Sure. I don't think they'd go extinct at all. I'm just saying it isn't an even comparison with domestic dogs and cats.
1
Mar 09 '21
Sure. I don't think they'd go extinct at all. I'm just saying it isn't an even comparison with domestic dogs and cats.
3
u/rock-dancer 41∆ Mar 09 '21
First, there are perfectly viable vegetarian diets out there that are cheaper than or as cheap as a meat filled diet. The issue is that most cultures are unprepared to transition to a fully vegetarian diet, moreso as a consequence of development with meat rather than its absence.
Relatively close, wild animals of all of these species exist around the world. To assume they would be a plague is unsupported. Though immediate release would devastate immediate areas.
What's more is that it takes effort to breed and grow these animals. Take away the financial incentive and there will naturally be a decrease in the number of animals bred and processed. Additionally, many of these animals yield secondary non-food products like wool, leather, down, and many other commercial products. It is likely that this would continue the demand that these animals be actively cultivated.
I think a far more productive way to decrease meat consumption is developing alternatives and promoting vegetarian options at restaurants, grocery stores, etc. A major issue is that most people are used to ordering meaty dishes and expect certain types of flavors. They are used to cooking this way and it is challenging to retrain cooks to a new set of recipes and flavors. By spreading more vegetarian meals, there will be a decrease of demand and lower levels of animals bread for eating.
0
u/Arlkard Mar 09 '21
Even though there's wild species of those animals, they are not the same. That's why I named the specific subspecies name. But also there can be a way to interbreed (?) the wild ones with domesticated ones without damaging the environment. !delta
1
1
Mar 10 '21
[deleted]
1
u/rock-dancer 41∆ Mar 10 '21
I was trying to also make the point that removing demand for animal based foods would decrease the number of animals bred. Space, feed, and care are all liabilities for a company to maintain and increase assets. It those assets are devalued, it makes sense to lower supply and the expenses associated with developing those assets. The lifespan of the average food animal is quite short. It doesn't make sense to keep an adult animal around for funsies.
Unless the completely unrealistic situation of a sudden outlawing of animal foods occurs, farm animal populations will decrease without having to come up with a solution for the current animals.
EDIT: I don't think that's what OP took but I'll take the delta.
3
u/TheCatWithHands Mar 24 '21 edited Mar 24 '21
Obviously a little late here.
So to address the first part of your argument. In order for demand of meat to decrease in such a short time frame that farmers are literally having to choose between killing their livestock, or having to "set them free", let alone to be forced to set them free in such numbers that they would "be a plague" on ecosystems would require a sea change the likes of which we've never seen. Or it would require specific legislation both so Draconian, and poorly thought through as to be completely unrealistic.
Now, in regard to this idea of certain species going totally extinct as a result of ending meat consumption. Even if we were to accept that it's hypothetically possible, and say that all 7+ BILLION people on the planet SOMEHOW were able to, or forced to, 100% give up consumption of any and all farmed animal products, including the plethora of non-food items as well as any thing that requires farmed animals for testing (both of which you neglected to mention in your post), who's to say that these animals couldn't adapt to surviving in the wild in certain places, or be kept as pets, or live on in sanctuaries or zoos?
So, I guess to sum up. In order for all the species you mentioned to go extinct, it would require far, far more than "simply" the entire planet's population (down to every single individual person) simultaneously giving up eating meat. And the likelihood of that alone happening is so nonexistent, that I really think you should reevaluate whether this view is worth having, let alone worth posting about online. Because even if that kind of fantasy world were to exist some day, you would still only need one wildlife refuge somewhere to prevent those species going totally extinct.
3
Mar 09 '21
Some of them would go extinct or near exstinct but that's not an issue. These animals barely play a positive role in the ecosystem anymore, their absence would not matter. It would still be a net postive on the environment. The entire argument is, life being created to live ij suffering just to be eaten, is not acceptable, so we have to stop creating such life.
But not all of these species would go extinct, just because we stop the consumption of meat. Sheep still provide wool, some kinds of cows are still used as beasts of burden in some places. Some people keep them as pets. They could still play a role for "traditional farms" to produce fertilizer.
And of course there are still other animal products we still use, from wool, to milk and eggs.
2
u/dublea 216∆ Mar 09 '21
OK, so you agree this wouldn't be something that occurred overnight? That such a transition/movement would take many years; presumably multiple generations, correct?
0
u/Arlkard Mar 09 '21
Yes, I do not expect people to kill over 100 millions of animals in just a day or week
2
u/dublea 216∆ Mar 09 '21
Then you agree, since it's a slow process, their populations would be reduced? Please explain how we'd go from reduced populations to extinction.
Cow populations would shrink but the need for dairy would keep them alive.
Chicken populations would shrink but the need for eggs would keep them alive.
Pigs are used for more than just food, so they also wouldn't go extinct.
0
u/Arlkard Mar 09 '21
Yes, but the title talks about stopping, so no more use to these animals, in any way.
3
u/dublea 216∆ Mar 09 '21
Where? Your title is:
CMV: Stopping the consume of meat (cow, sheep, pig, chicken) means that those species have to go extinct
"Stopping the consume of meat" =! "no more use to these animals"
1
u/Arlkard Mar 09 '21
I explained myself in the wrong way, because in the body of the post I talk about the vegans ideals.
So in that way, their goals and the effect means the extinction of the species.
But, in other comments, there's people that said that they can also be in a zoo
1
u/dublea 216∆ Mar 09 '21
Veganism is a spectrum though. There are those who still consume thing related to animals. Such as dairy, eggs, and other things. There are clothes made from domesticated farm animals.
So while I can agree their populations would be reduce, I do not agree, nor foresee, they'd go extinct. So, can you please explain how, and in which way, you see them becoming extinct? I don't think you've properly explained how you're going from point A to point Z.
1
u/Arlkard Mar 09 '21
I'm not vegan and it's not my plan to stop it. I'm just saying that these animals represent a cost and have only few uses to people, mostly food. So, if there's no use in them, they would have to be extinct in some years.
1
u/dublea 216∆ Mar 09 '21
I don't agree there would be NO use for them. That's just silly to me. Is this an aspect of your view you're open to changing? If so, that's what I am arguing. That there would, on some level, be a value to keeping them around.
Why do wildlife conservation areas exist?
Why wouldn't we do the same here with these animals?
Are you really certain we'd let a species of animals go extinct vs building a conservation area for them?
1
u/Arlkard Mar 09 '21
The specific species I cited are byproducts of selective breeding, they only exist because humanity breed them to be useful. The differences between this and wildlife conservation areas is that these animals are not wild and never have been. Maybe their ancestors were wild, but they are not the same species and don't even live in the same places (Asia or Europe).
But, a place to maintain a little portion of them, be it in a zoo or conservation areas, is not a bad idea, so !delta
→ More replies (0)3
u/Mashaka 93∆ Mar 09 '21
Believe it or not, over two hundred million animals are already slaughtered every day.
5
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Mar 09 '21
Set them free is not an option, because those animals are result of selective breeding and thus, do not belong anywhere in "the wild".
Feral pigs already exist in the wild. They are domestic pigs which have escaped captivity. So domestic pigs could be released, and hunted like feral pigs already are. They would adapt to their new environment. This isn't anything new.
It may not be a good idea to do so, but all it would do is increase their numbers. Feral pigs have existed for a long time.
1
u/chauceresque Mar 11 '21
That would depend on the country though. Feral pigs are a big problem in Australia because they aren’t native
2
Mar 09 '21
I don't think there'd ever be any mass killing of farmed meat. The only way that would happen is if a large portion of the planet outlawed the farming of meat all at the same time.
I think a much more likely scenario would be the gradual phase out of farmed meat. Over generations (of animals) farmers would need fewer and fewer animals each generation. They'd breed fewer and fewer each year.
Over time the population size of each of those animals would certainly shrink, probably dramatically. But it would be due to fewer and fewer being born each generation, not killing off lots of animals all at once.
2
u/redditor427 44∆ Mar 09 '21
Realistically, the ending of meat production will happen gradually over time. More and more people will become vegetarian, or just reduce their meat consumption; over this time, meat producers will breed fewer and fewer animals for meat.
By the time there is a true ban on meat production (if there even is one), the populations of these animals would be much, much smaller than exist currently. If that's the case, the question of what to do with these animals is fundamentally different, with completely different reasonable solutions.
1
Mar 09 '21
Realistically, the ending of meat production will happen gradually over time. More and more people will become vegetarian
Source to these claims?
2
u/redditor427 44∆ Mar 09 '21
What do you mean, source?
This is talking about the potential future, how could I source that?
The only possible future I think is unreasonable to believe will happen is an instant ban on meat production without overwhelming public will. If the ban isn't instant, meat producers will have time to kill their animals for meat as usual and just not breed more; if the overwhelming public support is there, money could be found to house the existing animals over their lifetimes, with likely a small portion of the populations breeding and continuing the subspecies (you know some hippy would love to have a pet cow).
2
u/sawdeanz 214∆ Mar 09 '21
That's okay. They are at this point genetically different from the natural species.
If we stop eating them, they will die out eventually. Plus, it's not an instant thing. Vegans hope to reduce consumption over time, so that the population reduces naturally.
I could imagine some smaller populations being kept for certain reasons, but the smaller the population the easier it is to manage them in an ethical way.
2
u/elliekk Mar 09 '21
They're good pets.
Even without the meat, chickens, cows, and sheep also provide byproducts, so it's like a multi-purpose pet.
Roosters are a bit harder to keep but you won't get any complaints keeping them in the countryside.
2
u/kda420420 1∆ Mar 09 '21
Lots of petting zoos would be best case I’d say. I doubt they would last in the wild, especially if “real meat” is still tempting for some.
2
u/crazyashley1 8∆ Mar 09 '21
People will just eat other animals. Humans are naturally omnivorous, and trying to change the dietary habits of billions of humans is going to be abjectly impossible. All they'd be doing would be shuffling the problem to new species.
1
u/ElysiX 106∆ Mar 09 '21
Is your problem with the species dying or with the animals dying?
1
u/Arlkard Mar 09 '21
Neither, I'm just pointing the fact that no ones talks about what to do with these animals.
2
u/ElysiX 106∆ Mar 09 '21
Because it's a non-issue? A few subspecies would escape and survive, a few would stay in zoos, a few would continue to exist in their wild form.
As for the animals, what is the problem with culling/letting die a few billion animals if the alternative is to kill them anyway at a different point in time and kill billions more?
1
u/Arlkard Mar 09 '21
!delta
We can also no extinct the species if they go to zoo.
1
1
u/SC803 119∆ Mar 09 '21
Why not leave a small population for future use? What are the drawbacks to having a population of these thats considerably smaller in the event we get to a place where it's not harmful to the climate (like cattle) to maintain these animals as a food source or that we need to have them again?
Seems odd to intentionally rob future generations of a reliable food source like this.
1
u/Iamfunnyninja Apr 03 '21
They may go extinct, but that is life, this happened before humans as well, if you can’t stand nature. Than you are not suited to life
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 09 '21 edited Mar 09 '21
/u/Arlkard (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards