Interesting point of view.
In your opinion, does that philosophy apply to humans as well?
Because it's a fact that people suffer, very much, all over the world, for various reasons - actually I don't think a human being who never suffered exists or existed ever.
So in your opinion, how many people in the world would choose death over present way of life? Because I don't see people performing mass suicides, even those who are starving to death on daily basis, although they know that they're faced with certain soon-to-come death.
Somehow, all living beings (including us humans) opt for life, no matter how miserable and painful it is - another scientific / empirical fact.
Back to animals - imagine all of the sudden, humans stop eating animals (hypothetical scenario).
All those animals kept so far for human use, are released all of the sudden and are on their own.
Without humans look after them, they would soon became ill, become a prey or starve to death.
So, for the salvation of future unborn generations of animals, you understand that hundreds of millions of already existing animals would need to be sacrificed, in a very brutal way IMO.
All that burden on vegan souls, ccc :)
The point is, we are responsible for the breeding, enslavement and immense suffering of billions of animals every year. We do not need to eat meat - we just like it (a lot). And companies like the profit it brings. As long as big money is involved, and the animals are the product, then they'll be treated as mere products, and whatever will increase profits will be done to them, no matter how cruel it is.
These animals don't have a voice. They can't cry out and protest. So we have to do it for them.
I don't agree that they'll go extinct altogether... Though of course their numbers will certainly decrease. I don't see anything wrong with eating an animal if it dies naturally, having lived a reasonably happy, healthy life, and so I think even if society progresses to a point where we ban factory farming, there will still be a market for farm-raised animals. I agree that without some human care, at least initially, many of the farm animals we have might go extinct. But your argument that they owe their existence to us and so it's okay to continue with the systematic cruelty is just morally twisted.
To me, it's all a matter of the degree of suffering we are causing. I agree with the OP in that, I have less of a problem eating fish than chicken, and less of a problem eating chicken than beef/pork/mutton.
I will always choose to be the voice for those who don't have one.
Since you avoided answering most of my questions, and addressed only points that were convenient/not disturbing too much for your highly developed conscience, I will do the same with your points (not because I can't/don't have arguments good enough, but because it's pointless), and will comment just your concluding remark:
Hi @scienceangel ... First, please accept my apology. It seems I did exactly what the OP warned against doing... Writing with a self-righteous tone and thus alienating you. Sometimes it is difficult to stay level-headed when discussing this topic. I'll now try answer anything I missed before.
I agree with you that no matter what, life will choose to survive rather than go extinct. Human individual life, in extreme cases, might choose suicide instead of continued suffering, but in general, and especially with animal life, usually survival trumps all if it can help it. So I was wrong on that point.
In your hypothetical scenario, where everyone suddenly stops eating meat, you say that then the animals would suddenly be let go to roam free and all probably die. I don't think it would happen that way. It would happen gradually, with the breeding/killing system slowly phased out in favour of better options (in-vitro meat is a thing and as soon as it gets cheaper, will probably be adopted by big companies). The animals, as I said, will still be in demand as pets and some people will always prefer "natural" meat, but I see it becoming a novelty, and much more expensive. Farming might continue in this way, on a smaller scale, and the animals will probably live much better quality lives. So it's not likely that they'll go extinct.
If they do go extinct however, despite our best efforts to prevent it, I feel that morally, this would be better than us consciously causing the suffering of billions of animals every year.
I believe I've addressed the salient points in your response? Please let me know if I've missed something.
And again, sorry for the typical vegetarian self-righteous response before... Not sure if it deserved that mocking laughter GIF though ;P
So as any other company?
By the definition of a good product, you treat the "materials" within the certain standards - that is actually good
Using your own logic: old animals don't have the voice to ask for euthanasia, so we need to do it for them
Define how you measure the suffering. In many species, there is the alpha male, all the others are fighting, loosing and getting frustrated for not reproducing. That's the suffering.
Imagine the fear when the pack of wolves is chasing the pray, your own "baby" gets isolated, waiting to be eaten. Partially alive. Is that cruel?
Wait... Animals will live in a flat/ yard, incredibly small habitat. Without the members of the own species. Without the joy of hunting. Or the adrenaline rush while being the prey. That's the suffering.
And keep in mind one thing, the production of plants involves a lot of dead animals. It's inevitable.
Another point... Lots of farm animals make great pets - another thing that will keep them from going extinct.