Do you view the millions of existences prevented by contraception the same way? Those humans also don’t exist for entirely preventable reasons …
This seems like an on its face absurd and pointless argument to me. In these scenarios we are basically talking about unborn hypothetical future cows and from that perspective your argument makes no sense at all.
Cattle would obviously continue to exist in some form, even with a greatly diminished population – so we are not even talking about extinction.
Is the fact that compared to 100 years ago the US horse population shrank by 50% (due to reduced demand) a great tragedy? Obviously not. Obviously.
You've missed the argument - the argument is we have prevented the existence of millions of humans without blinking, many of whom would probably rather exist.
Once we've one that, killing off large numbers of animals is an academic point. Who cares if we kill them by preventing their existence or giving them years of life then killing them? They're the lucky ones who got to be born. If you gave me a choice, I'd rather die and be eaten than never have existed.
I would also rather have been born and die horribly (which may yet happen) than be one of the uncountable infinity of humans who never existed to breath the air.
Is there a quality of life tipping point at which you would rather never have been born? If you were offered a life consisting entirely of pain and suffering, would you accept that?
If the quality of life is *not* an issue, we could logically maintain that we are morally obliged to maximise the number of beings brought into life -- however short and horrible that life may be -- because any form of existence is preferable to non-existence.
If quality of life *is* an issue, we should strive not to bring beings into existence that are likely to have a particularly low quality of life. The suffering of factory farmed animals may be great enough to say it would be better that they never existed rather than they were born into a short life of imprisonment and suffering.
The compromise position then would be to breed them so they didn't suffer. It'd probably be good for the meat quality too.
The idea there is a moral issue here is suspect. It is obvious I, personally, don't want to be factory farmed. It isn't obvious that factory farming is a moral problem.
It is all moot anyway, vat-grown meat is going to be more hygienic, cheaper and all-round better once they work out the kinks. But it might result in the near or total extinction of cattle.
I hope cellular agriculture will help reduce real meat consumption, and decrease overall suffering. Breeding out the ability to suffer is also desirable.
Do you not think that factory farming causes suffering? Causing avoidable suffering seems like a moral issue to me.
I, personally, do not care if factory farming causes suffering and support cheap, nutritious and convenient food by whatever means is necessary. The people who want to ban it are insensitive threats to human comfort IMHO.
But if it is a problem that needs to be solved, breeding the animals to enjoy it is a much easier solution than synthetic meat. We've had the technology to change animal behaviour through breeding for longer than we've had history. If people want them to get a kick out of being caged and slaughtered then that is doable. easier and would have been faster to accomplish than growing meat in a jar, anyway. I think it is a waste of time, but it is better than laws restricting food production.
I did, that was what I said in the comment. There isn't an issue with a pill preventing millions of humans existing. And that is worse than factory farming, because it affects humans. Ergo factory farming isn't a moral issue.
With some tweaks to taste, that is the argument you are responding to. The bit after the "because" depends on the person's moral framework.
This seems like an on its face absurd and pointless argument to me. In these scenarios we are basically talking about unborn hypothetical future cows and from that perspective your argument makes no sense at all.
Cattle would obviously continue to exist in some form, even with a greatly diminished population – so we are not even talking about extinction.
Is the fact that compared to 100 years ago the US horse population shrank by 50% (due to reduced demand) a great tragedy? Obviously not. Obviously.
This argument is so weirdly absurd.