I don’t think so. Humans eating chicken is a temporary thing either way, if we get flesh from cell cultures or go extinct, what you think happens with the overbred cows and chicken? Goal of evolution is survival, not spread.
To be clear, I don’t think that’s going to happen. Like I appreciate what the near meat movement is doing, I’ll grant you the conditions these animals live in isn’t good and there’s a debate to be had about the ethicality of raising livestock at all, let alone the way we currently do it.
We can’t even move away from corn syrup which is causing the largest health crisis in history because a small section of the Midwest can’t grow much else but corn. You think we’re going to let the entire meat industry crumble for some vat grown goo I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
That said, let’s say that yes, meat loses popularity for whatever reason and the industry crumbles. 90 billion cattle and 70 billion chickens become useless what happens to them?
In short, saving a few specimens on small farms, extinction. These animals will die, the cattle will die in childbirth or starve. The chickens simply won’t be able to sustain themselves, and will succumb to disease and the fucking awful effects of how horribly inbred these animals are.
When their usefulness to humans ends, their one survival advantage goes with it. And so, you’ve supported my point. Usefulness to humans is the best survival advantage a species can have. They just only get that advantage while they’re useful.
If you can grow corn, you can grow soybeans on the same land. My parents live in Indiana. Corn, soybeans, and pigs. For hundreds of miles of highway, that’s all you’ll see. Maybe some woods, but there aren’t any deep forests left.
It’s not the growing conditions that prevent the switch, it’s the subsidies and stubbornness to switch crops, because they’ll have to buy another part for their combine harvester that isn’t even close to paid off
I hear you, I really do. You’re not picking up what I’m saying.
It’s not about whether or not the switch is possible, the switch isn’t fucking happening. If we can’t get away from the awful habit that’s literally killing us, we’re not getting away from the awful habit that’s keeping us alive. It doesn’t matter if alternatives become available, because they are now and we aren’t switching.
Livestock is bred to be slaughtered. No life to be had there since they die in the end regardless and do not have good lives in the slightest (regardless of the conditions they live in), so in terms of animal welfare, it’s the best possible outcome for them to not be raised at all. Take in as many of these animals in animal sanctuaries and let them live there as far as possible. But arguing that pigs, chickens etc. must be bred in order to them not getting extinct is a cruel thought. My two cents.
Edit: Plus, the livestock we know today only exists because of breeding. These are not naturally-occurring animals except for maybe chickens. Same thing that happens with dog breeds, cat breeds etc.
Yeah evolutionary advantages don’t really factor welfare in to the equation. Like I said, the welfare of these creatures isn’t good. That doesn’t matter for what we’re talking about.
Did the animal successfully reproduce? If yes, then it has succeeded evolutionarily. The best way to ensure an animal reproduces is if humans want it to reproduce. An animal will reproduce more often more successfully when humans intervene.
I don’t think so. Humans eating chicken is a temporary thing either way, if we get flesh from cell cultures or go extinct, what you think happens with the overbred cows and chicken? Goal of evolution is survival, not spread.
To be clear, I don’t think that’s going to happen. Like I appreciate what the near meat movement is doing, I’ll grant you the conditions these animals live in isn’t good and there’s a debate to be had about the ethicality of raising livestock at all, let alone the way we currently do it.
We can’t even move away from corn syrup which is causing the largest health crisis in history because a small section of the Midwest can’t grow much else but corn. You think we’re going to let the entire meat industry crumble for some vat grown goo I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
That said, let’s say that yes, meat loses popularity for whatever reason and the industry crumbles. 90 billion cattle and 70 billion chickens become useless what happens to them?
In short, saving a few specimens on small farms, extinction. These animals will die, the cattle will die in childbirth or starve. The chickens simply won’t be able to sustain themselves, and will succumb to disease and the fucking awful effects of how horribly inbred these animals are.
When their usefulness to humans ends, their one survival advantage goes with it. And so, you’ve supported my point. Usefulness to humans is the best survival advantage a species can have. They just only get that advantage while they’re useful.
If you can grow corn, you can grow soybeans on the same land. My parents live in Indiana. Corn, soybeans, and pigs. For hundreds of miles of highway, that’s all you’ll see. Maybe some woods, but there aren’t any deep forests left.
It’s not the growing conditions that prevent the switch, it’s the subsidies and stubbornness to switch crops, because they’ll have to buy another part for their combine harvester that isn’t even close to paid off
I hear you, I really do. You’re not picking up what I’m saying.
It’s not about whether or not the switch is possible, the switch isn’t fucking happening. If we can’t get away from the awful habit that’s literally killing us, we’re not getting away from the awful habit that’s keeping us alive. It doesn’t matter if alternatives become available, because they are now and we aren’t switching.
Livestock is bred to be slaughtered. No life to be had there since they die in the end regardless and do not have good lives in the slightest (regardless of the conditions they live in), so in terms of animal welfare, it’s the best possible outcome for them to not be raised at all. Take in as many of these animals in animal sanctuaries and let them live there as far as possible. But arguing that pigs, chickens etc. must be bred in order to them not getting extinct is a cruel thought. My two cents.
Edit: Plus, the livestock we know today only exists because of breeding. These are not naturally-occurring animals except for maybe chickens. Same thing that happens with dog breeds, cat breeds etc.
Yeah evolutionary advantages don’t really factor welfare in to the equation. Like I said, the welfare of these creatures isn’t good. That doesn’t matter for what we’re talking about.
Did the animal successfully reproduce? If yes, then it has succeeded evolutionarily. The best way to ensure an animal reproduces is if humans want it to reproduce. An animal will reproduce more often more successfully when humans intervene.