Let’s say hypothetically that the U.S. decides to go completely vegetarian, meaning animal torture and consumption are both illegal. Since there is no longer a demand for meat, there will be a huge occupational shift from the meat industry to the organic food industry. Jobs will be lost and businesses will close, but the weight will transfer to other businesses that will expand and create new jobs.
The job industry will be able to heal, but what will happen to all of the animals that are no longer being killed for food? There will be more animals than we can handle. They cost a lot of money to own and raise, so people will no longer be able to own them if they provide no income.
Ranch animals, then, are left uncared for, which they aren’t prepared to do. It might even cause them to suffer and even starve to death. Wouldn’t this be exactly what vegetarians don’t want for animals? So then vegetarianism becomes a moot point.
What needs to happen, in my opinion, is for animal torture to completely end and for the death of animals to be as swift and painless for them as possible. This could be a compromise for vegetarians and meat eaters because animals are treated respectfully while we still get to eat meat.
Okay, last comment! Firstly, the USA is not going to go completely vegetarian overnight. If it does eventually become vegetarian, it will be by a slow process which will not produce the problems which you bring up here. In fact, even that slow process may never happen, which is why everyone (who is not prevented from doing so by some medical reason) who is aware of the problems with meat consumption should become vegetarian. Secondly, even if an entire generation of ranch animals suffered and died, it would still be a better alternative than continuing to create more animals who would then have to suffer and die. Furthermore, you suggest in your last post that it is possible to kill animals painlessly and swiftly - so if such a problem as the one you present arose, why not kill off that single generation of animals in such a manner? Lastly, I fail to see how killing animals needlessly, no matter how painless and swift their deaths may be, is respecting them. I'm sure that you wouldn't suggest that killing large numbers of humans in a painless way is a morally acceptable thing to do, so where is the difference which makes it acceptable to do this to animals?
ReplyDelete