I think the right framing for factory farming is to think of Earth having certain resources and which lives those resources go toward supporting, not whether they go toward supporting those lives at all.
For example, the resources being used to support factory farming are not being used to support some other number and quality of human and animal lives that they could be used to support. So, the trade-off is not between animals in factory farms and nothing, but between animals in factory farms and some number of humans and/āor animals not in factory farms.
I think it would be a mistake to confuse the life-affirming attitude with endorsement of the repugnant conclusion. Or that it makes eliminating factory farms less of a priority. I think this is too simple and too binary a way of thinking about it. Animals in cages canāt fly, jump, or run. But they would like to, and they should.
(Itās not like the debate here is about whether animals in factory farms should be killed or not ā they are going to be killed anyway, thatās the whole point of factory farms.)
I think the best real life comparison is the one I already raised. People in countries undergoing economic development (either now, for developing countries, or in the past, for developed countries) doing family planning and choosing to have, say, two children instead of five, because they can provide for two children much better than they can for five. Itās hard to argue this isnāt out of love or an affirmation of life. Itās hard to say this is any way life-denying, negative utilitarian, anti-natalist, nihilist, or pessimistic. Itās simply parents trying to care best for their children, and affirming the value of having kids and parenthood, while attempting to balance quantity of lives with quality of lives as best they can figure out.
You said in another comment, āmy life-affirming stance isnāt necessarily a life-maximizing stanceā, so maybe you already agree.
The most disturbing part of negative utilitarianism is that it implies the optimal thing to do would be to annihilate the whole universe right now. This sounds insane, but I have seen at least one person on the EA Forum who, while cagey about saying such things outright, seemed to believe that it would be better if no life on Earth (or anywhere in the universe) existed at all.
I think it would be a mistake to confuse the life-affirming attitude with endorsement of the repugnant conclusion. Or that it makes eliminating factory farms less of a priority. I think this is too simple and too binary a way of thinking about it. Animals in cages canāt fly, jump, or run. But they would like to, and they should.
I agree that factory farming should be eventually eliminated entirely.
But Iām not so sure about non-factory less intensive types of farming.
You put it really great here: Animals in cages canāt fly, jump, or run. But they would like to, and they should.
I agree wholeheartedly.
(Itās not like the debate here is about whether animals in factory farms should be killed or not ā they are going to be killed anyway, thatās the whole point of factory farms.)
Another very strong point. Hereās how I look at it. The question is whether the world with some number of farm animals (cows, pigs, chicken, etc) is better than the one without them, even if it means that those animals will be continually grown for the purpose of being killed? That is what is betterāto kill them once and for all (or stop reproducing them) - some sort of near extermination, perhaps to keep just a few specimens and keep them in zoos. Or to keep growing them and killing them perpetually. Itās very unpleasant to even think about it like this, but this is the only honest way of thinking about it. So thanks for bringing this up. I lean towards it being better to keep them in numbers significantly larger than just a few zoo individuals to preserve the species, but in number significantly lower than their current population. Perhaps the optimal number of those animals is equivalent to maximum number of them that we can support in humane conditions and without industrial farmingā¦ Perhaps like they were kept in the before industrial revolution. Maybe we could keep just 10% ā 20% of animals in conditions like that. If they could live truly good lives, while providing us with food and agricultural products, and being slaughtered in humane ways. Then I think itās better then near extermination, and also much better then current inhuman conditions in which they are kept. It would be great if we could perhaps keep the number as large as 50% of the current number, while improving their life conditions maximally, but Iām afraid itās very hard to achieve.
I think the best real life comparison is the one I already raised. People in countries undergoing economic development (either now, for developing countries, or in the past, for developed countries) doing family planning and choosing to have, say, two children instead of five, because they can provide for two children much better than they can for five. Itās hard to argue this isnāt out of love or an affirmation of life. Itās hard to say this is any way life-denying, negative utilitarian, anti-natalist, nihilist, or pessimistic. Itās simply parents trying to care best for their children, and affirming the value of having kids and parenthood, while attempting to balance quantity of lives with quality of lives as best they can figure out.
Yes I agree, thereās no moral obligation, IMO, to have as many children as possible.
Iām also unsure about factory farmed animals vs. animals on hobby farms or smaller-scale farms. I was referring to only, specifically factory farms. ~99% of farmed animals are on factory farms, so what to do about other kinds of farms is a much more minor consideration. It still matters, it just matters ~1% as much.
I think you are on the right track with your discussion of keeping much fewer cows, pigs, chickens, etc. in much more humane conditions. Which is to say, I agree with the track youāre on.
The main point Iād add in addition to what you just said is that Iām not picky about the species of the creatures (human or non-human) that replace the factory farmed animals. For example, if it somehow (I donāt know how) turned out that the resources we saved by eliminating factory farms (e.g. by replacing them with the stuff the charity New Harvest is working on) meant we can support a lot more pet dogs and cats on the Earth, the large majority of whom were well-loved and well-treated, then I would be happy with that outcome.
Factory farmed animals could be replaced by humans, by other animals, or by animals of the same species (e.g. cows, pigs, and chickens) in smaller numbers, and any of those scenarios would be okay. More than okay, good.
If you think of the limited resources we have, such as energy, land, human labour, money/āwealth/ācapital, etc., those resources can support a certain number of lives of a certain level of quality, and we are always making that trade-off, not a trade-off between lives and no lives.
I think the right framing for factory farming is to think of Earth having certain resources and which lives those resources go toward supporting, not whether they go toward supporting those lives at all.
For example, the resources being used to support factory farming are not being used to support some other number and quality of human and animal lives that they could be used to support. So, the trade-off is not between animals in factory farms and nothing, but between animals in factory farms and some number of humans and/āor animals not in factory farms.
I think it would be a mistake to confuse the life-affirming attitude with endorsement of the repugnant conclusion. Or that it makes eliminating factory farms less of a priority. I think this is too simple and too binary a way of thinking about it. Animals in cages canāt fly, jump, or run. But they would like to, and they should.
(Itās not like the debate here is about whether animals in factory farms should be killed or not ā they are going to be killed anyway, thatās the whole point of factory farms.)
I think the best real life comparison is the one I already raised. People in countries undergoing economic development (either now, for developing countries, or in the past, for developed countries) doing family planning and choosing to have, say, two children instead of five, because they can provide for two children much better than they can for five. Itās hard to argue this isnāt out of love or an affirmation of life. Itās hard to say this is any way life-denying, negative utilitarian, anti-natalist, nihilist, or pessimistic. Itās simply parents trying to care best for their children, and affirming the value of having kids and parenthood, while attempting to balance quantity of lives with quality of lives as best they can figure out.
You said in another comment, āmy life-affirming stance isnāt necessarily a life-maximizing stanceā, so maybe you already agree.
The most disturbing part of negative utilitarianism is that it implies the optimal thing to do would be to annihilate the whole universe right now. This sounds insane, but I have seen at least one person on the EA Forum who, while cagey about saying such things outright, seemed to believe that it would be better if no life on Earth (or anywhere in the universe) existed at all.
I agree that factory farming should be eventually eliminated entirely.
But Iām not so sure about non-factory less intensive types of farming.
You put it really great here: Animals in cages canāt fly, jump, or run. But they would like to, and they should.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Another very strong point. Hereās how I look at it. The question is whether the world with some number of farm animals (cows, pigs, chicken, etc) is better than the one without them, even if it means that those animals will be continually grown for the purpose of being killed? That is what is betterāto kill them once and for all (or stop reproducing them) - some sort of near extermination, perhaps to keep just a few specimens and keep them in zoos. Or to keep growing them and killing them perpetually. Itās very unpleasant to even think about it like this, but this is the only honest way of thinking about it. So thanks for bringing this up. I lean towards it being better to keep them in numbers significantly larger than just a few zoo individuals to preserve the species, but in number significantly lower than their current population. Perhaps the optimal number of those animals is equivalent to maximum number of them that we can support in humane conditions and without industrial farmingā¦ Perhaps like they were kept in the before industrial revolution. Maybe we could keep just 10% ā 20% of animals in conditions like that. If they could live truly good lives, while providing us with food and agricultural products, and being slaughtered in humane ways. Then I think itās better then near extermination, and also much better then current inhuman conditions in which they are kept. It would be great if we could perhaps keep the number as large as 50% of the current number, while improving their life conditions maximally, but Iām afraid itās very hard to achieve.
Yes I agree, thereās no moral obligation, IMO, to have as many children as possible.
Iām also unsure about factory farmed animals vs. animals on hobby farms or smaller-scale farms. I was referring to only, specifically factory farms. ~99% of farmed animals are on factory farms, so what to do about other kinds of farms is a much more minor consideration. It still matters, it just matters ~1% as much.
I think you are on the right track with your discussion of keeping much fewer cows, pigs, chickens, etc. in much more humane conditions. Which is to say, I agree with the track youāre on.
The main point Iād add in addition to what you just said is that Iām not picky about the species of the creatures (human or non-human) that replace the factory farmed animals. For example, if it somehow (I donāt know how) turned out that the resources we saved by eliminating factory farms (e.g. by replacing them with the stuff the charity New Harvest is working on) meant we can support a lot more pet dogs and cats on the Earth, the large majority of whom were well-loved and well-treated, then I would be happy with that outcome.
Factory farmed animals could be replaced by humans, by other animals, or by animals of the same species (e.g. cows, pigs, and chickens) in smaller numbers, and any of those scenarios would be okay. More than okay, good.
If you think of the limited resources we have, such as energy, land, human labour, money/āwealth/ācapital, etc., those resources can support a certain number of lives of a certain level of quality, and we are always making that trade-off, not a trade-off between lives and no lives.