thanks for your reply. My question was not really (a) nor (b) but I think they are related.
Here again my questions:
In “humane” farms the animals have, in their whole lives, negative net well being? are their QALYs in life negative so that it is for them better not to be born?
My question here is if anybody has reliable numbers for the greenhouse gases from “humane” farms. It would be interesting to know how much worse they are and how hard it would be to offset these emissions
I would like to know if it is a general thing in “humane” farms that animals are more often sick and have many other problems (that they did not have in standard animal farms)? or the example in the book was an isolated case? Any source would be welcome
because of your answer “(b) it would be better for animals if there were no more factory farms at all.” I guess you would answer to (1) saying that it is better if they are not born at all right?
Hi alene,
thanks for your reply. My question was not really (a) nor (b) but I think they are related.
Here again my questions:
In “humane” farms the animals have, in their whole lives, negative net well being? are their QALYs in life negative so that it is for them better not to be born?
My question here is if anybody has reliable numbers for the greenhouse gases from “humane” farms. It would be interesting to know how much worse they are and how hard it would be to offset these emissions
I would like to know if it is a general thing in “humane” farms that animals are more often sick and have many other problems (that they did not have in standard animal farms)? or the example in the book was an isolated case? Any source would be welcome
because of your answer “(b) it would be better for animals if there were no more factory farms at all.” I guess you would answer to (1) saying that it is better if they are not born at all right?
Correct.