Sorry, I forgot this would be crossposted here automatically and this version was (until just now) missing an edit I made just after publishing: âhow many animalsâ should have been âhow many continuously living animalsâ. Since animal lives on factory farms are net negative, and their ongoing suffering is a far bigger factor than their deaths, I donât care about the number of individual animals but instead how many animal-days. So I wouldnât see breeding pigs that produced twice as much meat and lived twice as long as an improvement, though perhaps you would?
The numbers are Hurfordâs:
36 days of suffering via beef 8 days of suffering via dairy 44 days of suffering via pork 554 days of suffering via chicken meat 347 days of suffering via eggs 76 days of suffering via turkey 949 days of suffering via aquacultured fish
but expressed in the much more natural units of continuously living animals and not animal-days per human-years.
After quickly looking at the numbers you posted it doesnât look like any of them change this by more than a factor of two, and donât look like they would change the bottom line of the argument at all. Do you disagree?
but expressed in the much more natural units of continuously living animals and not animal-days per human-years.
Ok, makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!
After quickly looking at the numbers you posted it doesnât look like any of them change this by more than a factor of two, and donât look like they would change the bottom line of the argument at all. Do you disagree?
Sorry, I forgot this would be crossposted here automatically and this version was (until just now) missing an edit I made just after publishing: âhow many animalsâ should have been âhow many continuously living animalsâ. Since animal lives on factory farms are net negative, and their ongoing suffering is a far bigger factor than their deaths, I donât care about the number of individual animals but instead how many animal-days. So I wouldnât see breeding pigs that produced twice as much meat and lived twice as long as an improvement, though perhaps you would?
The numbers are Hurfordâs:
but expressed in the much more natural units of continuously living animals and not animal-days per human-years.
After quickly looking at the numbers you posted it doesnât look like any of them change this by more than a factor of two, and donât look like they would change the bottom line of the argument at all. Do you disagree?
Ok, makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!
No, that seems right.