I can see how my use of the word “intense” was imprecise (the part about utility was likely worded better; I guess I didn’t want to open with utilitarian jargon that I probably don’t fully understand myself), but I still think domestic-animal suffering is much worse than wild-animal suffering, because death is only a small portion of overall suffering. Being eaten alive is obviously very unpleasant, but at least it’s over relatively quickly. The same can’t be said for the lives of factory-farmed animals.
To be more open about where I’m coming from, my level of horror at suffering relies heavily on to what extent I think I could deal with it myself. Minutes of excruciating pain is something I’ve personally experienced, whereas intense (even if not excruciating) pain on a continuous basis over the course of months or years is something I can’t even really imagine.
I’m applying the brakes short of ending human civilization because, according to most experts, that’s not currently something that’s on track to happen (at least because of climate change). The world is currently on track for somewhere in the vicinity of 2.5 degrees of warming; my question is whether taking action to reduce that value by x degrees is a net positive or a net negative.