• Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    These people always neglect to mention that their endgame is the complete genocide of all domesticated animals since they literally cannot survive on their own without human caretaking, almost like we’ve evolved a symbiotic relationship with these creatures and trying to end that relationship because you personally find it morally objectionable will have disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world’s biosphere…well except Antarctica, those penguins couldn’t care less if the cows are being wiped out because “uNnAtUrAl!!!”

    ETA, you can tell these people are totally not eco fascists because they didn’t dispute the charge of wanting to exterminate entire clades of the tree of life, they just started justifying it by ranting about why “the bad ones” “totally deserve it” because pregarnart. I’m sure you wouldn’t find any genocidal dictator in recent history who has conjured the image of a barefoot and pregnant member of “the bad ones” to rant about how they’re producing too many children, or that “the nation” isn’t keeping pace enough, to rile a scare out of their audience, nosiree!

    Nevermind how their position also involves exterminating service animals for also being domesticated, and fuck their disabled owners for “defying nature” or “being abusers”, that epileptic who needs help calling medical assistance should have thought about how it makes some internet weirdo feels to see dogs doing things before they tried being allowed to live despite their condition!

    • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Surely there exists a space between us breeding, mass murdering and torturing domestic animals with cruel factory farming on the one hand, and wiping them off the face of the earth on the other.

      Wouldn’t you say that both extremes constitute disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world’s biosphere?

      • vxx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Are we still talking about sheep that grass all day under the shade of solar panels?

        Even the staunchest hippie wears whool.

        • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I don’t think we are - the previous comment is talking about the total genocide of all domesticated animals, which seems beyond sheep under solar panels.

    • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      Meat cows specifically should be wiped out for their methane production being so high. I’ve heard that if we managed to stop beef consumption we’d have something like a 10% decrease in emissions just from that alone.

      • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        It would actually probably be more than that if you’re talking global demand. So much deforestation is due to cattle (typically the land needed for their feed), not to mention repurposing some existing land used for cattle feed for human food.

        Plus, all that feed needs to be transported, which influences the shipping industry.

    • Longpork3@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      We have billions of captive animals that will be forcibly impregnated every year in order to replace those thag are killed, and even under the most “humane” conditions will still be killed at a fraction of their natural lifespan, yet you consider cutting out the forced impregnation part in order to end the cycle of violence to be “genocide”?

      You don’t think that label might be more appropriately applied to the systematic killing of billions every yeat which will happen in perpetuity until we end animal agriculture?

        • seeking_perhaps@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          You’re right, it is much worse. The goal is to breed them as quickly as possible, use them for their wool while they are useful for it, and kill them much younger than their lifespan for their meat. I think it would be a kindess to slowly stop that torturous cycle.

          • CottonSeed@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            you can’t kill something before its lifespan. when it dies, that is the end of its lifespan.

    • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yawn.

      “Genocide” only applies to humans. The correct term for animals is “extinction”.

      And I remind you: we humans control when and if our domestic livestock breed. And we let specific breeds of domestic livestock go extinct all the time. There are dozens of breeds of cows and chickens and sheep that are now extinct because they were replaced by other, more useful breeds - or the cultures that bred them were wiped out. Consider the Tautersheep, for example.

      Let me be blunt. If scientists developed synthetic wool that was chemically identical to sheep wool but ten times cheaper, domestic sheep would be extinct within a decade. And nobody but sheep farmers would complain. So when carnists argue we have a moral duty to the species of domestic sheep to continue breeding them for human use I just roll my eyes.