It's a false dichotomy, leave them on farms or leave the in the wilderness to die. Sanctuaries treat cows with dignity instead of objects for profit.
There will be more cows existing at any one point in time if more people don't go vegan because of the population increase. It would take less resources to let the cows alive now live out their natural lives and there not be any cows anymore in 20 years than to continue sexually abusing them, forcing them to reproduce, then killing 30 million of them a year in the US alone. There's 91 million cows in the US right now, it would take less resources to let them live out there lives and there be no cows in 20 years than if there are over 91 million cows in 20 years. The population will decrease from 91 million down to around 0 in 25 years whereas if people keep eating cows, there will be over 91 million cows consuming resources in 25 years.
This utopia scenario is a fantasy, but it demonstrates an important fact that if we breed less cows, less resources will be used and there will be less of a toll on ecosystems. The ways less cows will exist is if humans stop reproducing as much and/or go vegan. The numbers will decrease gradually the more that people go vegan.
If this were not the case and the numbers were natural, the planet would be consumed by cows in a short number of years.
The reason there are so many cows is because people are breeding them into existence. There are far more cows now than there would be if people were not eating them. I'd rather be extinct than be sexually abused by humans, have my children killed at a fraction of their lifespan, and live in filth like most cows do.
Instead of breeding more animals, we should let the ones alive now live out their natural lifespans and stop breeding them. But as long as people keep buying animal products, breeders will keep breeding the animals.
I agree 100% with you killing aquatic life is bad for ecosystems and the animals themselves.
Saying the cows are born to die is arbitrary. There are cultures that consume dogs and cats for food, the same could be said about them.
If a serial killer was impregnating human women and stealing their babies to eat them, the same could be said about the babies the serial killer was eating. That they were just born to die.
Vegans don't consume any land or marine animals. Veganism is a philosophy concerned with avoiding harm to animals as far as possible and practicable.
It's not a philosophy of complete non-harm since that isn't attainable for most people with the social obligations they have.
Same was said about whites against abolishing slavery.
Cows can live up to 20 years but the average age at slaughter for cows killed for their flesh is about 1.5 years.
I think your first point is an appeal to futility argument. It's also a good reason to be vegan as crop production to feed animals requires more labor, more injuries. In fact, slaughterhouses are some of the most dangerous places to work. Back to the victims though, there's no respectful way to kill someone who does not want to die - be it a deer or a human. It was part of white culture to wipe out indigenous people and own slaves and there were many whites in the civil war who died trying to protect the institution of slavery which was a part of their culture. Oat milk is based, I encourage you to go vegan.
The dairy industry kills cows, the egg industry grinds up baby male chicks alive.
Do you understand that poem was written by a vegan who lived over a thousand years ago?
That refutes your claim veganism is a modern moral stance since it's been practiced over a thousand years. There were practicing vegans in major world religions even before then.
I do know I'm a modern human. If you're implying that because I'm a modern vegan, veganism is a modern moral philosophy, that's like saying a Model T Ford is a modern vehicle if someone today drives one around.
There's no greater privilege than thinking you're so important as a human, a sentient beings whole existence is worth less than 15 minutes of your taste pleasure. That's actual privilege, most vegan staples (lentils, tofu, chickpeas) are cheaper and have more protein than animal products.
I don't have to win you over. Either you'll understand not being vegan is abusive to animals or not. I don't buy your gaslighting that you going vegan is dependent on you liking me or not.
I was not implying the person is a rpist. I was using rpists as an example of why getting sensory pleasure from an act doesn't make it morally right.
To use a modern, Western, privileged, moral stance on something humans have been doing for millennia is just silly.
You are diseased in understanding and religion.
Come to me, that you may hear something of sound truth.
Do not unjustly eat fish the water has given up,
And do not desire as food the flesh of slaughtered animals,
Or the white milk of mothers who intended its pure draught
for their young, not noble ladies.
And do not grieve the unsuspecting birds by taking eggs;
for injustice is the worst of crimes.
And spare the honey which the bees get industriously
from the flowers of fragrant plants;
For they did not store it that it might belong to others,
Nor did they gather it for bounty and gifts.
I washed my hands of all this; and wish that I
Perceived my way before my hair went gray!
Al-Ma’arri: AD 973 – 1058 A vegan Arab philosopher and poet who lived in what is Syria today
You're still supporting animal abuse if you're vegetarian. Dairy and egg industries sexually abuse cows and grind up male chicks. If you care about animals, go vegan.
Rpe feels good to rpists. Animals are sexually abused to create animal products. It's easier to be vegan than you might think, After a few years of following a plant-based diet instead of a flesh and secretion based diet, taste buds change. I've had Taco Bell mess up my order and had a few bites of animal flesh before realizing it. The taste was revolting. Before I went vegan, I liked the taste of meat a lot. When I saw a picture of a pig in a gestation crate and the emotional pain she was in, I decided I didn't want to support my body with that unnecessary death any longer.
That's a strange definition of love if it involves killing the individual you claim to care about. I don't think a person can love someone and then kill them unnecessarily. I don't think the length of time something has been happening makes it morally right or wrong. Slavery and colonization have been going on for long periods of time and most people recognize those might makes right practices as unethical. If there was another species that hunts, kills, and consumes humans, would you be OK being the victim if it was a part of their culture and in their same ecosystem?