I actually agree.

I have said this in another comment but I feel like its up to us. Slavery wasn't eradicated suddenly and became suddenly morally bad, I think that slowly but steadily we got better though till the point that now everyone mostly considers slavery morally evil.

Lets hope the same can be the case with animals as well.

I can't emphasize the impact of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gqwpfEcBjI&t=25s (earthlings documentary) had on me. I am mostly vegan (well aside from some eggs which I also can easily quit), I highly recommend it.

30 million years in and vegans still haven’t won. Why do you expect that to change?

The difference being that enslaved humans actually were equal and are thriving now, the enslaved animal populations will crash when the farming stops. Though better to die free, than live as a slave.

The pendulum could swing the other way and instead animal rights activists could be looked upon with complete disdain. Just like human rights, progress is never guaranteed.

There is an immense difference between factory farming, and traditional farming, of which most countries and places still do.

I don't know what sort of fantasy lifestyle people think wild animals live, but it's constant fear of death all day long, fights with other of its kind over territory, constant predation, disease, pests (including bot flies and worms), starvation during population upswings, dying of thirst during drought, and very short lives.

Compare that with protection from predators, medical care, vaccination, shelter, reliable food and clean water, and stress free lives until a quick and fast death.

Lumping caring farmers in with factory farming is unfair, and again most of the world isn't the US.

For animals such as cows? Peace, contentment, and stress free life is indeed a boon.

Traditional farmers don't install automated cow scratchers for profit. They do it so animals are happy:

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/h3SG72cKA9o

"Future generations are gonna look back at us for our treatment of animals, especially farmed animals, much the way we look back at our slave owning ancestors." I predict that in the next 100 years, or less, consumption of animal products will be much the same taboo as tobacco consumption (in the USA) is today. Yes, they will still be around, but if you enjoy them openly, you will be a bit of a social pariah in many circles.

In his book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari called the farming of animals by humans "Nature's biggest fraud", which I always found to be an apt description.

It makes me wonder if humans are the only animals who "farm" other animals in some way (not on the same scale as humans do of course).

At the same time, it makes me wonder, "is being a parasitic animal socially better or worse than animals who farm fellow animals" ;).

You can find the abuse of animals morally objectionably (I do), but comparing it to human slavery rests on a grossly false moral equivalence between human beings and other animals. Indeed, it usually rests on sentiment or convention rather than a sound and rationally grounded objective ethics.

Chattel slavery was first and foremost morally objectionable, because human beings have rights that conflict with its practice. Rights are rooted in two properties human beings have, namely, the ability to comprehend one's actions and one's situation, and the ability to freely choose between alternatives. If I can understand my actions and I can freely choose to act one way or another, then I am, in principle [1], a moral agent and thus morally responsible for my actions. But for me to be able to fulfill those responsibilities as a moral agent, certain conditions must be met and this claim on others to supply me with those conditions we call rights. Without those conditions, I cannot do what I have a responsibility to do. Non-human animals [2] lack these properties, which is why we do not hold them morally accountable, and because they don't have responsibilities, they do not have rights. (I realize that it has become customary to pull rights out of thin air without the slightest moral scruple or justification about doing so.)

Of course, it would be morally objectionable for us to torment animals, but we are free to make use of animals in ways that do not contract the human good, rightly understood.

[0] The only sound, objective basis for morality is human nature, which determines what actions accord with it and which contradict it. So, it is morally objectionable to torment animals, even though they have no rights, because - in short - it contradicts human nature and thus my good as a human being. Sadism is a serious defect.

[1] I say "in principle", because in practice, as you'll recall, mens rea has legal significance for a reason. If I kill someone by accident, then I did not choose freely to kill him, and so I have not committed murder, only involuntary manslaughter or whatever. If I kill someone, because I believed he was a monster from the 7th dimension trying to kill me, then I did not comprehend my situation and thus the nature of my action. So, in practice, I may fail to exercise what in principle I have the power to do by virtue of my nature as a human being. But other animals do not have this power by nature.

[2] To preempt the inevitable petty drive-by pedant, I define "human" as any animal with these two properties, so according to this view, an intelligent alien from another planet would also be human, despite occupying a place in a separate phylogenetic tree or whatever.

> if cats tasted good

How do you know they don't?

By all accounts dogs taste good, but there's only a small number of cultures that eat them.

I bet you if you haven't eaten in 3 days the cat would taste pretty good to you too.

I'm partially kidding, but we are afforded to have these discussions in the comfort in our home when we have an abundance of food around us available 24/7. (Speaking of mostly of developed nations)

They probably don't taste bad...I mean, most animals somewhat taste good (crocodiles, frogs, hogs, deers, pigeons, eels etc). Now, it would be utterly ineffective to try to breed cats for meat, which is IMHO why we have such a small variety of regular meat. We chose the species that were the most convenient, regardless of any other inherent ethical consideration.

So for better or worse the line is purely arbitrary, and people's pet pig being off-limit by virtue of being declared a pet is an example of that.

> Don’t worry, if cats tasted good they would be receiving the same treatment!

I don't think that's true: dog meat isn't widely eaten, but enough countries do eat it to suggest it's palatable.

Not the OP, but:

I try to minimize the amount of meat that I eat; however, at this time I don't think that veganism is a viable strategy for optimal health for most Americans. That's particularly the case for athletes. It's simply too difficult to get enough protein and minimize carbs on a plant based diet.

That's not to say that it's impossible. I have a friend who is a vegan bodybuilder but it requires a lot of extra work on her part. That extra work is a big ask for people who are just trying to hold their lives together.

Zooming out from food, there isn't a widely available alternative to leather or wool if you care about the textile's performance (strength, durability, insulation when wet, flame retardation, etc.). That's particularly true if you care about avoiding petrochemicals.

I don’t mean to defend people joining groups committing any kind of violence, but this is the kind of rhetoric being used by the far-right against their opponents, not only in the US; it is a terrible idea to allow policing based on “assumed intent”.

The same reasoning could be used against civil rights movement.

That's why we don't do that, if our systems are functioning fine.

Yeah but do you need to criminalise membership, or does things like conspiracy, accomplace etc. cover it.

Like the "ANTIFA"?

Almost every freedom needs exceptions. Better to have freedom in general plus exceptions than no freedom at all. Free speech except yelling fire in the cinema etc.

I'm halfway up in middle management of the terrorist company called Antifa, career aiming at C level in 6 years (wink wink).

Regarding Germany, that’s inaccurate. It’s a crime only if you wilfully (not just out of negligence) provide support for an organization after it has been prohibited. Membership is neither necessary nor sufficient for that. It’s what you actually do for the organization once it’s prohibited that counts.

Only black people are in gangs? What about organized crime, would that be only black people? Your comment was insightful up till the end when you had to make it about race, which it isn't.

i do mean by civillians

My cat would literally pop if he could eat as much as he wanted :(

It depends on the cat. Some will self-regulate, others will not.

My entire experience with cats disagrees.

I have already patented SaaS. Sheep as a Service.

We need a remote-grass-touching-arm so we can touch grass over long distance lines.