Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan
PETA and other animal rights groups don't seem to understand that if it weren't for people's desire to eat these animals, they would go extinct. Seriously, if the whole world stopped eating pork, how long to you think domestic pot-bellied pigs would last in the wild? The animals have become so dependent on us breeding them that to try and change now would be devestating.
But then again, we're talking about PETA, who got mad at President Obama for swatting a fly.
|
Hi Conan,
I think PETA and other animal rights groups do understand that if people stopped eating livestock animals this would drastically reduce the size of domestic animal populations (and there are billions of domestic animals on earth). However, reducing the size of domestic animal populations would not cause their species to go extinct for two reasons:
(1) Many domesticated animals can manage on their own quite well in nature; for example, domesticated pigs that have escaped are breeding rapidly in the wild.
(2) Wild members of cow, pig, chicken species, etc., will continue to survive.
Since livestock animals take up around 1/3rd of the habitable landmass of the world, apparently, reducing the number of domesticated animals would potentially allow wild animal species' numbers to rebound, increasing ecosystem diversity.
How does one reduce the number of domesticated animals, if a country such as the U.S. wished to do so? Since people artificially inseminate most livestock animals in the U.S., ending this practice would cause livestock populations to plummet after one year of slaughtering/eating the livestock.
The end of the livestock industry is unlikely to happen any time soon, though (in fact, the livestock industry is expanding..this is called the "Livestock Revolution"), due to the financial and emotional investments many people have in perpetuating the livestock industry. However, as energy and fresh water sources continue to be depleted (as the human population continues to rise) even fans of meat may be forced by rising prices to reduce their consumption significantly.
Conan, you commented about PETA's complaint that Obama swatted a fly. What may help you understand PETA's actions is to consider two points: first, you actually heard about and remembered this issue (which was PETA's intent); second, the issue forces people to consider their reasons for killing other animals, even flies, whereas normally most people don't even think about this question at all.
I read a Time Magazine interview about PETA's strategies, and the interviewee from PETA explained that one way for the organization, which has limited funds, to break into the news is to have campaigns that shock people, because then their campaigns get covered (for free) by the press.
It is telling that you, for example, actually heard about and remembered the fly issue. This shows that PETA's tactic worked. If you are like most people, you probably momentarily thought about why you feel a fly shouldn't matter. That is one step from considering why, or why not, what we do to other animals should matter.
--Erica