Not most humans, only hedonists at best. Most would choose to submit to pain and suffering to protect family, for instance. People can choose to suffer and die for others. In the moment of suffering, the brain's fight or flight response may kick in and make rational thought and decision making impossible, but that doesn't mean that suffering is infinite (or practically so) just because it breaks the rational mind. For instance, it's not uncommon for people to report pain so intense they wanted to die, but nonetheless after the fact and in the light of day (being able to reason again) those sa ..read more

but for larger animals where this is less of a danger (e.g. lions) it's in fact to their benefit to eat their prey alive, as any additional time spent killing it increases the risk of their catch being stolen. Being eaten is a pretty quick death for any animal that will bleed out. Though I think it would be a bit more likely that an animal that can no longer walk/fly/swim would be killed by a predator before it dies of dehydration/starvation. That was my main point. But in terms of dehydration, that's not a major risk for herbivores in all but very dry climates or climates with very dry pe ..read more

Predators, due to targeting weakness or disability, can function as mercy killers in an ecosystem. Regardless, death by dehydration or starvation is not inevitable even without them. Plenty of ecosystems have a surplus of food, the food just comes in lower qualities which reduces fertility for the less successful foragers. You seem to view ecology as kind of incompetent, but there are a lot of inputs and variables you're not considering. Most organisms regulate reproductions pretty successfully based on resource availability. Even in humans, when resources fall below a certain amount (with c ..read more

Well, how can I know if you're sentient? Would you appreciate it if I treated things as if you weren't? Statistics: Posted by Red — Thu May 02, 2024 2:00 pm ..read more

I think it's more about it being worse near the beginning and end of their lives. A large portion of wild animals are r-selected, meaning they have a lot of offspring and very few make it past infancy (think rodents, sea turtles) and typically when animals reach the end of their lives, they don't die quickly and painlessly, but rather their bodies will slowly degrade and make them easy targets for predators and scavengers, unless they can find a secure and isolated place to hide themselves. And even then death by dehydration/starvation is inevitable. Predators, due to targeting weakness or d ..read more

I've seen that argument go that, while animals in the wild on average don't have it anywhere near as bad, the fact that there are so many more wild animals than animals on factory farms results in more overall suffering, often due to predators. But there are a few issues with this line of reasoning. I think it's more about it being worse near the beginning and end of their lives. A large portion of wild animals are r-selected, meaning they have a lot of offspring and very few make it past infancy (think rodents, sea turtles) and typically when animals reach the end of their lives, they don't ..read more

The argument here is simply that in the process of clearing land for livestock use, we replace and redirect the plant biomass that would have likely sustained several small wild animals to a smaller number of larger farmed animals. And I believe it to be the case that wild animals typically suffer worse deaths than farmed ones. Why do you believe this? I've seen that argument go that, while animals in the wild on average don't have it anywhere near as bad, the fact that there are so many more wild animals than animals on factory farms results in more overall suffering, often due to predator ..read more

Like most of us, I became vegan because I thought doing so would reduce the animal suffering I was responsible for. I still believe that to be true, but over time, I have come to understand things from a more complex perspective, to be specific: I don't think veganism necessarily reduces net animal suffering in the short term, when we factor in the suffering we are not responsible for, i.e. wild animal suffering. The argument here is simply that in the process of clearing land for livestock use, we replace and redirect the plant biomass that would have likely sustained several small wild anim ..read more

I couldn't submit my edit to that post just after accidentally posting. I was still saying there are the issues to animals, and that agriculture is taking more resources and the greater harmful impact to natural environments, so I knew I should give up all animal products, being vegan then. That was about eleven years ago when I was effectively vegan ever since, and still it was a couple of years before I found there was a healthy way with this, that I adhere to since. I am now in my mid sixties. I talked online with some vegan women hoping to find one who was right, all them quite far away fr ..read more

Fred, you're not that old. There are plenty of ladies who are or are going vegan in our age range. I've known many vegan ladies in their 40s. However, you should not be averse to the idea of relocation for love. How old is Fred? I just guessed with my post as to what he meant. Yes that was just wild guessing. Veganism is not known to be a strong trend among older people. I am just probably more thoughtful and not with a hardened conscience as much as others. I was married before, until I was in my forties. I had issues to overcome, not having much and frequently between jobs, I gave up dr ..read more