Quote:
Originally Posted by troymc
I definitely agree with you here. That leads to the next question: Is there a rational argument for that viewpoint?
|
It appears wholly irrational to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by troymc
I'm not sure most humans "thrive" the way some of us treat ourselves. Have you seen the modern American lifestyle & diet?
|
Not in person, but it's not much better elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by troymc
But maybe 'equivalent' is a more appropriate term? I daresay feeding a cow a 22oz New York strip steak, with garlic mashed potatoes & steamed broccoli is not a viable diet.
|
*lol* no, probably not
Personally I'd lean towards the natural habitat of the animal. But then again, if you look at humans, as you noted the modern western lifestyle may be problematic, then on the other hand, more people than ever survive serious illnesses - despite our lifestyle *probably* contributing to those illnesses. So the total sum is...? I.e. would more humans survive in a 'natural' habitat - and isn't our modern life lived in our natural habitat?
What if we gave animals the same conditions? A environment that may cause illnesses, but also medical attention to cure/stave off those illnesses? Are we then causing less or more pain that we would have? Since we are already treating our food animals this way, it could be interesting to consider.