Did automobiles replacing horses, diminishing horse population, diminishing horse suffering – as a consequence of work forced upon the animals. Is that moral win for horses; less suffering? Although their population is vastly smaller than 130 years ago.

  • SecretPancake@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Of course it’s a win for the horses. Their population was unnaturally high and it’s better to not even exist in the first place than to suffer. This goes for farm animals as well but we’re not there yet unfortunately.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      it’s better to not even exist in the first place than to suffer. This goes for farm animals as well but we’re not

      If you believe this, does that give you a moral imperative to start a nuclear war and end the suffering of future human generations?

      • SecretPancake@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I never said kill all horses/humans/whatever. The difference is between taking lives away and not forcefully breeding life for the purpose of enslavement.

    • Ashy@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Their population was unnaturally high and it’s better to not even exist in the first place than to suffer

      This guy PETAs.