Yes, thank you for making my point! When compared to the same animals living out their natural lives in a sanctuary, they’re only kept alive for a miniscule fraction of the time:
And looking at the conditions a vast majority of these animals are raised in, it’s hard to argue we’re doing them any favors.
no dairy cow would survive 20 years without shelter from the elements, protection from predators, veterinary care, ample food, and clean water. That’s not a natural lifespan. That’s an artificial lifespan.
Kind of a moot point since dairy cows, like the majority of animals raised for food, are man-made breeds and wouldn’t exist in the wild anyway. But you knew I meant when I said natural lifespan, as in how long they’d live if they weren’t killed as juveniles.
I’ve actually been quite clear in the definition of life span I’m using. You appear to be intentionally misunderstanding my point.
The limits of the life span of each species appear to be determined ultimately by heredity. Locked within the code of the genetic material are instructions that specify the age beyond which a species cannot live given even the most favourable conditions.
Can you at least be consistent in your argument? On the one hand, you say that a species’ lifespan in captivity can’t be an indicator of their natural lifespan, because they wouldn’t survive as long in the wild. On the other hand, you say that a livestock species’ lifespan is dictated by when humans choose to slaughter them. Can you explain how these arguments don’t contradict each other?
I’m happy to engage in a good faith conversation with you on this if you’re interested.
they don’t know what’s good for them. protecting them from the elements and predators and starvation is good.
Not breeding them into existence just to kill them at a fraction of their natural lifespan is much better.
the lifespan of livestock is exactly how long they are kept alive.
Yes, thank you for making my point! When compared to the same animals living out their natural lives in a sanctuary, they’re only kept alive for a miniscule fraction of the time:
And looking at the conditions a vast majority of these animals are raised in, it’s hard to argue we’re doing them any favors.
no dairy cow would survive 20 years without shelter from the elements, protection from predators, veterinary care, ample food, and clean water. That’s not a natural lifespan. That’s an artificial lifespan.
Kind of a moot point since dairy cows, like the majority of animals raised for food, are man-made breeds and wouldn’t exist in the wild anyway. But you knew I meant when I said natural lifespan, as in how long they’d live if they weren’t killed as juveniles.
so you knew you were spreading misinformation?
I’ve actually been quite clear in the definition of life span I’m using. You appear to be intentionally misunderstanding my point.
https://www.britannica.com/science/life-span
Can you at least be consistent in your argument? On the one hand, you say that a species’ lifespan in captivity can’t be an indicator of their natural lifespan, because they wouldn’t survive as long in the wild. On the other hand, you say that a livestock species’ lifespan is dictated by when humans choose to slaughter them. Can you explain how these arguments don’t contradict each other?
I’m happy to engage in a good faith conversation with you on this if you’re interested.
I don’t care to get bogged down in a semantic argument with an ideologue. I’ve said what I wanted to say.
Anyhow, livestock is being killed well before they reach maturity. All for human pleasure.
pretty sure most livestock are slaughtered for money.
Money is quite pleasurable, isn’t it?
personally I fucking hate money, which is probably why I don’t have any