You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
1 point

We have billions of captive animals that will be forcibly impregnated every year in order to replace those thag are killed, and even under the most “humane” conditions will still be killed at a fraction of their natural lifespan, yet you consider cutting out the forced impregnation part in order to end the cycle of violence to be “genocide”?

You don’t think that label might be more appropriately applied to the systematic killing of billions every yeat which will happen in perpetuity until we end animal agriculture?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

the goal isn’t to wipe them out. it’s not genocide

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

You’re right, it is much worse. The goal is to breed them as quickly as possible, use them for their wool while they are useful for it, and kill them much younger than their lifespan for their meat. I think it would be a kindess to slowly stop that torturous cycle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

you can’t kill something before its lifespan. when it dies, that is the end of its lifespan.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 3.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.5K

    Posts

  • 27K

    Comments

Community moderators