What's wrong if certain animals don't exist?!
If animals could talk and think logically, and if given appropriate choices, I'm sure they would choose to allow their species to go near-extinct to save future generations from suffering. Any logical human would do so too.
Answers: Someone on here implied that allowing animals to live for a few years before being slaughtered was preferable (from the animals' POV) to never existing in the first place. Do you agree or disagree? I disagree, because if there is no life, there is no suffering. If you never existed to begin with, you wouldn't have a point of reference. If the people tortured by Stalin and Pol Pot had never existed to begin with, they would not have suffered. This is a really simple point. It's not the same as being offered the chance of death, because death implies the pre-existence of life.
If animals could talk and think logically, and if given appropriate choices, I'm sure they would choose to allow their species to go near-extinct to save future generations from suffering. Any logical human would do so too.
Anyone that says it is better for the animals to suffer than to never exist are obviously expressing their selfishness. They want to eat the animals and they think that pleasing their tastes is an honor worth living and suffering for.
I don't think that this "logic" could be any more laughable.
really? seems that "logical" humans for the past century have decided that the next generation can handle whatever they screw up. and so the problems humans have been creating constantly get passed onto the next group, then to their kids, and grandkids, etc etc...
so no.. i dont think logical thinking would suffice here.
unless of course, one is to admit that human's have no logic to begin with.
and if you agree to that, then you cannot say that a logical creature would prevent suffering for the future masses by agreeing to go near-extinct, because if humans have no logic, then you yourself do not know what logic really is..
make logical sense?
ha
I guess the world would be a little more boring. The more animals we lose the more boring the world would become.
I disagree also and agree with what you have said. Also because the longer they live, the longer they suffer.
I don't know about any logical human being doing it also though, a human can be logical but can also be evil and not care about others and may even get some kind of sick and twisted kick out of it.
It depends on your beliefs, if your an atheist being born and dying are the same, you came from nothing and you go to nothing so an animal not being born is . Now what if you believe those animals had a souls what were associated with recaination (sp) you can then argue that those animal were born because were destined to be born and to live out there karma.
But please stop trying to humanise animals, there animals and not humans.
As for animal being able to talk they can't, there not capable of expressing thought of suffering if you killed a human its death is reminded on the yearly on the day it died by those who knew it, kill an animal and an animal would not. If a thousand human were killed we would reminder them, if a thousand animals died no animal would care.
Counter to your agruement you would not know what an animal would want if it was given a choice of not being born or a life that had suffering. Your illogical that in saying that humans would rather go into near-extinct to save future generations from suffering, this is something that you have chosen. They would not simply because they would have hope, something an animal can not understand, that one day they would be able to escape, if these was the case many black slaves would not have had families.
Billions of animals don't exist every day, possibly even trillions.
ok some quick thoughts
-we create artificial numbers of certain types of animals. this creates problems, such as the problem of methane gas created by live stock. From an enviromentalist point of view the issue is rather straightforward, these animals exist unnaturally and in doing so create a strain on the ecosystems that they effect.
-is the succes of a species messured by its population on the planet? if so than the farming system could be viewed as a symbiotic relationship with cows and chickens and pigs. But an exploited population is symbiotic in population numbers only. While the population grows, it becomes a nitche population with an increasing lack of diversity, its ability to adapt to any other role decreases as we force a population into a specific food related role, so while their numbers might be higher, their chance of exitinction is actually greater from a darwinian strength of a species viewpoint.
I agree with you.
See: http://ar.vegnews.org/chance_to_live.htm...
Your premise does not make sense because it is contradictory. If "they" (whoever "they" may be) did not exist, then how can "they" make a prefrential decision? In other words, who is there to make the decision to begin with? With such a flawed inital statement, no logical argument can be made.