The Replacement Argument

[WanderingGaze22]

In this thought experiment, we are asked to imagine a world in which humans crave the taste of meat. In such a scenario, there would be no animals raised as livestock. And as a result, there would be an eventual dramatic decrease in the number of animal lives such as pigs, cows, and chickens. As Virginia Woolf once wrote, “Of all the arguments for Vegetarianism none is so weak as the argument from humanity. The pig has a stronger interest than anyone in the demand for bacon. If all the world were Jewish, there would be no pigs at all.”

This line of reasoning can lead to some bizarre, and even objectionable conclusions. For example, is it better to have 20 billion people on the planet in a poor standard of living than 10 billion in a higher standard of living? If the latter, then what about the 10 billion lives that never happened? But can one feel remorseful about lives that never occurred?

[LuckyR]

In this thought experiment, we are asked to imagine a world in which humans crave the taste of meat. In such a scenario, there would be no animals raised as livestock. And as a result, there would be an eventual dramatic decrease in the number of animal lives such as pigs, cows, and chickens. As Virginia Woolf once wrote, “Of all the arguments for Vegetarianism none is so weak as the argument from humanity. The pig has a stronger interest than anyone in the demand for bacon. If all the world were Jewish, there would be no pigs at all.”

This line of reasoning can lead to some bizarre, and even objectionable conclusions. For example, is it better to have 20 billion people on the planet in a poor standard of living than 10 billion in a higher standard of living? If the latter, then what about the 10 billion lives that never happened? But can one feel remorseful about lives that never occurred?

Well these thought experiments need to have a context in order to be evaluated. For example, it is one thing to decide there should be 10 billion people, it is quite another to start with 20 billion, eliminate 10 billion to arrive at the same 10 billion as in the first example. Similarly, it is one thing to live on a planet without livestock, it is another to kill the 21 billion chickens, cows and pigs in the world.

[Count Lucanor]

What is exactly what we are to evaluate? If some resources are not available, people will switch to other resources. Pigs, cows and chickens cannot reflect on their own existence, they just don't care.

As for the second example, which I still don't see how it is a conclusion reached from the first one, we are asked what is better. Better for whom? What interests are being evaluated here?

[WanderingGaze22]

What is exactly what we are to evaluate? If some resources are not available, people will switch to other resources. Pigs, cows and chickens cannot reflect on their own existence, they just don't care.

As for the second example, which I still don't see how it is a conclusion reached from the first one, we are asked what is better. Better for whom? What interests are being evaluated here?

For the first example, we are evaluating alternatives and what can be done in light of science's advancements in culturing meat without harming animals. The second is almost weighing pros and cons of a higher or lower population.

[Count Lucanor]

What is exactly what we are to evaluate? If some resources are not available, people will switch to other resources. Pigs, cows and chickens cannot reflect on their own existence, they just don't care.

As for the second example, which I still don't see how it is a conclusion reached from the first one, we are asked what is better. Better for whom? What interests are being evaluated here?

For the first example, we are evaluating alternatives and what can be done in light of science's advancements in culturing meat without harming animals. The second is almost weighing pros and cons of a higher or lower population.

These are very general subjects. Do you have any point?

[WanderingGaze22]

What is exactly what we are to evaluate? If some resources are not available, people will switch to other resources. Pigs, cows and chickens cannot reflect on their own existence, they just don't care.

As for the second example, which I still don't see how it is a conclusion reached from the first one, we are asked what is better. Better for whom? What interests are being evaluated here?

For the first example, we are evaluating alternatives and what can be done in light of science's advancements in culturing meat without harming animals. The second is almost weighing pros and cons of a higher or lower population.

These are very general subjects. Do you have any point?

In a world without eating animals such as pigs, what would we do to replace animal proteins? Right now, we are at 7 billon people, if we reach up to 10 billion, would that be motivation to find solutions for overpopulation such as interstellar travel?

[LuckyR]

What is exactly what we are to evaluate? If some resources are not available, people will switch to other resources. Pigs, cows and chickens cannot reflect on their own existence, they just don't care.

As for the second example, which I still don't see how it is a conclusion reached from the first one, we are asked what is better. Better for whom? What interests are being evaluated here?

For the first example, we are evaluating alternatives and what can be done in light of science's advancements in culturing meat without harming animals. The second is almost weighing pros and cons of a higher or lower population.

These are very general subjects. Do you have any point?

In a world without eating animals such as pigs, what would we do to replace animal proteins? Right now, we are at 7 billon people, if we reach up to 10 billion, would that be motivation to find solutions for overpopulation such as interstellar travel?

I think educating women and girls is simpler/cheaper/better.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

In this thought experiment, we are asked to imagine a world in which humans crave the taste of meat. In such a scenario, there would be no animals raised as livestock. And as a result, there would be an eventual dramatic decrease in the number of animal lives such as pigs, cows, and chickens. As Virginia Woolf once wrote, “Of all the arguments for Vegetarianism none is so weak as the argument from humanity. The pig has a stronger interest than anyone in the demand for bacon. If all the world were Jewish, there would be no pigs at all.”

This line of reasoning can lead to some bizarre, and even objectionable conclusions. For example, is it better to have 20 billion people on the planet in a poor standard of living than 10 billion in a higher standard of living? If the latter, then what about the 10 billion lives that never happened? But can one feel remorseful about lives that never occurred?

Let's not forget that the pig raised as livestock is a prey and exists as a prey from the time before it is born. Being a prey is the terminal phase of animalhood, and I don't think that an animal that has never known freedom because it's a prey it's whole life--even unknowingly-- can be recognized as an animal anymore. I think you need to recognize an animal in it's free existence to grasp what it is and not to confuse it with any prey. The pig has no interest in being a prey. If it is that way, it's because it's been fooled or victimized in some way and will eventually attempt to escape that condition in great panick once it recognizes what's going on. Might you be a predator?

[Count Lucanor]

These are very general subjects. Do you have any point?

In a world without eating animals such as pigs, what would we do to replace animal proteins? Right now, we are at 7 billon people, if we reach up to 10 billion, would that be motivation to find solutions for overpopulation such as interstellar travel?

In case you missed those threads, there's no overpopulation problem to solve.

There's plenty of other non-vegetable things to eat besides pigs and cows. Since animal biomass is proportionately smaller than plant biomass, it would make sense to focus on exploiting the most available resource, yet the practice of eating animals would not need to be completely abandoned. I could eat shrimps all day.

[Atla]

In case you missed those threads, there's no overpopulation problem to solve.

I hade this weird bug where I googled "blinkered thinking" and this came up first.

[Terrapin Station]

Kind of reminds me of the silly antinatalist arguments where folks talk about states of affairs (and moral assessments of the same at that) for "beings that never existed."

The most serious problem for all of these sorts of arguments, though, is that morality is subjective, and subjective assessments gain no more weight (in the vein of being correct) for being popular (figuring that they do is the argumentum ad populum fallacy), so there's no way to do some "moral calculus" given these facts.

We can do polls of moral stances/dispositions, and we can make predictions about what the results of such polls would be (that we can then get wrong or not based on the results of actually doing the polls), but none of that will make one scenario "actually preferable" to another. It depends on who we ask.

People naturally try to make their preferences the case, but there will be different people, with different preferences--often conflicting preferences, doing the same thing. The challenge is for people to live together given these facts, because they'll always lead to some conflicts.

[Count Lucanor]

In case you missed those threads, there's no overpopulation problem to solve.

I hade this weird bug where I googled "blinkered thinking" and this came up first.

That's funny, I googled "gullibility" and a thread about astrology came up.

[AmosMorrison]

I think there is a lot to consider for your argument since it is not just about the number of people living on the planet. But it is also about the resources and other stuff they will have to consume. Obviously, for consumption, the items must be in place so that both parties i.e. the seller and the buyer can profit from them. Now let us consider your first option, that 20 billion people live on the planet but in a poor state. Now since there is a huge scarcity of money as well as utensils, people will rely on natural resources for their cooking, wearing, and even toileting. This also means that the sellers will be less and that their state will also be poorer. And all that they would be selling will be a few natural things which come from far off places such as cloth.
However, if you have 10 billion people living on the planet in a rich state, then there will be something called profit. The rich will have to compete to purchase an item and thus the seller will be in a good profit. Moreover, the option for the seller to improve the products will be there since he knows it is all about the money. But it is hard to negate the fact that there will be 10 billion people less. But the actual consequences are hard to predict.