Introduction

[Mateo3112]

If they were no longer bred, there would not be 5 billion cows. There would be none, or a small few in sanctuaries and some zoos to educate the public about how we used to treat other animals, like a holocaust memorial.

The only laws we have to pass to achieve that end are to forbid breeding.

Maybe it's due to the fact that english is not my native language, but i don't quite understand what you're saying. The way i see it; you are suggesting that if we stoped breeding cows, there wouldn't be 5 billion of them. Do you mean in our control? or like, in general?
What i'm trying to say is that freeing that much cows could affect the enviroment, and not for good. When a certain animal increases in number, it's never good news. We humans increased our population enormously and look what damage we've done to the enviroment xD

The current population of cows would last about a year or two, at the current rate of meat consumption. If we banned breeding, that would be the end of things.

Wait, so what you're suggesting is that we ATE the remaining cows? I thought because of your username that you were either a vegan or a vegeterian. Are you a meat eater? Or are you a vegan/vegeterian and just believe eating the remaining population of cows is the only answer? Wouldn't that cause meat prices to increase and maybe even provoke wars?

Freeing cows is more legally and practically problematic. Because they are viewed as "property", it's hard to take that away from companies.

Ugh, yes. Humans are misserable little piles of selfishness (Misanthrophy at its finest xD)

That's not true, even if they were freed. Infection spread depends on proximity/population density. If cows were freed to grasslands, infection would not spread so easily.
There's also no reason to believe any kind of infection would spread to other species. Some viruses can, but the weakness cows have is LACK of genetic diversity. Other species don't suffer this problem, and it's relatively difficult for disease to jump from one species to another without massive amounts of close contact; something that just doesn't occur much in a wild context due to lower population density.

I didn't think of that, i think you're right! But i do have one issue: If all 5 billion cows were freed wouldn't that facilitate close contact with not only themselves but with other species, allowing then viruses to jump from one species to another?

That doesn't make any sense; there is no reason why it would be harmful to stop animal agriculture in the first world. The only effect animal agriculture practices have on the environment is a negative one. Stopping it could only be helpful to the environment and us, in the long run and in the short run.

I mean on third and second world countries, wouldn't stop animal agriculture have any repercussion?
And in first world countries too, you can't simply get rid off thousands of years of tradition at once. People would fight back.

[brimstoneSalad]

Maybe it's due to the fact that english is not my native language, but i don't quite understand what you're saying. The way i see it; you are suggesting that if we stoped breeding cows, there wouldn't be 5 billion of them. Do you mean in our control? or like, in general?

If cows were not bred, there would be no cows. Or, just a few in zoos and things.
I'm just talking about passing a law that forbids breeding.
People would eat the remaining cows (not me, the people who want to), and that would be it.

It's sort of like when people go vegan, they'll usually finish off the meat in their refrigerators, and then not buy any more, except from an environmental rather than ethical perspective.

What i'm trying to say is that freeing that much cows could affect the enviroment, and not for good. When a certain animal increases in number, it's never good news. We humans increased our population enormously and look what damage we've done to the enviroment xD

Assuming the remaining cows were not eaten?
No. There would be no change from what the case is now.

Those cows are mostly already in the environment.

By "freeing" them, all you're really talking about is not eating them.

Where do you think the cows are exactly?
Cows now are in cattle yards (which are fenced areas), and on private and federal lands for grazing. These are all environments where for the most part the cows could just stay if nobody ate them.

If the cows were not eaten, their populations would slowly decline from death by old age and other natural causes, as they lived out their lives over the next twenty years.

Wait, so what you're suggesting is that we ATE the remaining cows?

If we managed to pass laws forbidding breeding, then the owners of the cows would kill them off slowly and sell the meat as the prices rose.

The logistics of legally taking away private property from a private person are nightmarish.

Ban breeding. That's all that needs to be done to end animal agriculture.

Wouldn't that cause meat prices to increase and maybe even provoke wars?

Wars? No.

Cow populations would drop over the next twenty years, as prices for meat rose.

What's wrong with price increases? There's no reason meat needs to be affordable, it's not required as food.
Caviar is expensive. Do people have wars over it?

As long as people have other things to eat, there's no reason to think there would be wars over it.

But i do have one issue: If all 5 billion cows were freed wouldn't that facilitate close contact with not only themselves but with other species, allowing then viruses to jump from one species to another?

No, there would be much less close contact than there is now.

Currently, cows spend part of their short lives on pasture: either private or federal land. In that case, they are spread out quite widely.
While on pasture, they may also be fed hay, silage, and grain mixtures.
At the ends of their lives, they're boxed up in tiny crates or fenced in small areas to be fattened up quickly on grain before slaughter. This is called "finishing". This is where they're tightly packed and can transmit disease more easily. Slaughter is the primarily point where they can transmit disease to humans.

During finishing, they're fed so much grain that it wastes food. You could feed more humans with the grain the cow ate than with the meat from the cow.

If cows were "free", then they just wouldn't ever be fattened up and slaughtered. No growth hormones, no waste of grain, etc.
They'd just stay on the pasture, wandering around and eating grass, socializing with other cows, playing, whatever cows want to do. Skinny cows growing slowly and getting exercise that nobody wants to eat because their meat is tough and stringy. They would live their natural lives, and then die.

I mean on third and second world countries, wouldn't stop animal agriculture have any repercussion?

We have no control over third world countries.
Also, they don't always have the technology to grow grain or vegetables.

If we want to transition them to a vegan diet, we have to raise them out of poverty first and educate them so they know how to grow food and be healthy.

And in first world countries too, you can't simply get rid off thousands of years of tradition at once. People would fight back.

Like they did when slavery was ended?

Should we have kept slavery going?

[Mateo3112]

And in first world countries too, you can't simply get rid off thousands of years of tradition at once. People would fight back.

Like they did when slavery was ended?

Should we have kept slavery going?

I am not saying we should keep slavery going nor meat consuming going because of tradition. What i mean is that people would fight back if a law forbidding meat consuming came out. Didn't they fight back when they tried to abolish slavery?. There was a 4 year long civil war. That aside, i think i'm starting to undersand your point, and honestly have no arguments against what you said (Except maybe the part were you refered to cows as "Private property" xD).

[brimstoneSalad]

I am not saying we should keep slavery going nor meat consuming going because of tradition. What i mean is that people would fight back if a law forbidding meat consuming came out. Didn't they fight back when they tried to abolish slavery?. There was a 4 year long civil war.

I thought that might be what you were talking about, which is why I asked that.

No, the civil war was not caused by abolishing slavery; abolition was caused by the civil war. The emancipation proclamation was not issued until some time into the war, and it only abolished slavery in the rebelling states. The constitutional amendment was passed after the war was over, and nobody fought that (the South wasn't allowed to).

A better analogy for this would be prohibition, which did not cause any wars at all; and people loved their booze.
The only thing it did was push much of alcohol production underground and fuel organized crime.

Meat has a much lower density, and is also much harder to make in secret in any significant quantities.
I'm sure that some people would convert their basements into hidden chicken coops and raise chickens there. However, it would be much less common than meat currently is, and also more expensive; most people just wouldn't bother with it anymore.
And in terms of commercial food supplies, mock meats would improve in quality and fill the void.

The things is, alcohol is a drug. You can't replace it with vinegar or soda water. Meat, on the other hand, can be fairly convincingly replaced by mock meats. So where prohibition of alcohol failed terribly, there's no reason to think animal agriculture prohibition would suffer as seriously.

[TheVeganAtheist]

Hi Mateo3112, welcome to the forum. Great to have you in the community.