A future without carnivores

[Jebus]

If we ever were to become a type 1 civilization, I don't think it would be overly complicated to successfully rid our ecosystems of carnivores. As carnivores inevitably cause suffering, shouldn't it be an intellectual priority to figure out a way to have them die out and have them replaced by herbivores and scavengers?

[Red]

If we ever were to become a type 1 civilization, I don't think it would be overly complicated to successfully rid our ecosystems of carnivores. As carnivores inevitably cause suffering, shouldn't it be an intellectual priority to figure out a way to have them die out and have them replaced by herbivores and scavengers?

I don't know about that. I mean I'm no scientist, so I have little authority to comment on this, but wouldn't that kinda fuck up he animals who are natural carnivores, and if that were to happen, wouldn't that fuck up the food chain and fuck up the ecosystems? I don't know, just saying.

I would say maybe, just maybe, we can replace the animals that the predators eat with food that tastes, and offers similar nutritional value to the animals.

Maybe I'll go ask a scientist.

[Jebus]

With current knowledge, there is no way of doing it without fucking up the delicate balance. I don't see why it should be impossible though.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is one of those things I typically don't talk about, because it looks pretty weird to non-vegans, and it's kind of beyond the scope of our current most pressing problems.

In theory, sure it's possible -- even to genetically engineer them to eat plants -- but we're not quite there yet.

I'm more concerned with killing off disease carrying parasites like mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas.

[viddy9]

If we ever were to become a type 1 civilization, I don't think it would be overly complicated to successfully rid our ecosystems of carnivores. As carnivores inevitably cause suffering, shouldn't it be an intellectual priority to figure out a way to have them die out and have them replaced by herbivores and scavengers?

I believe that it should be an intellectual priority to research ways to reduce the suffering of animals in the wild. Not just from predation, but from starvation, thirst and disease too. The sheer numbers of insects, for instance, who plausibly have lives that aren't worth living, makes their suffering a particular priority.

I'd argue that wild-animal suffering is even more pressing than the suffering of animals in the meat industry, but there are few things that we can do about it at the moment except spread the message and try to conduct some research (which is what the Foundational Research Institute are, in part, doing). Veganism and anti-speciesism may help to lay the groundwork for attempts in the future to try to reduce the suffering of animals in the wild.

We probably need to wait for the technology to develop to allow us to do this on a widespread scale, but ecological research could and perhaps should potentially start now, though such research might be limited and speculative until we really know the capabilities of the technology we have, in which case making the moral case for phasing out predation, and so on, may be more fruitful (and this is perhaps best pitched to people who have accepted anti-speciesism and veganism). There are at least two potential routes to phasing out predation: fertility regulation and, as Brimstone said, genetically engineering predators to become herbivores.

Herbivorous animals would, in either case, see a massive increase in their population, so we would probably have to control their populations too, otherwise total suffering could increase due to more herbivores dying of starvation and thirst. The philosopher David Pearce has suggested fertility regulation via family planning or cross-species immunocontraception.

In this case, we would essentially be constantly monitoring the populations of animals, ensuring that there are always enough resources such that animals experience the minimal amounts of stress, and so on. From the point of view of insect-suffering, it may also be beneficial, as there would be more herbivores competing with insects to eat food, leading to lower insect populations (which is good if insects experience net-negative lives).

People may have already read it, but I've always liked this piece on the topic: http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-radical-plan-to-eliminate-earths-predatory-species-1613342963

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

Jebus wrote:
If we ever were to become a type 1 civilization, I don't think it would be overly complicated to successfully rid our ecosystems of carnivores. As carnivores inevitably cause suffering, shouldn't it be an intellectual priority to figure out a way to have them die out and have them replaced by herbivores and scavengers?

What does type 1 civilization refer to?

[Jebus]

What does type 1 civilization refer to?

http://futurism.com/the-kardashev-scale ... ilization/

[HomogenizedCowPuss]

I don't see how this is required for being a "type 1 civilization" or even why that is necessarily something we should strive for.

Anyway, if life on Earth is sustained, diversified and even advanced through the methods it was, I don't think carnism (sp?) is wrong on an absolute level. If we don't have to kill other animals to survive, that's obviously better, but not all animals have that option and its because they don't that life on Earth developed as it did, even to a small degree. The reason I support veganism is because people don't need to eat animal products to survive and not eating them will drastically lower our negative environmental impact, and thus the natural path of life on Earth, getting rid of all carnivores would not help this cause, but actually in a way hurt it.

[viddy9]

and thus the natural path of life on Earth, getting rid of all carnivores would not help this cause, but actually in a way hurt it.

This reads like a fallacious appeal to nature. Just because something is natural, doesn't make it right. While it's true that carnivores aren't morally blameworthy for ripping other animals to shreds in horrific, painful situations, it's still true that what they're doing is morally wrong. To the animal getting eaten, it makes no difference whether the carnivore knows any different.

If we followed the natural path of life on Earth, we wouldn't intervene in nature at all, and we would allow humans - and animals - to succumb to the Darwinian horror-show. When somebody has a heart attack, they would die without intervention: that would be their natural path of life. Yet, we give them heart surgery, and later aspirin. When an elephant falls into an open drain, we rescue her to alleviate her suffering. If we were in a wildlife reserve and a lion was about to eat a family member, we would surely try to save our family member, or wish that the lion hadn't eaten the family member. We wouldn't dismiss it as "the circle of life".

Nature doesn't have a plan, and it can't be harmed by what we do or not do. Sentient beings can - alleviating their suffering should surely be our priority.

[Jebus]

The reason I support veganism is because people don't need to eat animal products to survive and not eating them will drastically lower our negative environmental impact

OK, why do you care so much about the environment? For yourself, for humans, for animals? What do you think about people who care about reducing suffering in the world?