Allowing livestock to graze under renewable developments gives farmers a separate income stream, but solar developers in Australia have been slow to catch on.
I’m all for the humane treatment of animals, but domestic sheep need to be sheared or they end up like Baarack here. Meanwhile, wool is a sustainable textile source, unlike synthetic fibers.
If we want domestic sheep to live good lives, it requires humans embracing sustainable practices quickly to address the climate crisis.
These people always neglect to mention that their endgame is the complete genocide of all domesticated animals since they literally cannot survive on their own without human caretaking, almost like we’ve evolved a symbiotic relationship with these creatures and trying to end that relationship because you personally find it morally objectionable will have disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world’s biosphere…well except Antarctica, those penguins couldn’t care less if the cows are being wiped out because “uNnAtUrAl!!!”
ETA, you can tell these people are totally not eco fascists because they didn’t dispute the charge of wanting to exterminate entire clades of the tree of life, they just started justifying it by ranting about why “the bad ones” “totally deserve it” because pregarnart. I’m sure you wouldn’t find any genocidal dictator in recent history who has conjured the image of a barefoot and pregnant member of “the bad ones” to rant about how they’re producing too many children, or that “the nation” isn’t keeping pace enough, to rile a scare out of their audience, nosiree!
Nevermind how their position also involves exterminating service animals for also being domesticated, and fuck their disabled owners for “defying nature” or “being abusers”, that epileptic who needs help calling medical assistance should have thought about how it makes some internet weirdo feels to see dogs doing things before they tried being allowed to live despite their condition!
Meat cows specifically should be wiped out for their methane production being so high. I’ve heard that if we managed to stop beef consumption we’d have something like a 10% decrease in emissions just from that alone.
It would actually probably be more than that if you’re talking global demand. So much deforestation is due to cattle (typically the land needed for their feed), not to mention repurposing some existing land used for cattle feed for human food.
Plus, all that feed needs to be transported, which influences the shipping industry.
Surely there exists a space between us breeding, mass murdering and torturing domestic animals with cruel factory farming on the one hand, and wiping them off the face of the earth on the other.
Wouldn’t you say that both extremes constitute disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world’s biosphere?
I don’t think we are - the previous comment is talking about the total genocide of all domesticated animals, which seems beyond sheep under solar panels.
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?
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.
“Genocide” only applies to humans. The correct term for animals is “extinction”.
And I remind you: we humans control when and if our domestic livestock breed. And we let specific breeds of domestic livestock go extinct all the time. There are dozens of breeds of cows and chickens and sheep that are now extinct because they were replaced by other, more useful breeds - or the cultures that bred them were wiped out. Consider the Tautersheep, for example.
Let me be blunt. If scientists developed synthetic wool that was chemically identical to sheep wool but ten times cheaper, domestic sheep would be extinct within a decade. And nobody but sheep farmers would complain. So when carnists argue we have a moral duty to the species of domestic sheep to continue breeding them for human use I just roll my eyes.
People who kill and exploit animals every day are always so ready to defend animals. Raising animals for killing, even if you take their wool during their lives, is genocide.
Raising animals to harvest is cruel and unusual punishment but it isn’t genocide. Genocide is the systematic and widespread extermination of a specific group. The fact that livestock animals outnumber us and their numbers are only growing should tell you we’re not genociding them. Words have meaning.
The guy you’re arguing with is the reason so many people simply tune out animal activists. He reminds me of the hippy character from Futurama on the poppers episode 😂
I’m all for the humane treatment of animals, but domestic sheep need to be sheared or they end up like Baarack here. Meanwhile, wool is a sustainable textile source, unlike synthetic fibers.
If we want domestic sheep to live good lives, it requires humans embracing sustainable practices quickly to address the climate crisis.
These people always neglect to mention that their endgame is the complete genocide of all domesticated animals since they literally cannot survive on their own without human caretaking, almost like we’ve evolved a symbiotic relationship with these creatures and trying to end that relationship because you personally find it morally objectionable will have disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world’s biosphere…well except Antarctica, those penguins couldn’t care less if the cows are being wiped out because “uNnAtUrAl!!!”
ETA, you can tell these people are totally not eco fascists because they didn’t dispute the charge of wanting to exterminate entire clades of the tree of life, they just started justifying it by ranting about why “the bad ones” “totally deserve it” because pregarnart. I’m sure you wouldn’t find any genocidal dictator in recent history who has conjured the image of a barefoot and pregnant member of “the bad ones” to rant about how they’re producing too many children, or that “the nation” isn’t keeping pace enough, to rile a scare out of their audience, nosiree!
Nevermind how their position also involves exterminating service animals for also being domesticated, and fuck their disabled owners for “defying nature” or “being abusers”, that epileptic who needs help calling medical assistance should have thought about how it makes some internet weirdo feels to see dogs doing things before they tried being allowed to live despite their condition!
Meat cows specifically should be wiped out for their methane production being so high. I’ve heard that if we managed to stop beef consumption we’d have something like a 10% decrease in emissions just from that alone.
It would actually probably be more than that if you’re talking global demand. So much deforestation is due to cattle (typically the land needed for their feed), not to mention repurposing some existing land used for cattle feed for human food.
Plus, all that feed needs to be transported, which influences the shipping industry.
Surely there exists a space between us breeding, mass murdering and torturing domestic animals with cruel factory farming on the one hand, and wiping them off the face of the earth on the other.
Wouldn’t you say that both extremes constitute disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world’s biosphere?
Are we still talking about sheep that grass all day under the shade of solar panels?
Even the staunchest hippie wears whool.
I don’t think we are - the previous comment is talking about the total genocide of all domesticated animals, which seems beyond sheep under solar panels.
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?
the goal isn’t to wipe them out. it’s not genocide
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.
you can’t kill something before its lifespan. when it does, that is the end of its lifespan.
Yawn.
“Genocide” only applies to humans. The correct term for animals is “extinction”.
And I remind you: we humans control when and if our domestic livestock breed. And we let specific breeds of domestic livestock go extinct all the time. There are dozens of breeds of cows and chickens and sheep that are now extinct because they were replaced by other, more useful breeds - or the cultures that bred them were wiped out. Consider the Tautersheep, for example.
Let me be blunt. If scientists developed synthetic wool that was chemically identical to sheep wool but ten times cheaper, domestic sheep would be extinct within a decade. And nobody but sheep farmers would complain. So when carnists argue we have a moral duty to the species of domestic sheep to continue breeding them for human use I just roll my eyes.
Guess they prefer microplastics.
How did I remember this whole story and not remember his name was Baarack lol
If they wait much longer it will be too hot for wool anyway
I think they mean that animals are not for us to use.
Well it’s too late for that, we already changed these animals to be unable to to live without us.
Well, stop breeding them. Solved.
Sheep genocide! Woohoo!
Even if we stop, what do we do with the ones we still have? Sanctuaries for millions of animals are far too expensive.
How about we keep shearing them and let them graze under our solar?
You can’t, and I’m not recommending, get rid of sheep overnight. That’s a scenario you made up on your own.
If you would castrate all domestic sheep today, that would be akin to what we do to cats and dogs. Slowly the population would dwindle.
that is genocide
People who kill and exploit animals every day are always so ready to defend animals. Raising animals for killing, even if you take their wool during their lives, is genocide.
word have meaning and by diluting “genocide” you are being dishonest and cheapening real genocides
Raising animals to harvest is cruel and unusual punishment but it isn’t genocide. Genocide is the systematic and widespread extermination of a specific group. The fact that livestock animals outnumber us and their numbers are only growing should tell you we’re not genociding them. Words have meaning.
The guy you’re arguing with is the reason so many people simply tune out animal activists. He reminds me of the hippy character from Futurama on the poppers episode 😂
You mean using reason and compassion? Yes, it’s a horrible trait of animal rights activists.
What you’re using isn’t reason. It comes from a good place, I’m sure, but your arguments aren’t reasonable.
Just because you disagree does not make them unreasonable