• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Because “good” and “bad” have nothing to do with my point, which is about purpose. The purpose of fruits is to be eaten, that is their explicit function. While the pigs get some benefits (in principle, in practice factory farms are horrific places which are absolutely less desirable to the pigs than the wild) they do not volunteer themselves for slaughter the way plants volunteer fruit for consumption.

    Being eaten is the core benefit of fruit, and all else being equal being eaten is preferable to not. All else being equal, the pig benefits more by not being eaten, and just living peacefully on a farm.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      And how did you determine what the purpose of fruit is? It certainly can’t communicate its preferences or desires.

      All you can observe is that the species as a whole thrives when fruit is consumed. But the same is true of farm animals. You are simply projecting the motivations you want to see, like self-sacrifice, onto one but not the other. After all, many fruits are poisonous. That suggests that fruits don’t want to be eaten, but animals evolved mechanisms to safely eat some fruit.

      Finally, factory farms certainly cause animals to suffer but from an evolutionary perspective thriving is not about avoiding suffering. It’s about producing offspring, and in that sense farm animals thrive. And given that the OP is about the potential suffering of plants, I don’t see why fruit farms are any less horrific than animal farms.