Home / C. Nature, biology and evolution / Part DIR
"If we don't eat them, animals will take over the planet."
the argument gets the cause backwards. Farmed animals exist in enormous numbers because they are bred: inseminated, hatched and fed for that purpose. If demand fell, fewer animals would be bred, and there would be no explosion of cows and chickens. Today, farmed animals already make up about 60% of the mass of all mammals on the planet precisely because we eat them.
Short answer
It's the opposite: farmed animals are numerous because they're bred to be eaten. They're born through artificial insemination and in hatcheries, in the numbers the market asks for. If demand fell, fewer animals would be bred, and there'd be no planet full of cows. Today farmed animals make up about 60% of the mass of all the world's mammals, precisely because of consumption.
For children
Farms make lots of animals be born on purpose, because they want to sell the meat. If people bought less meat, farms would have fewer animals born. It's like a bakery: if no one buys bread, it bakes less bread, and it doesn't end up full of leftover bread forever.
"If people ate less chicken, would hatcheries keep incubating the same billions of eggs?"
Como pode aparecer
"Cows would take over."
"There'd be chickens everywhere."
"Someone has to eat these animals."
"Vegans want a planet overrun by cows."
"What would you do with billions of chickens?" (which leads to J5)
"Hunting controls populations." (which is H11)
The strongest version
"If no one ate meat, cows would take over. There'd be chickens everywhere."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Farmed animals reproduce.
- P2Without slaughter, they would keep reproducing out of control.
- CSo eating animals is necessary to control their populations.
P1 is true in a general sense. P2 is false: the reproduction of farmed animals is controlled by the farmers themselves.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P2, which reverses the relationship between breeding and population.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument pictures farmed animals as a wild population that reproduces on its own. In reality:
How the argument pictures it How it works The animals are born and need to be controlled The animals are born because their births were scheduled Consumption reduces the population Consumption is the cause of the population Without consumption, there'd be overpopulation Without consumption, there'd be far fewer animals - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Reproduction is controlled.
Chickens hatch in hatcheries; pigs and cows are artificially inseminated on a large scale. The population exists because it is produced.
2. Demand creates the population.
Farmed animals make up about 60% of the planet's mammal biomass, and farmed birds about 70% of bird biomass. That figure is the result of production for consumption.
3. The transition would be gradual.
No one stops eating meat all at once worldwide. With demand falling gradually, farmers would simply breed fewer animals (J5).
4. Many farmed animals wouldn't even survive on their own.
Breeds selected to grow fast or produce a lot of milk depend on human management. Some species, like pigs, can form wild populations when they escape, as feral pigs have in the United States, but that is a local management problem created by farming itself, not a takeover of the planet (H11).
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Bar-On, Phillips and Milo, 2018, *PNAS* Farmed animals make up about 60% of mammal biomass; farmed birds about 70% of bird biomass Percentages checked in summaries of the article Zuidhof et al., 2014 Broiler chickens were bred to grow about four times faster Shows their dependence on human management - d
The strongest counter-reply: what about the animals that already exist?
The most serious version admits the population is bred, but asks what would happen to the animals that already exist if consumption fell suddenly.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
The change wouldn't be sudden.
Consumption changes gradually, and production adjusts.
The existing animals could live out their lives.
Either in sanctuaries, or with a gradual reduction in births (J5).
The question doesn't justify continuing to breed.
Even if dealing with existing animals were hard, that's no reason to bring billions more into the world to die.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Reversed causation
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Not knowing how production works
Unrealistic scenario
Biases
Motivated reasoning
An imaginary scenario serves to excuse change
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if we stop consuming something, it piles up out of control".
If it applied to…BreadTap to see
If no one bought it, bakeries would be full forever
Bakeries would bake less
If it applied to…CarsTap to see
If no one bought them, factories would keep producing
Production would fall
If it applied to…Purebred dogsTap to see
Without buyers, there'd be an explosion of puppies
Breeders would stop breeding
Contradictions
For any other product, they understand that fewer sales mean less production.
Species bred in smaller numbers don't "take over" anything.
What the argument gets right
What is true
The question of what would happen to farmed animals in a world with less consumption is legitimate and deserves careful answers, involving a gradual transition, sanctuaries and public policy.
But
But the fear of overpopulation reverses reality. Farmed animals aren't a pest to control; they are individuals brought into the world to be eaten. Eating less doesn't multiply them: it means fewer of them are born to die.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after