Home / J. Practicality, economy and society / Part IND
"This is my living; it feeds my family"
the concern of those who live from livestock farming is real, and deserves respect and concrete help: debts, land, know-how and a whole life built around the activity. But depending on an activity to make a living doesn't make it just, and the argument would hold for any activity that causes harm. The way out is a planned transition, and there are already livestock farmers who have made it, switching to growing mushrooms, grains or plant milks. Changes in consumption are gradual, and society can and should support those who need to change.
Short answer
Your concern is fair: it's your livelihood, and no one should leave you stranded. But depending on an activity doesn't make it just to the animals. Changes in consumption are gradual, and there are already livestock farmers who have made the transition, switching to growing crops, cultivating mushrooms or making plant milk. What I'm arguing for is that society help those who need to change, not that you be abandoned.
For children
Some families earn money raising animals, and they need that money to live. No one wants them to go without. But there are other ways to make a living in the countryside, like growing beans, fruit or mushrooms. Some farmers have already changed, and others can change with help.
"If there were support to switch to another kind of farming, with a guaranteed income, would you consider it?"
Como pode aparecer
"This is my living."
"It feeds my family."
"Are you going to pay my bills?"
"My father and grandfather raised cattle, and so do I."
"Farmers and slaughterhouse workers would lose their jobs." (which is J3)
"Fishers and ranchers would lose their identity." (which is J14)
The strongest version
"It's easy for you to say. This is my living. This is what feeds my family, and it was the same for my father and my grandfather."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1My family and I depend on livestock farming to live.
- P2Giving up the activity would bring poverty, debt and the loss of everything we've built.
- P3No one is obliged to drive their own family into poverty.
- CSo I'm not obliged to leave livestock farming.
P1 and P3 are true. P2 may be true if the change were sudden and unsupported. The problem lies in the conclusion: it treats economic dependence as if it justified the activity, and assumes the only alternative is to give everything up at once.
The argument is valid, but not sound: dependence explains why change is hard, but it doesn't make the activity just, and there are paths to transition.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument mixes two different questions:
Question What the argument answers Is it hard for those who live from it to change? Yes, and the difficulty is real Does dependence make the activity just? No; it explains, but doesn't justify Does change have to mean giving everything up at once? No; it can be gradual and supported - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Depending on an activity doesn't make it just.
Many people have lived from activities that caused harm, such as the trade in enslaved people, child labor, asbestos mining or whaling. The economic dependence was real, but it didn't make those activities acceptable. The same argument would hold for any of them.
2. Change is gradual.
Consumption of animal products changes over years and decades. That lets producers adapt, diversify and change little by little, without losing everything at once.
3. There are already livestock farmers who have made the transition.
In the United States, Craig Watts, who raised chickens for Perdue, switched to growing mushrooms and vegetables in the old sheds; the Transfarmation Project, run by the organization Mercy For Animals, helps other producers do the same, with technical guidance, market studies and investment in converting the sheds, and by 2024 it had worked with 12 producers. In New York, the Elmhurst dairy, which had been bottling milk since 1919, left cow's milk production in 2016 and switched to making plant milks. In England, livestock farmer Jay Wilde handed his herd over to a sanctuary and moved to vegan organic farming, a story told in the documentary 73 Cows, which won the BAFTA for best short film in 2019.
4. There are models of public support.
In 2020, the Netherlands created a program that paid pig farmers to shut down; 278 of them had signed up by 2021. The goal was environmental, not animal protection, but the program shows the transition can be funded by the state.
5. The difficulties are real, and should be said.
Transition programs are still small, and debts on sheds and equipment are a big obstacle. Craig Watts himself says the number of producers that can be helped is limited. That's why the transition needs public policy, credit and markets, not just the goodwill of each producer.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Civil Eats, 2024 Craig Watts traded chickens for mushrooms and vegetables; the Transfarmation Project worked with 12 producers; debts on sheds and equipment are a big obstacle NPR, 2018 The Elmhurst dairy in New York, which had been bottling milk since 1919, traded cow's milk for plant milks in 2016 73 Cows Documentary about farmers Jay and Katja Wilde, who handed their herd over to a sanctuary; BAFTA for best short film in 2019 DutchNews, 2021 278 pig farmers shut down with compensation from the Dutch government - d
The strongest counter-reply: those who demand the change don't pay its price
The most serious version says: it's easy for people living in the city to demand that the producer change. The one who pays the price of change is the producer, with their own land, debts and family. Demanding without offering anything in return is unjust.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
The counter-reply is right about the fairness of the transition.
The cost of change shouldn't fall on the producer alone. That's why it makes sense to argue for credit, technical support and public purchasing of plant foods.
But that changes the how, not the whether.
The injustice of a badly handled transition is a reason to handle it well, not to keep the activity forever.
The animals pay a price too.
And their price is their life. A just transition has to take both sides into account.
- f
Back to the moral question
Even if change were hard for those who live from livestock farming, the question would remain the same: is it just to make animals suffer and die to generate income, when there are other ways to generate income? The answer calls for support for those who need to change, not for everything to stay as it is.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Confusing explaining with justifying
False dichotomy
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Forgetting the one affected
Biases
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if someone depends on an activity to make a living, the activity is justified".
If it applied to…Child laborTap to see
It would be justified for the families that depended on it
It was banned, with support policies
If it applied to…AsbestosTap to see
It should continue, since it supported workers
It was banned in many countries
If it applied to…WhalingTap to see
It should continue wherever it supported families
It was restricted by international agreements
Contradictions
Even when many people lived from them.
But the income depends on the animals dying.
They plant, lease land, switch crops when prices fall.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's right that the dependence is real, that the producer can't be abandoned and that demanding change without offering support is unjust. It's also right that many livestock farmers have a relationship of care with the land and with their family, and that this deserves respect.
But
But depending on an activity doesn't make it just. The way forward is a planned, supported transition, and some people have already made it.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after