Home / J. Practicality, economy and society / Part IND

"What would we do with the animals if everyone went vegan?"

Before answering: an indirect argument

This argument is about cost, practicality and the economy, not whether animals deserve respect. Many activists question this kind of argument in defending animals, because it sidesteps what matters: no one defends the rights of people who face discrimination by saying that treating them fairly is good for the environment.

Why it is not good to use it, or why always to pair it with an ethical argument: If veganism were defended for being cheap, practical or good for the economy, any situation in which exploitation were cheaper or created more jobs would justify it. No one accepts this reasoning when the victims are human: exploiting people was once profitable too.

When used to justify exploitation, arguments like this one usually fail twice. They get the facts wrong, which often arrive distorted. And they get the morality wrong, because they leap from what is to what ought to be: even a real benefit would not show it is just to make someone suffer and die to obtain it.

So show the facts and correct what is wrong, but always come back to what matters: respect for animals and justice toward them. Learn why

The answer in one sentence

no one goes vegan all at once across the whole world. Change is gradual, and with less demand, fewer animals are bred. Farmed animals exist in enormous numbers because they're bred for this (C8). Those who already exist could live in sanctuaries or until the natural end of their lives. The problem isn't what to do with them; it's that we keep bringing them into the world to die.

Short answer

No one goes vegan all at once across the whole world: change is gradual. With less demand, farmers breed fewer animals, because breeding is controlled through insemination and hatcheries. The animals that exist can live out their lives, some in sanctuaries. There wouldn't be cows loose in the streets; there'd be fewer cows being born to die.

For children

People won't all stop eating meat on the same day. It happens little by little. When fewer people buy meat, farms breed fewer animals. The animals that already exist can live until they're old, some in sanctuaries, which are like homes for rescued animals.

Ask a question back

"If hatcheries incubate eggs according to demand, what happens when demand falls?"

Como pode aparecer

"Release the cows into the streets?"

Everyday conversation

"They'd have to kill them all at once."

Everyday conversation

"Chickens would die if released."

Everyday conversation

"Vegans want to make cows extinct."

Social media

"Who's going to look after billions of animals?"

Rhetorical question

"Without farming, these animals wouldn't even exist." (which is B6)

Disguised version

The strongest version

How it is said

"Release the cows into the streets? They'd have to kill them all at once."

Strongest version (steelman):

P1There are billions of farmed animals in the world.
P2Many wouldn't survive if released into the wild.
P3If everyone stopped eating meat, there'd be nothing to do with them.
CSo veganism is impractical or would lead to a catastrophe for the animals themselves.

P1 and P2 are true. The problem lies in P3: change would be gradual, and the animals' breeding is controlled by the farmers.

The argument is valid for an instantaneous change. Its soundness fails because that change doesn't happen.

Full answer

Reconstruction and diagnosis

The argument imagines a scenario that doesn't happen:

How the argument imagines it	How change happens
Everyone stops eating meat at once	Consumption falls gradually
Billions of animals are left with nowhere to go	Fewer animals are bred each year
The animals would have to be released or killed	Existing ones live out their lives; new ones stop being born

b
Where the argument breaks
1. Change is gradual.
Meat consumption shifts over years and generations.
2. Breeding is controlled.
Chickens hatch in hatcheries and cattle and pigs are born through insemination, in numbers set by demand (C8).
3. The existing animals can live.
In sanctuaries, on small holdings or to the end of their cycle, while breeding declines.
4. The question reverses the responsibility.
The problem isn't what to do with the animals if we stop eating them; it's that we keep breeding billions of them to die.
5. Selectively bred breeds may decline.
Many production breeds have health problems caused by breeding (B10). Breeding fewer of them is no loss to the animals.
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 Shows that the number of animals results from production; also used in C8
d
The strongest counter-reply: some breeds would disappear
The most serious version points out that, with the end of farming, many domestic breeds could disappear, and that this would be a loss of diversity.
e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Breeds aren't individuals.
What matters morally is the animals who feel, not the continuity of a breed (A18).
Some could continue in sanctuaries.
Without being bred to die.
Many breeds suffer because of selection.
Chickens who can barely walk lose nothing by not being born.
f
Back to the moral question
The question about the animals' fate is legitimate, but the answer is simple: stop breeding them for slaughter. The moral problem isn't what to do with them afterwards; it's continuing to bring them into the world to die.

Source	What it says	Note
Bar-On, Phillips and Milo, 2018, PNAS	Farmed animals make up about 60% of mammal biomass	Shows that the number of animals results from production; also used in C8

Reasoning errors

Epistemological

Does the evidence support it?

Unrealistic scenario

Imagines an instantaneous change

Logical

Is the form valid?

Reversing responsibility

Treats a consequence of farming as an argument for continuing to farm

Moral

Is the criterion coherent?

Species in place of the individual

Worries about the breed, not about who is born to die

Biases

Motivated reasoning

An imaginary scenario excuses real change

General literature on motivated cognition

Status quo bias

The current number of animals seems natural

Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988

Extrapolations

The principle being tested is: "if we stop using something, we'd have to destroy what already exists".

If it applied to…Pedigree dogsTap to see

Ending breeding would require killing existing dogs

No one concludes this

If it applied to…Cart horsesTap to see

Banning carts would require killing the horses

Cities set up adoption programs

If it applied to…Farmed animalsTap to see

Ending consumption would require killing them

Breeding simply declines

Contradictions

Knows production follows demand.

For any other product.

Doesn't worry about the animals' fate today.

Which is slaughter.

Doesn't think we must preserve other breeds at any cost.

Many domestic breeds have already disappeared.

What the argument gets right

What is true

The question about the fate of existing animals is legitimate, and a responsible transition needs to answer it, with sanctuaries, public policy and care for the animals already alive.

But

But the scenario of billions of animals set loose doesn't happen, because change is gradual and breeding is controlled. The best way to care for farmed animals is to stop breeding them to die.