Denmark to cull millions of minks over mutated coronavirus

Environmentally plastic is definitely worse, but the quantity of plastic used is tiny compared to the rest of the oil industry.

The moral benefit comes from not farming animals to only use their fur. It's cruel and wasteful, and we have synthetic fur that's actually better than the real thing for warmth. The reason real fur is still used is because it's cheaper, which should tell you a lot about the conditions the animals are farmed in.

Everyone? What about cotton, linen, hemp?

In Sweden it hasn't been reduced to near zero and the trend has it rising to 100+ a day.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/sweden

People love to bring up Sweden but they have never experienced dealing with COVID-19 in winter where it is up to 20x more contagious as everyone moves indoors.

> that does not make them human

As I said, no-one is suggesting it does.

> I will not draw false equivalency here so as to be put in the position of having to have the same moral standards for how we treat animals as we treat people

Again, no-one is suggesting this. Animals need only have some capacity for suffering (and pleasure), to have some moral standing.

> Herds of domesticated pigs exist because _we created them_, by domesticating and farming them over thousands of years. Evolutionarily, they owe their existence to mankind. We're certainly not going to let them die out.

This has no connection to the moral question, much like your earlier point about how the animals are destined to ultimately die.

When we reason about whether an action constitutes animal cruelty, it is of no concern where the animal came from, or whether its species will continue to survive, or whether mankind is the reason for the continuing survival of its species.

> There is a distinct difference between animal cruelty (hurting an animal for your own personal amusement) versus farming an animal in a cost effective way (which it may not enjoy)

In terms of the suffering imposed on the animal, there's no difference whether the action was done out of a sadistic motive, or a profit motive. Either way, the animal is made to suffer for the benefit of the person.

That said, I agree that intent is an important factor in moral (as well as legal) reasoning. Like anyone, I'd judge someone far more harshly for torturing a pig just for the hell of it, than someone who mistreats animals in their professional capacity as a farm worker. If someone harmed an animal in an act of self defence, we wouldn't call that an act of cruelty. Still though, I see no reason to dismiss the question of whether the meat industry is a form of industrialised cruelty. I can see plenty of reasons to conclude that it is, and little reason to conclude that it's not.

> I'm fine with improvements to their standard of living as long as meat remains affordable to everyone.

I don't see that we should necessarily make a goal of maintaining meat availability and low pricepoint. (All of this applies just as well to other animal products, but let's stick with meat.) Meat is currently cheaply available, but this hasn't always been the case, and it doesn't in itself mean it should continue to be so.

There are also other issues with animal farming. Animal farming is a major source of (human) infectious diseases. [0]

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7399585/

Fwiw, cotton crops are incredibly water intensive. Probably a better solution than factory farming animals or releasing more plastics into the environment, but it's not perfect either.