Imagine a world where humans never gained a taste for meat. No succulent steaks, no sizzling bacon, no crispy fried chicken. Sounds like it'd be a vegetarians's paradise, right? No senseless slaughter, and a gentler world.
But this gets weird quickly. Think about it: No demand for meat means no livestock industry. No pigs, cows, or chickens were bred and raised for our plates. That still sounds good, you say... But then, fewer animals would exist and would have existed
Virginia Woolf wryly observed,
Of all the arguments for Vegetarianism none is so weak as the argument from humanity. The pig has a stronger interest than anyone in the demand for bacon. If all the world were Jewish, there would be no pigs at all.
Suddenly, you're not just thinking about the animals spared from suffering, but the animals that would never exist in the first place. Billions of potential lives, snuffed out before they even begin. And that's where the philosophical wormhole opens up. Is it better for a creature to never be born at all, or to live a life that, while potentially short and unpleasant, is still a life? Are we doing animals a favor by not breeding them into existence, or are we depriving them of the chance to experience something.
Another take, is it better to have 20 billion on this planet in poverty or only 1 billion living comfortably? If you choose the latter, what about the 19 billion that never got to exist?
This thought experiment throws a wrench into our usual ethical calculations. It forces us to confront the messy reality of existence, the trade-offs inherent in life itself, and the uncomfortable possibility that sometimes, the most "humane" choice might not be the one that feels the most intuitively "right."
So, what do you think?
Edit: A reminder that these thought experiments are not necessarily my personal beliefs nor are they arguments. Most experiments I choose to post have likely been discussed for decades. If you want more information on what a thought experiment is, please read the community sidebar.
