>> Pigs and other animals do lots of things you would presumably not do.
Yes, but they also do this thing that I would do. This is why this debate exists in the first place, yes? Because some animals eat other animals and we're that kind of animal. It doesn't matter if some aninmals would, e.g., eat their own excreta, because that is not something that humans do anyway and so there is no reason to discuss whether we should do it too or not.
>> A pig would also not keep you in a farm to eat later (among many other industrialized things we do to livestock).
I am arguing that if pigs were more intelligent than we are they would do to us exactly what we do to them, including keeping us in farms to eat later etc.
>> We have the capacity to choose not to eat them and to reduce suffering as a result.
Most animals, particularly pigs, would get eaten by something anyway. By not eating them we are not reducing suffering, we are simply shifting the blame.
> "I am arguing that if pigs were more intelligent than we are they would do to us exactly what we do to them, including keeping us in farms to eat later etc."
I don't think this is necessarily true. Throughout our own history humanity has done things we regret and decided were wrong (or are actively fighting against). Slavery, genocide, kings, torture - while struggling towards more just societies based on rule of law and more democratic government.
It's quite possible that raising and killing other animals with lots of suffering is something we will regret.
It's quite possible that another imaginary species of hyper-intelligent pigs would reach the same conclusion.
> "Most animals, particularly pigs, would get eaten by something anyway. By not eating them we are not reducing suffering, we are simply shifting the blame."
This is a different argument. Just because other animals that are not humans and don't have the capacity for choice would eat a pig, doesn't mean that humanity contributing to this suffering is the same. I'd also argue we do it at such a scale that it's much worse.
> By not eating them we are not reducing suffering
Yes we are. The problem is not just killing animals, it's condemning them to a life of torture.
We are doing to animals, on a gigantic scale, what the Nazis did to other humans. We think we are different than the Nazis. But the only way we are different in that we are worse.
The Nazis knew that what they were doing was wrong. They went to great lengths to try to hide their crimes, including digging up corpses and burning them when the allies were closing in on them (while they could have fled instead).
We, on the other hand, are mostly undisturbed by what we are doing.
> Because some animals eat other animals and we're that kind of animal.
Some humans do horrible things to other humans, and we are certainly "that kind of animal". So everything's okay, then? We can do anything to anyone because, presumably, they would do the same to us "if they could", if history is any proof.
I don't want to live in your world. Yet I know I do.
Yes, but they also do this thing that I would do. This is why this debate exists in the first place, yes? Because some animals eat other animals and we're that kind of animal. It doesn't matter if some aninmals would, e.g., eat their own excreta, because that is not something that humans do anyway and so there is no reason to discuss whether we should do it too or not.
>> A pig would also not keep you in a farm to eat later (among many other industrialized things we do to livestock).
I am arguing that if pigs were more intelligent than we are they would do to us exactly what we do to them, including keeping us in farms to eat later etc.
>> We have the capacity to choose not to eat them and to reduce suffering as a result.
Most animals, particularly pigs, would get eaten by something anyway. By not eating them we are not reducing suffering, we are simply shifting the blame.