Did automobiles replacing horses, diminishing horse population, diminishing horse suffering – as a consequence of work forced upon the animals. Is that moral win for horses; less suffering? Although their population is vastly smaller than 130 years ago.
You must log in or register to comment.
There’s a philosophical paradox about this called the “repugnant conclusion”. Technically, it’s supposed to be about humans, not horses, but the logic is the same.
The main conclusion was that it’s better to have a larger population that’s worse off than a smaller one that’s better off because it’s better to exist than not exist.
Personally, I think the opposite is true, but there’s not a “right” answer.
it is obviously better to never have been. Not even sure we are now. Boltzmann Brains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
I do not agree at all with that.
Of course it’s a win for the horses. Their population was unnaturally high and it’s better to not even exist in the first place than to suffer. This goes for farm animals as well but we’re not there yet unfortunately.
it’s better to not even exist in the first place than to suffer. This goes for farm animals as well but we’re not
If you believe this, does that give you a moral imperative to start a nuclear war and end the suffering of future human generations?
Hold on my neighbour owns a horse, I’ll go and ask him…
Edit, I asked but he just kinda stared at me then started eating hay
Your neighbor has a strange diet.
you got that right. pronoun antecedent issues
I wonder if some languages have a way to avoid it. Maybe different pronouns for the subject and object?
Not knowing anything, I would guess some languages just don’t have pronouns or our equivalent
I hadn’t considered that. Could be.
None of us considered the fact I said “neigh-bour”
🤔
Oh man, I missed that! Shame on me.
You should have expected that of course. No one can talk to a horse.
only donkeys can articulate complaints to their owners. it is in the bible, which has to be true or civilization would be pointless. /s
Horses however only require grass, hay, etc, are self driving to an extent and can return home if needed, and have less environment impact than a car.
City streets were intensely filthy back in the days of horses.
They require a constant input of hay.
They’re “self driving” in the worst possible way - they can run off on their own and do whatever they want, and have little understanding of the rules of the road. People already freak out when a robotaxi takes an inadvertent wrong turn, horses can freak out and try to kill pedestrians.
They’re slow. They’re hard to manage. If you don’t want to be exposed to the elements then you’ll have to build carriages, so you’ll still have factories and whatnot. Horses eventually just up and die regardless of how well you care for them.
Horses are not better than cars.
They’re “self driving” in the worst possible way - they can run off on their own and do whatever they want, and have little understanding of the rules of the road. People already freak out when a robotaxi takes an inadvertent wrong turn, horses can freak out and try to kill pedestrians.
Ah yes because no one has ever “”“accidentally lost control”“” of their car and smashed something/someone to pieces with it!
I’d take the mounds of horse shit on the streets over the disgusting stench of cars any day. At least I can scoop some up and spread it on my garden.
Cars don’t decide to do it.
Car sentience Rule #1: Don’t let the Humans know you are sentient.
I’d take the mounds of horse shit on the streets over the disgusting stench of cars any day.
Excerpt:
New York, which at the time was estimated to be the home of 150,000 horses, was targeted as well. The 15 to 30 pounds of manure produced daily by each horse multiplied by the number of horses in New York city resulted in more than three million pounds of horse manure per day that somehow needed to be disposed of. That’s not to mention the daily 40,000 gallons of horse urine.
Flip it and you have massive horse breeding, horses being stored on the side of the road in winter. Horses dying of abuse and overuse. Etc.
Cars aren’t the problem. Humans are.
In Alexandre Dumas’ work, the essence of speedy/hasty travel is how many horses were exhausted, that paints a picture of the utilitarian (not the philosophical ethics) way people used to treat these animals.
On the other hand there’s sections where D’Artagnan loves his old, wonky steed. So people did care for their own. But people do have those feelings even for inanimate objects, like cars.
I think one could compare dogs. They are being used utilisticallly, like drug finders or rescue dogs. Obviously there are people that treat them badly and most people would rather have a dog die than a human being (Laika). Does that mean most dogs would be better of not born?
The Soviet Union trained dogs to carry explosives to the underside of enemy tanks. sometimes it backfired. but the dogs were meant to be blown up is my point. they were explosive delivery machines, functionally not unlike a FGM-148 Javelin antitank missile
