Asklemmy

42620 readers

1194 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone

AdaShovelace@lemmy.ml

Automobiles replacing horses: ethical consequences (reddthat.com)

submitted 4 months ago by cqthca@reddthat.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago

Sum benefit of the world. For you today, you're still here so I assume you prefer to exist. How bad would things have to be before you prefer not to exist? That is your personal value of existence. Now apply that concept to everyone on earth.

Thinking about others is not the same math. I would rather have fewer people and better quality of life if I was still here but that is not a fair assessment because every person feels that way and most of us still want to be here.