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.
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.
disgusting stench of cars
Good thing there is already a solution for that in the form of electric cars. But too many people prefer stinky and loud cars for some reason.
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.
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?
I never said kill all horses/humans/whatever. The difference is between taking lives away and not forcefully breeding life for the purpose of enslavement.
