Asklemmy

43902 readers

1099 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
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Automobiles replacing horses: ethical consequences (reddthat.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

48 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

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)