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.

  • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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

  • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • SadLuther@lemmy.kya.moe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 months ago

      it’s better to exist than not exist.

      I mean, that’s a pretty big assumption…and I’m not sure I agree with it!

      • Pulptastic@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 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.

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Not that you support it, but who would it be better for, though? Plus if you didn’t exist it’s not worse or better for you because you don’t exist in the first place.

  • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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?

      • cqthca@reddthat.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 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

  • Boinkage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    What is a moral win for a horse? Like, good versus evil? Pragmatism versus altruism? I think we’d have to know what a horse’s ethical framework consists of before we could decide if an event was morally desirable for horses.

    • cqthca@reddthat.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      the lesser amount of horse suffering, en total e. the story is that Nietzsche suffered pity for a horse being whipped and wrapping his arms around the beast’s neck, “I know how you suffer!” he was [psychologically] hospitalized subsequently.

  • Katrisia@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 months ago

    The lack of individuals within a species is not a problem as long as the population is healthy. Horses are not in danger of going extinct. I do not know the numbers then and now, but horses are fine, and the ones alive in countries that would have put them to work in other eras are free of suffering, which is something every sentient being wants to avoid.

    I’m glad horses are not being used as much as before; they are not objects, they are animals just like us.

  • SecretPancake@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • cali_ash
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Their population was unnaturally high and it’s better to not even exist in the first place than to suffer

      This guy PETAs.

        • cali_ash
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’d rather be born into slavery than have some arrogant self-aggrandizing narcissistic cunt decide wether my life is worth living.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          How’s that different from the human experience?

          You’re implying that literally all horses were abused, always.

          That’s incredibly stupid.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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?

      • SecretPancake@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

  • CannedTuna@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Piece_Maker@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’d take the mounds of horse shit on the streets over the disgusting stench of cars any day.

          No you would not.

          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.

        • SecretPancake@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

    • cqthca@reddthat.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      It isn’t mentioned much but there was often a 3 foot high lane of manure down most city boulevards