Farmers willturn to othertypes of farming,and the giant
corporations will investtheir capital elsewhere. The result
will be that fewer animals will be bred. The number of
animalsinfactoryfarmswilldeclinebecausethosekilledwill
not be replaced, and not because animals are being sent
“back” to the wild. Eventually, perhaps
(and nowI amallowing my optimismfree rein),theonly
herds of cattle and pigs to be found will be on large
reservations, rather like our wildlife refuges. The choice,
therefore,isnotbetweenlifeonafactoryfarmandlifeinthe
wild,butwhetheranimalsdestinedtoliveonfactoryfarms
and then killed for food should be born at all.
Atthispointafurtherobjectionmayberaised.Notingthatif
wewereallvegetarianstherewouldbefarfewerpigs,cattle,
chickens,andsheep,afewmeat-eatershaveclaimedthatthey
areactuallydoingtheanimalstheyeatafavor,sincebutfor
theirdesiretoeatmeat,thoseanimalswouldneverhavecome
into existence at all!^19
Inthefirst editionofthisbook,Irejectedthisviewonthe
groundsthatitrequiresustothinkthatbringingabeinginto
existenceconfersabenefitonthatbeing—andtoholdthis,
wemust believethatitispossible tobenefit anonexistent
being.This,Ithought,wasnonsense.ButnowIamnotso
sure.(Myunequivocalrejectionofthisviewis,infact,the
onlyphilosophicalpointmadeintheearliereditiononwhich
Ihavechangedmymind.)Afterall,mostofuswouldagree
thatitwouldbewrongtobringachildintotheworldifwe
knew,beforethechildwasconceived,thatitwouldhavea
geneticdefectthatwouldmakeitslifebriefandmiserable.To
conceivesuchachildistocauseitharm.Socanwereally
deny thattobring intotheworlda beingwhowillhavea