I guess one important question not raised here (but lurking in unspoken assumptions) is whether it is better for 1000 animals to be killed after about 3 months on average, or for 50 animals to live an average of 5 possibly painful years each in the wild.
If you scaled up for humans (1000 humans each killed at 3 years old versus 50 humans living to an average of 60) it seems obvious, but that’s probably a false equivalency.
(a) Current meat production: 1000 animals poorly treated and killed young for cheap meat
(b) My ideal: (say) 200 animals very well treated and killed, preferably not quite so young, for expensive meat.
Then if we call your 50 wild animals case (c), my claim is that:
b > c (as more animals, better conditions, and maybe not much shorter lifespan, but probably more total life-years anyway, and more happiness x years); and
b > a (assuming (a) involves conditions worse than, or not much better than, non-existence).
I guess one important question not raised here (but lurking in unspoken assumptions) is whether it is better for 1000 animals to be killed after about 3 months on average, or for 50 animals to live an average of 5 possibly painful years each in the wild.
If you scaled up for humans (1000 humans each killed at 3 years old versus 50 humans living to an average of 60) it seems obvious, but that’s probably a false equivalency.
I’d split the first case into two:
(a) Current meat production: 1000 animals poorly treated and killed young for cheap meat
(b) My ideal: (say) 200 animals very well treated and killed, preferably not quite so young, for expensive meat.
Then if we call your 50 wild animals case (c), my claim is that:
b > c (as more animals, better conditions, and maybe not much shorter lifespan, but probably more total life-years anyway, and more happiness x years); and
b > a (assuming (a) involves conditions worse than, or not much better than, non-existence).