this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2025
75 points (95.2% liked)
Slop.
788 readers
573 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments

Cows and chickens yeah, I don't think there's any reason they can't survive without humans. But they're still unhealthy because of selective breeding (same as pugs). But if you're asking if there are healthy "natural/wild" versions of those animals, yes, but they're not called cows or chickens. The wild cow was called the aurochs and it's extinct, and the wild chicken is the red junglefowl.
There are a bunch of different species of wild sheep still around I think.
Chickens have been bred to lay far more eggs than they normally would, don't know how that'd effect their survival in the wild, but it probably wouldn't help. That's without going into the abominations that have been bred just for meat.
Many "varieties" of chickens have been bred to grow so large that they cannot stand anymore. Other have been bred to lay so many eggs that their bodies steal calcium from their bones in order to create the eggshells.
Many "varieties" of dairy cows produce so much milk that they endure extreme pain and mastitis when lactating if they aren't taken care of.
Animal agriculture is a endless nightmare. We do need to take care of those animals who have only been born because of humans wanting their bodies and the products thereof. We owe them that much.