@climatemigranti will let you know why i find that reply puzzling, even though i know you did not write it and don't necessarily agree with it. from nathan's reply:> And I do think that being put out of existence is an ultimate form of oppression.what he says there is that •killing• others is oppression. however, in the book he is very specifically writing about the oppression of hypothetical •future• individuals, because he discusses the effect of IVM on •currently• farmed animals in contrast to those who are •to be•:»For currently farmed animals, IVM may represent an improvement. But for "the animal"—what is to be (a nonhuman) animal—IVM represents the ultimate oporession: nonexistence.«i take issue with nathan's argument that it is oppressive to end the breeding animals for farming. he is then replying that killing is oppressive — as if i had any disagreement with him about that! but he's responding as if i made an argument in favour of killing by deceptively using the word "nonexistence" for both.that is what academic discourse is, i guess.