The argument
"Chickens, cows, and pigs only exist because humans bred them for food. If we stop eating them, these species will disappear."
The author points out three problems with this argument.
Problem 1: do species matter in themselves?
The argument doesn't say preserving these species would be good for the animals or for humans. It assumes the species has value in itself.
But a species doesn't feel anything. It's a category, a group. The ones who feel are the individuals: each chicken, each cow. Only they can be harmed or helped.
Problem 2: even if they mattered, would they be worth more than the individuals?
Showing that something has value isn't showing that it's worth more than something else. For the argument to work, you'd have to prove that keeping a species is worth so much that it justifies making trillions of individuals suffer and die. That's much harder to show.
Problem 3: the species wouldn't disappear
The argument assumes that without consumption, these species would vanish. That's false. Animals of these species could keep existing in sanctuaries, with people taking care of them, without exploitation.
The author notices something odd: sometimes the same people who say these species would vanish also say that, without consumption, there would be too many of these animals. Both can't be true at the same time.
In short
- Species don't feel; individuals do.
- Even if species had value, they wouldn't be worth more than trillions of lives.
- And these species wouldn't disappear without exploitation.