But likewise I see not that it should affect our actions. If we were to purchase a animal, that would be propogating the trade in animals in a direct fashion. And I agree that should not be done in the interest of compassion.
'Lo again Ron
Using a motor industry analogy ...
Most of us will never propogate the trade in motor cars directly
by buying a brand new car directly from the manufacturer or from a main dealer. That would mean that most of us can say that we have no direct involvement in the motor car industry?
Thing is this: The direct trade is directly
dependant on the indirect trade. The guy who buys a brand new car every year is dependant on the guy (or 'gal', just to keep the ladies happy) who will buy his one year old motor. The guy who buys a one year old motor is dependant on the guy who buys a one year old motor every two years. The guy who buys a two year old motor every three years is dependant on the guy who buys a five year old motor every however many years .. and so on and so forth ...
Ultimately at the bottom of the chain is the guy who will pay nothing for a motor. The scrap dealer, for instance, who is no more involved in the chain than to make space for the guy in the chain above to get rid of his old motor to make room for his next one.
Remove any link in that chain though, right down to the scrap guy, and the whole chain above it gets immediately into difficulties at best and at worst collapses.
1. How is the scrap guy less essential in maintaining the out put from the manufacturer than is the guy who every year makes a direct purchase?
2. How is the 'scrap guy' any less essential, ultimately, in any other supply and demand chain, including the trading in of animals, any less essential in ensuring that the source of supply can always keep producing?