What's your definition of "consent"? For example, if you own a dog, you generally have no problems seeing what your dog agrees to do (="consents") and what it doesn't.
It has to have some idea of what's going on. A dog is operating entirely on instinct. Humans still use a lot of instinct, but that's hardly a reason for one human to make a decision for another.
True, but it seems to me the intervention bar is much higher in this case.
Why?
If you have some a priori reason to believe that a life is worth living, then it would take a lot of evidence to prove otherwise. If the opportunity cost of not living a life worth living is substantially higher than the direct cost of a life not worth living, caution would be appropriate. But these don't seem to apply.
If you're not certain, it's easier to reverse a choice of life than a choice of death. That applies to the wild, but I don't think it's likely we'll find reason to believe that factory farmed animals' lives really are worth living any time soon.
If you just consider action generally more dangerous than inaction, that would apply for destroying wildlife, but factory farming is action. Avoiding it is inaction. It's a point against factory farming.
This is an offshoot of a thread I made earlier, but which wasn't eliciting the sort of responses I'd hoped for.
So let me pose a clearer question with less potential to get people on watchlists.
What legal ways of making a profit are the most anti-altruistic, the most damaging to society, the opposite of effective altruism in result.
I am using utility loosely. The answers need not be given from a utilitarian perspective at all, but instead merely deal with any means of making a profit that seems to you clearly wretched, and such that the world would be better if nobody participated in it.
I'd also like to emphasize that these things should be legal. There are some obviously wretched illegal businesses that would top the list otherwise. If something is legal but only in a particular jurisdiction, then you should only discuss it within the context of the jurisdiction where it is legal.
If it's a grey area, go for it, but extra points for society-harming enterprises definitely legal in both the letter an the spirit of the law.
This is NOT about whether the enterprise in question should be illegal, just whether it causes a net loss of utility (deal with counterfactuals however you see fit).