I'm sure your views on this subject would be completely different if you were a farmer.
Should we feel the same way about people in IT, programming and other computer related industries then they are laid off for economic reasons? I find it odd that there are many industries that produce far more damaging pollution, including the tech industries, which don't even produce the necessities for life like farming does, but nobody blinks any eye.
IT workers are usually not causing direct environmental impact on those around them. And if you assessed the percentage of environmental cost per individual, you would likely find that IT workers would be way, way below industrial farmers.
There are certainly many industries that create significant pollution. But pragmatically, we care when it's a small few people creating a high concentration of said pollution. That is the case for Dutch farmers.
The services of the farmers is appreciated. Their methods are not. They don't want to change their methods (or reduce their output) for any reason, environmental or otherwise. That is the problem. Other industries change (usually after throwing fits like the farmers are doing now).
No but we should feel the same way about IT people building tracking software for the advertising industry. That is a more apt analogy probably.
I'm happy to pay farmers for their work, so long as their work doesn't add pollution beyond what is legal to the environment.
But there are many, many, many examples where the harm is very clear. This is one of those cases. The only reason 53% (supposedly) of the Dutch population support the farmers is because they don't know the full story.
If I come into your neighborhood and do something which gives me a big profit but screws you and your neighbors, should my profit-seeking be commended? Or should we evaluate the real cost?