"Useless Subject" > wrote in message
...

> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal
casualties
> > in products they buy and use.
>
> They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
> that.

I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal. I also agree that
there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production. But
vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock
production. The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they
cannot be practically eliminated.

Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how many
total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered for
food? Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same
period of time for people eating only vegetable produce?

Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1.
- the steer's life
- animal casualties to production of food for the steer
- animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer
- incidental animals casualties

Same for Case 2:
- animal casualties to production of food for people
- animal casualties to transporting food for people
- incidental animal casualties

I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to
meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in terms
of volume. More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's
lifetime than the steer's meat would feed. Converting the steer's meat to an
equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be
produced in Case 1 than in Case 2. Therefore, there are proportionally more
animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2.

> Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does
> *nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death.

I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths.

> > The idea is to minimize animal casualties
> > through the choices they make.
>
> No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental
> assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal
> has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice,
> birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the
> balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you
> justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable?

That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue that
you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's
individuality.

> If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism.
> Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to
> have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting,
> grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock.

Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef is
a better alternative than grain-fed beef.

> You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The
> solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on
> markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken.

I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your
anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan.

> > Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
> > because it contributes less to animal casualties.
>
> Please justify your claim that veganism contributes less to animal
> casualties.

See above.

> > The cattle industry is
> > responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties
than
> > vegan's collective contribution.
>
> Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain
> for feed.

The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed.

> > You don't want vegans to know that because
> > it discredits your wild accusations.
>
> You're the one engaging in deceit.

I think my points are quite valid.