On Jun 24, 8:10*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:08:01 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 22, 7:03 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jun 21, 1:26 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:27:32 GMT, and/orwww.mantra.com/jai
>
> >> >> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> >> >> >Former Ronald McDonald Turns Vegetarian Activist
>
> >> >> >Hinduism Today Magazine
> >> >> . . .
> >> >> >having a
> >> >> >tougher time now making their children understand the necessity and
> >> >> >the urgency of a nonviolent, vegetarian diet
>
> >> >> Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> >> >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> >> >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
> >> >> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> >> >> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> >> >> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
> >> >> in order to be successful:
>
> >> >> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
> >> >> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
> >> >> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
> >> >> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
> >> >> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
> >> >> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
> >> >> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
>
> >> >> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> >> >> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> >> >> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> >> >> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> >> >> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> >> >> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> >> >> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> >> >> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> >> >> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> >> >> being vegan.
> >> >> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> >> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> >> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> >> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> >> >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> >> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> >> >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> >> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> >> >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> >> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> >> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.
>
> >> >I type "grass raised beef Sydney" into Google and found this.
>
> >> >http://www.greenhillorganicmeat.com....anic-beef.html
>
> >> >So, you would have me believe that the production of this beef causes
> >> >less deaths per serving than tofu? Is that the story?
>
> >> That's it. I've already told you countless times why, and why grass raised
> >> dairy is better than soy and especially rice milk. Since I've told you so many
> >> times, instead of taking the time to tell you again I emailed a rep for the farm
> >> and told her what I've been pointing out to you asking if she would confirm and
> >> maybe add to it. If she does I'll pass it on to you and maybe you'll believe it
> >> if someone like that lets you know. Of course she might tell me I'm wrong too,
> >> and if so I'll pass it on anyway and also let you know if I believe it or not.
>
> >My mind has always been open on the question.
>
> * * Well, not really. It's a guarantee that SOME grass raised beef involves
> fewer deaths than soy products, no doubt about that. I believe the vast majority
> of it does. The only thing that would get the numbers down in soy bean fields,
> is if there are very very few animals living in them to begin with...there
> populations having been greatly reduced or killed off in previous years.
>
> >I have just thought that
> >it was reasonable to ask you to defend your view in more detail.
>
> * * Farm machinery and the steps associated with soy farming produce more deaths
> than cattle do by eating grass.
>

But you immediately go on to acknowledge that there are other deaths
to take into account.

> >For
> >example, you seem to claim that there are no collateral deaths at all
> >associated with the production of grass fed beef
>
> * * No.
>
> >and some sources of
> >information seem to suggest that that is not true; predators are
> >killed to protect the cattle.
>
> * * It's good to kill predators that kill cattle. The animals killed to protect
> soy beans are not generally predators, btw.
>
> >I will be interested to hear what the
> >farm representaive says; in the meantime I am trying to do my own
> >research about the matter.
>
> * * It seems to me she avoided my specific question, saying it's not the point.
> It IS the point in my email to her and I let her know that. If she writes
> anything worthwhile back I'll let you know. Here's part of what she did write:
>
> "It is difficult to say eating only tofu would result in less animal deaths
> because the animals would never have lived and therefore could not die. As you
> point out, we believe our cattle have a happy, contented life while they are
> alive. The more natural a system is, the more likely it is to be "wildllife"
> friendly. Monocultures of any crop are anything but natural.To argue less
> wildlife is killed, is a moot point I feel. yes, cropping is less tolerant of
> wildlife (I assume you mean grazing wildlife) but to my mind, breaking the
> argument down to deaths per mouthful is missing the point. If you believe that
> animals should not be killed for human consumption, then surely one death is too
> many. But again the point that the animal would never have lived is valid.. I do
> wonder what the animal activists that are against eating animals think a world
> would look like it no one raised any animals at all for human consumption..
>
> However, I am prepared to argue very strongly against those who say we should
> stop eating animals for environmental reasons. Of course, the animals need to be
> raised humanely (there is something inherently wrong with that word) and
> ruminants should only eat pasture plants but to argue a vegan diet is more
> sustainable is, I feel, very wrong. Soybean production would have to be one of
> the most destructive crops around - not to even begin to take into account the
> GM debate. The infatuation with carbohydrates in our diet is leading to severe
> problems - most come from annual crops and therein lies the problem. Billions of
> lives are lost every time a field is ploughed for a crop - be it soy, wheat corn
> or vegetables - it is just that these lives are fungi, bacteria, protozoa and
> all the other soil micro/macro organisms that are not "animals" so are not on
> the radar. It is only lunatics such as myself that mourn their loss! I'm not
> alone though, techniques are being developed to eliminate ploughing and so on,
> but they often then rely on herbicides.
> A spoonful of tofu results in many thousands of deaths - but not "animal"
> deaths. I could rave on for a while."
>
> If there are animals in the area it results in animal deaths whether she'll
> agree with it or not. When we were kids we sometimes followed the harvesters
> around so our dogs could kill rabbits after their shelter was removed. If there
> are rabbits, there are smaller animals too.