Thread: What to eat
View Single Post
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
Dutch Dutch is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default What to eat


"Rupert" > wrote
> On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:


[..]

>> You have already conceded the basic premise that modern mechanized
>> agriculture kills animals. Based on that premise it is not unreasonable
>> to
>> conclude that some vegan food costs more animal lives than some non-vegan
>> food. Further, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a fairly wide
>> selection of both types fall within a range that would be considered
>> acceptable to most people. I would add that the practice of some vegans
>> to
>> examine content labels and reject with disgust any food that might have
>> the
>> slightest trace of animal DNA is absurd given that most outdoor grown
>> food
>> likely has some trace of animal DNA.
>>

>
> Yes, all right, fine, but I am not especially convinced that free-
> range organic chicken is likely to involve less animal suffering than
> a calorically equivalent serving of vegan food, because chickens need
> to be fed by grains that involve animal CDs, and it's a less efficient
> use of grains to nourish humans than is the case with directly buying
> the plant-based food.


Food is not chosen on a strict efficiency basis, not even by vegans, if that
were the case many vegan foods would be eliminated. You can't say that
efficiency is an argument when comparing chicken vs corn then ignore it when
comparing rice and potatoes.

My fundamental point is that if we were comparing foods that required the
death of animals against foods that did not, as many vegans believe, then
the vegan moral position would be much more compelling. The fact is that is
not the case, we are comparing foods which all cause some amount of animal
death and suffering. Then it comes down to how much we are prepared to
accept and to what degree we can honestly quantify it.

> I gave a specific example of a meal I ate and asked you if I would
> have been better off with free-range organic chicken. It looks as
> though the answer to that is no, or at least you are not confidently
> answering yes.


You probably caused some amount less animal suffering by eating whatever you
ate in place of chicken, that's fine if that's what you want to do, but my
point is that you did not go from one moral realm into another based on
compassion by doing that, as many vegans believe, because the difference is
merely one of degree.

[..]

>> I would never argue that a well planned vegan or vegetarian diet is bad,
>> my
>> point is that a well planned non-vegan diet can be just as good, based on
>> all the same criteria, except one, that is the issue of animal
>> *exploitation*.

>
> I am skeptical that it is likely to be just as good on the issue of
> animal suffering if grains need to be grown to feed the animals.


As I said earlier, efficiency is not an absolute criterion for choosing how
we live our lives, much less our choice of foods. If it were we would never
take vacations or drive cars.

It is a precipitous fall from the sanctimonious claims of people like Glen
to attempting to measure food efficiency.