Thread: What to eat
View Single Post
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default What to eat

On Mar 7, 10:54*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "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.
>


I'm talking about the total amount of suffering and premature death
required to produce the food. I think I put a reasonable amount of
effort into eating a diet which causes as little suffering and
premature death as possible, given the difficulties there are with
obtaining reliable information about how much harm the different foods
cause and the constraints on my time, and I think avoiding chicken is
a reasonable rule of thumb for that. If there is a significant
difference between rice and potatoes then that is relevant too. I
don't eat rice especially often. It is true that I eat it occasionally
when I don't have to and I don't really know how much additional
suffering that is causing. Perhaps avoiding rice would be a reasonable
rule of thumb to adopt as well, as well as avoiding chicken, but I
would prefer to see more detailed evidence about how much harm rice
causes before coming to that conclusion.

As I say I am always happy to listen to constructive suggestions for
how I could further reduce the harm caused by my diet, and I'm open to
the idea that maybe I should give up rice. But you seemed to be
claiming that I could do it by including some free-range organic
chicken in my diet, as opposed to potato gnocchi, tofu, lentils, and
carrots which is what I've been eating a fair bit of lately, and the
challenge was for you to demonstrate this. It looks as though you
can't.

> 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.
>


Well, that's quite correct.

> > 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.
>


Sounds like we agree, then.

> [..]
>
> >> 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.


I never made any claims similar to the ones Glen is making. I have
always taken the position that I am just trying to do the best I
reasonably can to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death
required to produce my diet. I've made various remarks about what I
believe about "rights" over the years, and my position on that might
have changed a bit over the years. I've just been re-reading Sec. 9.1
of "The Case for Animal Rights", "Why Vegetarianism is Obligatory",
and I believe that everything Tom Regan says there is consistent with
my views, so I could adopt a view like Tom Regan's if I felt like it,
but I don't necessarily want to do that. I believe in nonhuman animals
having some rights in the sense of there being enforceable constraints
on how we may treat them even over and above what comes from their
being someone's property.