On Mar 8, 8:19*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 claim is that you have no reliable way of measuring whether or not
> substituting some free range chicken in a diet such as the one you describe
> would substantially increase or decrease the amount of animal suffering, so
> it's left for you to guess, or better yet, don't worry about it quite so
> much.
>

You are right that the best I can do is make a (somewhat) educated
guess, and I have stated what my thoughts are about that topic. I
never suggested the topic did worry me all that much. I thought you
were trying to argue that there was some way I could make an
improvement in the amount of suffering caused by my diet, and if so I
was interested to hear what that was and what the evidence was. I
guess I was mistaken.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> I would suggest that if you are looking to increase the level of objectivity
> in your point of view then read something that challenges your existing
> biases, not something that reinforces them.

Well, I've been reading Ball's links as well. If you have any
suggestions for books that should be on my reading list I will happily
consider them.