Reynard wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:43:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
>>1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death.
>
That ignores the cardio vascular disorders associated with cattle.


>
> Then why didn't you tackle Jon when he wrote;
>
> "The wish to avoid or reduce personal culpability actually leads some
> "vegans" and omnivores alike to view animal deaths, incorrectly, as
> divisible. Many on both sides subscribe to a bizarre and erroneous
> belief that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction of an
> animal death. Somewhat surprisingly, the argument seems to be found
> more commonly among omnivores, most often when they talk about
> the number of meals that may be had from the meat from one large
> animal; they'll talk about a "fraction of a death" attributable to one
> hamburger, for example.
>
> The animal deaths are indivisible. If the food production that caused the
> 1000 collateral deaths yielded food to feed 100,000 people (that would be
> some yield!), the eaters cannot say that they only "caused" 1/100th of a
> death. They all, collectively, are responsible for all 1000 deaths.
> Similarly, if a dressed steer carcass yields 250 pounds of edible beef, and
> those are made into 500 half-pound servings, those who eat them cannot
> say they only "caused" 1/500th of a death; they ALL caused one full death,
> together.
>
> The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish, causing
> one animal death; or one could eat a serving of rice that came from a
> particular crop whose cultivation and harvest caused 1000 deaths. The rice
> eater caused 1000 deaths."
> Jonathan Ball as Ted Bell http://tinyurl.com/4blce
>
> Also, why hasn't Jon tackled you for trying to "reduce personal culpability"
> for the deaths you're responsible for? That's the bigger question, and only
> because the answer is so obvious.