Thread: New Soup
View Single Post
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
>> > poultry, etc.

>>
>> So if a person was able to access meat, fish or fowl from a source

> that they
>> believe killed even fewer animals than commercial produce that would

> be even
>> better, right?

>
> Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
> game, or is it a meat that has a fringe following like free
> range organic beef?


No risk of extinction..

> The first I wouldn't even recommend
> to a meat eater,


Let's just rule out endangered species, OK? Nobody here wants to be killing
them.

> and the second is bought by meat eating
> friends already.


I'm not talking about anyone's current dietary preferences, I talking about
ANY person who is striving to cause the least amount of animal death and
suffering they possibly can.

> Of course the best alternative is to just stick to vegetarian
> food. Takes less resources to produce. That means
> less collateral deaths, and of course the intentional death.


You are changing the question I posed to you. I stipulated that a person,
according to the best of their ability, evaluated foods available to them
and *determined* that substituting carefully selected meat products, e.g.
hunted, free range or what-have-you, for certain plant products, represents
a net *decrease* in the amount of overall animal suffering caused by their
diet. These are the given parameters for the question.

Now, regardless of their personal preference for food types, would it not be
a better choice for animals overall that they make that choice?

> For a meat eater, your suggestions would be better than
> factory farmed, healthwise for the eater.


I did not specify whether the person currently had meat in his or her diet
or not, it is not relevant to this particular question.

> Not so good for
> the animal itself.


Perhaps not for the actual animal being eaten, but remember the question
stipulated that the change in the diet actually caused less animal harm.

> Also, wild game and free range beef
> can't satisfy the demand of meat eaters worldwide.


Again, not part of the question. I am talking about one person making a
choice about what foods to include in their diet.

> There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.


In the case I am citing there are only imported, commercially grown plant
foods available.

> If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.


Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.