View Single Post
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rupert wrote:
<...>
>>Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering results from
>>cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage protection, etc, etc..

>
> (1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
> (2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.
>
> Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals killed
> by the plant production necessitated by animal food production.


Don't engage in _tu quoque_ if you want to claim that one diet is
ethical or even more ethical compared to others.

> But it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
> production that would be necessary to support universal veganism.


Have you studied food science or agriculture? I'm curious how you know
so much about how many vegans the earth can support, etc.

Anyway, (1) would be true regardless of how many vegans there are
because we would still farm using pesticides (organic production also
uses pesticides, so don't try to pull any BS about it) and mechanized
equipment -- and on a larger scale.

> Davis estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that are
> killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers considerably
> more.


Being fed, given clean water, and watched closely for sound health is
suffering? Do you think that list in my previous post is more "humane"
treatment?
1. Internal bleeding from poisoning (pesticides, herbicides)
2. Being run over by a tractor
3. Being crushed by a plow
4. Being sliced and diced by various tractor implements
5. Drowning (from irrigation)
6. Suffocation (which happens to aquatic life when rice fields are drained)
7. Being burned alive (straw is often burned after harvest)

>>I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals when it fits
>>conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits into mine.

>
> That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument.


I think it's quite a reasonable interpretation of your argument.

> I believe
> that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will
> require veganism or near-veganism.


Funny that. You take an animal rights activist's ideas to heart and then
justify veganism accordingly. That doesn't show much thought on your
part, but the world does need followers.

> It's not altogether clear to me that
> it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture.


You summarized DaGrazia thusly:

Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm.

Let me ask you which YOU consider more "necessary" between advancing
medicine through vivisection and running over animals with combines,
poisoning them, etc.

<...>
>>A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death and suffering
>>associated with his or her diet by the introduction of some carefully
>>selected meat, fish or game, a person who supplements their diet by hunting
>>or fishing for example.

>
> Fishing? Fishing involves a fairly high death rate per serving of food.


No, it doesn't. One large fish provides many meals. Catch your own and
there's no bycatch.

> I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do any good.


Meat from a 20-pound fish will dress out at about half that, providing
ten pounds of meat. At a quarter pound per serving, you have 40 meals'
worth of fish. One dead fish, 40 meals.

How many animals die so you can have rice and beans? Better yet, tell us
if you eat any of the fake meat products made from soy and/or gluten.

> And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals are killed,
> some of them are just seriously maimed.


Then practice your shot before you go hunting, only shoot what you can
visually identify, and only shoot when you have confidence that you'll
kill it.

> So the amount of suffering and
> death caused per serving of food is higher than it appears at first.


No, you're straining with some very ridiculous excuses.

> Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway?


In what area do you live?

> Or where do you suggest I buy my meat?


From a local producer of grazed ruminants.

> And what is your evidence that this will actually *reduce*
> the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to?


Where's YOUR evidence that your diet causes no or less animal suffering
and death than anyone else's?