dh@. wrote:

> On 22 Sep 2005 09:25:40 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>"larrylook" > wrote
> >> >>>>>>How do you know I don't care?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
> >> >>>>> opposition to
> >> >>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--an=
imal
> >> >>>>> products.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my gran=
dmother
> >> >>>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and wou=
ld find
> >> >>>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin woul=
d be
> >> >>>> repugnant.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>So saving animal lives is not your main priority,
> >> >>
> >> >> You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism =
does
> >> >> nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If =
you
> >> >> think
> >> >> it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make someth=
ing up.
> >> >
> >> >Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals=
who
> >> >are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go throug=
h that
> >> >process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't cl=
aim to,
> >> >neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice.
> >> >
> >> >>>it's aesthetics, so what
> >> >>>else is new?
> >> >>
> >> >> It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save f=
ood
> >> >> animals by being vegan or by eating meat.
> >> >
> >> >Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
> >> >prevent future animals from being born,
> >>
> >> Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing some=
thing
> >> to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals.
> >>
> >> >or as they see it, they *save* the
> >> >animals from being born into an abbreviated life
> >>
> >> =B7 Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
> >> didn't raise them, it's a distortion of reality not to take that
> >> fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact
> >> that the animals are going to be killed.
> >
> >None of the animals currently being commercially farmed were
> >created by humans. The lives of these farm animals
> >have an opportunity cost; the animals that would experience
> >life if the land was not being used by humans (eg to graze livestock).
>
> I have never seen grazing areas that were not home to wildlife.

The point is that if the the land wasn't being used to support
cattle, or for some other human activity then it could be used to
support other forms of life. If you wish to take moral credit
for the cow's existence then you also have to accept moral
debit for these lives that are prevented from existing.

BTW have you ever been to a woodland area and compared the amount
of wildlife living there with a grassland area? When you have, come
back and tell me that people who clear a forest so cattle can graze
there deserve moral credit for enabling more cattle to exist!

> >Your failure to take these facts into consideration
> >is the real distortion of reality.
>
> I most certainly take them into consideration.

So why do you wish to give farmers moral credit for the existence
of animals that are perfectly capable of reproducing without
human help?

> I've pointed out
> more than once that in all the experiences I've had with it, and
> have heard of, wildlife are more welcome in grazing areas than in
> crop filds.

That is probably true. I wouldn't know but in any case you are
considering the wrong eqaution. If some of the land used to graze
cattle was used to grow an equivalent amount of calories in
crop fields and the rest was left to nature, that would probably
result in more wildlife in total. YMMD.

> I have also more than once asked: why should we only
> contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and not also
> life and death for wildlife and livestock in grazing areas?

I agree that the two are not qualitatively different in any
ethically significant way but this is not relevant to your
premise that the life of a farm animal should be treated as a
loan to its farmer.