dh@. wrote:

> On 24 Sep 2005 09:52:44 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> On 23 Sep 2005 06:14:45 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >dh@. wrote:
>
> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> The grazing areas I've seen turned into something else have
> >> always supported fewer animals, not more. They have become
> >> housing areas, and businesses.
> >
> >I fundamentally dislike the attitude that land is simply an economic
> >resource to be appropriated by humans.
>
> It is though, regardless if you like it or not. It's only going to get
> more so, so you need to accept that.

No. I need to challenge the justice of the assumption. If I can get
enough people to agree with me, it will change. Accepting is defeatist.

>
> >To me it is the lifeblood of
> >the planet, which we should be thrifty with.
> >
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> Then do vegans have to take moral debit for the lives that
> >> are prevented too?
> >
> >If they take moral credit for the lives created as part of their
> >lifestyle as you are doing.
>
> I really just look at it as trying to consider all the aspects. To di=
sregard
> the lives of billions of animals when evaluating human influence on
> animals seems pathetic, disgusting, inconsiderate, etc, to me, even if
> I'm the only person on Earth who doesn't try to disregard them.

What I take issue with is that you insist on considering the farm
animals
that exist because of humans but also insist on ignoring the wild
animals
who don't exist because of exactly the same human activities that cause
the farm animals to exist.
>
> >> >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!
> >>
> >> =B7 Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
> >> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> >> (and death) for farm animals,
> >
> >True but what does this have to do with the issue at hand?
>
> You would have to consider the lives of those animals to be
> significant, in order to understand. If you can't see how they are
> significant, how could you understand any significance they
> have regarding human influence on animals?
>
> >> but even then they would have
> >> to avoid the following in order to be successful:
> >>
> >> Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> >> Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
> >> Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
> >> Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
> >> Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum,
> >> Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
> >> Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
> >> auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid,
> >> contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks,
> >> dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable
> >> Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips,
> >> Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape,
> >> Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and
> >> Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape,
> >> Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings
> >
> >It is possible to get vegan soaps, cosmetics, toothpaste, deoderants,
> >biodegradable detergents, vitamin B12, sunscreens and probably most
> >of the other items on that list. At best it is out of date. At worst,
> >it is totally fraudulent. What animal products are used in the
> >manufacture
> >of paper, plastic, ceramics and glass?
>
> I don't know. But I trust that the people who put the list together
> do know or they wouldn't have made it.

"I found it on the internet. It must be true! :-)

> Actually that's from more
> than one list. In order to convince me that there are no animal
> by-products in those items you would need to tell me which animal
> parts were used in which processes in the past and why, what they
> have been replaced with and why, and what is now being done with
> those by-products if they are really no longer being used in the
> manufacturing processes of such products any more.

Alternatively you could go down to your local wholefood shop and
check the labels. You will almost certainly find soaps, deoderants
toothpastes and b12 supplements that are labelled as "suitable
for vegans". Do you the manufacturers of these products breaking
the law by lying while the people who posted your lists to the
internet are telling the truth?

> >> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> >> slaughters,
> >
> >A calf is created as a result of a bull and a cow mating.
> >No human intervention is necessary for this process to occur.
>
> Are you saying you don't understand how humans influence
> which cows are inseminated by which bulls?

No. I'm saying that humans are not needed to enable bulls to
inseminate cows.

> If you don't, it's
> really pretty scary to think about people like you trying to have
> an influence on farm animals.

Why?

> Wow, it is scary to think about
> "ARAs" having an influence on farm animals. And medical
> research. And...LOL...Animal Welfare...lol... Damn.
>
> >> and the animals live and die as a result of it
> >> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> >> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> >> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> >> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> >> future.
> >> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. =B7
> >
> >This may be true but a link Larry recently provided calls this into
> >question. http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm
> >
> >"Davis estimates that only 7.5 animals of the field per hectare die in
> >ruminant-pasture. If we were to convert half of the 120 million
> >hectares of U.S. cropland to ruminant-pasture and half to growing
> >vegetables, Davis claims we could feed the U.S. population on a diet of
> >ruminant meat and crops and kill only 1.35 billion animals annually in
> >the process. Thus, Davis concludes his omnivorous proposal would save
> >the lives of 450 million animals each year (p. 6-7).
> >
> >Davis mistakenly assumes the two systems-crops only and crops with
> >ruminant-pasture-using the same total amount of land, would feed
> >identical numbers of people (i.e., the U.S. population). In fact, crop
> >and ruminant systems produce different amounts of food per hectare --
> >the two systems would feed different numbers of people. To properly
> >compare the harm caused by the two systems, we ought to calculate how
> >many animals are killed in feeding equal populations-or the number of
> >animals killed per consumer.
> >
> >Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop
> >production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).
>
> I believe he's being a great deal overly generous with that estimate.
> How do grazing cattle kill animals?

Having now read Davis' orginial article, I see that he basically
plucked
his figures out of thin air and therefore the attempt, by the article
above,
to use his figures to demonstrate the superiority of crops over GFCs is

bogus.

> Compare that to how farm machincery
> kills animals. I hate to bog you down, but another thing to consider--or
> maybe not in your case--is how much life is involved. Even though a much
> higher percentage of animals are likely to be killed in crop fields than =
in
> grazing areas, their numbers could still be low when much fewer animals
> live in crop fields to begin with.
>
> >If this
> >is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as many
> >hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food, a
> >vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop
> >production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and
> >one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount
> >of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on
> >as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as
> >pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for
> >grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar 1998; UNFAO 1996). As such, to obtain
> >the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a
> >vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually,
>
> I don't believe that, or the rest of it either. What I believe is tha=
t vegans
> don't care if rice milk causes a lot more cds than grass raised milk, and
> that tofu causes a lot more cds than grass raised beef.
>
> >a
> >lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style
> >omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math,
> >we see that a vegan-vegetarian population would kill the fewest number
> >of wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population."
> >
> >I would be interested to read your response.
>
> Cattle don't kill many animals by eating grass. Many animals are kill=
ed
> when the ground it plowed, harrowed, planted, treated with chemicals,
> the crops are harvested, and whatever wildlife manage to survive have
> lost their home and shelter. In the case of rice, the flooding and draini=
ng
> of fields also kills animals, as well as the other things mentioned.
>
> >> >> >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?
> >>
> >> =B7 The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
> >> variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
> >> habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
> >> on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
> >> depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
> >> that begin their particular existence.
> >
> >The pairing of sperm and egg occurs as a result of sexual
> >activities that do not require human intervention.
>
> Have you figured out how humans influence life for any
> animals yet?

They influence which bulls get to father the cows they approproate
ownership over. They do this by preventing them from coming into
contact with other bulls. You seem to think they therefore deserve
moral credit for bringing the calves into existence.
>
> >> Those animals will
> >> only live if people continue to raise them for food.
> >>
> >> Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
> >> animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
> >> different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
> >> animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
> >> which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
> >> for their existence. =B7
> >
> >The numbers of animals born to these other groups and the numbers
> >of animals raised for food purposes are not seperate, independent
> >variables
>
> Here's a clue for you: domestic animals would not even
> exist if humans didn't influence which animals breed together.

And now here's a clue for you: cattle, pigs, horses, sheep, ducks
etc. existed long before humans began to influence which animals
bred together and still do exist in the wild, where humans have no
influence over this.

> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> I consider more than one.
> >
> >OK.
>
> Wow, that's a surprise.
>
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> That's not how it goes. When the land isn't grazed it is used to
> >> grow crops resulting in less wildlife, or paved over and built on
> >> resulting in even less. Since that's how it goes, that's how I think
> >> about it.
> >
> >The way I think about it is rather like voting. On the individual level
> >it makes little difference but on the collective level it matters a
> >great
> >deal. The attitude I have is that we should be thrifty with our land
> >use
> >and allow nature her fair share.
>
> $$$
>
> >> >YMMD.
> >> >
> >> >> I have also more than once asked: why should we only
> >> >> contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and not a=
lso
> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> I think of decent lives as decent lives, including the lives of
> >> humans, domestic animals and wildlife. For some reason other
> >> people don't do it that way, but that's how I do it, and so far no
> >> one has suggested a better way yet.
> >
> >It is a very good way of doing things. What I take issue with is the
> >idea that the cows owe their lives to the farmer.
>
> Well they do. So do pigs and chickens. And turkeys. If you
> don't like the fact, it is still a fact which you just don't happen
> to like.

It is not a fact that they owe their lives to the farmer in any
morally significant way.

> It won't go away though. It will never go away. Even
> if I learn to hate it myself--which so far it's just a fact to me which
> I don't especially like or hate--it will still remain a fact, and I sure
> hope I will always be able to appreciate that very basic and
> very significant aspect of human influence on animals. Accepting
> the fact is a very necessary basic in regards to whether or not
> what we do is cruel to the animals, and I know it is. I'm very
> surprised and disappointed at the number of people who don't.

The reason why most people don't recognize the fact is that the
logic behind seems awfully selective and self-serving.