"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> <...>
>>>3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting game.
>>
>> Sorry, but I agree with the "counting game" argument.
>
> You shouldn't. I've addressed this issue before with what I called
> "Objecting to the 1001st death." What you wrote previously about grains
> fed to cattle illustrates this objection. You contend that no matter how
> many deaths may be attributable to grain (or whatever) production, those
> who eat meat are responsible for at least one more animal death. In the
> example, the veg-n pats himself on the back for not eating meat even
> though his diet causes 1000 animals to die; those animals won't be eaten
> by humans. The veg-n also sanctimoniously impugns the character of those
> who eat the meat of the 1001st animal to die -- let's say it's a steer,
> from which a few hundred meals can be made (very realistic with sensible
> quarter-pound servings). Balance the ethical scales: the veg-n's diet
> causes 1000 animals to die and the omnivore's causes 1001. Is it
> significantly more ethical to be responsible for one less animal death
> when you're already responsible for 1000?

You misunderstand me completely. I don't have real numbers but I'm going
make some up to illustrate my point (I can try to find better numbers if it
is necessary). Let's say a steer is brought to slaughter at 2 years of age
and he weighs 1200 lbs. Let's say that he eats 1 bushel of grain a day -
that's more than 700 bushels of grain in his lifetime. If 1 acre of land can
produce 200 bushels of grain per year then 3-1/2 acres of land are required
to produce enough grain for the steer. Now let's say that 1000 small
mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians are killed per acre as a
result of producing the grain - that's more than 3500 collateral deaths
attributed to that one steer.

Now let's say that a person can make a serving from 1 cup of grain - that's
about 150 servings from 1 bushel, or 10,500 equivalent servings that went
into feeding that steer during his lifetime. If 70% of the steer is edible
then it can provide more than 3300 servings using your 1/4 pound/serving
number.

Let's normalize these numbers and make comparisons. I'm doing some rounding
with my numbers but 10,500/3300 is a little more than 3. That means that
feeding people grain instead of beef would save almost 2000 collateral
deaths (3500/3), and would require little more than 1 acre of land (3.5/3).
The life of the steer got lost in the rounding! :^)

I have to say that I'm a little surprised by my own calculations. I had read
somewhere that it takes something on the order of 50 times the grain to feed
cattle compared to that which would be required to feed people. My number
was about 3 times. Still, when you consider how many steers there are the
numbers become staggering.

> In a sense, too, the veg-ns are objecting to the consumption of mere
> *fractions* of an animal death. I think the scales should account for
> that, but the illustration sufficiently shows the moral relativism of
> vegans.
>
> Fuller explanation of Objecting to the 1001st Death:
> http://tinyurl.com/dkgtb
>
>> America dropped atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII because many
>> more soldiers would have died had we not. We killed people to prevent, in
>> all probability, many times more deaths. How about the death penalty? Or
>> what about euthanasia? Or stem cell research? Or abortion? Moral ethics
>> aren't absolute.
>
> You're overlooking the issue at hand while basically re-stating *my* point
> with these examples. Your disagreement isn't with me, but with veganism.
> Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute. Vegans don't distinguish
> between acceptable and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or non-cruel
> treatement. They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable, and that just
> about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of the latter
> by the former. They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all*
> animal research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock
> production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and want
> an end to humans having pets.

I disagree with both of you! I have shown you above what I mean by the so
called "counting game" and how eliminating beef would reduce the number of
collateral deaths. Although my numbers may not be completely accurate, I
think they at least make a very clear point. I disagree with vegans because
they usually don't consider collateral deaths at all, hence ignorance. I
also disagree with vegan's wish to end all hunting, etc. because somebody
has to replace the predators that we have all but eliminated. The natural
balance of nature is out of whack and it would only be worse if we
eliminated hunting. Many vegans also don't consider other things that effect
the lives of animals: development and the fragmenation of habitat, pesticide
and fertilizer runoff from producing food, and the ever increasing human
population among other things.

> And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse conditions
> for animals. They suggest replacing meat with proteins from soy and
> grains, like tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these alternatives to
> meat do nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths caused by one's
> diet and may in fact increase animal deaths. They likewise recommend
> synthetic furs and leather even though these are made from petrochemicals
> which cause immense pollution and environmental harm during drilling and
> refining, all of which harms people and many more animals than it would
> take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair of leather shoes. And
> natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no safer for animals than is the
> abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops with respect to
> collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse since crops like
> cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and defoliants (at harvest)
> which are highly toxic for non-target species. See Rick's links.
>
>>>The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or death.
>>>It's on those who oppose people consuming meat and who make categorical
>>>statements of their own moral superiority. When faced with the facts,
>>>they ultimately make the same argument you did and claim a virtue
>>>relative to the actions of others. They're not more ethical because
>>>others are ethically "worse" than they are (at least according to their
>>>capricious standard); they fail their own ethics test when they measure
>>>themselves by their own standard.
>>
>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
>> living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?
>
> I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
> washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course of
> their consumption and/or work.

Most meat-eaters also have no clue about collateral deaths, and only a vague
clue about fragmentation, runoff, pollution, population, etc. The root
problem is that most people are way too self-centered to worry about those
things. We want tasty food in our stomaches, warm (or cool) homes,
transportation, nice clothes, and other conveniences without considering the
impact on the earth and on other lives - even the impact on human lives in
other places. Vegans aren't the only ones guilty of ignorance, and so why
pick on just them?

>> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should be
>> on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.
>
> Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
> already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and images
> have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet to see
> credible evidence that research, livestock production, farming, etc., is a
> widespread abuse of animals. Those images and videos are of isolated
> incidents. I can find many, many more images of prevailing conditions on
> various farms that show animals are treated very well.

I think people tend to find what they look for, vegans and anti-vegans
alike.

>> The disagreement that you and
>> others have with vegans is the attitude of morel superiority
>
> I have nothing against morel or chantrelle superiority.

Then why do you write things like "It's on those who oppose people consuming
meat and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority."
See above.

>> of SOME of them
>
> ALL vegans adopt a shitty, condescending attitude towards others who
> consume meat, dairy, and eggs (and wear fur, favor animal research, etc.),
> and many also deem those who use honey as reprobates.

I knew this would raise a comment! We will have to agree to disagree on this
issue.

>> and not their wish to minimize animal deaths. AFter all, what's wrong
>> with trying to minimize animal deaths?
>
> Nothing if THAT's what they're actually doing. Most vegans, though,
> prattle incessantly about NOT harming animals at all -- as though they're
> causing zero harm by simply not eating them, not wearing their hides or
> fur, etc.

At least we both agree that zero harm is unattainable and unrealistic.

> The real issue, though, is the result. Are they actually reducing harm to
> animals or are they just intending to cause less harm? The end results
> show us if they're ethical or not. And in the instances I outlined
> above -- objecting only to the 1001st death, recommending high-CD foods in
> place of larger ruminants, recommending synthetics (or even natural
> fibers) instead of leather or fur, etc. -- the results aren't remarkably
> better than the _status quo ante_ of "uninformed" consumption; indeed,
> they're probably much worse. Thus, one's intentions don't make one
> ethical; one's effects and results do.

Well, if the end result is unattainable then does that make a person
unethical? Misguided perhaps, but not necessarily unethical. And if you try
to inform people with extreme negativity then it's no wonder they reject
your information. You alienate them while, at the same time, reinforcing
your own beliefs that vegans have an aire of moral superiority and are
unethical. It goes 'round and 'round and nothing gets accomplished. How are
you any different than them in terms of "effects and results"?