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.

No, I don't.

> 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

Fair estimate. Almost twice that yield is possible -- I found an account
of an Iowa farmer who got 394 bushels of corn per acre -- but your
number is reasonable for this example.

> then 3-1/2 acres of land are required
> to produce enough grain for the steer.

No. See below.

> 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.

Really bad example since cattle aren't fed exclusively on grain rations
-- they're typically fed that at the end of their growing phase for
fattening (marbling). The majority of a steer's diet consists of silage,
whether from direct grazing or from hay.

Another problem: corn weighs about 56 lbs a bushel (link below). Cattle
don't eat that much corn per day. The second link has guidelines for
growing and finishing cattle. It cites various studies recommending
mostly single-digit daily rations of corn for 800-lb steers.

Commdodity weights:
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...ops/g04020.htm

Cattle grain/silage guidelines:
http://muextension.missouri.edu/expl...sci/g02072.htm

> Now let's say that a person can make a serving from 1 cup of grain -

Your example assumes all grain is equal. Most grain fed to livestock
isn't fit for human consumption.

> that's
> about 150 servings from 1 bushel, or 10,500 equivalent servings that went
> into feeding that steer during his lifetime.

I'll let you do more homework on beef management and determine if this
exercise was appropriate or not.

> If 70% of the steer is edible
> then it can provide more than 3300 servings using your 1/4 pound/serving
> number.

Not to mention that its wastes while living can be used for fertilizer,
urea, etc., and that byproducts from it after slaughter can be used to
clothe people or make baseball mitts (congrats to the Pirates for
signing Jason Bay to a longer contract), gelatin, etc.

> 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),

That's rounded too far, even with your inflated assumptions about cattle
and grains -- 3500/3 is much closer to 1200 than 2000.

> and would require little more than 1 acre of land (3.5/3).
> The life of the steer got lost in the rounding! :^)

Doesn't matter since your bushel-a-day diet would cause it to explode
before it ever reached slaughter.

> 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.

Which is bullshit. Very few mammals require more than three pounds of
feed to gain a pound of weight -- the exceptions have very fast
metabolism, which rules out cattle. I've addressed this issue repeatedly
when others have trotted out John Robbins' exaggerated claims. The ~3:1
ratio is valid for cattle, goats, rabbits, poultry, people, etc.

CATTLE:

The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain
diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May
and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or
November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be
maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when
it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle
generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds
(calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves
may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about
1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and
be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter
at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds.

How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a
pound of retail beef?

* 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have
consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120
pounds per year).
* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5
pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement)
per pound of gain.
* 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume
7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein
supplement) per pound of gain.
* Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45
pound (.35 pound for cows).

Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to
produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds
for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves,
the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do
not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine
provided by cattle during grazing and finishing.

Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds
of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef
cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4
pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of
ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef
animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to
market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained.
Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not
occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the
production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture
high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen.
http://tinyurl.com/93mwm

GOATS:
A superior feeding strategy would be based on body condition
scoring (Table 8). Low scoring goats (1 - 2.5) receive grain
supplementation at < 2.5 lb grain :1 lb milk ratio, while the
higher scoring goats (3.0 - 5.0) are fed at a feed:milk ratio of
3:1.
http://www.goatworld.com/articles/feedinggoats.shtml

RABBITS:
Growing rabbits eat about 3 pounds of feed for a pound of gain
http://tinyurl.com/5zl6s

TURKEYS:
You could consider just growing all tom turkeys as you can cut '
down on feed costs because of the factor involving the feed
conversion factor. A tom of up to eighteen pounds requires forty
two pounds of feed.
(Appears to be from a school paper. Still, less than 2.5 pounds
of feed per pound of bird.)
http://tinyurl.com/57n47

CHICKENS:
It will take about 5 pounds of feed to age 6 weeks and 8-9
pounds to 8 weeks for the commercial strains.
(So about 14 pounds of feed to finish a 4 pound chicken --
again, about three pounds of feed to pound of meat.)
http://tinyurl.com/5z65c

Etc.

> My number was about 3 times.

Which is much more reasonable and biologically-consistent.

> Still, when you consider how many steers there are the
> numbers become staggering.

Thanks to your little exercise, we now know the inflated numbers of CDs
associated with overfeeding a steer with corn or other grains. Now how
many CDs will accrue from months of pasture grazing or grazing on
scrubland out west and finishing rations that include ~2-4 pounds of
grain and legume feed per day for a few more months?

>>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.

Your example seems to assume that calves are born at 0 pounds and gain
weight exclusively from grains. That isn't reality. They're born
weighing under 100 pounds. They feed off their mothers (milk), and after
weaning they graze for a half year. By this point, they weigh about 500
pounds.

http://www.watersheds.org/farm/beef.htm

> Although my numbers may not be completely accurate,

They're not even in the ballpark.

> I think they at least make a very clear point.

I think a clearer point is made when you consider the ~600-700 pounds of
weight gain with respect to ~3-4 pounds of grain per day rather than a
full bushel (which is ~14-18+ times as much as they actually consume) as
your example used.

> I disagree with vegans because
> they usually don't consider collateral deaths at all, hence ignorance.

Even among those who are aware of CDs persists the notions that "animals
don't have to die" and other attempts to pass the buck from themselves
for their own consumption onto farmers for not employing vegan-friendly
techniques.

> 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 question you should be asking yourself about this is, Why do vegans
object categorically to hunting? Keep in mind that, in these groups,
they find it more preferable for habitat to be destroyed even when it's
shared by endangered species, for animals to die from increased disease
and decreased food sources, for people to run into deer and other large
game (and thus endangering humans), etc., than to be hunted.

> 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.

Some of those "other things" also include the increased amount of green
space in large cities, where animals enjoy nearly predator-free environs
and plenty of food. Deer also find silly humans who think of them as
"pets" (or who stupidly feed them). We have a tremendous issue with
urban deer in and around Austin, and the problem isn't simply an issue
of sprawl. I can show you large herds of deer within sight of downtown
and in areas that were already part of Austin 100 years ago. Parts of
Austin, especially near greenbelts and protected preserves (set aside
for endangered birds like the black cap vireo and golden-cheeked
warbler), are over-grazed by deer. We also have seen a resurgence of
coyotes in well-established neighborhoods (i.e., with 50-100 year-old
homes).

>>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,

If they don't already object to eating meat, and since they probably
engage in pest control themselves (including using traps for small
rodents), they probably have no objections to CDs.

> 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.

I disagree that it's a sign of being self-centered.

> 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.

You hit on the operative term for the things you listed -- those people
are convenience-oriented, not self-centered. Convenience isn't "bad" in
and of itself; it can be quite noble to save time and energy for more
important endeavors. One can also be completely self-centered while
shunning all conveniences.

> Vegans aren't the only ones guilty of ignorance, and so why
> pick on just them?

Vegans set the standards by which they judge others, then they fail
themselves to meet those standards. They should by judged according to
their own standards.

I'll do the same in fairness and objectivity should meat-eaters and
leather-wearers (and by this I am not referring to the fetishists with
whom Karen Winter will no doubt be too familiar) ever set up ethical
standards and judge vegans or anyone else according to 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 question is, Is what ARAs portray as NORMATIVE really the norm or
isolated? If they suggest something is a norm and it isn't at all, then
they're liars. If they suggest certain practices are the normal way
things are done but those practices are in fact much rarer, then the
ARAs are exaggerating (which we consider a form of lying down here). Etc.

This isn't a matter of "you see something, I see something else."
They're making claims of fact. The facts just don't match their claims.

They are liars.

> >> 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.

Read what you wrote again, then read what I wrote again. Or has it
'shroomed right over your head?

>>>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.

Name a vegan who's open-minded about animal research, consumption of
meat, and apparel made of leather or fur.

>>>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.

We do, vegans don't. See Dreck's posts as "Phil Odox."

>>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?

The end result, in this instance, is the same as the _status quo ante_:
animals die. Veganism doesn't stop animal deaths. It just continues the
cycle. I do, however, think it's unethical to set such a specious
standard of morality in the first place. Vegans are unethical for
judging others according to diet, research, attire, etc.

> Misguided perhaps, but not necessarily unethical.

If it's unethical to kill animals for food, and vegans say it is, then
veganism by their own standard is unethical. I personally don't think
it's unethical to kill animals for food, to wear their hides, or to
perform research on them; thus, I don't think people are ethical or
unethical when they kill animals in those instances.

> And if you try
> to inform people with extreme negativity then it's no wonder they reject
> your information. You alienate them while,

Vegans are already alienated. That's part of the problem. Don't blame
that on me.

<...>