On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:33:54 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>
>>There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>[...]
>>(Rejoinder)
>>Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
>>aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
>>and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
>>intentionally for food.
>
>The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
>Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.
>
>S.L. Davis,

.. and how many times those figures have been found
to be nothing other than guesswork. Davis' guesswork
is not peer-reviewed and has many flaws, as follows;

[While eating animals who are grazed rather than
intensively confined would vastly improve the welfare
of farmed animals given their current mistreatment,
Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable
to vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical
error in using total rather than per capita estimates
of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number
of animals killed in ruminant and crop production
systems and ignores important considerations about
the welfare of animals under both systems; and third,
he does not consider the number of animals who are
prevented from existing under the two systems. After
correcting for these errors, Davis’s argument makes
a strong case for, rather than against, adopting a
vegetarian diet.

First, Davis makes an error in calculating how many
animals would be killed to feed a vegan-vegetarian
population. He explains:

There are 120 million ha of cropland harvested in the
USA each year. If all of that land was used to produce
crops to support a vegan diet, and if 15 animals of the
field are killed per ha per year, then
15 x 120 million = 1800 million or 1.8 billion animals
would be killed annually to produce a vegan diet for
the USA (p. 5).

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). 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, 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.

However, suppose this were not the case and that, in fact,
fewer animals would be killed under Davis’s omnivorism.
Would it follow that Davis’s plan causes the least harm?
Not necessarily. Early in the paper, Davis shifts from
discussing the harm done to animals under different
agricultural systems to the number of animals killed. This
shift is not explained by Davis and is not justified by the
most common moral views, all of which recognize harms
in addition to those associated with killing.]
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm

Davis' guesswork and bad math was debunked years ago,
so it's small wonder why he hasn't put his little paper up for
a peer review.

Nevertheless, that debunked and put aside, to reject a solution
(veganism) to the animal deaths found in man's diet on the basis
that some deaths will still occur after the solution is implemented
invokes the perfect solution fallacy, especially while that arguer
insists all foods cause animal deaths. In short, you're posing a
false dilemma to get your point accepted, and that wont do.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.