On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:46:50 -0700, Glorfindel > wrote:

>Derek wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
>> against veganism is a fallacy.
>
>Glorfindel wrote:
>
>Yes, that is true, for several reasons.
>
>Current methods of crop production (probably; presumptively ) may
>involve collateral deaths, but raising, transporting, and marketing
>animals for food *certainly* do, and always will.

Precisely, and the distinction between the two does bear some
consideration when deciding which is the more ethical choice.
Like you say, raising animals for slaughter will always involve
the death of at least one animal while raising vegetables
doesn't require the deaths of any.

>The question of
>which diet involves fewer cannot be answered on a black-and-white
>basis, because each individual diet must be evaluated independently.
>However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
>always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
>same parameters in each case. An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
>involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
>diet would involve at least some animal deaths.

That's very similar in sentiment to what I wrote above. I must
stop jumping in before reading to the end of peoples' posts. Too
late to rub it out now.

>As Derek has noted,
>the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,
>so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
>world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
>in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.
>
>Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
>is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
>meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
>its death at human hands. An equivalent diet of gathering need not
>involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
>If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
>are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
>them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property, and
>again in the process of slaughtering them.

Well said, Glorfindel.

>Collateral deaths in
>the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
>most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
>rights in "pest control."
>
>There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
>just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
>applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing vastly
>different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
>including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
>This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.
>
>BTW, Jane Goodall has recently published a new book on the issue of
>animal- and environmentally-friendly diet, for those who are interested.

I ought to set some time aside to read Jane's work. As yet I read
nothing from her at all, and that's an embarrassing admission.