> On 7 Feb 2006 19:41:04 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 6 Feb 2006 09:59:35 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:29:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >>
> >> >> >> You proved once again that you had no idea what you were
> >> >> >> pasting when you pasted the fact that life can have positive
> >> >> >> value. You had no clue then, you have no clue now, so most
> >> >> >> likely in another couple of years you still will have no clue. It's
> >> >> >> one of the many pitifully amusing things about all this.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> >> >> >experience life when you consume animal products.
> >> >>
> >> >> I can feel satisfaction in contributing to lives of postive value,
> >> >> even for animals raised to be eaten.
> >> >
> >> >Why? By consuming animal products you are not enabling animals
> >> >to experience life,
> >>
> >> I am contributing to them however insignificantly.
> >
> >Animals will continue to experience life whether or not you consume
> >animal products. Livestock farming effects which particular animals
> >do
>
> I'm still and always left to wonder which type wildlife you/"aras" want
> to promote life for instead of livestock, and why. Strange you can't
> understand that until you do it, you haven't even suggested an alternative.

An alternative would be looking after ourselves on the smallest
amount of land possible/practical and leaving the rest wild on the
assumption that nature is better at providing decent lives for animals
than humans with commercial motives.


> >but that in itself is nothing to be proud of.
> >
> >> Vegans are not.
> >
> >Then again they are not preventing the lives of other animals
> >by appropriating land resources for use by livestock.
>
> No. They do worse by appropriating land to grow crops:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Environmental Benefits
>
> Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
> advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
> erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
> and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.
>
> Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
> average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
> Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
> was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
> pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
> pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
> also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
> whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
> limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
> the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
> crop production. It will also protect our water quality.
>
> High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
> can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
> several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
> pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
> waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
> wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
> phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
> low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).
>
> Wildlife Advantages
>
> Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
> meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
> the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
> thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
> 1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
> frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
> populations are now at risk.
>
> Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
> because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
> (However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
> rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
> detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
> until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
> as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
> bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
> benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
> cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
> provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.
>
> Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
> the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
> (including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
> wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
> future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
> invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
> also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
> may serve as wildlife habitat.
>
> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html


(a) The comparison is loaded because you are comparing well managed
pastures with typical crop fields.

(b) Growing crops requires us to appropriate less land than grazing
cattle.

Having said that I do not see anything particularly wrong with raising
cattle
for food.

> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >> Vegans only deliberately contribute to wildlife deaths, but never to
> >> livestock lives.
> >>
> >> >merely enabling them to experience being farmed.
> >>
> >> It's that life or no life for them, not that life or a wild life.
> >
> >Or.... that life for them or a wild life for a different animal
>
> I'm still and always left to wonder which type wildlife you/"aras" want
> to promote life for instead of livestock, and why....

I just see no reason to value the life of livestock animals above
the lives of wild animals. I believe that it would be better to kill
more animals and have more animal life on the planet than to
have less of each. What I am opposed to is your selective
application of this sentiment.

> >> I can still
> >> feel good about contributing to decent lives for livestock, even after
> >> 6 years of "aras" telling me that I can't. How many billion animals
> >> have lived and died since I was first told that it's not worthy of
> >> consideration? I wonder...
> >
> >How many billions of animals would have lived or died otherwise.
> >I wonder....
>
> Why do you wonder about those imaginary nonexistent "entities",
> but can't even make yourself consider the billions of animals who
> did live,

look to the future and the now. One can't change the past.

> do live,

How does slaughtering an animal equate to considering the animals
who do live? I have my own ways of justifying it but I want to see
yours.

>and will live as livestock?

The animals that could live as livestock deserve exactly the same
consideration as the animals that could live as wild animals.