dh@. wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2006 09:23:09 -0800, wrote:
>
> >We could breed dogs and toss them off buildings, really fat dogs that
> >explode on impact ni satisfying ways. The breeders of these fat dogs
> >could defend themselves by saying that these fatties cannot survive in
> >the wild and who are we to deny them the right to live and other
> >distracting posing-as-if-sympathetic, but in this seemingly more
> >extreme example - a read of Peter Singer will show that it is simply
> >seemingly - we would legislate both their work and future barely viable
> >fat dogs out of existence.
>
> We could continue raising animals for food and deliberately
> provide them with decent lives too. That's what I'm in favor
> of, and so far no one has suggested something I consider
> better.
This would seriously cut into profits so it is as much a hallucination
as me talking about the phasing out of meat eating. But given these
are two halluciantions, I think mine is better. For the reasons I said
earlier, but also because meat eating not only sets up the unnatural
and often tortuous lives of farm animals, but also denies life of any
kind to all the creatures that could be supported on that same grazing
land or the farm land created out of, for example, rainforests, to
support the growth of vegetable proteins in the inneficient support of
meat eating.
It is not simply a choice between a cow with life or no life
it is also a choice between cow lives and the lifes of many other
creatures (sometimes even species of animals and plants are threatened
and destroyed)
Meat eating represents a radical simplification of ecosystems and it is
not simply the livestock animals who suffer or whose individual and
species-wide existence is on the table.