dh@. wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2006 16:55:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 10 Feb 2006 18:00:03 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> I'm in favor of wildlife AND livestock.
> >
> >I'm in favour of more individual animals, not more groups of animals.
> >
> >> I also feel that many livestock
> >> have better, longer lives than many wildlife.
> >
> >Yes but the vice versa of that statement is also true.
>
> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
> if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
> we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
> killed.

Not really. We didn't create them. We just shaped habitats
and controlled breeding (which can happen in nature without
our interference)

> The animals are not being cheated out of any part
> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it.

To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life is
transparantly selective and self serving.

> >> You can't tell me why it
> >> would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
> >> example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
> >> they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
> >> without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
> >
> >If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
> >I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
> >is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
>
> I believe so:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m

What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
percentage.

> I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
> were a great place for chickens.

AW organisations take the opposite PoV but I applaud you for
showing the concern to inspect the conditions of the chickens
you intend to eat.

> >Has selective breeding and feeding methods resulted in them
> >growing too fast for their skeletal structures to keep up with?
>
> I doubt it. Even though I've know "aras" to say so,

AWers too.

> I don't believe
> that crap and have never seen any signs of it. They only live for
> six weeks anyway.
>
> >> And even if four or five
> >> of our quail live to reproduce themselves some day, they only have
> >> one or two hatches a year where the chicken house(s) could be
> >> raising their 40 thousand chicks....did I say 20 or 40...lets just say
> >> 60 then...60 thousand of them every couple of months for 6 weeks
> >> vs. a couple of dozen quail at best twice a year for 4 weeks. So far the
> >> commercial influence doesn't appear lacking to the wildlife side.
> >
> >Here's the other thing. Just because your chickens and quail are
> >packed together like commutors on the London underground does not
> >mean they can be supported on such a small area of land. In order to
> >feed them land has to be appropriated for cultivation and 1kg of feed
> >converts to <1 kg of meat.
>
> It's the same as growing crops to feed humans imo.

It shows that your talk of having a couple dozen quail
or a few thousand chickens in an area is profoundly
misleading since it gives the impression that the same
land area can be used for either.

> [...]
> >> In fact when all those type things are considered, I'm not even
> >> convinced that we could make it as vegans, and don't believe
> >> "ar" would work AT ALL
> >
> >In the developed economy where animal and plant production
> >are seen largely as seperate enterprises then with the exception
> >of pasture raised or game animals, cultivating crops for human
> >consumption is a far more efficient utilization of resources.
>
> "ar" would require that it's illegal to

deliberately

> kill any animals in crop
> production, or the construction of roads and buildings, or the
> generation of electric power, or production of wood or paper,
> etc....

The point is that LoL if applied consistently requires you to
minimize land use so that more animals can experience life.

> >Where they are part of a mixed enterprise with the animals
> >fertilizing the soil and supplementing their feed with forage,
> >waste products and sometimes even weeds and pests then
> >I'm not so confident.
>
> They always are. It's synergistic. Things supporting other
> things. The more supported things replace the less supported
> things. Which is why I always stress that we need to consider
> what we want to support, as much or more than what we don't.
>
> >> >(b) Growing crops requires us to appropriate less land than grazing
> >> >cattle.
> >>
> >> You read the differences. You don't care about wildlife, which
> >> is what you just proved. You people ALWAYS prove it.
> >
> >No. I didn't. I pointed out relevant factors that you appear to have
> >neglected when promoting the meat.
>
> I probably didn't neglect them. I probably considered them and
> concluded that I'm okay with the hundreds of thousands of chickens
> over a few quail, Dutch's mice frogs and groundhogs, and whatever
> else you want to throw in.

Take all the land used to grow crops for chickens minus the land
that would be needed to grow crops directly for humans if we weren't
eating those chickens. Now I want to throw in all the animals that
could have lived on that land if it had been left wild. Ok?

> And if you do throw them in I'll consider them,
> but most likely still be okay with the chickens.

Okay but don't claim you are doing it so that animals
can experience life.
>
> >> Every
> >> single time people prove that they care more about promoting
> >> veganism than they do about human influence on animals,
> >> when we get to the examples where veggies cause more deaths
> >> than livestock farming.
> >
> >(A) I thought we agreed that the amount of animal life is more
> >important than the number of animals we kill.
>
> In that regard we *should* agree that life always means death,
> every single time, for every animal and human!

Truism. What is its significance?

> >(B) I am still not convinced that any animal lives are saved
> >in grazing livestock instead of cultivating crops.
>
> See "The Least Harm Principle..." which I'll paste to the bottom
> of this message.

Davis made a serious error in that article, which has subsequently
been corrected by Matheny. Davis compared the animal deaths
per ha. He should have compared animal deaths per calorie.
Matheny used Davis' guesses to calculate that growing crops
causes fewer animal deaths per calorie.
>
> [...]
> >> You are being more selective than I am, since my "selection"
> >> includes both livestock and wildlife, but yours only wildlife.
> >
> >You misunderstand me.
>
> As yet I can't believe that.
>
> >> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Some can learn from it.
> >
> >True.
> >
> >>Others apparently can not, and don't
> >> want to.
> >>
> >> >> do live,
> >> >
> >> >How does slaughtering an animal equate to considering the animals
> >> >who do live?
> >>
> >> It contributes however insignificantly to more of the same
> >> --good or bad--in the future.
> >
> >No
>
> Yes.
>
> >that equates to considering the animals that could live in the
> >future,
> >but only those animals that you want to live because they are useful
> >to you.
>
> It's true for any animals you contribute to--good or bad--like I've
> been trying to get you to understand. It's truly amazing that anyone
> can't understand that simple fact. I don't really believe you can't
> understand it either, so I'm left to wonder why you pretend not to.

At this stage all the farm animals who might exist in the future
are potential animals who will exist if we continue as we are.
All the wild animals who might be able to exist on the same
land are also potential animals who might exist if we change
our behaviour. Compared with a vegan you are not promoting
life for extra animals, merely for different animals. You are right
that you have not managed to make me understand why you
deserve moral credit for this and you probably never will.

> >> >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.
> >>
> >> That's what I encourage.
> >
> >Maybe that's what you mean to encourage but it isn't the impression
> >you give.
>
> That's because usually/always when I'm discussing it, I'm discussing it
> with people who only want us to consider wildlife but *not!* livestock, which
> is certainly the impression that you give.
>
> >> That's what you/"aras" oppose.
> >
> >I don't oppose it. I just advocated it.