Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #361 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default The numbers game

"Dave" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:


>> >> "Other than in areas where animals are fattened predominantly on
>> >> grazing
>> >> land that could not easily grow food crops for direct human
>> >> consumption,
>> >> or elsewhere they eat primarily crop residues or other waste products,
>> >> livestock farming actually wastes resources."
>> >>
>> >> Therefore when animals *are* raised using the above-mentioned methods,
>> >> they
>> >> actually make use of inputs that would otherwise go to waste. Where is
>> >> the
>> >> admonition by these authors that we *ought to* use this conservation
>> >> method?
>> >
>> > I'd argue that the quote you provide above is an implicit admonition of
>> > sorts. :-)

>>
>> How many vegans would take it as such?

>
> The article wasn't aimed at vegans.


Perhaps not, but that "implicit admonition" as you called it, should ring a
virtual bell in their alleged moral concern about animals harmed by humans.
I say it would not. They see the last line, "livestock farming actually
wastes resources", that's the message they take from that paragraph because
that's what they believe to be true, categorically.

>>
>> >> >>That is not figured into that equation.
>> >> >
>> >> > It isn't relevant to the comparison between an acre of corn and one
>> >> > grass fed steer.
>> >>
>> >> If one is going to grow corn on a particular acre of land due to it's
>> >> location and soil composition then one needs to compare how much
>> >> livestock feed that corn would produce and how much steer body
>> >> weight that translates to, compared to how much human-edible niblets
>> >> corn it would produce, not how much grazing grass would grow on
>> >> that acre of land. Those are two very different land uses.
>> >
>> > On this occasion though we were comparing the number of
>> > deaths caused per calorie of grass fed beef and corn.

>>
>> The discussion was about corn. Grass-fed beef cattle don't eat corn.

>
> I thought the discussion was about whether beef from grass fed cattle
> causes more or less animal deaths per calorie than cereal crops with
> corn being used as an example of a cereal.


No, it was not about grass-fed beef, all the links refer to conversion
ratios into meat of cereal crops used to "finish" cattle compared to the
gross weight of those crops at harvest. You might be thinking or Davis's
research.


>> >> >> >> No. of cattle killed in above equation = 1.
>> >> >> >> Decline in woodmouse population per hectare of cereal production
>> >> >> >> according to study by Mcdonald and Tew = 20
>> >> >> >> Decline per acre = ~8.
>> >> >> >> % decline due to mortality unknown.
>> >> >> >> Analysis only looks at one species and one part of the process.
>> >> >> >> Slaughter in the case of beef, harvesting in the case of corn.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This assumes that pasture-ruminant production involves no
>> >> >> > collateral
>> >> >> > deaths. Davis didn't find this assumption realistic.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Grass is a very low-impact crop. Also, there is so much waste and
>> >> >> byproduct
>> >> >> feed used for livestock that the industry could conceivably survive
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> *no* dedicated crops, particularly cattle..
>> >> >
>> >> > "Could concievably" is not the same as "actually does".
>> >>
>> >> I realize that Dave. Vegans are fond of boasting that "the ideal vegan
>> >> diet"
>> >> would involve *no* animal deaths, a point which I would dispute,
>> >> however
>> >> it
>> >> is at least as valid to point out that "the ideal non-vegan diet" also
>> >> has
>> >> advantages.
>> >
>> > I would not dispute these advantages. In this thread I raised the issue
>> > of grass-clover leys being used in crop rotations and how having
>> > livestock grazing on it makes sense. I also wonder whether and
>> > to what extent we could feed animals on waste products. I seem
>> > to remember you saying you used to be involved in dairy farming.
>> > Do you think a cow could gain adequate nutrition entirely from the
>> > parts of plants that we normally throw away?

>>
>> Cows can get adequate nutrition with no help from humans at all, just as
>> ruminants have done for eons.

>
> I know they can. What I was specifically wondering is whether indoor
> raised
> cattle could do so using only the non-human-consumable parts of
> grain, vegetable and legume crops.


With *no* grazing? They could do it, but the amount that could be produced
that way would not come close to meeting the current demand. A more
practical question is could pastured cattle be supplemented only with hay
and waste and by-products, and produce an adequate supply to the market at
tolerable prices? That's NO grain specifically grown to "finish". I think
the answer is yes, but it would more expensive. Then the comparative death
tolls including collateral deaths and overall impact would in my opinion
swing towards pastured meat over cultivated crops as postulated by Davis.




[..]


  #362 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Can we do better?

> wrote

>> Vegans and ARAs
>> frequently apply their prohibitions to bees and silkworms, why not ants?

>
> I would say the ones who are worried about bees and silkworms probably
> should be worried about ants as well.


They aren't, and the reason why is very apparent, AR and veganism are not
really about animal suffering, or health, or environmental impact, or wasted
resources. Those arguments are used to give credibility to AR ideas, all
come after the fact, and all have *some* merit, just not as much as vegans
like to pretend. No, veganism/AR is politics, it is the next logical(?)
advance in rights after humans, first women, minorities, then children, then
it seems, animals. It is seen in this view as wrong to exploit and
deliberately harm animals just as it is seen as wrong to do so to women and
children in today's western society. Once a person buys into this idea, it
seems intuitively obvious to them that it ought to follow. However I submit
that when you step back and look objectively and dispassionately at *all*
the animals involved, it becomes apparent that it's competely irrational to
extrapolate human political imperatives to animals.


>> The
>> answer is that AR notions are misappropriated political ideas
>> masquerading
>> as high-minded ideals.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >a typical pro-ARA argument tactic
>> >

>



  #363 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Can we do better?


Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
>
> >> Vegans and ARAs
> >> frequently apply their prohibitions to bees and silkworms, why not ants?

> >
> > I would say the ones who are worried about bees and silkworms probably
> > should be worried about ants as well.

>
> They aren't, and the reason why is very apparent, AR and veganism are not
> really about animal suffering, or health, or environmental impact, or wasted
> resources. Those arguments are used to give credibility to AR ideas, all
> come after the fact, and all have *some* merit, just not as much as vegans
> like to pretend. No, veganism/AR is politics, it is the next logical(?)
> advance in rights after humans, first women, minorities, then children, then
> it seems, animals. It is seen in this view as wrong to exploit and
> deliberately harm animals just as it is seen as wrong to do so to women and
> children in today's western society. Once a person buys into this idea, it
> seems intuitively obvious to them that it ought to follow. However I submit
> that when you step back and look objectively and dispassionately at *all*
> the animals involved, it becomes apparent that it's competely irrational to
> extrapolate human political imperatives to animals.
>


I don't think it's irrational. I think the relevantly similar interests
of all sentient beings should be given equal consideration.

>
> >> The
> >> answer is that AR notions are misappropriated political ideas
> >> masquerading
> >> as high-minded ideals.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >a typical pro-ARA argument tactic
> >> >

> >


  #364 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Can we do better?


Dutch wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> "Dave" > wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> Dave wrote:
> >> >> >> >
wrote:
> >> >> >> > > Dutch wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Ants are social insects, similar to bees in terms of size and
> >> >> >> > structure.
> >> >> >> > Why do you label them "unsentient"? Is there not a benefit of the
> >> >> >> > doubt
> >> >> >> > in play here?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Based on DeGrazia's discussion of the evidence, I felt it was
> >> >> >> probably
> >> >> >> reasonable to assume they were insentient. I haven't got the book
> >> >> >> with
> >> >> >> me at the moment. When I get back to Sydney I can have a look and
> >> >> >> discuss the evidence with you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > OK. I'm afraid I have little to contribute to the subject though.
> >> >> > Perhaps I will buy the DeGrazia book myself if research suggests
> >> >> > he is a well respected authority because the topic is certainly
> >> >> > interesting. I'm just saying that, to a layman like me, the way the
> >> >> > bees behave seems to indicate some degree of conscious will.
> >> >>
> >> >> I find that a stretch. There's a huge gap between having pain
> >> >> receptors
> >> >> or
> >> >> some equivalent defense mechanism, and having conscious will. I am
> >> >> even
> >> >> dubious that most people have it.
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps I got a bit carried away but the possibility that honey bees
> >> > and
> >> > ants have a conscious will does not seem to me like something we
> >> > can dismiss out of hand. It's a subject I find interesting and I will
> >> > look
> >> > at it more closely. Right now I am not qualified to argue the case.
> >>
> >> The salient point here is that "sentience" is a misapplied term by ARAs,

> >
> > Can you give me some examples of this misapplication?

>
> You already did. Sentience is mistakenly used to mean the ability to use
> complex reasoning, as mammals do, when it actually just means the ability to
> feel, in other words to have the sense of touch.


I didn't mistakenly use "sentience" in this way. I didn't see anyone
else who did, either.

> Any animal that has sensory
> touch receptors can feel, therefore could feel pain. There is no
> evolutionary reason that insects would evolve without the defense mechanism
> of the ability to feel pain.
>


As I say, if you want to comment on DeGrazia's discussion of the issue
then go ahead.

> >> and
> >> they use this misapplication to exclude themselves from guilt for
> >> complicity
> >> in a whole myriad of potential animal suffering associated with their
> >> consumer lifestyles. This enables them to keep applying the focus where
> >> they
> >> believe it properly belongs, on those evil and misguided meat-eaters.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> >> Perhaps I should give them the benefit
> >> >> >> of the doubt. But I don't think I'm going to give myself a guilt
> >> >> >> trip
> >> >> >> about killing mosquitoes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No. I don't think you should give yourself guilt trips about killing
> >> >> > any type of parasite.
> >> >>
> >> >> He just moved the goalposts again.
> >>
> >> Meaning he was challenged on ants so he tried using mosquitos as his
> >> example, a typical pro-ARA argument tactic.

> >
> > I was challenged on ants and I said something in response. Talking
> > about mosquitoes is just changing the subject, not "moving the
> > goalposts". I am allowed to talk about more than one thing.

>
> You lost confidence in your assertion about ant sentience so you tried a
> flyer with mosquitos.


No, I still have confidence in it.

> The fact is we don't know, except that we cause a lot
> of death and suffering to animals, that's just how real life is.


True. And I believe we should take steps to minimize it.

  #365 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Can we do better?

"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
> pearl wrote:
> > > "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...

> >
> > > > > Pearl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 'Two years ago, he and Mr. Worm used the same
> > > > > data to show that commercial fishing had depleted
> > > > > the world's oceans of 90 per cent of the overall
> > > > > abundance of big fish that flourished 50 years ago.

> >
> > > There is no ecological problem with fish
> > > eating per se, just killing fish faster than they can
> > > reproduce. There are responsible fisheries that
> > > moniter their impact on the marine environment.

> >
> > 'What was natural in the coastal oceans?
> > Jeremy B. C. Jackson*
> > Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California
> > at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093; and Center for Tropical
> > Paleoecology and Archeology, Smithsonian Tropical Research
> > Institute, Apartado 2072, Balboa, Republic of Panama
> > ...
> > '(1) No wild Atlantic coastal fishery is sustainable at anything
> > close to present levels of exploitation.

>
> That is an argument for reducing our consumption, not necessarily
> ceasing it entirely.



Too much damage has already been done.
The marine ecosystem now needs to recover.

> > Coastal marine ecosystems
> > already have been changed beyond recognition because of direct
> > and indirect effects of overfishing. Most fishing is unsustainable
> > because (i) inexorable growth of the human population drives
> > increasing demand,

>
> Creating more pressure on the land and at sea or leave the
> sea completely alone and create even more pressure on land
> resources.


We can use some sea vegetables. Certain algae provide
EPA and DHA,- the long chain fatty acids found in fish.

> > (ii) development of mechanized fishing
> > technologies severely damages the environment,

>
> That's why I advocate handlining.


'And the fact is, a large number of small-boats concentrated
into an ecosystem can do as much damage to fish stocks and
marine ecology as a fleet of larger vessels. Too many boats
chasing too few fish always adds up to a race to ecological
disaster and economic ruin.'

Too much damage has already been done.
The marine ecosystem now needs to recover.

> > (iii) cheap and
> > rapid transportation makes even the most distant populations
> > vulnerable to exploitation,

>
> Good. That allows us to spread our pressure more evenly
> throughout the marine food chain.


Too much damage has already been done.
The marine ecosystem now needs to recover.

> > and (iv) management has consistently
> > failed to conserve depleted stocks (9, 15, 16, 33, 43, 77, 90, 98, 99).
> > Evidence for ecological transformation and loss of fisheries
> > resources on Western Atlantic coral reefs, seagrass beds, bays,
> > estuaries, and the continental shelves is scientifically sound, and
> > the burden of proof belongs on those who would still fish rather
> > than the other way around (133)

>
> That's why I promote the MSC label.


Too much damage has already been done.
The marine ecosystem now needs to recover.

> > . Monitoring is a basic tool for
> > management, but no more monitoring is required to know what
> > we have lost. Scientific efforts should be redirected toward
> > evaluating options for restoration of resources rather than
> > perpetuating the myth of sustainable fisheries. It is hard to
> > imagine how increasingly sophisticated and frequent
> > environmental monitoring and micromanagement could do a
> > fraction of the good of simply stopping fishing. There is no
> > rational scientific basis to continue fishing of wild stocks
> > along the Atlantic coast of North America or in the Caribbean
> > for the foreseeable future.
> > ..
> > http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/10/5411
> >
> > The same applies virtually everywhere. See;
> > http://www.pewtrusts.com/a-v/oceans_map_flash.swf
> >
> > 'Not only have many major fish stocks been depleted, some
> > even collapsing completely such as cod off Canada's east
> > coast but excessive fishing pressure is placing many other
> > marine animals at risk. From the north Pacific and Atlantic
> > Oceans to the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, marine
> > mammals, seabirds, sharks and key fish species in the
> > intricate web of marine biodiversity are being overexploited,
> > caught and killed as 'bycatch', or threatened by the
> > industrialized fisheries for species that are critical links in
> > the marine food web.

>
> Which is why I don't propose indiscriminate fish eating.


Too much damage has already been done.
The marine ecosystem now needs to recover.

> > Fisheries analysts at the United Nations Food and Agriculture
> > Organization (FAO) report that virtually 70% of the world's
> > fisheries are fully- to over-exploited, depleted, or in a state
> > of collapse.

>
> IOW 30% of the world's fisheries have potential for growth
> at the expense of the other 70% if we start to treat the
> marine ecosystems with the respect they deserve.


'(i) inexorable growth of the human population drives
increasing demand,'

Too much damage has already been done.
The marine ecosystem now needs to recover.

> > ..
> > Dr. Pauly's team of scientists used a mountain of data
> > compiled over 50 years by the UN Food and Agriculture
> > Organization on more than 200 distinct species caught in
> > the world's oceans and seas. They catalogued how in one
> > ocean after another fishing has caused the depletion of
> > the biggest, most valuable stocks, and then worked its
> > way down the marine food web, catching more and more
> > of the smaller species. Dr. Pauly warned that at the current
> > rate of exploitation many stocks could be eliminated within
> > 25 years. "You can end up with the sea full of jelly fish,"
> > said Pauly. He summed up his concern in a gloomy prediction:
> >
> > "The big fish, the bill fish, the groupers, the big things will
> > be gone. It is happening now. If things go unchecked, we
> > will have a sea full of little horrible things that nobody wants
> > to eat. We might end up with a marine junkyard dominated
> > by plankton."
> > ..
> > And the fact is, a large number of small-boats concentrated
> > into an ecosystem can do as much damage to fish stocks and
> > marine ecology as a fleet of larger vessels. Too many boats
> > chasing too few fish always adds up to a race to ecological
> > disaster and economic ruin.
> > ..'
> > http://archive.greenpeace.org/oceans...deadahead.html

>






  #366 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Can we do better?

"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...

pearl wrote:
<..>
> The usual list of the few species "which MCS believes
> are fished within sustainable levels". (Doesn't the 'believes'
> here worry you a bit, Dave?).


Only a little bit. It's not like any other species of predator
actively moniters the effect they are having on their prey.

-- Humans are NOT a predatory species. --

> And what exactly does
> 'sustainable' mean? Hopefully not reducing the populations
> any further? But recovery to the former healthy abundance?


I take sustainable to mean that there is no continuing decline
in population levels.

-- Not recovery then. --

> Never mind, eh. To an addict nothing else really matters.
> You'll find one false justification after another to continue.


I'm not addicted to fish and you have no evidence to the contrary.

-- You know I do. Think 'fat'. --

<..>
> It all adds up. And if everyone started eating such fish
> those populations would also be depleted in no time.


If everyone started eating such fish than the demand would
grow and new handline fisheries would emerge to exploit different
stocks.

-- 'And the fact is, a large number of small-boats concentrated
into an ecosystem can do as much damage to fish stocks and
marine ecology as a fleet of larger vessels. Too many boats
chasing too few fish always adds up to a race to ecological
disaster and economic ruin.' --

The more fish we eat the less land habitat we need
to destroy to cultivate plants.

-- We can use some sea vegetables. Certain algae provide
EPA and DHA,- the long chain fatty acids found in fish.

When humans to break their meat habit, arable land
currently used for feed crops will more than make
up for any calories, etc. from animals, including fish. --


  #367 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Can we do better?


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>>
>> >> Vegans and ARAs
>> >> frequently apply their prohibitions to bees and silkworms, why not
>> >> ants?
>> >
>> > I would say the ones who are worried about bees and silkworms probably
>> > should be worried about ants as well.

>>
>> They aren't, and the reason why is very apparent, AR and veganism are not
>> really about animal suffering, or health, or environmental impact, or
>> wasted
>> resources. Those arguments are used to give credibility to AR ideas, all
>> come after the fact, and all have *some* merit, just not as much as
>> vegans
>> like to pretend. No, veganism/AR is politics, it is the next logical(?)
>> advance in rights after humans, first women, minorities, then children,
>> then
>> it seems, animals. It is seen in this view as wrong to exploit and
>> deliberately harm animals just as it is seen as wrong to do so to women
>> and
>> children in today's western society. Once a person buys into this idea,
>> it
>> seems intuitively obvious to them that it ought to follow. However I
>> submit
>> that when you step back and look objectively and dispassionately at *all*
>> the animals involved, it becomes apparent that it's competely irrational
>> to
>> extrapolate human political imperatives to animals.
>>

>
> I don't think it's irrational.


If you were thinking rationally you we would see that it is.

> I think the relevantly similar interests
> of all sentient beings should be given equal consideration.


That is exactly the kind of fuzzy thinking to which I was referring. It
would be utterly impossible to give the (sic) "relevantly similar interests
of all sentient beings equal consideration". Jain monks presumably try to do
this, but I am doubtful that even their efforts are genuine. Even so, the
rest of the world operates on a pragmatic basis. What you are suggesting is
simply an absurd pipe-dream. What we can plausibly do is treat animals with
greater consideration and respect.

>
>>
>> >> The
>> >> answer is that AR notions are misappropriated political ideas
>> >> masquerading
>> >> as high-minded ideals.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >a typical pro-ARA argument tactic
>> >> >
>> >

>



  #368 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Can we do better?

> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:

[..]

>> >> The salient point here is that "sentience" is a misapplied term by
>> >> ARAs,
>> >
>> > Can you give me some examples of this misapplication?

>>
>> You already did. Sentience is mistakenly used to mean the ability to use
>> complex reasoning, as mammals do, when it actually just means the ability
>> to
>> feel, in other words to have the sense of touch.

>
> I didn't mistakenly use "sentience" in this way. I didn't see anyone
> else who did, either.


Then your point is absurd. You haven't defined sentience rigorously and
can't determine which animals are and which aren't. The only way this
"egalitarian" ideal could even begin to work is if you begin by defining
most animal species as non-sentient, and you can't do that.

>> Any animal that has sensory
>> touch receptors can feel, therefore could feel pain. There is no
>> evolutionary reason that insects would evolve without the defense
>> mechanism
>> of the ability to feel pain.
>>

>
> As I say, if you want to comment on DeGrazia's discussion of the issue
> then go ahead.


That's not my job. If you want to introduce some of his ideas into this
debate then be my guest.

>> >> and
>> >> they use this misapplication to exclude themselves from guilt for
>> >> complicity
>> >> in a whole myriad of potential animal suffering associated with their
>> >> consumer lifestyles. This enables them to keep applying the focus
>> >> where
>> >> they
>> >> believe it properly belongs, on those evil and misguided meat-eaters.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> Perhaps I should give them the benefit
>> >> >> >> of the doubt. But I don't think I'm going to give myself a guilt
>> >> >> >> trip
>> >> >> >> about killing mosquitoes.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No. I don't think you should give yourself guilt trips about
>> >> >> > killing
>> >> >> > any type of parasite.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He just moved the goalposts again.
>> >>
>> >> Meaning he was challenged on ants so he tried using mosquitos as his
>> >> example, a typical pro-ARA argument tactic.
>> >
>> > I was challenged on ants and I said something in response. Talking
>> > about mosquitoes is just changing the subject, not "moving the
>> > goalposts". I am allowed to talk about more than one thing.

>>
>> You lost confidence in your assertion about ant sentience so you tried a
>> flyer with mosquitos.

>
> No, I still have confidence in it.


You shouldn't have confidence in it.

>> The fact is we don't know, except that we cause a lot
>> of death and suffering to animals, that's just how real life is.

>
> True. And I believe we should take steps to minimize it.


More specifically, you think everyone should follow the vegan ritual of
abstaining from animal products.


  #369 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default The numbers game

"pearl" > wrote
> The meat industry tend to water-down this low efficiency rate
> by figuring-in lifelong forage consumption to their calculations,
> which doesn't give us the true conversion ratio of grain > beef.


*During the finishing stage*, which only involves ~10-15% of the weight, not
during the whole life of the steer. It doesn't matter anyway, grain is less
valuable, less desirable and less nutritious/kg than beef, so you can't make
a direct comparsion. The comparison between beef and potatoes per acre
suffers from the same problem. If grain were relatively more scarce, and
hence more highly valued (priced), then it would not be used as feed, and
grazing animals would only be finished using waste and by-product materials,
or not at all, which would render this whole topic moot.


  #370 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Can we do better?


Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:

> [..]
>
> >> >> The salient point here is that "sentience" is a misapplied term by
> >> >> ARAs,
> >> >
> >> > Can you give me some examples of this misapplication?
> >>
> >> You already did. Sentience is mistakenly used to mean the ability to use
> >> complex reasoning, as mammals do, when it actually just means the ability
> >> to
> >> feel, in other words to have the sense of touch.

> >
> > I didn't mistakenly use "sentience" in this way. I didn't see anyone
> > else who did, either.

>
> Then your point is absurd. You haven't defined sentience rigorously and
> can't determine which animals are and which aren't. The only way this
> "egalitarian" ideal could even begin to work is if you begin by defining
> most animal species as non-sentient, and you can't do that.
>


I defined sentience as the capacity to have feelings. I gave a
reference to a philosophical work which examines some of the scientific
literature and concludes there is probably good reason to think insects
are not sentient.

> >> Any animal that has sensory
> >> touch receptors can feel, therefore could feel pain. There is no
> >> evolutionary reason that insects would evolve without the defense
> >> mechanism
> >> of the ability to feel pain.
> >>

> >
> > As I say, if you want to comment on DeGrazia's discussion of the issue
> > then go ahead.

>
> That's not my job. If you want to introduce some of his ideas into this
> debate then be my guest.
>


It's up to you whether you want to comment on them or not. If you
choose not to, you have no basis for criticizing my stance.

> >> >> and
> >> >> they use this misapplication to exclude themselves from guilt for
> >> >> complicity
> >> >> in a whole myriad of potential animal suffering associated with their
> >> >> consumer lifestyles. This enables them to keep applying the focus
> >> >> where
> >> >> they
> >> >> believe it properly belongs, on those evil and misguided meat-eaters.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Perhaps I should give them the benefit
> >> >> >> >> of the doubt. But I don't think I'm going to give myself a guilt
> >> >> >> >> trip
> >> >> >> >> about killing mosquitoes.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > No. I don't think you should give yourself guilt trips about
> >> >> >> > killing
> >> >> >> > any type of parasite.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> He just moved the goalposts again.
> >> >>
> >> >> Meaning he was challenged on ants so he tried using mosquitos as his
> >> >> example, a typical pro-ARA argument tactic.
> >> >
> >> > I was challenged on ants and I said something in response. Talking
> >> > about mosquitoes is just changing the subject, not "moving the
> >> > goalposts". I am allowed to talk about more than one thing.
> >>
> >> You lost confidence in your assertion about ant sentience so you tried a
> >> flyer with mosquitos.

> >
> > No, I still have confidence in it.

>
> You shouldn't have confidence in it.
>


You have no basis for saying this, because you've refused to go and
examine the support for it which I cited.

> >> The fact is we don't know, except that we cause a lot
> >> of death and suffering to animals, that's just how real life is.

> >
> > True. And I believe we should take steps to minimize it.

>
> More specifically, you think everyone should follow the vegan ritual of
> abstaining from animal products.


I believe everyone should make every reasonable effort not to provide
financial support for institutions or practices that cause or support
unnecessary harm. I believe this would require boycotting most animal
products that are produced in our society. There may be a few
exceptions.



  #371 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Can we do better?


rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> >> ups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Again, which causes
> >> >> >> >> more/less death and suffering? Rice?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Who grows the rice? Where is it grown? How is it grown?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Potatoes? Bananas?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Who grows the bananas? where are they grown? How are they
> >> >> > grown. You are being too simplistic. Just as not all beef
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > same, the same is true of rice, bananas, apples and
> >> >> > potatoes.
> >> >> =====================
> >> >> Except for bananas you're right.
> >> >
> >> > Why "except bananas"?
> >> =======================
> >> Because all bananas on the market are exactly the same.
> >> Exactly.
> >> They are not a seed crop. They are all produced from an
> >> original
> >> plant. They are all clones, genetically the same.

> >
> > The method of production is not the same and environmental
> > impact is not the same.
> > "The differences between the production of bananas in small,
> > shaded farms as compared to conventional chemical-intensive
> > monocultural production is readily apparent when, having walked
> > through a conventional plantation, one walks through a finca
> > (farm) of one of the coop-member growers."
> > http://www.rainforestrelief.org/Camp...n_Organic.html
> > ===============================

> Yes, that's nice, but my statement is still true. "You" cannot
> eat them. From the same website... Maybe you should read what I
> say, and what you post as reply, eh?
> "...Currently, no fresh banana available in the US is grown in a
> way that is not detrimental to the rainforests..."


That is almost certainly true but some are worse than others - they
aren't
all the same as you claimed. There are non-profit organisations that
accredit bananas as for example organic or fairtrade. There is also
a "better banana" logo licensed by the Rainforest Alliance which are
claimed to ensure better rainforest conservation, wildlife protection,
soil conservation, waste management, and worker benefits.
90% of the bananas Chiquita sells in Europe and two thirds of
the bananas they sell in the US meet these standards.
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1200/et1200s10.html

  #372 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Can we do better?


pearl wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
> >
> > pearl wrote:
> > > > "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
> > >
> > > > > > Pearl wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 'Two years ago, he and Mr. Worm used the same
> > > > > > data to show that commercial fishing had depleted
> > > > > > the world's oceans of 90 per cent of the overall
> > > > > > abundance of big fish that flourished 50 years ago.
> > >
> > > > There is no ecological problem with fish
> > > > eating per se, just killing fish faster than they can
> > > > reproduce. There are responsible fisheries that
> > > > moniter their impact on the marine environment.
> > >
> > > 'What was natural in the coastal oceans?
> > > Jeremy B. C. Jackson*
> > > Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California
> > > at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093; and Center for Tropical
> > > Paleoecology and Archeology, Smithsonian Tropical Research
> > > Institute, Apartado 2072, Balboa, Republic of Panama
> > > ...
> > > '(1) No wild Atlantic coastal fishery is sustainable at anything
> > > close to present levels of exploitation.

> >
> > That is an argument for reducing our consumption, not necessarily
> > ceasing it entirely.

>
> Too much damage has already been done.
> The marine ecosystem now needs to recover.


Many stocks do. Some don't and I won't lose sleep over eating from
the latter.

> > > Coastal marine ecosystems
> > > already have been changed beyond recognition because of direct
> > > and indirect effects of overfishing. Most fishing is unsustainable
> > > because (i) inexorable growth of the human population drives
> > > increasing demand,

> >
> > Creating more pressure on the land and at sea or leave the
> > sea completely alone and create even more pressure on land
> > resources.

>
> We can use some sea vegetables. Certain algae provide
> EPA and DHA,- the long chain fatty acids found in fish.


Both statements are true. Sea vegetables should be used in
moderation since many are extremely high in Iodine, an essential
nutrient of which there are few plant sources but toxic in
excess.

> > > (ii) development of mechanized fishing
> > > technologies severely damages the environment,

> >
> > That's why I advocate handlining.

>
> 'And the fact is, a large number of small-boats concentrated
> into an ecosystem can do as much damage to fish stocks and
> marine ecology as a fleet of larger vessels. Too many boats
> chasing too few fish always adds up to a race to ecological
> disaster and economic ruin.'


Don't have too many.

> Too much damage has already been done.
> The marine ecosystem now needs to recover.
>
> > > (iii) cheap and
> > > rapid transportation makes even the most distant populations
> > > vulnerable to exploitation,

> >
> > Good. That allows us to spread our pressure more evenly
> > throughout the marine food chain.

>
> Too much damage has already been done.
> The marine ecosystem now needs to recover.
>
> > > and (iv) management has consistently
> > > failed to conserve depleted stocks (9, 15, 16, 33, 43, 77, 90, 98, 99).
> > > Evidence for ecological transformation and loss of fisheries
> > > resources on Western Atlantic coral reefs, seagrass beds, bays,
> > > estuaries, and the continental shelves is scientifically sound, and
> > > the burden of proof belongs on those who would still fish rather
> > > than the other way around (133)

> >
> > That's why I promote the MSC label.

>
> Too much damage has already been done.
> The marine ecosystem now needs to recover.
>
> > > . Monitoring is a basic tool for
> > > management, but no more monitoring is required to know what
> > > we have lost. Scientific efforts should be redirected toward
> > > evaluating options for restoration of resources rather than
> > > perpetuating the myth of sustainable fisheries. It is hard to
> > > imagine how increasingly sophisticated and frequent
> > > environmental monitoring and micromanagement could do a
> > > fraction of the good of simply stopping fishing. There is no
> > > rational scientific basis to continue fishing of wild stocks
> > > along the Atlantic coast of North America or in the Caribbean
> > > for the foreseeable future.
> > > ..
> > > http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/10/5411
> > >
> > > The same applies virtually everywhere. See;
> > > http://www.pewtrusts.com/a-v/oceans_map_flash.swf
> > >
> > > 'Not only have many major fish stocks been depleted, some
> > > even collapsing completely such as cod off Canada's east
> > > coast but excessive fishing pressure is placing many other
> > > marine animals at risk. From the north Pacific and Atlantic
> > > Oceans to the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, marine
> > > mammals, seabirds, sharks and key fish species in the
> > > intricate web of marine biodiversity are being overexploited,
> > > caught and killed as 'bycatch', or threatened by the
> > > industrialized fisheries for species that are critical links in
> > > the marine food web.

> >
> > Which is why I don't propose indiscriminate fish eating.

>
> Too much damage has already been done.
> The marine ecosystem now needs to recover.
>
> > > Fisheries analysts at the United Nations Food and Agriculture
> > > Organization (FAO) report that virtually 70% of the world's
> > > fisheries are fully- to over-exploited, depleted, or in a state
> > > of collapse.

> >
> > IOW 30% of the world's fisheries have potential for growth
> > at the expense of the other 70% if we start to treat the
> > marine ecosystems with the respect they deserve.

>
> '(i) inexorable growth of the human population drives
> increasing demand,'
>
> Too much damage has already been done.
> The marine ecosystem now needs to recover.
>
> > > ..
> > > Dr. Pauly's team of scientists used a mountain of data
> > > compiled over 50 years by the UN Food and Agriculture
> > > Organization on more than 200 distinct species caught in
> > > the world's oceans and seas. They catalogued how in one
> > > ocean after another fishing has caused the depletion of
> > > the biggest, most valuable stocks, and then worked its
> > > way down the marine food web, catching more and more
> > > of the smaller species. Dr. Pauly warned that at the current
> > > rate of exploitation many stocks could be eliminated within
> > > 25 years. "You can end up with the sea full of jelly fish,"
> > > said Pauly. He summed up his concern in a gloomy prediction:
> > >
> > > "The big fish, the bill fish, the groupers, the big things will
> > > be gone. It is happening now. If things go unchecked, we
> > > will have a sea full of little horrible things that nobody wants
> > > to eat. We might end up with a marine junkyard dominated
> > > by plankton."
> > > ..
> > > And the fact is, a large number of small-boats concentrated
> > > into an ecosystem can do as much damage to fish stocks and
> > > marine ecology as a fleet of larger vessels. Too many boats
> > > chasing too few fish always adds up to a race to ecological
> > > disaster and economic ruin.
> > > ..'
> > > http://archive.greenpeace.org/oceans...deadahead.html

> >


  #373 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Can we do better?


pearl wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
> pearl wrote:
> <..>
> > The usual list of the few species "which MCS believes
> > are fished within sustainable levels". (Doesn't the 'believes'
> > here worry you a bit, Dave?).

>
> Only a little bit. It's not like any other species of predator
> actively moniters the effect they are having on their prey.
>
> -- Humans are NOT a predatory species. --


Humans do not need to eat any other animals but most
humans do choose to do so.

> > And what exactly does
> > 'sustainable' mean? Hopefully not reducing the populations
> > any further? But recovery to the former healthy abundance?

>
> I take sustainable to mean that there is no continuing decline
> in population levels.
>
> -- Not recovery then. --


We should allow a safety margin which would mean some
recovery would occur. It is true that consuming fish is unlikely
to increase their abundance.

> > Never mind, eh. To an addict nothing else really matters.
> > You'll find one false justification after another to continue.

>
> I'm not addicted to fish and you have no evidence to the contrary.
>
> -- You know I do. Think 'fat'. --


You mean that essential nutrient found in nuts, seeds, olives,
avocados, soy products and plant oils? I do enjoy all the foods
I have just mentioned but I am not addicted to any.

> <..>
> > It all adds up. And if everyone started eating such fish
> > those populations would also be depleted in no time.

>
> If everyone started eating such fish than the demand would
> grow and new handline fisheries would emerge to exploit different
> stocks.
>
> -- 'And the fact is, a large number of small-boats concentrated
> into an ecosystem can do as much damage to fish stocks and
> marine ecology as a fleet of larger vessels. Too many boats
> chasing too few fish always adds up to a race to ecological
> disaster and economic ruin.' --
>
> The more fish we eat the less land habitat we need
> to destroy to cultivate plants.
>
> -- We can use some sea vegetables.


True. We can use sea vegetables as well as fish.

> Certain algae provide
> EPA and DHA,- the long chain fatty acids found in fish.
>
> When humans to break their meat habit, arable land
> currently used for feed crops will more than make
> up for any calories, etc. from animals, including fish.


True of grain-fed, artificially housed animals. Probably
true of the vast majority of grazed animals although you
need to show this land can be used for some other purpose
in order to prove it. Possibly true of animals raised in mixed
agriculture systems. Some reasons it might not be true:
Organic farming systems traditionally use grass-clover
leys in their rotations to enhance soil quality and hence
reduce their need for chemical imputs, Pests, weeds
and waste products may form a significant part of an
animal's diet, the animal provides more than just food
products; Fats, dung and hides can be put to a variety of uses.

  #374 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Can we do better?


"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Again, which causes
>> >> >> >> >> more/less death and suffering? Rice?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Who grows the rice? Where is it grown? How is it
>> >> >> > grown?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Potatoes? Bananas?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Who grows the bananas? where are they grown? How are
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > grown. You are being too simplistic. Just as not all
>> >> >> > beef
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > same, the same is true of rice, bananas, apples and
>> >> >> > potatoes.
>> >> >> =====================
>> >> >> Except for bananas you're right.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why "except bananas"?
>> >> =======================
>> >> Because all bananas on the market are exactly the same.
>> >> Exactly.
>> >> They are not a seed crop. They are all produced from an
>> >> original
>> >> plant. They are all clones, genetically the same.
>> >
>> > The method of production is not the same and environmental
>> > impact is not the same.
>> > "The differences between the production of bananas in small,
>> > shaded farms as compared to conventional chemical-intensive
>> > monocultural production is readily apparent when, having
>> > walked
>> > through a conventional plantation, one walks through a finca
>> > (farm) of one of the coop-member growers."
>> > http://www.rainforestrelief.org/Camp...n_Organic.html
>> > ===============================

>> Yes, that's nice, but my statement is still true. "You"
>> cannot
>> eat them. From the same website... Maybe you should read
>> what I
>> say, and what you post as reply, eh?
>> "...Currently, no fresh banana available in the US is grown in
>> a
>> way that is not detrimental to the rainforests..."

>
> That is almost certainly true but some are worse than others -
> they
> aren't
> all the same as you claimed. There are non-profit organisations
> that
> accredit bananas as for example organic or fairtrade. There is
> also
> a "better banana" logo licensed by the Rainforest Alliance
> which are
> claimed to ensure better rainforest conservation, wildlife
> protection,
> soil conservation, waste management, and worker benefits.
> 90% of the bananas Chiquita sells in Europe and two thirds of
> the bananas they sell in the US meet these standards.
> http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1200/et1200s10.html




you need to coordinate your 2 web sites. The first one you
posted says this:
"...The following companies are selling bananas grown using
methods that are destructive to rainforests and people.
Dole
Chiquita
Del Monte ..." 2003
http://www.rainforestrelief.org/What..._to_Avoid.html

the last one you posted was 2000.
You think one is really looking out for rainforests, and the
other is looking out for marketers?

Either way, there is no way that bananas can compete with
grass-fed beef and game in regards to environmental concerns and
animal deaths.







>



  #375 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Can we do better?


rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> >> ups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ups.com...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> Again, which causes
> >> >> >> >> >> more/less death and suffering? Rice?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Who grows the rice? Where is it grown? How is it
> >> >> >> > grown?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Potatoes? Bananas?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Who grows the bananas? where are they grown? How are
> >> >> >> > they
> >> >> >> > grown. You are being too simplistic. Just as not all
> >> >> >> > beef
> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > same, the same is true of rice, bananas, apples and
> >> >> >> > potatoes.
> >> >> >> =====================
> >> >> >> Except for bananas you're right.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why "except bananas"?
> >> >> =======================
> >> >> Because all bananas on the market are exactly the same.
> >> >> Exactly.
> >> >> They are not a seed crop. They are all produced from an
> >> >> original
> >> >> plant. They are all clones, genetically the same.
> >> >
> >> > The method of production is not the same and environmental
> >> > impact is not the same.
> >> > "The differences between the production of bananas in small,
> >> > shaded farms as compared to conventional chemical-intensive
> >> > monocultural production is readily apparent when, having
> >> > walked
> >> > through a conventional plantation, one walks through a finca
> >> > (farm) of one of the coop-member growers."
> >> > http://www.rainforestrelief.org/Camp...n_Organic.html
> >> > ===============================
> >> Yes, that's nice, but my statement is still true. "You"
> >> cannot
> >> eat them. From the same website... Maybe you should read
> >> what I
> >> say, and what you post as reply, eh?
> >> "...Currently, no fresh banana available in the US is grown in
> >> a
> >> way that is not detrimental to the rainforests..."

> >
> > That is almost certainly true but some are worse than others -
> > they
> > aren't
> > all the same as you claimed. There are non-profit organisations
> > that
> > accredit bananas as for example organic or fairtrade. There is
> > also
> > a "better banana" logo licensed by the Rainforest Alliance
> > which are
> > claimed to ensure better rainforest conservation, wildlife
> > protection,
> > soil conservation, waste management, and worker benefits.
> > 90% of the bananas Chiquita sells in Europe and two thirds of
> > the bananas they sell in the US meet these standards.
> > http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1200/et1200s10.html

>
> you need to coordinate your 2 web sites. The first one you
> posted says this:
> "...The following companies are selling bananas grown using
> methods that are destructive to rainforests and people.
> Dole
> Chiquita
> Del Monte ..." 2003
> http://www.rainforestrelief.org/What..._to_Avoid.html


I missed that part.

> the last one you posted was 2000.
> You think one is really looking out for rainforests, and the
> other is looking out for marketers?


Certainly a logical hypothesis.

> Either way, there is no way that bananas can compete with
> grass-fed beef and game in regards to environmental concerns and
> animal deaths.


It's theoretically possible that they could but I'm not aware of any
examples where they do in practise.



  #376 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default Can we do better?

On 2/2/2006 6:42 PM, wrote:
>
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>> homo pantywaist fudgepacker ronnie hamilton shrieked:
>>
>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>> rick wrote:
>>>>>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rick wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> rick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> snippage...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the same impact upon the industries that produce
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vegans do.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ======================
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> industry.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> buy
>>>>>>>>>>>> a product that directly competes with what loons rant
>>>>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something
>>>>>>>>>>> else or go hungry. All food products are in competition
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> each other to some degree.
>>>>>>>>>> ==========================
>>>>>>>>>> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> meat industry they spew about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike
>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>> consume the cheapest meats available.
>>>>>>>> ============================
>>>>>>>> Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about.
>>>>>>>> Having an impact for change means you have to participate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reduction is a type of change.
>>>>>> ===========================
>>>>>> You're missing the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it's you who are missing the point.
>>>>
>>>> Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No. ricky is an idiot.

>>
>> No, Rick has this exactly right.
>>
>>
>>>>>> Since vegans do not and will not buy
>>>>>> meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do
>>>>>> participate, they have no impact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't vegan.
>>>>> By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution
>>>>> towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind.
>>>>
>>>> No. You are wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> No. No he's not.

>>
>> Yes, he is. "vegans" are not having any impact beyond their initial
>> refusal to eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all.

>
> Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by buying
> grass-fed beef.


No.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"