About Us

Dutch

> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>>
>> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle for
>> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually reducing
>> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>>
>> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes* the
>> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have any
>> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in
>> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, line, and
>> sinker.
>
> Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals
> unnecessarily.

1. No we don't, there is no such obligation
2. All animals are sentient
3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a collateral cost.
Therefore by eating that second helping, that ftuit cocktail, or taking that
vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals unecessarily.

Dutch

> wrote
>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > Dave wrote:
>> >> wrote:
>>
>>
>> snip...
>>
>>
>> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
>> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
>> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
>> >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
>> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
>> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
>> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
>> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
>> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
>> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
>> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
>> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
>> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
>> > cattle for
>> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
>> > reducing
>> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> =========================
>> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
>
> Do it, then.

You're the one claiming we have a moral obligation, give "detailed evidence"
that tofu causes fewer animal deaths than free-range beef.

>> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
>> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
>> food we eat?
>>
>
> We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily.

Who defines what is necessary? You?

> Probably we
> don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production as we
> do.

Then you must stop.

> I would support efforts to reform crop production.

How? In the meantime would you consume meat if it involved little or no
intensive crop rearing?

>> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
>> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
>> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
>> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
>> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
>> >>
>> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
>> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
>> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
>> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
>> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
>> >> and dairy products but I think the best
>> >> option of all is to source both plant and
>> >> animal products from local organic farms
>> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
>> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
>> >> local woodlands.
>> >
>> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
>> > organic
>> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
>> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
>> ==============================
>> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
>> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop fields
>> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
>> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
>> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
>>
>
> Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food
> production.

With no spraying or cultivation.

>> The fish is an
>> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would
>> > be nice
>> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what
>> > really causes
>> > the least harm.
>> =====================
>> It isn't the veggies you eat...
>>
>
> Show me some evidence.

Be honest with yourself, then believe your own common sense.

rick

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Dave wrote:
>> >> wrote:
>>
>>
>> snip...
>>
>>
>> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
>> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
>> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
>> >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
>> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
>> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
>> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
>> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
>> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
>> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
>> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
>> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
>> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
>> > cattle for
>> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
>> > reducing
>> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> =========================
>> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
>
> Do it, then.
=======================
I see you ignored the sites I posted. Not surprising. Look at
any mono-culture crop production and the corispnding product
processing required and then compare it to a nice grass-fed cow
that lives, dies, and is eaten all withing a few miles. But,
that aside, since you're the vegan that has declered that being
vegan is always better, it is up to you to provide that proof. I
just gave you one exapmple to start with.

>
>> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food
>> we
>> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
>> food we eat?
>>
>
> We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily.
========================
Really? Then again, why are you here on usenet. there are no
*real* vegans on usenet, hypocrite.

Probably we
> don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production
> as we
> do. I would support efforts to reform crop production.
========================
Yet you do nothing to bring about any of those changes. If you
even tried to find out which foods you eat cause more/less death
and suffering you'd have a starting place. But you don't. You
haven't even thought about doing that because you have your
simple rule for your simple mind. As long as you have that,
you're smug and content to continue your bloody trek though life
spewing about meats.

>
>>
>> >
>> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
>> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
>> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
>> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
>> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
>> >>
>> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
>> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
>> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
>> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
>> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
>> >> and dairy products but I think the best
>> >> option of all is to source both plant and
>> >> animal products from local organic farms
>> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
>> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
>> >> local woodlands.
>> >
>> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
>> > organic
>> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to
>> > more
>> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
>> ==============================
>> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
>> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop
>> fields
>> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
>> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
>> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
>>
>
> Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture
> food
> production.
=====================
The problem I see with that is that no where does he consider the
animals that are left with no food or cover after all the crops
are harvested. The ones under discussion are the ones that get
get sliced, diced, shredded, poisoned and dis-membered. The
problem is that there can be many many more that are left to die
from starvation and predation. The surrounding areas cannot
support the excess numbers because they will already be at their
carry capacity. Fields can have up to thousands of voles per
acre in some years. That's per acre, not per the whole field.

>
>>
>> The fish is an
>> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It
>> > would
>> > be nice
>> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what
>> > really causes
>> > the least harm.
>> =====================
>> It isn't the veggies you eat...
>>
>
> Show me some evidence.
=================
What? the ones you already ignored?
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html

Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643
http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm

To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html

>
>>
>> >
>

[email protected]

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> snip...
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > 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.
> >> >> ==========================
> >> >> Really? tell us your proof. Step right up and demonstrate
> >> >> how
> >> >> just being vegan automatically causes no/less/fewer animals
> >> >> to
> >> >> die and less environmental impact that eating grass-fed
> >> >> meats.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I wasn't really thinking about comparing the amount of harm
> >> > caused by
> >> > the production of grass-fed beef with the production of
> >> > vegan
> >> > food. My
> >> > main thought was that both consumer choices involve
> >> > boycotting
> >> > factory-farmed beef, and the impact of this should be about
> >> > the
> >> > same in
> >> > each case.
> >> =========================
> >> No, it would not be. The vegan has no impact on the industry
> >> at
> >> all.
> >
> > Yes, he or she does, he or she diminishes the demand for the
> > product.
> ==========================
> No, they do not. They are non-participants in the product. Not
> buying a product you don't buy, and never will has no effect on
> the market.

Yes, it does. It reduces the demand.

> I consume no llama wool from the andes, never have
> and never will. The production of llama wool in the andes is not
> in the least affected by my non-participation. And, I especially
> have no impact on how the process is completed.
>
>
>
> > The buyers of grass-fed beef also diminish the demand for the
> > product.
> =====================
> No, they do not. The demand for beef is a demand for beef. The
> difference is the process, not the product.
>

They diminish the demand for factory-farmed beef (as vegans do) and
increase the demand for grass-fed beef (which vegans don't do). How you
individuate products is neither here nor there.

>
> > It is the same impact. The difference is that the buyer of
> > grass-fed
> > beef also contributes to the demand for a different product.
> ========================
> It is NOT a different product. It is BEEF.
>
>
> >
> >> Those that buy grass-fed meats are changing the way
> >> producers are raising cattle. Grass-fed meat is not an
> >> additional amount of beef on the market, it's a replacement to
> >> the industry norm. It is a growing segment of the industry
> >> and
> >> is being caused by those that purchase this alternative, not
> >> by
> >> those that do not participate. Why is this concept so hard to
> >> understand, unless of course vegans have an agenda that must
> >> be
> >> maintained at all costs, regardless of fact.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> But yes, the amount of harm caused by the production of the
> >> > food one substitutes for factory-farmed beef should be
> >> > considered as
> >> > well. I don't have a proof that either one causes less harm
> >> > than the
> >> > other. Gaverick Matheny's calculations carry some weight
> >> > with
> >> > me, but
> >> > they are just back of the envelope stuff and shouldn't be
> >> > taken
> >> > as
> >> > proof. If you have any evidence to offer on the matter, let
> >> > me
> >> > know.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
> >> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> >> http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
> >> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> >> http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
> >> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
> >> http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
> >> http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230
> >> http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
> >> http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
> >> http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
> >> http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
> >> here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
> >> http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
> >> http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
> >>
> >>
> >> To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
> >> here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that
> >> there
> >> can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
> >> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html
> >> http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
> >> http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
> >> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
> >> http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf
> >> http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643
> >> http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
> >> maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
> >> dealing with power and communications.
> >> http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
> >> http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >

[email protected]

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan
> >> > and
> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives.
> >>
> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are
> >> prepared to
> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then
> >> you aren't a
> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt
> >> animal death and
> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always
> >> find a way to
> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
> >
> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and eggs.
> > If I
> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If you
> > tell me
> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal suffering
> > by
> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the detailed
> > evidence.
> ==========================
> Then you should be able to provide evidence that your vegan diet
> automatically means you kill fewer animals.

Why? I never made that claim.

I have actually produced some evidence. It's not conclusive. But I'll
wait until I hear at least some counter-evidence before I make any
changes to my diet.

> Or, in the very least, you should be able to tell us which foods
> that you do eat cause more/less death and suffering. Is rice
> better than potatoes? Brocolli better than corn? Bananas better
> than apples? The fact is, you don't know, and don't care since
> you have your simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.'

No, I don't know. I do care and have made some effort to find out, but
not much research has been done on these issues.

> Being vegan is also more than a diet.
> Why is the unnecessary death and suffering of animals for your
> entertainment just fine, but we can't eat them?
>

Unnecessary suffering is not just fine. I'm not altogether convinced
that electricity production is unnecessary.

But no, any unnecessary suffering and death of animals that is really
being caused purely for my entertainment is not just fine.

>
> >

[email protected]

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and
> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives.
> >>
> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared to
> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you aren't a
> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal death
> >> and
> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a way to
> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
> >
> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and eggs.
>
> That just makes you a strict vegetarian. Veganism is based on a particular
> unwavering and completely irrational belief system.
>

Whatever. I think you'll find the dictionary is on my side here. I'm
not too fussed about the label.

> > If I
> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If you tell me
> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal suffering by
> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the detailed evidence.
>
> Of course you will, and no amount of "detailed evidence" I could present
> will ever be enough.

Well, why do you think that?

In any event, you haven't provided any so far.

[email protected]

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >>
> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle for
> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually reducing
> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> >>
> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes* the
> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have any
> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in
> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, line, and
> >> sinker.
> >
> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals
> > unnecessarily.
>
> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation
> 2. All animals are sentient

False.

> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a collateral cost.
> Therefore by eating that second helping, that ftuit cocktail, or taking that
> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals unecessarily.

It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain probability that
as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be killed
unnecessarily."

I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient animals
unnecessarily and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort
not to provide financial support to institutions or practices that
cause or support unnecessary harm.

rick

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being
>> >> > vegan
>> >> > and
>> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring
>> >> > alternatives.
>> >>
>> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are
>> >> prepared to
>> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism
>> >> then
>> >> you aren't a
>> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt
>> >> animal death and
>> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always
>> >> find a way to
>> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
>> >
>> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and
>> > eggs.
>> > If I
>> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If
>> > you
>> > tell me
>> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal
>> > suffering
>> > by
>> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the
>> > detailed
>> > evidence.
>> ==========================
>> Then you should be able to provide evidence that your vegan
>> diet
>> automatically means you kill fewer animals.
>
> Why? I never made that claim.
==============
Then you should reread what you said above. Either that, or you
are saying that your veggies kill NO animals since you claimed we
have no right to kill animals for our food.

>
> I have actually produced some evidence. It's not conclusive.
> But I'll
> wait until I hear at least some counter-evidence before I make
> any
> changes to my diet.
===================
I've seen no evidence from you at all to support the vegan claims
of being 'better.' But the point I'm making is that you don't
have to change by eating meat. You refuse to even compare the
foods you do eat, and make changes there as to which ones cause
more/less animal death and suffering. That alone puts the ly to
your relegion of veganism.

>
>> Or, in the very least, you should be able to tell us which
>> foods
>> that you do eat cause more/less death and suffering. Is rice
>> better than potatoes? Brocolli better than corn? Bananas
>> better
>> than apples? The fact is, you don't know, and don't care
>> since
>> you have your simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.'
>
> No, I don't know. I do care and have made some effort to find
> out, but
> not much research has been done on these issues.
======================
Then why are you so adament that being vegan is better than
anything else? faith? Yep, veganism is a relegion.

>
>> Being vegan is also more than a diet.
>> Why is the unnecessary death and suffering of animals for your
>> entertainment just fine, but we can't eat them?
>>
>
> Unnecessary suffering is not just fine. I'm not altogether
> convinced
> that electricity production is unnecessary.
==========================
What part of your being here on this newsgroup is necessary? You
contribute to an ever growing demand for more power and
communications for no more reason than *your* entertainment.

>
> But no, any unnecessary suffering and death of animals that is
> really
> being caused purely for my entertainment is not just fine.
==========================
Then again, you're lying about really caring about killing
animals, aren't you?

>
>>
>> >
>

[email protected]

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> >
> >> > Dave wrote:
> >> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> snip...
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
> >> >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
> >> > cattle for
> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> >> > reducing
> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> >> =========================
> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
> >
> > Do it, then.
>
> You're the one claiming we have a moral obligation, give "detailed evidence"
> that tofu causes fewer animal deaths than free-range beef.
>

I didn't claim you have a moral obligation not to buy free-range beef.
I suspect you do, and I have cited some calculations in support of that
claim. But I don't have conclusive evidence. Based on the inconclusive
evidence I have encountered so far I have decided not ot eat free-range
beef.

> >> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
> >> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
> >> food we eat?
> >>
> >
> > We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily.
>
> Who defines what is necessary? You?
>

I don't claim to offer a moral principle that gives absolutely
unambiguous moral guidance in evey conceivable situation. The word
"unnecessary" is vague and it will sometimes be hard to decide whether
a given action is in accordance with the moral principle. In those
cases, we'll just have to make a good faith effort to work out what is
the right thing to do.

> > Probably we
> > don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production as we
> > do.
>
> Then you must stop.
>

I must make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to
institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm. That may involve
growing some of my own vegetables. I'm not convinced it involves buying
up my own land and growing all of my own food.

> > I would support efforts to reform crop production.
>
> How?

Well, I might put pressure on politicians to make reforms which will
reduce the impact on animal welfare, try to make the public more aware
of the issue, that sort of thing.

> In the meantime would you consume meat if it involved little or no
> intensive crop rearing?
>

Only if I was convinced it wouldn't involve additional harm to animals.
Not much research has been done on this topic, based on reading Davis
and Matheny at the moment I think it's probably best not to.

> >> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
> >> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
> >> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
> >> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
> >> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
> >> >>
> >> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
> >> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
> >> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
> >> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
> >> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
> >> >> and dairy products but I think the best
> >> >> option of all is to source both plant and
> >> >> animal products from local organic farms
> >> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
> >> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
> >> >> local woodlands.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
> >> > organic
> >> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
> >> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
> >> ==============================
> >> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
> >> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop fields
> >> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
> >> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
> >> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
> >>
> >
> > Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food
> > production.
>
> With no spraying or cultivation.
>

Don't recall that qualification. All right, if you say so. There was a
fairly generous margin of error in Matheny's calculations. Are you
saying some ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per
serving of food than mono-culture crops? Can you provide some evidence
of that?

> >> The fish is an
> >> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would
> >> > be nice
> >> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what
> >> > really causes
> >> > the least harm.
> >> =====================
> >> It isn't the veggies you eat...
> >>
> >
> > Show me some evidence.
>
> Be honest with yourself, then believe your own common sense.

Appealling to my common sense doesn't convince me of his claim.

rick

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> snip...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > 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.
>> >> >> ==========================
>> >> >> Really? tell us your proof. Step right up and
>> >> >> demonstrate
>> >> >> how
>> >> >> just being vegan automatically causes no/less/fewer
>> >> >> animals
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> die and less environmental impact that eating grass-fed
>> >> >> meats.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I wasn't really thinking about comparing the amount of
>> >> > harm
>> >> > caused by
>> >> > the production of grass-fed beef with the production of
>> >> > vegan
>> >> > food. My
>> >> > main thought was that both consumer choices involve
>> >> > boycotting
>> >> > factory-farmed beef, and the impact of this should be
>> >> > about
>> >> > the
>> >> > same in
>> >> > each case.
>> >> =========================
>> >> No, it would not be. The vegan has no impact on the
>> >> industry
>> >> at
>> >> all.
>> >
>> > Yes, he or she does, he or she diminishes the demand for the
>> > product.
>> ==========================
>> No, they do not. They are non-participants in the product.
>> Not
>> buying a product you don't buy, and never will has no effect
>> on
>> the market.
>
> Yes, it does. It reduces the demand.
=====================
No, it does not. You can't reduce a demand when you already do
not buy the product.

>
>> I consume no llama wool from the andes, never have
>> and never will. The production of llama wool in the andes is
>> not
>> in the least affected by my non-participation. And, I
>> especially
>> have no impact on how the process is completed.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The buyers of grass-fed beef also diminish the demand for
>> > the
>> > product.
>> =====================
>> No, they do not. The demand for beef is a demand for beef.
>> The
>> difference is the process, not the product.
>>
>
> They diminish the demand for factory-farmed beef (as vegans do)
========================
Again, vegans do not reduce a demand for beef. You can't reduce
a demand that you don't have to begin with.

and
> increase the demand for grass-fed beef (which vegans don't do).
> How you
> individuate products is neither here nor there.
=============================
I'm not making them different, you are. Beef is beef. All one
product. The only people that have an impact on the demand for
beef are those that buy it. There is no reduced demand for a
demand that is not already there.

>
>>
>> > It is the same impact. The difference is that the buyer of
>> > grass-fed
>> > beef also contributes to the demand for a different product.
>> ========================
>> It is NOT a different product. It is BEEF.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> Those that buy grass-fed meats are changing the way
>> >> producers are raising cattle. Grass-fed meat is not an
>> >> additional amount of beef on the market, it's a replacement
>> >> to
>> >> the industry norm. It is a growing segment of the industry
>> >> and
>> >> is being caused by those that purchase this alternative,
>> >> not
>> >> by
>> >> those that do not participate. Why is this concept so hard
>> >> to
>> >> understand, unless of course vegans have an agenda that
>> >> must
>> >> be
>> >> maintained at all costs, regardless of fact.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But yes, the amount of harm caused by the production of
>> >> the
>> >> > food one substitutes for factory-farmed beef should be
>> >> > considered as
>> >> > well. I don't have a proof that either one causes less
>> >> > harm
>> >> > than the
>> >> > other. Gaverick Matheny's calculations carry some weight
>> >> > with
>> >> > me, but
>> >> > they are just back of the envelope stuff and shouldn't be
>> >> > taken
>> >> > as
>> >> > proof. If you have any evidence to offer on the matter,
>> >> > let
>> >> > me
>> >> > know.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
>> >> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
>> >> http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
>> >> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
>> >> http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
>> >> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
>> >> http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
>> >> http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230
>> >> http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
>> >> http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
>> >> http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
>> >> http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
>> >> here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
>> >> http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
>> >> http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a
>> >> field,
>> >> here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that
>> >> there
>> >> can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
>> >> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html
>> >> http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
>> >> http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
>> >> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
>> >> http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf
>> >> http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643
>> >> http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
>> >> maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
>> >> dealing with power and communications.
>> >> http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
>> >> http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
>> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>

[email protected]

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Dave wrote:
> >> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> snip...
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
> >> >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
> >> > cattle for
> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> >> > reducing
> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> >> =========================
> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
> >
> > Do it, then.
> =======================
> I see you ignored the sites I posted. Not surprising.

I haven't got round to looking at them yet. Do they provide estimates
for the amount of harm per serving of food for mono-culture crop
production, the amount of harm per serving of food for grass-fed beef,
and compare them?

> Look at
> any mono-culture crop production and the corispnding product
> processing required and then compare it to a nice grass-fed cow
> that lives, dies, and is eaten all withing a few miles. But,
> that aside, since you're the vegan that has declered that being
> vegan is always better, it is up to you to provide that proof. I
> just gave you one exapmple to start with.
>

I didn't declare that being vegan is always better.

>
>
> >
> >> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food
> >> we
> >> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
> >> food we eat?
> >>
> >
> > We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily.
> ========================
> Really? Then again, why are you here on usenet. there are no
> *real* vegans on usenet, hypocrite.
>

I believe I have a moral obligation to make every reasonable effort not
to provide financial support for institutions or practices that cause
or support unnecessary harm. I'm not convinced that excludes me from
using usenet.

> Probably we
> > don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production
> > as we
> > do. I would support efforts to reform crop production.
> ========================
> Yet you do nothing to bring about any of those changes.

How do you know?

I make efforts to bring about change on a lot of different issues. I am
not morally required to campaign on every conceivable issue. In any
case, you have no idea what areas I'm politically active in.

> If you
> even tried to find out which foods you eat cause more/less death
> and suffering you'd have a starting place. But you don't.

Yes, I have tried. I have discovered that it is difficult to find
detailed research on the issue. I will keep looking.

> You
> haven't even thought about doing that because you have your
> simple rule for your simple mind. As long as you have that,
> you're smug and content to continue your bloody trek though life
> spewing about meats.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
> >> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
> >> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
> >> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
> >> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
> >> >>
> >> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
> >> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
> >> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
> >> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
> >> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
> >> >> and dairy products but I think the best
> >> >> option of all is to source both plant and
> >> >> animal products from local organic farms
> >> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
> >> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
> >> >> local woodlands.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
> >> > organic
> >> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to
> >> > more
> >> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
> >> ==============================
> >> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
> >> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop
> >> fields
> >> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
> >> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
> >> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
> >>
> >
> > Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture
> > food
> > production.
> =====================
> The problem I see with that is that no where does he consider the
> animals that are left with no food or cover after all the crops
> are harvested. The ones under discussion are the ones that get
> get sliced, diced, shredded, poisoned and dis-membered. The
> problem is that there can be many many more that are left to die
> from starvation and predation. The surrounding areas cannot
> support the excess numbers because they will already be at their
> carry capacity. Fields can have up to thousands of voles per
> acre in some years. That's per acre, not per the whole field.
>

All right. But there's a pretty big margin for error in Matheny's
calculations. You'd need a difference by a factor of more than five to
change the final result.

>
> >
> >>
> >> The fish is an
> >> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It
> >> > would
> >> > be nice
> >> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what
> >> > really causes
> >> > the least harm.
> >> =====================
> >> It isn't the veggies you eat...
> >>
> >
> > Show me some evidence.
> =================
> What? the ones you already ignored?
> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
> http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
> http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230
> http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
> http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
> http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
> http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
>
> Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
> here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
> http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
> http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
>
>
> To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
> here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
> can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html
> http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
> http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
> http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf
> http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643
> http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm
>
>
> To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
> maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
> dealing with power and communications.
> http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
> http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >

[email protected]

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >>
> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
> >> > cattle for
> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> >> > reducing
> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> >>
> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least
> >> *sometimes* the
> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die
> >> have any
> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill
> >> them in
> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow
> >> hook, line, and
> >> sinker.
> >
> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals
> > unnecessarily.
> =====================
> Then you're lying to yourself. Why are you here on usenet? This
> isn't necessary, and just for entertainment. It causes massive
> amounts of death and suffering to animals.

The institution of Usenet causes massive amounts of death and suffering
to animals.

I think I'd like to see a more detailed defence of that claim.

> All unnecessary!
> But then, it appears that to you, like most vegans, cows are
> somehow more sentient than other mammals, birds, reptiles, fish
> and amphibians.

No.

> How is that possible?
>
>
> >

rick

rick

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill
>> >> > the
>> >> > cattle for
>> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were
>> >> > actually
>> >> > reducing
>> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> >>
>> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least
>> >> *sometimes* the
>> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who
>> >> die
>> >> have any
>> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill
>> >> them in
>> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow
>> >> hook, line, and
>> >> sinker.
>> >
>> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals
>> > unnecessarily.
>> =====================
>> Then you're lying to yourself. Why are you here on usenet?
>> This
>> isn't necessary, and just for entertainment. It causes
>> massive
>> amounts of death and suffering to animals.
>
> The institution of Usenet causes massive amounts of death and
> suffering
> to animals.
=====================
Instutution? Are you projecting about your next home? Again,
read some sites...

>
> I think I'd like to see a more detailed defence of that claim.
>
>> All unnecessary!
>> But then, it appears that to you, like most vegans, cows are
>> somehow more sentient than other mammals, birds, reptiles,
>> fish
>> and amphibians.
>
> No.
=================
Then why is it bad to kill one cow, but ok to kill many smaller
animals for the same calories?

>
>> How is that possible?
>>
>>
>> >
>

[email protected]

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> snip...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > 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.
> >> >> >> ==========================
> >> >> >> Really? tell us your proof. Step right up and
> >> >> >> demonstrate
> >> >> >> how
> >> >> >> just being vegan automatically causes no/less/fewer
> >> >> >> animals
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> die and less environmental impact that eating grass-fed
> >> >> >> meats.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I wasn't really thinking about comparing the amount of
> >> >> > harm
> >> >> > caused by
> >> >> > the production of grass-fed beef with the production of
> >> >> > vegan
> >> >> > food. My
> >> >> > main thought was that both consumer choices involve
> >> >> > boycotting
> >> >> > factory-farmed beef, and the impact of this should be
> >> >> > about
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > same in
> >> >> > each case.
> >> >> =========================
> >> >> No, it would not be. The vegan has no impact on the
> >> >> industry
> >> >> at
> >> >> all.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, he or she does, he or she diminishes the demand for the
> >> > product.
> >> ==========================
> >> No, they do not. They are non-participants in the product.
> >> Not
> >> buying a product you don't buy, and never will has no effect
> >> on
> >> the market.
> >
> > Yes, it does. It reduces the demand.
> =====================
> No, it does not. You can't reduce a demand when you already do
> not buy the product.
>

The demand is less if you don't buy the product than it would be if you
did.

By your logic, I could say you can't effect any change on the beef
industry when you already buy grass-fed beef.

>
> >
> >> I consume no llama wool from the andes, never have
> >> and never will. The production of llama wool in the andes is
> >> not
> >> in the least affected by my non-participation. And, I
> >> especially
> >> have no impact on how the process is completed.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > The buyers of grass-fed beef also diminish the demand for
> >> > the
> >> > product.
> >> =====================
> >> No, they do not. The demand for beef is a demand for beef.
> >> The
> >> difference is the process, not the product.
> >>
> >
> > They diminish the demand for factory-farmed beef (as vegans do)
> ========================
> Again, vegans do not reduce a demand for beef. You can't reduce
> a demand that you don't have to begin with.
>

The demand is less than it would be if they bought the factory-farmed
beef.

> and
> > increase the demand for grass-fed beef (which vegans don't do).
> > How you
> > individuate products is neither here nor there.
> =============================
> I'm not making them different, you are. Beef is beef. All one
> product. The only people that have an impact on the demand for
> beef are those that buy it. There is no reduced demand for a
> demand that is not already there.
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> > It is the same impact. The difference is that the buyer of
> >> > grass-fed
> >> > beef also contributes to the demand for a different product.
> >> ========================
> >> It is NOT a different product. It is BEEF.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Those that buy grass-fed meats are changing the way
> >> >> producers are raising cattle. Grass-fed meat is not an
> >> >> additional amount of beef on the market, it's a replacement
> >> >> to
> >> >> the industry norm. It is a growing segment of the industry
> >> >> and
> >> >> is being caused by those that purchase this alternative,
> >> >> not
> >> >> by
> >> >> those that do not participate. Why is this concept so hard
> >> >> to
> >> >> understand, unless of course vegans have an agenda that
> >> >> must
> >> >> be
> >> >> maintained at all costs, regardless of fact.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> But yes, the amount of harm caused by the production of
> >> >> the
> >> >> > food one substitutes for factory-farmed beef should be
> >> >> > considered as
> >> >> > well. I don't have a proof that either one causes less
> >> >> > harm
> >> >> > than the
> >> >> > other. Gaverick Matheny's calculations carry some weight
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > me, but
> >> >> > they are just back of the envelope stuff and shouldn't be
> >> >> > taken
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > proof. If you have any evidence to offer on the matter,
> >> >> > let
> >> >> > me
> >> >> > know.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
> >> >> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> >> >> http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
> >> >> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> >> >> http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
> >> >> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
> >> >> http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
> >> >> http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230
> >> >> http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
> >> >> http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
> >> >> http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
> >> >> http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
> >> >> here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
> >> >> http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
> >> >> http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a
> >> >> field,
> >> >> here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that
> >> >> there
> >> >> can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
> >> >> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html
> >> >> http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
> >> >> http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
> >> >> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
> >> >> http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf
> >> >> http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643
> >> >> http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
> >> >> maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
> >> >> dealing with power and communications.
> >> >> http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
> >> >> http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >

[email protected]

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being
> >> >> > vegan
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring
> >> >> > alternatives.
> >> >>
> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are
> >> >> prepared to
> >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism
> >> >> then
> >> >> you aren't a
> >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt
> >> >> animal death and
> >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always
> >> >> find a way to
> >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
> >> >
> >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and
> >> > eggs.
> >> > If I
> >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If
> >> > you
> >> > tell me
> >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal
> >> > suffering
> >> > by
> >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the
> >> > detailed
> >> > evidence.
> >> ==========================
> >> Then you should be able to provide evidence that your vegan
> >> diet
> >> automatically means you kill fewer animals.
> >
> > Why? I never made that claim.
> ==============
> Then you should reread what you said above. Either that, or you
> are saying that your veggies kill NO animals since you claimed we
> have no right to kill animals for our food.
>
> >
> > I have actually produced some evidence. It's not conclusive.
> > But I'll
> > wait until I hear at least some counter-evidence before I make
> > any
> > changes to my diet.
> ===================
> I've seen no evidence from you at all to support the vegan claims
> of being 'better.'

The Gaverick Matheny article.

> But the point I'm making is that you don't
> have to change by eating meat. You refuse to even compare the
> foods you do eat, and make changes there as to which ones cause
> more/less animal death and suffering. That alone puts the ly to
> your relegion of veganism.
>

As I told you, I have made some attempt to compare the amounts of harm
caused by production of the different crops. When I find some decent
data on this, I'll change my eating habits accordingly.

>
> >
> >> Or, in the very least, you should be able to tell us which
> >> foods
> >> that you do eat cause more/less death and suffering. Is rice
> >> better than potatoes? Brocolli better than corn? Bananas
> >> better
> >> than apples? The fact is, you don't know, and don't care
> >> since
> >> you have your simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.'
> >
> > No, I don't know. I do care and have made some effort to find
> > out, but
> > not much research has been done on these issues.
> ======================
> Then why are you so adament that being vegan is better than
> anything else? faith? Yep, veganism is a relegion.
>

I'm not.

>
> >
> >> Being vegan is also more than a diet.
> >> Why is the unnecessary death and suffering of animals for your
> >> entertainment just fine, but we can't eat them?
> >>
> >
> > Unnecessary suffering is not just fine. I'm not altogether
> > convinced
> > that electricity production is unnecessary.
> ==========================
> What part of your being here on this newsgroup is necessary? You
> contribute to an ever growing demand for more power and
> communications for no more reason than *your* entertainment.
>

Would you care to estimate the expected contribution to the amount of
harm caused to animals by my usage of Usenet? I really think it would
be pretty miniscule. I agree it's unnecessary, but I'm not convinced
that making every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to
institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary harm
requires me to stop using Usenet.

>
> >
> > But no, any unnecessary suffering and death of animals that is
> > really
> > being caused purely for my entertainment is not just fine.
> ==========================
> Then again, you're lying about really caring about killing
> animals, aren't you?
>

No.

> >
> >>
> >> >
> >

[email protected]

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > cattle for
> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were
> >> >> > actually
> >> >> > reducing
> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least
> >> >> *sometimes* the
> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who
> >> >> die
> >> >> have any
> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill
> >> >> them in
> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow
> >> >> hook, line, and
> >> >> sinker.
> >> >
> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals
> >> > unnecessarily.
> >> =====================
> >> Then you're lying to yourself. Why are you here on usenet?
> >> This
> >> isn't necessary, and just for entertainment. It causes
> >> massive
> >> amounts of death and suffering to animals.
> >
> > The institution of Usenet causes massive amounts of death and
> > suffering
> > to animals.
> =====================
> Instutution? Are you projecting about your next home? Again,
> read some sites...
>
> >
> > I think I'd like to see a more detailed defence of that claim.
> >
> >> All unnecessary!
> >> But then, it appears that to you, like most vegans, cows are
> >> somehow more sentient than other mammals, birds, reptiles,
> >> fish
> >> and amphibians.
> >
> > No.
> =================
> Then why is it bad to kill one cow, but ok to kill many smaller
> animals for the same calories?
>

It's better to kill one cow than many smaller animals. But there are
collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant food production. You
haven't convinced me that production of grass-fed beef causes less harm
per serving of food than crop production.

>
> >
> >> How is that possible?
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >

[email protected]

Dutch

> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and
>> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives.
>> >>
>> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared to
>> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you
>> >> aren't a
>> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal
>> >> death
>> >> and
>> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a way
>> >> to
>> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
>> >
>> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and eggs.
>>
>> That just makes you a strict vegetarian. Veganism is based on a
>> particular
>> unwavering and completely irrational belief system.
>>
>
> Whatever. I think you'll find the dictionary is on my side here.

Dictionaries are not reliable sources for in-depth analyses of ideas. To
start with, veganism relates to all your consumption choices, not only your
food.

> I'm
> not too fussed about the label.

The "label" is not the issue, it's the idea of veganism, which is a
derivative of the animal rights movement, not simply a dietary preference.

>> > If I
>> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If you tell me
>> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal suffering by
>> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the detailed evidence.
>>
>> Of course you will, and no amount of "detailed evidence" I could present
>> will ever be enough.
>
> Well, why do you think that?

From many years of experience dealing with countless vegans. The issue of
animal death and suffering is just one of the sleazy ploys used by vegans to
attempt to disgrace non-believers into compliance. If we argue that it is a
weak argument the vegan will simply engage in disinformation, demand
peer-reviewed studies, photographs, statistics, or shift to a different
argument, like health or the environment. The believer can always find ways.

> In any event, you haven't provided any so far.

A typical vegan gets most of their protein from commerically grown soya and
rice based products. They also consume grains, imported fruit and other
off-season foods. Numerous servings a day of such products has a cost in
collateral death and suffering of animals due to the impact of farming on
wildlife. No vegan to my knowledge has ever attempted to calculate this
cost, or even address it genuinely in any way. One animal such as a large
freshly caught salmon, a deer or any pastured ruminant could eliminate
dozens or even hundreds of those servings. A mostly self-sufficent farmer
has a much lower overall impact than this typical vegan. Even a typical
rural diet derived from locally raised stock and produce is probably better
than the vegan's shrink-wrapped, imported tofu fare. It's not that a
vegetarian is bad, the preposterous pseudo-ethics that vegans attach to the
diet that is what is sick.

Dutch

> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle
>> >> > for
>> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
>> >> > reducing
>> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> >>
>> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes*
>> >> the
>> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have any
>> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in
>> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, line,
>> >> and
>> >> sinker.
>> >
>> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals
>> > unnecessarily.
>>
>> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation
>> 2. All animals are sentient
>
> False.

Name one that isn't.

>> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a collateral cost.
>> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit cocktail, or taking
>> that
>> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals unecessarily.
>
> It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain probability that
> as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be killed
> unnecessarily."

That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a transparent and
cynical attempt to redefine your position. You have ZERO knowledge of the
probability of the relative harms caused by different foods you consume.

> I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient animals
> unnecessarily

No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that. You can't even
define "sentient".

> and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort
> not to provide financial support to institutions or practices that
> cause or support unnecessary harm.

You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable or unnecessary
in this context.

[email protected]

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and
> >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives.
> >> >>
> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared to
> >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you
> >> >> aren't a
> >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal
> >> >> death
> >> >> and
> >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a way
> >> >> to
> >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
> >> >
> >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and eggs.
> >>
> >> That just makes you a strict vegetarian. Veganism is based on a
> >> particular
> >> unwavering and completely irrational belief system.
> >>
> >
> > Whatever. I think you'll find the dictionary is on my side here.
>
> Dictionaries are not reliable sources for in-depth analyses of ideas. To
> start with, veganism relates to all your consumption choices, not only your
> food.
>
> > I'm
> > not too fussed about the label.
>
> The "label" is not the issue, it's the idea of veganism, which is a
> derivative of the animal rights movement, not simply a dietary preference.
>

Well, it may be the issue for you, but since you don't get to define
what my ideas are then I would have thought the main point was whether
my ideas count as "veganism" by your definition. If they don't, then
you'll be obliged to discuss my ideas, not what you consider to be
"vegan ideas".

> >> > If I
> >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If you tell me
> >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal suffering by
> >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the detailed evidence.
> >>
> >> Of course you will, and no amount of "detailed evidence" I could present
> >> will ever be enough.
> >
> > Well, why do you think that?
>
> From many years of experience dealing with countless vegans. The issue of
> animal death and suffering is just one of the sleazy ploys used by vegans to
> attempt to disgrace non-believers into compliance. If we argue that it is a
> weak argument the vegan will simply engage in disinformation, demand
> peer-reviewed studies, photographs, statistics, or shift to a different
> argument, like health or the environment. The believer can always find ways.
>

Well, I don't think it's very reasonable of you to make assumptions
about me based on your past experience with other people. And
incidentally I do think peer-reviewed studies would be desirable.

> > In any event, you haven't provided any so far.
>
> A typical vegan gets most of their protein from commerically grown soya and
> rice based products. They also consume grains, imported fruit and other
> off-season foods. Numerous servings a day of such products has a cost in
> collateral death and suffering of animals due to the impact of farming on
> wildlife. No vegan to my knowledge has ever attempted to calculate this
> cost, or even address it genuinely in any way.

It's a shame that not many people have tried to calculate the cost.
Matheny has provided an estimate, based on Davis' research into
collateral deaths caused by alfalfa production. That's a start.

> One animal such as a large
> freshly caught salmon, a deer or any pastured ruminant could eliminate
> dozens or even hundreds of those servings.

But ruminant-pasture production also involves collateral deaths. I
can't know whether the salmon or the deer would be preferable without
an estimate of the cost of crop production. All I have to go on is
Matheny's highly provisional estimate, and based on that I have my
doubts. I'll keep my eyes open for better data, and the day I see some
I'll consider re-evaluating my diet.

> A mostly self-sufficent farmer
> has a much lower overall impact than this typical vegan.

That may or may not be. You yourself admit there are no reliable
estimates of the cost of this typical vegan diet, so surely you must
concede it's very hard for you to tell.

> Even a typical
> rural diet derived from locally raised stock and produce is probably better
> than the vegan's shrink-wrapped, imported tofu fare. It's not that a
> vegetarian is bad, the preposterous pseudo-ethics that vegans attach to the
> diet that is what is sick.

[email protected]

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle
> >> >> > for
> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> >> >> > reducing
> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes*
> >> >> the
> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have any
> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in
> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, line,
> >> >> and
> >> >> sinker.
> >> >
> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals
> >> > unnecessarily.
> >>
> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation
> >> 2. All animals are sentient
> >
> > False.
>
> Name one that isn't.
>

An ant.

> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a collateral cost.
> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit cocktail, or taking
> >> that
> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals unecessarily.
> >
> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain probability that
> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be killed
> > unnecessarily."
>
> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a transparent and
> cynical attempt to redefine your position.

Yes it would, and no it isn't.

> You have ZERO knowledge of the
> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods you consume.
>

True.

> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient animals
> > unnecessarily
>
> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that. You can't even
> define "sentient".
>

Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable of having
feelings.

> > and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort
> > not to provide financial support to institutions or practices that
> > cause or support unnecessary harm.
>
> You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable or unnecessary
> in this context.

I can't give absolutely precise definitions of them, no. However, I
believe removing these qualifications would make the moral principle
false. So I keep them there. Any time someone proposes a moral
principle with better-defined terms that I think has a reasonable
chance of being true, that's great. I'm not blowing smoke, I'm just
stating the moral principles I believe in.

Dutch

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > Dave wrote:
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> snip...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
>> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
>> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
>> >> >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
>> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
>> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
>> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
>> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
>> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
>> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
>> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
>> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
>> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
>> >> > cattle for
>> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
>> >> > reducing
>> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> >> =========================
>> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
>> >
>> > Do it, then.
>>
>> You're the one claiming we have a moral obligation, give "detailed
>> evidence"
>> that tofu causes fewer animal deaths than free-range beef.
>>
>
> I didn't claim you have a moral obligation not to buy free-range beef.
> I suspect you do, and I have cited some calculations in support of that
> claim.

Those calculations don't show anything of the sort.

> But I don't have conclusive evidence. Based on the inconclusive
> evidence I have encountered so far I have decided not ot eat free-range
> beef.

You don't have any knowledge at all of the farming practises that go into
most of the food you eat. Do you know much about fruit growing, how about
wheat, rice? I know something about them, I grow wheat, I know apple
growers, both are deadly businesses. I wouldn't live within a hundred miles
of an apple orchard, that's how bad the pesticides are. The herbicides in
grain farming is no better.

>> >> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
>> >> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
>> >> food we eat?
>> >>
>> >
>> > We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily.
>>
>> Who defines what is necessary? You?
>>
>
> I don't claim to offer a moral principle that gives absolutely
> unambiguous moral guidance in evey conceivable situation. The word
> "unnecessary" is vague and it will sometimes be hard to decide whether
> a given action is in accordance with the moral principle. In those
> cases, we'll just have to make a good faith effort to work out what is
> the right thing to do.

I agree, but I don't see much good faith effort or a coherent moral
principle in veganism. Veganism is based soley on a rule which
restricts/prohibits use of animal products, that is all. Other crops, like
cotton to name one, which cause a lot of environmental damage, go totally
unmentioned. Yet my consumption of meat is moral violation? Give me a
****ing break. Who the hell do you think you are?

>> > Probably we
>> > don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production as we
>> > do.
>>
>> Then you must stop.
>>
>
> I must make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to
> institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm. That may involve
> growing some of my own vegetables. I'm not convinced it involves buying
> up my own land and growing all of my own food.

You sound like a recorded message.

>> > I would support efforts to reform crop production.
>>
>> How?
>
> Well, I might put pressure on politicians to make reforms which will
> reduce the impact on animal welfare, try to make the public more aware
> of the issue, that sort of thing.

I'll believe it when I see it. So far it would appear that the issue of
collateral deaths is off-limits to veganism, cuts a little to close to home
for a movement focused on demonizing others.

>> In the meantime would you consume meat if it involved little or no
>> intensive crop rearing?
>>
>
> Only if I was convinced it wouldn't involve additional harm to animals.
> Not much research has been done on this topic, based on reading Davis
> and Matheny at the moment I think it's probably best not to.

Use your own imagination. If I shot a bull moose and offered you some meat,
that would almost certainly be a lower impact at ~1/5000 of a death per
serving than your current main courses.

>> >> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
>> >> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
>> >> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
>> >> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
>> >> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
>> >> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
>> >> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
>> >> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
>> >> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
>> >> >> and dairy products but I think the best
>> >> >> option of all is to source both plant and
>> >> >> animal products from local organic farms
>> >> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
>> >> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
>> >> >> local woodlands.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
>> >> > organic
>> >> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
>> >> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
>> >> ==============================
>> >> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
>> >> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop fields
>> >> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
>> >> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
>> >> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food
>> > production.
>>
>> With no spraying or cultivation.
>>
>
> Don't recall that qualification. All right, if you say so. There was a
> fairly generous margin of error in Matheny's calculations. Are you
> saying some ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per
> serving of food than mono-culture crops? Can you provide some evidence
> of that?

Only to tell as a farmer you that hay is not seeded, weeded or cultivated,
just mown and baled. It's the next best thing to pasture. It also does not
strip the soil of nutrients like crops grown for human consumption. I can
only use my fields every other year, while the hay fields can be mowed
several times a year. The whole argument comparing animal feed with human
food is another sham.

>> >> The fish is an
>> >> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would
>> >> > be nice
>> >> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what
>> >> > really causes
>> >> > the least harm.
>> >> =====================
>> >> It isn't the veggies you eat...
>> >>
>> >
>> > Show me some evidence.
>>
>> Be honest with yourself, then believe your own common sense.
>
> Appealling to my common sense doesn't convince me of his claim.

You have to be willing to attempt to be objective. As long as you have the
typical vegan tape running in your head none of this is never going to make
sense.

[email protected]

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being
> >> >> > vegan
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring
> >> >> > alternatives.
> >> >>
> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are
> >> >> prepared to
> >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism
> >> >> then
> >> >> you aren't a
> >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt
> >> >> animal death and
> >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always
> >> >> find a way to
> >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
> >> >
> >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and
> >> > eggs.
> >> > If I
> >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If
> >> > you
> >> > tell me
> >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal
> >> > suffering
> >> > by
> >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the
> >> > detailed
> >> > evidence.
> >> ==========================
> >> Then you should be able to provide evidence that your vegan
> >> diet
> >> automatically means you kill fewer animals.
> >
> > Why? I never made that claim.
> ==============
> Then you should reread what you said above. Either that, or you
> are saying that your veggies kill NO animals since you claimed we
> have no right to kill animals for our food.
>

Sorry, missed this bit the first time around. I said we have no right
to kill animals unnecessarily. I accept we probably don't have the
right to kill as many animals as we currently do in crop production. I
believe I am obliged to make every *reasonable* effort not to
financially support unnecessary harm, not every *possible* effort. I
believe that my vegan diet is one reasonable way of trying to meet this
standard. If anyone thinks there is a non-vegan diet that can do
better, I'm happy to listen to the evidence.

Dutch

> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
>> >> >> > cattle
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
>> >> >> > reducing
>> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes*
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have
>> >> >> any
>> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in
>> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook,
>> >> >> line,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> sinker.
>> >> >
>> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals
>> >> > unnecessarily.
>> >>
>> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation
>> >> 2. All animals are sentient
>> >
>> > False.
>>
>> Name one that isn't.
>>
>
> An ant.

Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, sights, sounds, objects,
why would they not feel pain?

>> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a collateral
>> >> cost.
>> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit cocktail, or
>> >> taking
>> >> that
>> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals unecessarily.
>> >
>> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain probability that
>> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be killed
>> > unnecessarily."
>>
>> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a transparent and
>> cynical attempt to redefine your position.
>
> Yes it would, and no it isn't.

What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain probability" and
"unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and subjective.

>> You have ZERO knowledge of the
>> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods you consume.
>>
>
> True.

Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally deficient?

>> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient animals
>> > unnecessarily
>>
>> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that. You can't
>> even
>> define "sentient".
>>
>
> Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable of having
> feelings.

What do you mean by "feelings", you mean feel pain? There is no definitive
answer to that question, but every animal species can be observed to react
adversely or defensively to attack or injury.

>> > and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort
>> > not to provide financial support to institutions or practices that
>> > cause or support unnecessary harm.
>>
>> You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable or
>> unnecessary
>> in this context.
>
> I can't give absolutely precise definitions of them, no. However, I
> believe removing these qualifications would make the moral principle
> false. So I keep them there. Any time someone proposes a moral
> principle with better-defined terms that I think has a reasonable
> chance of being true, that's great. I'm not blowing smoke, I'm just
> stating the moral principles I believe in.

The terms need consistent and fair definitions for the principle to have any
meaning. I happen to think that a lot of animals must be killed in order to
support the human race. I think that singling out food animals as political
clients as ARAs and vegans do, is a spurious attempt by some morally deluded
individuals to stake out high moral ground for their personal aggrandizment.

[email protected]

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dave wrote:
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> snip...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
> >> >> > cattle for
> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> >> >> > reducing
> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> >> >> =========================
> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
> >> >
> >> > Do it, then.
> >>
> >> You're the one claiming we have a moral obligation, give "detailed
> >> evidence"
> >> that tofu causes fewer animal deaths than free-range beef.
> >>
> >
> > I didn't claim you have a moral obligation not to buy free-range beef.
> > I suspect you do, and I have cited some calculations in support of that
> > claim.
>
> Those calculations don't show anything of the sort.
>

Why not?

> > But I don't have conclusive evidence. Based on the inconclusive
> > evidence I have encountered so far I have decided not ot eat free-range
> > beef.
>
> You don't have any knowledge at all of the farming practises that go into
> most of the food you eat. Do you know much about fruit growing, how about
> wheat, rice? I know something about them, I grow wheat, I know apple
> growers, both are deadly businesses. I wouldn't live within a hundred miles
> of an apple orchard, that's how bad the pesticides are. The herbicides in
> grain farming is no better.
>

All right. There are collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant
production as well. Show me some plausible numbers and then we'll have
a basis for reaching a conclusion. Until then, I'll stick with my
current best guess.

> >> >> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
> >> >> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
> >> >> food we eat?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily.
> >>
> >> Who defines what is necessary? You?
> >>
> >
> > I don't claim to offer a moral principle that gives absolutely
> > unambiguous moral guidance in evey conceivable situation. The word
> > "unnecessary" is vague and it will sometimes be hard to decide whether
> > a given action is in accordance with the moral principle. In those
> > cases, we'll just have to make a good faith effort to work out what is
> > the right thing to do.
>
> I agree, but I don't see much good faith effort or a coherent moral
> principle in veganism. Veganism is based soley on a rule which
> restricts/prohibits use of animal products, that is all. Other crops, like
> cotton to name one, which cause a lot of environmental damage, go totally
> unmentioned. Yet my consumption of meat is moral violation? Give me a
> ****ing break. Who the hell do you think you are?
>

Well, I've told you my moral principle. Make every reasonable effort
not to provide financial support for practices that cause or support
unnecessary harm. It's up to you to decide whether you think that's a
good principle, and if so, what's involved in following it. I think any
serious attempt to follow it would involve a pretty drastic restriction
of meat consumption, but that's just my opinion. I dare say there'd be
a case for restricting cotton consumption as well, I don't know much
about that particular issue. You'll note that I haven't been giving you
any sermons. I'm the one who gets most of the sermons around here. I
just happen to think that ethical veganism is a defensible position and
I'm throwing in my two cents' worth about the attacks you're making on
it.

> >> > Probably we
> >> > don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production as we
> >> > do.
> >>
> >> Then you must stop.
> >>
> >
> > I must make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to
> > institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm. That may involve
> > growing some of my own vegetables. I'm not convinced it involves buying
> > up my own land and growing all of my own food.
>
> You sound like a recorded message.
>
> >> > I would support efforts to reform crop production.
> >>
> >> How?
> >
> > Well, I might put pressure on politicians to make reforms which will
> > reduce the impact on animal welfare, try to make the public more aware
> > of the issue, that sort of thing.
>
> I'll believe it when I see it. So far it would appear that the issue of
> collateral deaths is off-limits to veganism, cuts a little to close to home
> for a movement focused on demonizing others.
>

I don't agree with you that the movement is focussed on demonizing
others. I think the focus is on trying to reduce the harm caused by the
factory-farming industry. I agree the issue of the harm of collateral
deaths should be raised too. Perhaps I will try to make my friends in
the movement more aware of the issue.

> >> In the meantime would you consume meat if it involved little or no
> >> intensive crop rearing?
> >>
> >
> > Only if I was convinced it wouldn't involve additional harm to animals.
> > Not much research has been done on this topic, based on reading Davis
> > and Matheny at the moment I think it's probably best not to.
>
> Use your own imagination. If I shot a bull moose and offered you some meat,
> that would almost certainly be a lower impact at ~1/5000 of a death per
> serving than your current main courses.
>

I really don't see how you can be confident of that when you admit that
there are no reliable estimates of the cost of crop production. Matheny
estimates a vegan diet kills 0.3 wild animals per year. Do you have a
corresponding estimate for a diet which includes some game? Or do you
have an estimate which is better than Matheny's? If not, it looks like
you haven't got a conclusive argument.

> >> >> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
> >> >> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
> >> >> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
> >> >> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
> >> >> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
> >> >> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
> >> >> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
> >> >> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
> >> >> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
> >> >> >> and dairy products but I think the best
> >> >> >> option of all is to source both plant and
> >> >> >> animal products from local organic farms
> >> >> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
> >> >> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
> >> >> >> local woodlands.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
> >> >> > organic
> >> >> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
> >> >> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
> >> >> ==============================
> >> >> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
> >> >> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop fields
> >> >> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
> >> >> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
> >> >> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food
> >> > production.
> >>
> >> With no spraying or cultivation.
> >>
> >
> > Don't recall that qualification. All right, if you say so. There was a
> > fairly generous margin of error in Matheny's calculations. Are you
> > saying some ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per
> > serving of food than mono-culture crops? Can you provide some evidence
> > of that?
>
> Only to tell as a farmer you that hay is not seeded, weeded or cultivated,
> just mown and baled. It's the next best thing to pasture. It also does not
> strip the soil of nutrients like crops grown for human consumption. I can
> only use my fields every other year, while the hay fields can be mowed
> several times a year. The whole argument comparing animal feed with human
> food is another sham.
>

Well, I guess that would have to be taken into account as well. The day
I see some serious research which makes a decent case that
ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per serving of
food than mono-culture crops, I'll re-evaluate my position.

> >> >> The fish is an
> >> >> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would
> >> >> > be nice
> >> >> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what
> >> >> > really causes
> >> >> > the least harm.
> >> >> =====================
> >> >> It isn't the veggies you eat...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Show me some evidence.
> >>
> >> Be honest with yourself, then believe your own common sense.
> >
> > Appealling to my common sense doesn't convince me of his claim.
>
> You have to be willing to attempt to be objective. As long as you have the
> typical vegan tape running in your head none of this is never going to make
> sense.

Well, I'm doing my best. I just don't see how I can reasonably be sure
that any particular animal product that I can actually buy causes less
harm per serving of food than crop production. I think that more
research should be done along the lines of Davis. Then some kind of
serious debate can start. In the meantime, I'll have to go with my
current best guess based on what I've read so far.

[email protected]

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
> >> >> >> > cattle
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> >> >> >> > reducing
> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes*
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have
> >> >> >> any
> >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in
> >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook,
> >> >> >> line,
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> sinker.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals
> >> >> > unnecessarily.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation
> >> >> 2. All animals are sentient
> >> >
> >> > False.
> >>
> >> Name one that isn't.
> >>
> >
> > An ant.
>
> Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, sights, sounds, objects,
> why would they not feel pain?
>

They respond to stimuli in their environment, but I think it's
debatable whether they actually experience any sensations. There's a
good discussion of this issue in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously".

> >> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a collateral
> >> >> cost.
> >> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit cocktail, or
> >> >> taking
> >> >> that
> >> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals unecessarily.
> >> >
> >> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain probability that
> >> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be killed
> >> > unnecessarily."
> >>
> >> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a transparent and
> >> cynical attempt to redefine your position.
> >
> > Yes it would, and no it isn't.
>
> What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain probability" and
> "unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and subjective.
>

Well, it's a lot more accurate than saying I kill something. I
certainly don't kill anything when I go on a vacation. I gave financial
support to certain processes which harm animals. As a result of my
increasing the amount of financial support that process received, there
is a certain probability that mine will be a "threshold purchase" which
will cause more of the process to go on, and thereby will increase the
amount of harm done to animals. That's the only accurate way to
describe what's going on here.

> >> You have ZERO knowledge of the
> >> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods you consume.
> >>
> >
> > True.
>
> Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally deficient?
>

I don't know what your diet is. I think I have a pretty good foundation
for claiming that someone who regularly consumes factory-farmed animal
products is not making every reasonable effort not to provide financial
support for institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary
harm. So I think that they shouldn't regularly consume factory-farmed
animal products. You seem to be terribly upset that I hold this
opinion, I'm not sure why. I'm not in the habit of morally lecturing
people, I seem to be the one who cops most of that.

It may be that there are some changes that should be made to my diet as
well. I am making an effort to inform myself about the issue.

> >> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient animals
> >> > unnecessarily
> >>
> >> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that. You can't
> >> even
> >> define "sentient".
> >>
> >
> > Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable of having
> > feelings.
>
> What do you mean by "feelings", you mean feel pain?

That would be an example, yes.

> There is no definitive
> answer to that question, but every animal species can be observed to react
> adversely or defensively to attack or injury.
>

There is a discussion of these issues in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals
Seriously". It is often hard to tell when an organism is capable of
experiencing the sensation of pain. We should go on the best available
scientific evidence and give the benefit of the doubt where reasonably
possible.

> >> > and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort
> >> > not to provide financial support to institutions or practices that
> >> > cause or support unnecessary harm.
> >>
> >> You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable or
> >> unnecessary
> >> in this context.
> >
> > I can't give absolutely precise definitions of them, no. However, I
> > believe removing these qualifications would make the moral principle
> > false. So I keep them there. Any time someone proposes a moral
> > principle with better-defined terms that I think has a reasonable
> > chance of being true, that's great. I'm not blowing smoke, I'm just
> > stating the moral principles I believe in.
>
> The terms need consistent and fair definitions for the principle to have any
> meaning. I happen to think that a lot of animals must be killed in order to
> support the human race. I think that singling out food animals as political
> clients as ARAs and vegans do, is a spurious attempt by some morally deluded
> individuals to stake out high moral ground for their personal aggrandizment.

The principle has *some* meaning. You have *some* idea of the meanings
of the terms involved. I'm sorry if you find its formulation
unsatisfactory, it's the best I can do so far.

I think a great deal of clearly unnecessary suffering is caused by the
factory-farming of animal products, much more so than any other human
practice. I think it is reasonable to make a moral protest about this
practice. There may be other practices that are worth protesting about
too. This is no objection to making a moral protest about
factory-farming. One cannot devote one's time and energy to every
problem. ARAs try to campaign to end the unnecessary harming of animals
when they see it. I think this is a worthwhile goal.

Dutch

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Dave wrote:
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> snip...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
>> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
>> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
>> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
>> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
>> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
>> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
>> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
>> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
>> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
>> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
>> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
>> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
>> >> >> > cattle for
>> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
>> >> >> > reducing
>> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> >> >> =========================
>> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
>> >> >
>> >> > Do it, then.
>> >>
>> >> You're the one claiming we have a moral obligation, give "detailed
>> >> evidence"
>> >> that tofu causes fewer animal deaths than free-range beef.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I didn't claim you have a moral obligation not to buy free-range beef.
>> > I suspect you do, and I have cited some calculations in support of that
>> > claim.
>>
>> Those calculations don't show anything of the sort.
>>
>
> Why not?

Because the concept of being morally required to kill the fewest number of
animals possible is a ruse. You don't do it with any other consumer
alternative, all you do is ban animal products.

>> > But I don't have conclusive evidence. Based on the inconclusive
>> > evidence I have encountered so far I have decided not ot eat free-range
>> > beef.
>>
>> You don't have any knowledge at all of the farming practises that go into
>> most of the food you eat. Do you know much about fruit growing, how about
>> wheat, rice? I know something about them, I grow wheat, I know apple
>> growers, both are deadly businesses. I wouldn't live within a hundred
>> miles
>> of an apple orchard, that's how bad the pesticides are. The herbicides in
>> grain farming is no better.
>>
>
> All right. There are collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant
> production as well. Show me some plausible numbers and then we'll have
> a basis for reaching a conclusion. Until then, I'll stick with my
> current best guess.

Go ahead and base your life around guesses about made-up moral imperatives.
I plan to enjoy my food to the maximum, and my life, and that doesn't
include anal-retentive dogmas, it includes prime rib and chicken parmesan.

>> >> >> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
>> >> >> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
>> >> >> food we eat?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily.
>> >>
>> >> Who defines what is necessary? You?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't claim to offer a moral principle that gives absolutely
>> > unambiguous moral guidance in evey conceivable situation. The word
>> > "unnecessary" is vague and it will sometimes be hard to decide whether
>> > a given action is in accordance with the moral principle. In those
>> > cases, we'll just have to make a good faith effort to work out what is
>> > the right thing to do.
>>
>> I agree, but I don't see much good faith effort or a coherent moral
>> principle in veganism. Veganism is based soley on a rule which
>> restricts/prohibits use of animal products, that is all. Other crops,
>> like
>> cotton to name one, which cause a lot of environmental damage, go totally
>> unmentioned. Yet my consumption of meat is moral violation? Give me a
>> ****ing break. Who the hell do you think you are?
>>
>
> Well, I've told you my moral principle. Make every reasonable effort
> not to provide financial support for practices that cause or support
> unnecessary harm.

You aren't doing that at all, you're prohibiting animal products, that is
all.

> It's up to you to decide whether you think that's a
> good principle, and if so, what's involved in following it.

It's a vague, meaningless principle and you aren't following it.

> I think any
> serious attempt to follow it would involve a pretty drastic restriction
> of meat consumption, but that's just my opinion.

It's not a serious moral principle.

> I dare say there'd be
> a case for restricting cotton consumption as well, I don't know much
> about that particular issue. You'll note that I haven't been giving you
> any sermons. I'm the one who gets most of the sermons around here. I
> just happen to think that ethical veganism is a defensible position and
> I'm throwing in my two cents' worth about the attacks you're making on
> it.

It's defensible morally to restrict the consumption of animal products, but
it's not defensible to set up some bogus vague moral principle and pretend
that you're following it.

>
>> >> > Probably we
>> >> > don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production as
>> >> > we
>> >> > do.
>> >>
>> >> Then you must stop.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I must make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to
>> > institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm. That may involve
>> > growing some of my own vegetables. I'm not convinced it involves buying
>> > up my own land and growing all of my own food.
>>
>> You sound like a recorded message.
>>
>> >> > I would support efforts to reform crop production.
>> >>
>> >> How?
>> >
>> > Well, I might put pressure on politicians to make reforms which will
>> > reduce the impact on animal welfare, try to make the public more aware
>> > of the issue, that sort of thing.
>>
>> I'll believe it when I see it. So far it would appear that the issue of
>> collateral deaths is off-limits to veganism, cuts a little to close to
>> home
>> for a movement focused on demonizing others.
>>
>
> I don't agree with you that the movement is focussed on demonizing
> others.

I know you don't, no vegan does.

> I think the focus is on trying to reduce the harm caused by the
> factory-farming industry.

That's the first time I have heard that term in our discussion, meat does
not have to come from "factory farms", mine doesn't.

> I agree the issue of the harm of collateral
> deaths should be raised too. Perhaps I will try to make my friends in
> the movement more aware of the issue.

They will think you're crazy. Collateral deaths has no legs as an issue
within "the movement", it hits too close to home.

>
>> >> In the meantime would you consume meat if it involved little or no
>> >> intensive crop rearing?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Only if I was convinced it wouldn't involve additional harm to animals.
>> > Not much research has been done on this topic, based on reading Davis
>> > and Matheny at the moment I think it's probably best not to.
>>
>> Use your own imagination. If I shot a bull moose and offered you some
>> meat,
>> that would almost certainly be a lower impact at ~1/5000 of a death per
>> serving than your current main courses.
>>
>
> I really don't see how you can be confident of that when you admit that
> there are no reliable estimates of the cost of crop production. Matheny
> estimates a vegan diet kills 0.3 wild animals per year.

Matheny hasn't done any research, he's a college dropout.

> Do you have a
> corresponding estimate for a diet which includes some game? Or do you
> have an estimate which is better than Matheny's? If not, it looks like
> you haven't got a conclusive argument.

You are going to believe whatever "the movement" and it's shills like
Matheny tell you to believe. That's your prerogative, but don't come on aaev
claiming that it's rational.

>> >> >> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
>> >> >> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
>> >> >> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
>> >> >> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
>> >> >> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
>> >> >> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
>> >> >> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
>> >> >> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
>> >> >> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
>> >> >> >> and dairy products but I think the best
>> >> >> >> option of all is to source both plant and
>> >> >> >> animal products from local organic farms
>> >> >> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
>> >> >> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
>> >> >> >> local woodlands.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
>> >> >> > organic
>> >> >> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
>> >> >> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
>> >> >> ==============================
>> >> >> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
>> >> >> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop fields
>> >> >> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
>> >> >> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
>> >> >> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food
>> >> > production.
>> >>
>> >> With no spraying or cultivation.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Don't recall that qualification. All right, if you say so. There was a
>> > fairly generous margin of error in Matheny's calculations. Are you
>> > saying some ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per
>> > serving of food than mono-culture crops? Can you provide some evidence
>> > of that?
>>
>> Only to tell as a farmer you that hay is not seeded, weeded or
>> cultivated,
>> just mown and baled. It's the next best thing to pasture. It also does
>> not
>> strip the soil of nutrients like crops grown for human consumption. I can
>> only use my fields every other year, while the hay fields can be mowed
>> several times a year. The whole argument comparing animal feed with human
>> food is another sham.
>>
>
> Well, I guess that would have to be taken into account as well. The day
> I see some serious research which makes a decent case that
> ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per serving of
> food than mono-culture crops, I'll re-evaluate my position.

Thank for illustrating my point. You have drawn a conclusion based on little
or no data, and to alter that position you require "serious research".

>
>> >> >> The fish is an
>> >> >> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would
>> >> >> > be nice
>> >> >> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what
>> >> >> > really causes
>> >> >> > the least harm.
>> >> >> =====================
>> >> >> It isn't the veggies you eat...
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Show me some evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Be honest with yourself, then believe your own common sense.
>> >
>> > Appealling to my common sense doesn't convince me of his claim.
>>
>> You have to be willing to attempt to be objective. As long as you have
>> the
>> typical vegan tape running in your head none of this is never going to
>> make
>> sense.
>
> Well, I'm doing my best. I just don't see how I can reasonably be sure
> that any particular animal product that I can actually buy causes less
> harm per serving of food than crop production.

You can't, just like you can't be sure that rice or bananas or apples cause
less harm per serving than salmon, or bread.

> I think that more
> research should be done along the lines of Davis. Then some kind of
> serious debate can start. In the meantime, I'll have to go with my
> current best guess based on what I've read so far.

You are never going to know, because there simply are too many animals to
count and nobody cares to do it, including vegans. Farmers are too busy
farming and vegans are never going to do it because it shoots the hell out
their little game.

[email protected]

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Dave wrote:
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> snip...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
> >> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
> >> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
> >> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
> >> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
> >> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
> >> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
> >> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
> >> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
> >> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
> >> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
> >> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
> >> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
> >> >> >> > cattle for
> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> >> >> >> > reducing
> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> >> >> >> =========================
> >> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Do it, then.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're the one claiming we have a moral obligation, give "detailed
> >> >> evidence"
> >> >> that tofu causes fewer animal deaths than free-range beef.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I didn't claim you have a moral obligation not to buy free-range beef.
> >> > I suspect you do, and I have cited some calculations in support of that
> >> > claim.
> >>
> >> Those calculations don't show anything of the sort.
> >>
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because the concept of being morally required to kill the fewest number of
> animals possible is a ruse. You don't do it with any other consumer
> alternative, all you do is ban animal products.
>

It's not a ruse. It's something I try to live up to, across the board.

> >> > But I don't have conclusive evidence. Based on the inconclusive
> >> > evidence I have encountered so far I have decided not ot eat free-range
> >> > beef.
> >>
> >> You don't have any knowledge at all of the farming practises that go into
> >> most of the food you eat. Do you know much about fruit growing, how about
> >> wheat, rice? I know something about them, I grow wheat, I know apple
> >> growers, both are deadly businesses. I wouldn't live within a hundred
> >> miles
> >> of an apple orchard, that's how bad the pesticides are. The herbicides in
> >> grain farming is no better.
> >>
> >
> > All right. There are collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant
> > production as well. Show me some plausible numbers and then we'll have
> > a basis for reaching a conclusion. Until then, I'll stick with my
> > current best guess.
>
> Go ahead and base your life around guesses about made-up moral imperatives.
> I plan to enjoy my food to the maximum, and my life, and that doesn't
> include anal-retentive dogmas, it includes prime rib and chicken parmesan.
>

Well, I know you don't agree with the moral foundation, but you haven't
provided any arguments against it. The arguments for it are presented
in David DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously". Any time you want to
address what he has to say in there I'll be happy to talk to you about
it.

> >> >> >> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
> >> >> >> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
> >> >> >> food we eat?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who defines what is necessary? You?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I don't claim to offer a moral principle that gives absolutely
> >> > unambiguous moral guidance in evey conceivable situation. The word
> >> > "unnecessary" is vague and it will sometimes be hard to decide whether
> >> > a given action is in accordance with the moral principle. In those
> >> > cases, we'll just have to make a good faith effort to work out what is
> >> > the right thing to do.
> >>
> >> I agree, but I don't see much good faith effort or a coherent moral
> >> principle in veganism. Veganism is based soley on a rule which
> >> restricts/prohibits use of animal products, that is all. Other crops,
> >> like
> >> cotton to name one, which cause a lot of environmental damage, go totally
> >> unmentioned. Yet my consumption of meat is moral violation? Give me a
> >> ****ing break. Who the hell do you think you are?
> >>
> >
> > Well, I've told you my moral principle. Make every reasonable effort
> > not to provide financial support for practices that cause or support
> > unnecessary harm.
>
> You aren't doing that at all, you're prohibiting animal products, that is
> all.
>

You have no basis for saying I'm not doing that.

> > It's up to you to decide whether you think that's a
> > good principle, and if so, what's involved in following it.
>
> It's a vague, meaningless principle and you aren't following it.
>

There is some vagueness. It's not meaningless. I would like to hear
your reasons for saying I'm not following it.

> > I think any
> > serious attempt to follow it would involve a pretty drastic restriction
> > of meat consumption, but that's just my opinion.
>
> It's not a serious moral principle.
>

Ipse dixit.

> > I dare say there'd be
> > a case for restricting cotton consumption as well, I don't know much
> > about that particular issue. You'll note that I haven't been giving you
> > any sermons. I'm the one who gets most of the sermons around here. I
> > just happen to think that ethical veganism is a defensible position and
> > I'm throwing in my two cents' worth about the attacks you're making on
> > it.
>
> It's defensible morally to restrict the consumption of animal products, but
> it's not defensible to set up some bogus vague moral principle and pretend
> that you're following it.
>

Well, as I say, I accept the moral principle and I've told you where to
find arguments in its favour. If you want to address those that's fine.
And if you have some serious suggestion to make about how I can better
follow it, I'll be happy to listen to that too. It's a moral principle
that I accept and I'm trying to live up to it. Is that all right with
you?

> >
> >> >> > Probably we
> >> >> > don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production as
> >> >> > we
> >> >> > do.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then you must stop.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I must make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to
> >> > institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm. That may involve
> >> > growing some of my own vegetables. I'm not convinced it involves buying
> >> > up my own land and growing all of my own food.
> >>
> >> You sound like a recorded message.
> >>
> >> >> > I would support efforts to reform crop production.
> >> >>
> >> >> How?
> >> >
> >> > Well, I might put pressure on politicians to make reforms which will
> >> > reduce the impact on animal welfare, try to make the public more aware
> >> > of the issue, that sort of thing.
> >>
> >> I'll believe it when I see it. So far it would appear that the issue of
> >> collateral deaths is off-limits to veganism, cuts a little to close to
> >> home
> >> for a movement focused on demonizing others.
> >>
> >
> > I don't agree with you that the movement is focussed on demonizing
> > others.
>
> I know you don't, no vegan does.
>

But you think they're wrong. If you had any reasons to offer for
thinking that they're wrong that would be interesting.

> > I think the focus is on trying to reduce the harm caused by the
> > factory-farming industry.
>
> That's the first time I have heard that term in our discussion, meat does
> not have to come from "factory farms", mine doesn't.
>

Great.

> > I agree the issue of the harm of collateral
> > deaths should be raised too. Perhaps I will try to make my friends in
> > the movement more aware of the issue.
>
> They will think you're crazy. Collateral deaths has no legs as an issue
> within "the movement", it hits too close to home.
>
> >
> >> >> In the meantime would you consume meat if it involved little or no
> >> >> intensive crop rearing?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Only if I was convinced it wouldn't involve additional harm to animals.
> >> > Not much research has been done on this topic, based on reading Davis
> >> > and Matheny at the moment I think it's probably best not to.
> >>
> >> Use your own imagination. If I shot a bull moose and offered you some
> >> meat,
> >> that would almost certainly be a lower impact at ~1/5000 of a death per
> >> serving than your current main courses.
> >>
> >
> > I really don't see how you can be confident of that when you admit that
> > there are no reliable estimates of the cost of crop production. Matheny
> > estimates a vegan diet kills 0.3 wild animals per year.
>
> Matheny hasn't done any research, he's a college dropout.
>

Still, he does argue for his conclusions. You can address the arguments
if you want to.

> > Do you have a
> > corresponding estimate for a diet which includes some game? Or do you
> > have an estimate which is better than Matheny's? If not, it looks like
> > you haven't got a conclusive argument.
>
> You are going to believe whatever "the movement" and it's shills like
> Matheny tell you to believe. That's your prerogative, but don't come on aaev
> claiming that it's rational.
>

I'm afraid your saying this doesn't persuade me that you've got a
conclusive argument.

> >> >> >> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
> >> >> >> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
> >> >> >> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
> >> >> >> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
> >> >> >> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
> >> >> >> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
> >> >> >> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
> >> >> >> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
> >> >> >> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
> >> >> >> >> and dairy products but I think the best
> >> >> >> >> option of all is to source both plant and
> >> >> >> >> animal products from local organic farms
> >> >> >> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
> >> >> >> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
> >> >> >> >> local woodlands.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
> >> >> >> > organic
> >> >> >> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
> >> >> >> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
> >> >> >> ==============================
> >> >> >> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
> >> >> >> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop fields
> >> >> >> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
> >> >> >> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
> >> >> >> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food
> >> >> > production.
> >> >>
> >> >> With no spraying or cultivation.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Don't recall that qualification. All right, if you say so. There was a
> >> > fairly generous margin of error in Matheny's calculations. Are you
> >> > saying some ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per
> >> > serving of food than mono-culture crops? Can you provide some evidence
> >> > of that?
> >>
> >> Only to tell as a farmer you that hay is not seeded, weeded or
> >> cultivated,
> >> just mown and baled. It's the next best thing to pasture. It also does
> >> not
> >> strip the soil of nutrients like crops grown for human consumption. I can
> >> only use my fields every other year, while the hay fields can be mowed
> >> several times a year. The whole argument comparing animal feed with human
> >> food is another sham.
> >>
> >
> > Well, I guess that would have to be taken into account as well. The day
> > I see some serious research which makes a decent case that
> > ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per serving of
> > food than mono-culture crops, I'll re-evaluate my position.
>
> Thank for illustrating my point. You have drawn a conclusion based on little
> or no data, and to alter that position you require "serious research".
>

Because little or no data is the best we've got at the moment, and I
have to take some position. Other things short of "serious research"
would also suffice for me to re-evaluate my position. But what I've
seen on here so far doesn't cut the mustard.

> >
> >> >> >> The fish is an
> >> >> >> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would
> >> >> >> > be nice
> >> >> >> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what
> >> >> >> > really causes
> >> >> >> > the least harm.
> >> >> >> =====================
> >> >> >> It isn't the veggies you eat...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Show me some evidence.
> >> >>
> >> >> Be honest with yourself, then believe your own common sense.
> >> >
> >> > Appealling to my common sense doesn't convince me of his claim.
> >>
> >> You have to be willing to attempt to be objective. As long as you have
> >> the
> >> typical vegan tape running in your head none of this is never going to
> >> make
> >> sense.
> >
> > Well, I'm doing my best. I just don't see how I can reasonably be sure
> > that any particular animal product that I can actually buy causes less
> > harm per serving of food than crop production.
>
> You can't, just like you can't be sure that rice or bananas or apples cause
> less harm per serving than salmon, or bread.
>

So in trying to minimize the extent to which I financially support
unnecessary harm, I have to make a guess based on the best available
research at the moment, and that's what I've tried to do.

> > I think that more
> > research should be done along the lines of Davis. Then some kind of
> > serious debate can start. In the meantime, I'll have to go with my
> > current best guess based on what I've read so far.
>
> You are never going to know, because there simply are too many animals to
> count and nobody cares to do it, including vegans. Farmers are too busy
> farming and vegans are never going to do it because it shoots the hell out
> their little game.

pearl[_1_]

> wrote in message oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > >
> > > Dave wrote:
> > >> wrote:
> >
> >
> > snip...
> >
> >
> > >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
> > >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
> > >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
> > >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
> > >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
> > >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
> > >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
> > >> rotations available that produce human consumable
> > >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
> > >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
> > >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
> > >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
> > >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
> > > cattle for
> > > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> > > reducing
> > > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> > =========================
> > Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
>
> Do it, then.
>
> > And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
> > eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
> > food we eat?
> >
>
> We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily. Probably we
> don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production as we
> do. I would support efforts to reform crop production.

'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust
for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic
farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides
used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects
and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to
be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other
animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many
of their habitats.
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/s.../benefits.html

'..This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides
evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic
farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming,
organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves
soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water
pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide
emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission
potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower,
and energy efficiency is usually higher.
...'
http://www.cosi.org.uk/web/sa/saweb....Sheets05092001

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:

Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.
Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.
Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.
Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.
Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.
Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
...'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm.

> > >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
> > >> various other ways. For example, manure is
> > >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
> > >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
> > >> remove weeds prior to planting.
> > >>
> > >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
> > >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
> > >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
> > >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
> > >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
> > >> and dairy products but I think the best
> > >> option of all is to source both plant and
> > >> animal products from local organic farms
> > >> that you can trust, fish from handline
> > >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
> > >> local woodlands.
> > >
> > > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
> > > organic
> > > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
> > > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
> > ==============================
> > Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
> > live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop fields
> > with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
> > way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
> > pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
> >
>
> Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food
> production.

Thanks Rupert. As we've seen:

'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
American population.
...
About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
...
More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.
...
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

272,000,000 x 7.5 = 2,040,000,000 animals dying in pasture.

Food crops:
acres
Total dried beans and peas 2,140,851
Peanuts 1,436,034
Potatoes 1,309,963
Rice 2,424,864
Total sugar 2,172,550
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table2.html

= 9,484,262 acres = 3,838,280 hectares.

+ 6 million hectares grain, 1,321,080 hectares vegetables
and 1,806,010 hectares orchards, vineyards, and nursery,
gives us a grand total of 12,965,370 hectares land used.

For livestock - 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains.

Leaving aside the close-cropping of feed crops for now,
over twice as much land is harvested for livestock, ergo
over twice as many collateral deaths than for food crops.

And add to that the animals that die in pasture, above.

And the nearly 40 million head of cattle slaughtered p/a.

> > The fish is an interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one.

'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.
.....'
http://www.seaotters.org/CurrentIssu....cfm?DocID=279

At 1 fish a week for 6 billion people.., that's 6 billion fish
handlined per week. 24 billion every month. Where are
these massive numbers of fish Dave proposes handlining?

[email protected]

Dutch wrote:
> It's a vague, meaningless principle and you aren't following it.
>

Oh, and by the way, if it's meaningless you can't say either that I'm
following it or that I'm not following it. You can't have your cake and
eat it too.

(Hmmm, maybe I should crosspost this to sci.logic...)

pearl[_1_]

"pearl" > wrote in message ...

WRT all grass-fed ..

2,040,000,000 animals dying in pasture /
12,965,370 hectares food crops = 157

- To surpass pasture collateral deaths, over 157 collateral
deaths must occur in every hectare of food crops. Where's
the evidence for anything remotely close to that happening?
Steven Davis make a guesstimate of about 6 field voles p/ha.

> Leaving aside the close-cropping of feed crops for now,
> over twice as much land is harvested for livestock, ergo
> over twice as many collateral deaths than for food crops.

'.. about 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains.'

To replace these feed grain crops with grazing would
require roughly double that area in quality pasture.

60,000,000 hectares x 7.5 = 450,000,000 collateral deaths.

> And add to that the animals that die in pasture, above.
>
> And the nearly 40 million head of cattle slaughtered p/a.

2,040,000,000 + 450,000,000 + 40,000,000 = 2,530,000,000
- collateral deaths for all grass-fed livestock (forget poultry).

Now, if everyone in the US became vegan, to replace the
protein from meat, they would need between a tenth to a
twentieth of the land used for livestock. Let's say a tenth,
although as much grazing is now quite poor, it's probably
closer to a twentieth, or even less. Anyway, to continue..

302,000,000 / 10 = 30,200,000 hectares (about the same
area of arable land used to grow feed grain crops at present).

12,965,370 hectares + 30,200,000 hectares = 43,165,370.

2,530,000,000 (cds/livestock) / 43,165,370 = 58.61

Or, IOW.. over 59 collateral deaths must occur in every
hectare of food crops to make that scenario worse than
all grass-fed livestock. Where's the evidence for anything
remotely close to that happening? Steven Davis makes a
guesstimate of about 6 field voles p/ha. And ........ ?

Another aspect to consider here, is that the 272 million
hectares which are now pasture could be natural habitat.

Good for wildlife, for the environment, and for us.

rick

rick

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being
>> >> >> > vegan
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring
>> >> >> > alternatives.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> prepared to
>> >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism
>> >> >> then
>> >> >> you aren't a
>> >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet
>> >> >> wrt
>> >> >> animal death and
>> >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will
>> >> >> always
>> >> >> find a way to
>> >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and
>> >> > eggs.
>> >> > If I
>> >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If
>> >> > you
>> >> > tell me
>> >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal
>> >> > suffering
>> >> > by
>> >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the
>> >> > detailed
>> >> > evidence.
>> >> ==========================
>> >> Then you should be able to provide evidence that your vegan
>> >> diet
>> >> automatically means you kill fewer animals.
>> >
>> > Why? I never made that claim.
>> ==============
>> Then you should reread what you said above. Either that, or
>> you
>> are saying that your veggies kill NO animals since you claimed
>> we
>> have no right to kill animals for our food.
>>
>> >
>> > I have actually produced some evidence. It's not conclusive.
>> > But I'll
>> > wait until I hear at least some counter-evidence before I
>> > make
>> > any
>> > changes to my diet.
>> ===================
>> I've seen no evidence from you at all to support the vegan
>> claims
>> of being 'better.'
>
> The Gaverick Matheny article.
> ======================
He cites no evidence...

>> But the point I'm making is that you don't
>> have to change by eating meat. You refuse to even compare the
>> foods you do eat, and make changes there as to which ones
>> cause
>> more/less animal death and suffering. That alone puts the ly
>> to
>> your relegion of veganism.
>>
>
> As I told you, I have made some attempt to compare the amounts
> of harm
> caused by production of the different crops. When I find some
> decent
> data on this, I'll change my eating habits accordingly.
===========================
No, you haven't, obviously. You haven't looked at bananas, even
though you eat them. You're a liar, plain and simple, with
nothing but a simple rule for your simple mind.

>
>>
>> >
>> >> Or, in the very least, you should be able to tell us which
>> >> foods
>> >> that you do eat cause more/less death and suffering. Is
>> >> rice
>> >> better than potatoes? Brocolli better than corn? Bananas
>> >> better
>> >> than apples? The fact is, you don't know, and don't care
>> >> since
>> >> you have your simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no
>> >> meat.'
>> >
>> > No, I don't know. I do care and have made some effort to
>> > find
>> > out, but
>> > not much research has been done on these issues.
>> ======================
>> Then why are you so adament that being vegan is better than
>> anything else? faith? Yep, veganism is a relegion.
>>
>
> I'm not.
===================
Yes, you have been...

>
>>
>> >
>> >> Being vegan is also more than a diet.
>> >> Why is the unnecessary death and suffering of animals for
>> >> your
>> >> entertainment just fine, but we can't eat them?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Unnecessary suffering is not just fine. I'm not altogether
>> > convinced
>> > that electricity production is unnecessary.
>> ==========================
>> What part of your being here on this newsgroup is necessary?
>> You
>> contribute to an ever growing demand for more power and
>> communications for no more reason than *your* entertainment.
>>
>
> Would you care to estimate the expected contribution to the
> amount of
> harm caused to animals by my usage of Usenet? I really think it
> would
> be pretty miniscule. I agree it's unnecessary, but I'm not
> convinced
> that making every reasonable effort not to provide financial
> support to
> institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary
> harm
> requires me to stop using Usenet.
========================
So, now you've switched from it's not ok to kill animals
unnecessarily, like for entertainment, to some animals killed for
your entertainment is ok? What a hoot! Guess you're really only
a vegan when it doesn't mean too much sacrifice on your lifestyle
and entertainment, eh hypocrite? You are making no such efforts
to avoid rewarding people that kill animals for your lifestyle
and entertainment, killer.

>
>>
>> >
>> > But no, any unnecessary suffering and death of animals that
>> > is
>> > really
>> > being caused purely for my entertainment is not just fine.
>> ==========================
>> Then again, you're lying about really caring about killing
>> animals, aren't you?
>>
>
> No.
=========================
Yes, you are. maybe you can convenice yourself, but the lys are
right here, obvious to any reader without vegan willful ignorance
filters.

>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >
>

rick

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being
>> >> >> > vegan
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring
>> >> >> > alternatives.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> prepared to
>> >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism
>> >> >> then
>> >> >> you aren't a
>> >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet
>> >> >> wrt
>> >> >> animal death and
>> >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will
>> >> >> always
>> >> >> find a way to
>> >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and
>> >> > eggs.
>> >> > If I
>> >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If
>> >> > you
>> >> > tell me
>> >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal
>> >> > suffering
>> >> > by
>> >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the
>> >> > detailed
>> >> > evidence.
>> >> ==========================
>> >> Then you should be able to provide evidence that your vegan
>> >> diet
>> >> automatically means you kill fewer animals.
>> >
>> > Why? I never made that claim.
>> ==============
>> Then you should reread what you said above. Either that, or
>> you
>> are saying that your veggies kill NO animals since you claimed
>> we
>> have no right to kill animals for our food.
>>
>
> Sorry, missed this bit the first time around. I said we have no
> right
> to kill animals unnecessarily. I accept we probably don't have
> the
> right to kill as many animals as we currently do in crop
> production. I
> believe I am obliged to make every *reasonable* effort not to
> financially support unnecessary harm, not every *possible*
> effort. I
> believe that my vegan diet is one reasonable way of trying to
> meet this
> standard. If anyone thinks there is a non-vegan diet that can
> do
> better, I'm happy to listen to the evidence.
=========================
Already been given fool. You keep ignoring it, as usual for a
vegan religious fanatic.
have you researched bananas yet?

>

rick

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to
>> >> >> > kill
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > cattle for
>> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were
>> >> >> > actually
>> >> >> > reducing
>> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least
>> >> >> *sometimes* the
>> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or
>> >> >> who
>> >> >> die
>> >> >> have any
>> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or
>> >> >> kill
>> >> >> them in
>> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans
>> >> >> swallow
>> >> >> hook, line, and
>> >> >> sinker.
>> >> >
>> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient
>> >> > animals
>> >> > unnecessarily.
>> >> =====================
>> >> Then you're lying to yourself. Why are you here on usenet?
>> >> This
>> >> isn't necessary, and just for entertainment. It causes
>> >> massive
>> >> amounts of death and suffering to animals.
>> >
>> > The institution of Usenet causes massive amounts of death
>> > and
>> > suffering
>> > to animals.
>> =====================
>> Instutution? Are you projecting about your next home? Again,
>> read some sites...
>>
>> >
>> > I think I'd like to see a more detailed defence of that
>> > claim.
>> >
>> >> All unnecessary!
>> >> But then, it appears that to you, like most vegans, cows
>> >> are
>> >> somehow more sentient than other mammals, birds, reptiles,
>> >> fish
>> >> and amphibians.
>> >
>> > No.
>> =================
>> Then why is it bad to kill one cow, but ok to kill many
>> smaller
>> animals for the same calories?
>>
>
> It's better to kill one cow than many smaller animals. But
> there are
> collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant food production.
> You
> haven't convinced me that production of grass-fed beef causes
> less harm
> per serving of food than crop production.
===========================
You haven't provided proof that there are other deaths involved
in grass-fed beef.
The beef I eat lives right down the road. There is no planting,
plowing, spraying, harvesting.
It goes to slaughter just a few miles away, and then right to us.
Tell us the route of destruction your bananas take, killer.

>
>>
>> >
>> >> How is that possible?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >
>

rick

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to
>> >> >> > kill the cattle
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were
>> >> >> > actually
>> >> >> > reducing
>> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least
>> >> >> *sometimes*
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or
>> >> >> who die have any
>> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or
>> >> >> kill them in
>> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans
>> >> >> swallow hook, line,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> sinker.
>> >> >
>> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient
>> >> > animals
>> >> > unnecessarily.
>> >>
>> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation
>> >> 2. All animals are sentient
>> >
>> > False.
>>
>> Name one that isn't.
>>
>
> An ant.
========================
Ah, bugs. vegans usually get around to mentioning them. OK,
so... Bugs don't count when it comes to crop production, huh?
Good thing for you cause your impact would take a hit big time,
right hypocrite? So, if bugs don't count in crop production,
then why do vegans obcess about bugs that are used as coloring in
products? Afterall, they're just bugs, and bugs don't 'count'
against your death toll, right?

>
>> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a
>> >> collateral cost.
>> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit
>> >> cocktail, or taking
>> >> that
>> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals
>> >> unecessarily.
>> >
>> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain
>> > probability that
>> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be
>> > killed
>> > unnecessarily."
>>
>> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a
>> transparent and
>> cynical attempt to redefine your position.
>
> Yes it would, and no it isn't.
>
>> You have ZERO knowledge of the
>> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods
>> you consume.
>>
>
> True.
======================
And haven't even attempted to find out, because you have your
simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.'

>
>> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient
>> > animals
>> > unnecessarily
>>
>> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that.
>> You can't even
>> define "sentient".
>>
>
> Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable of
> having
> feelings.
>
>> > and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort
>> > not to provide financial support to institutions or
>> > practices that
>> > cause or support unnecessary harm.
>>
>> You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable or
>> unnecessary
>> in this context.
>
> I can't give absolutely precise definitions of them, no.
> However, I
> believe removing these qualifications would make the moral
> principle
> false. So I keep them there. Any time someone proposes a moral
> principle with better-defined terms that I think has a
> reasonable
> chance of being true, that's great. I'm not blowing smoke, I'm
> just
> stating the moral principles I believe in.
>

rick

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to
>> >> >> >> > kill the
>> >> >> >> > cattle
>> >> >> >> > for
>> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were
>> >> >> >> > actually
>> >> >> >> > reducing
>> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at
>> >> >> >> least *sometimes*
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or
>> >> >> >> who die have
>> >> >> >> any
>> >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource
>> >> >> >> or kill them in
>> >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans
>> >> >> >> swallow hook,
>> >> >> >> line,
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> sinker.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient
>> >> >> > animals
>> >> >> > unnecessarily.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation
>> >> >> 2. All animals are sentient
>> >> >
>> >> > False.
>> >>
>> >> Name one that isn't.
>> >>
>> >
>> > An ant.
>>
>> Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, sights,
>> sounds, objects,
>> why would they not feel pain?
>>
>
> They respond to stimuli in their environment, but I think it's
> debatable whether they actually experience any sensations.
> There's a
> good discussion of this issue in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals
> Seriously".
>
>> >> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a
>> >> >> collateral
>> >> >> cost.
>> >> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit
>> >> >> cocktail, or
>> >> >> taking
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals
>> >> >> unecessarily.
>> >> >
>> >> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain
>> >> > probability that
>> >> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be
>> >> > killed
>> >> > unnecessarily."
>> >>
>> >> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a
>> >> transparent and
>> >> cynical attempt to redefine your position.
>> >
>> > Yes it would, and no it isn't.
>>
>> What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain
>> probability" and
>> "unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and subjective.
>>
>
> Well, it's a lot more accurate than saying I kill something. I
> certainly don't kill anything when I go on a vacation.
===============================
If not killing things directly is the criteria, then I must be
vegan too! Yippeee!!
Afterall, I didn't kill any animal for the steak i had last
night!!!

I gave financial
> support to certain processes which harm animals. As a result of
> my
> increasing the amount of financial support that process
> received, there
> is a certain probability that mine will be a "threshold
> purchase" which
> will cause more of the process to go on, and thereby will
> increase the
> amount of harm done to animals. That's the only accurate way to
> describe what's going on here.
=============================
No, what's going on is a continued exercise in skipping out on
the blame for massive animal deaths for your lifestyle, killer.

>
>> >> You have ZERO knowledge of the
>> >> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods
>> >> you consume.
>> >>
>> >
>> > True.
>>
>> Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally
>> deficient?
>>
>
> I don't know what your diet is. I think I have a pretty good
> foundation
> for claiming that someone who regularly consumes factory-farmed
> animal
> products is not making every reasonable effort not to provide
> financial
> support for institutions or practices that cause or support
> unnecessary
> harm.
==================================
And, the same is true for those that regularly consume
factory-farmed veggies.
Afterall, the entire process is based on a world-wide
petro-chemical industry that
kills animals and detroys environemnets. Your continued support
for death and suffering and world-wide environemental destruction
is noted. Did you study bananas yet, hypocrite?

So I think that they shouldn't regularly consume factory-farmed
> animal products. You seem to be terribly upset that I hold this
> opinion, I'm not sure why. I'm not in the habit of morally
> lecturing
> people, I seem to be the one who cops most of that.
========================
And I think you shoudn't regularly consume factory-farmed
veggies, but you do. All the while decrying the
'badness' of meats. Quite the hypocrite, aren't you?

>
> It may be that there are some changes that should be made to my
> diet as
> well. I am making an effort to inform myself about the issue.
==============================
Doesn't look that way. And, the only reason you might now is
because your ignorance has been shattered with facts.
You were quite smug in having convenced yourself that veggies
were always better than meats. That's all the simple rule for
your simple mind demanded, faith. faith in the religion of
veganism..

>
>> >> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient
>> >> > animals
>> >> > unnecessarily
>> >>
>> >> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that.
>> >> You can't
>> >> even
>> >> define "sentient".
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable of
>> > having
>> > feelings.
>>
>> What do you mean by "feelings", you mean feel pain?
>
> That would be an example, yes.
>
>> There is no definitive
>> answer to that question, but every animal species can be
>> observed to react
>> adversely or defensively to attack or injury.
>>
>
> There is a discussion of these issues in DeGrazia's "Taking
> Animals
> Seriously". It is often hard to tell when an organism is
> capable of
> experiencing the sensation of pain. We should go on the best
> available
> scientific evidence and give the benefit of the doubt where
> reasonably
> possible.
>
>> >> > and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort
>> >> > not to provide financial support to institutions or
>> >> > practices that
>> >> > cause or support unnecessary harm.
>> >>
>> >> You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable
>> >> or
>> >> unnecessary
>> >> in this context.
>> >
>> > I can't give absolutely precise definitions of them, no.
>> > However, I
>> > believe removing these qualifications would make the moral
>> > principle
>> > false. So I keep them there. Any time someone proposes a
>> > moral
>> > principle with better-defined terms that I think has a
>> > reasonable
>> > chance of being true, that's great. I'm not blowing smoke,
>> > I'm just
>> > stating the moral principles I believe in.
>>
>> The terms need consistent and fair definitions for the
>> principle to have any
>> meaning. I happen to think that a lot of animals must be
>> killed in order to
>> support the human race. I think that singling out food animals
>> as political
>> clients as ARAs and vegans do, is a spurious attempt by some
>> morally deluded
>> individuals to stake out high moral ground for their personal
>> aggrandizment.
>
> The principle has *some* meaning. You have *some* idea of the
> meanings
> of the terms involved. I'm sorry if you find its formulation
> unsatisfactory, it's the best I can do so far.
>
> I think a great deal of clearly unnecessary suffering is caused
> by the
> factory-farming of animal products, much more so than any other
> human
> practice.
========================================
Really? You are wearing your blinders tight, aren't you?

I think it is reasonable to make a moral protest about this
> practice. There may be other practices that are worth
> protesting about
> too.
===========================
Of course, but those are practices that would involve your being
inconvenienced, eh? Can't have that as long as you can rant
about what you think others are doing, right hypocrite?

This is no objection to making a moral protest about
> factory-farming. One cannot devote one's time and energy to
> every
> problem. ARAs try to campaign to end the unnecessary harming of
> animals
> when they see it. I think this is a worthwhile goal.
======================
ROTFLMAO You have zero impact and say about the meat industry.
I'd say anytime you put into that is wasted.
Now, if you really wanted to protest the way animals are treated,
you would start with processes that you consume right now. But,
that would have an adverse inpact on your life, and it is far
easier to just continue the spew about what you think others are
doing, right?

>

rick

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> snip...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > 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.
>> >> >> >> ==========================
>> >> >> >> Really? tell us your proof. Step right up and
>> >> >> >> demonstrate
>> >> >> >> how
>> >> >> >> just being vegan automatically causes no/less/fewer
>> >> >> >> animals
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> die and less environmental impact that eating
>> >> >> >> grass-fed
>> >> >> >> meats.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I wasn't really thinking about comparing the amount of
>> >> >> > harm
>> >> >> > caused by
>> >> >> > the production of grass-fed beef with the production
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > vegan
>> >> >> > food. My
>> >> >> > main thought was that both consumer choices involve
>> >> >> > boycotting
>> >> >> > factory-farmed beef, and the impact of this should be
>> >> >> > about
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > same in
>> >> >> > each case.
>> >> >> =========================
>> >> >> No, it would not be. The vegan has no impact on the
>> >> >> industry
>> >> >> at
>> >> >> all.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, he or she does, he or she diminishes the demand for
>> >> > the
>> >> > product.
>> >> ==========================
>> >> No, they do not. They are non-participants in the product.
>> >> Not
>> >> buying a product you don't buy, and never will has no
>> >> effect
>> >> on
>> >> the market.
>> >
>> > Yes, it does. It reduces the demand.
>> =====================
>> No, it does not. You can't reduce a demand when you already
>> do
>> not buy the product.
>>
>
> The demand is less if you don't buy the product than it would
> be if you
> did.
=========================
No fool. There is no reduction in a demand that isn't there
already.

>
> By your logic, I could say you can't effect any change on the
> beef
> industry when you already buy grass-fed beef.
=======================
No, because I already have an impact by continuing the demand
that I have. Now, if I stopped, I would be making an changed in
the demand for beef. But, the demand was already there for me to
make that reduction. You cannot reduce a demand that wasn't
there.

>
>>
>> >
>> >> I consume no llama wool from the andes, never have
>> >> and never will. The production of llama wool in the andes
>> >> is
>> >> not
>> >> in the least affected by my non-participation. And, I
>> >> especially
>> >> have no impact on how the process is completed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > The buyers of grass-fed beef also diminish the demand for
>> >> > the
>> >> > product.
>> >> =====================
>> >> No, they do not. The demand for beef is a demand for beef.
>> >> The
>> >> difference is the process, not the product.
>> >>
>> >
>> > They diminish the demand for factory-farmed beef (as vegans
>> > do)
>> ========================
>> Again, vegans do not reduce a demand for beef. You can't
>> reduce
>> a demand that you don't have to begin with.
>>
>
> The demand is less than it would be if they bought the
> factory-farmed
> beef.
======================
But they are not, and have not. They have no impact on that
demand level because they are non-buyers.
Let's try something different than llama wool. I do not use
tampons. I have zero impact
on the demand for the product. I have no foreseen demand for the
product in the future. If I declare, "tomorrow I will never buy
a tampon," what was the effect on demand? Nothing.

>
>> and
>> > increase the demand for grass-fed beef (which vegans don't
>> > do).
>> > How you
>> > individuate products is neither here nor there.
>> =============================
>> I'm not making them different, you are. Beef is beef. All
>> one
>> product. The only people that have an impact on the demand
>> for
>> beef are those that buy it. There is no reduced demand for a
>> demand that is not already there.
>>

snip..

http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230 http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643 http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htmTo cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html

rick

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Menu

About Us