Re: If life is a benefit...

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:44:25 -0500, "Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>     It also involves less wildlife deaths to grow a few hundred pounds of
>> grass raised beef, than a few hundred pounds of rice imo. Or tofu. Or
>> bread. In some ngs people discuss the ethics of their diet. To me the
>> veg*ns seem to have promoted the impression on the population in
>> general, that a veg*n diet is superior to an omnivorous one because
>> animals aren't slaughtered in order to feed veg*ns. But we can see
>> from the above that in some cases an omnivorous diet involves less
>> deaths than a veg*n one. Also, meat comsumption provides life--not
>> only death--for billions of animals. Some of their lives are decent, and
>> some of them are not. "ARAs"/veg*ns only want us to consider the
>> lives which are filled with over-restrictions and pain. I believe we
>> should consider the good as well as the bad, and also that some
>> typs of veggies involve more animal deaths than some types of meat.
>> It's funny, sad and disgusting that the veg*ns who pretend to care
>> about the animals so much, don't want to consider such things that
>> have so much influence on the lives of billions of animals. IMO.
>
>Again, I do not agree with your premise that less resources are used to
>raise animal foods as opposed to vegetable.  But it doesn't really matter.
>People will eat what they want to eat, and that drives whatever industry
>provides that food.  Beef, pigs, chicken eggs are mostly produced by factory
>farms these days.  The idea of a bunch of quaint 100 acre farms raising
>happy pigs and chickens and pigs is nice, but not accurate.  The fact is
>that animals--like vegetables--are raised in the most profitable way
>imaginable.  Does this screw up the environment?   Hell yes!  And it doesn't
>matter if its acres and acres of hybridized corn for human consumption or
>giant warehouses were pigs are born fattened and slaughtered without ever
>seeing the sun.  This is modern agriculture.
>
>Its no skin off my nose if a vegan has problems with what they eat.  I see
>no reason to get upset about it one way or the other.  But obviously there
>are people that get very exited about it on both sides.
>
>Scott

    Though we have yet to see evidence of it, I'm convinced that there
are people who care about human influence on animals. Do you think
there is good reason why such people should not take into consideration
that some types of veggies involve more animal deaths than some types
of meat?