On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:49:04 -0700 (PDT), phil <Phillipeb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>What you are saying about how vegans cannot contribue anything to the
>quality of life nor the quantity of life slaughtered is nieve. While
>you are correct in your assertation that even vegans cannot live a
>life free of harm it is the purpose of veganism to minimize that
>suffering. To that end i am doing my part. The nation is run on a
>supply and demand concept the more people who become vegan or
>vegetarian the less production of meat will be needed. While again it
>is true that animals raised in factory farms are owed their life to
>that process it is the question as to the quality of life that is
>owed.
· Because there are so many different situations
involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
cruelty or abuse at all.
Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
confined to such a degree that they appear to have
terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
groups of animals in the same way.
Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
groups in the same way. ·
>We have comodified animals with feelings and social patterns in
>order to sustain us, which based on your ideological beliefs is either
>right or wrong. The one thing i think we can agree on as both
>omnivore and herbivore is that the system is out of whack. The mere
>production of meat is more costly than the production of vegetables.
>The only reason currently that Americans are not paying 15 dollars a
>pound of meat is because the government subsidizes these farms in
>order to cut the final cost absorbed by the purchaser.
>
>(see article here:
http://www.celsias.com/2008/02/22/why-eating-a-big-mac-is-cheaper-than-eating-a-salad
>)
>
>The government uses .37% of its subsidizing budget on fruits and
>vegetables while it uses 73% of its budget on meat, this in turn
>creates an imbalance. I could quote all the negative aspects of meat
>production in America including but not limited to green house gas
>emissions, spoilage of land based on animal waste, the fact that meat
>production costs more water per lbs of meat than vegetable production
>as well as the case that the rising incident of starvation due to
>poverty could be lessened by a more plant centric diet and subsidizing
>share.
>
>Undoubtedly i will hear in response that my reasoning argue for the
>destructions or lessoning of the numbers of factory farmed animals
>which can in turn be construed as a desire to kill animals in
>confinement. I think the most logical step would be to gradually
>decrease the dependency on farm animals which would also decrease the
>amount of livestock bred so that in a few generations time the amount
>of suffering and slaughter could be minimized. While i have the grand
>hope that the world would adopt compassionate eating habits i am a
>realist when it comes to the likely hood of that within my lifetime.
>There are many things ingrained into the social consciousness through
>memetics and old world thinking that will continue to perpetuate the
>myth that animal based diets are needed and one cannot succeed on a
>plant based diet. So it is my hope that by adopting a wellfarist
>outlook seeking better conditions for livestock and advocating
>concurrently for people to consider a vegan lifestyle will make the
>most impact on the care and well being of animals.
>
>So in conclusion while it is one thing to say that being a vegan does
>not exempt you from the tangential abuse or harm of animals it is
>quite another to say that being a vegan does not help Decrease the
>amount of suffering caused by the meat and dairy industry.
I pointed out that being vegan does nothing to help any
livestock, since it does not. If people want to help farm animals
with their lifestyle the need to be more conscientious consumers
of animal products, NOT vegans.
>It is more
>an argument about semantics than it is about facts.
No.
>Everyday i learn
>of something that i can do or change that helps directly my role in
>the needless torture and killing of animals for my wellbeing or
>entertainment, and everyday i try my best to reflect on the nature of
>my choices in order to understand fully my impact. This is truly
>conscious consumerism.
|
