ON THE MORALITY OF DIET

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that the animals killed by crop production is massive, so because animals die to feed Vegans, that is no worse than killing other animals to eat? I am not a Vegan, so my answers may not encompass all of your questions, but I will try.

The difference is the animals killed to to grow crops are not killed on purpose, and they are not forced to live in tiny enclosures before they are killed.

There's more to it than that:
• Killing livestock for meat kills x animals.
• Harvesting crops kills y animals.
In order to produce livestock for meat, it is necessary to first feed your livestock for a period of time. In order to feed said livestock, it is necessary to harvest crops. Therefore:
• Animals killed by meat = x + y
• Animals killed by veganism = y
The former option (meat) will always be greater than the latter option (veganism), even if crop production kills more animals than meat production.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Maximo, I recommend you use the quote function.
If you type out this:

Code: Select all

[quote="Cirion Spellbinder"]The formatting of your posts make them difficult to read.[/quote]

It will output this:

The formatting of your posts make them difficult to read.

You can replace my name, which is in between the quotation marks, with the name of the person you want to quote and what they said in between the brackets.

[maximo hudson]

ON SWISS COWS & MEXICAN SOY

PsYcHo wrote: "Please correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that the animals killed by crop production is massive, so because animals die to feed Vegans, that is no worse than killing other animals to eat? I am not a Vegan, so my answers may not encompass all of your questions, but I will try.

The difference is the animals killed to to grow crops are not killed on purpose, and they are not forced to live in tiny enclosures before they are killed."

RESPONSE:

Dear PsYcHo, What I observe is that when a person goes into a store to purchase vegetables they have brought a product that was produced as the result of other beings. Slugs, snails, insects rodents etc. being killed. Also, not all animals that are part of the agricultural process are "forced to live in tiny enclosures."

If you have ever watched a travel show showing the country of Switzerland you may have noticed a lot of cows wandering around the Alps with large bells around their necks. In winter they are indeed kept inside, but that's because the climatic conditions are such that keeping them inside in winter ensures their survival. I doubt if you or I on anyone else posting on this thread would want to spend an entire winter in the Swiss Alps out-of-doors, nor do I suppose would any of us find it an easy task to survive such an undertaking. Now, I know someone is going to bring up the issue of the bells being foisted upon the cows. To this I say, truth is, there are many days when I would love to NOT put on clothes on as I venture out to grab the mail from our roadside box. Unfortunately, the society I happen to live in frowns upon public nudity. Am I being forced to wear clothes? Yes. Is it a trade-off I can live with once the benefits of social interaction in taken into account? Sigh, I suppose.

As far as your implication that the growing of crops does not kill animals on purpose, I would say that your use and/or understanding of the term "on purpose" may be limited. If I clear some land where lots of animals are living to plant crops - am I killing them "on purpose?" Well, I suppose that depends how ignorant I am. If I am clueless as to the the consequences of my land-clearing actions then PERHAPS an argument could be made that my actions did not result in the purposeful deaths of other beings. If, however, I am familiar with nature and agricultural practices then I will know that the action of clearing land to plant crops WILL result in the deaths of many beings. In the latter instance, the deaths of innumerable beings will have been undertaken with purpose. This is why I have stated more than once in this thread that a vegan pays a farmer to kill slugs and snails and worms and rodents and insects, in much the same way an omnivore pays a farmer to kill a chicken or a cow. Please understand the deaths associated with growing crops are INEVITABLE and therefore are a DIRECTLY RELATED aspect of the process. This is why we now get down to the number game that vegans fall back on. This argument states that although the production of crops kills many animals it doesn't kill as many as that of an omnivore. I shall now address this.

On Tue Jul 19, 2016 4:31 pm Cirion Spellbinder wrote -

"There's more to it than that:
• Killing livestock for meat kills x animals.
• Harvesting crops kills y animals.
In order to produce livestock for meat, it is necessary to first feed your livestock for a period of time. In order to feed said livestock, it is necessary to harvest crops. Therefore:
• Animals killed by meat = x + y
• Animals killed by veganism = y
The former option (meat) will always be greater than the latter option (veganism), even if crop production kills more animals than meat production."

The thoughts expressed by Cirion Spellbinder are worthy of study, however, as put forth they are NOT the result of INTENSE STUDY. For example I have viewed online pictures of jungle being cleared in Mexico to plant soy. On the other hand there is my neighbor who is raising grass-feed cattle on established fields. This neighbor also grows the grains he feeds them. I would say that were one to eat meat from one of my neighbor's steers, they would be "responsible" for less overall deaths than a person eating an equivalent amount of protein from soy coming from that Mexican field.

In other words, I believe part of the problem when dealing with this topic is that many folks are so far removed from the actual production of what they eat that they are clueless as the where their food comes from, how it was produced and what were the ACTUAL resources used to produce it as opposed to GENERALIZED THEORETICAL CONDITIONS that are not the result of INTENSE STUDY (nor even necessarily based upon ACTUAL EVENTS).

For example, I have not heard anyone here bring up the VERY REAL situation of land which is unsuitable for growing crops. Think of mountain regions around the world which are unsuitable for growing crops, but which have sustained grazing by domesticated goats for thousands of years. Goats which are NOT in "tiny enclosures" but rather are outside wandering around enjoying their lives and doing pretty much what they would naturally be doing. Folks who raise animals like this, be it goat or reindeer generally kill the animals they raise as compassionately as possible. This is a symbiotic relationship. The humans provide order and protection of the animals from death-by-predator and in exchange when they kill an animal for consumption they do it in the most compassionate pain-free manner they can.

Please consider that when a predator kills an animal it involves the fear of being chased, the pain of being bitten and otherwise mauled and finally the horrific act of literally being eaten alive. This versus a death that is intended to be as painless and peaceful as possible. We all have to die, so we may all ask ourselves which of these two deaths would we prefer?

Now let's look at the death by bulldozer as a jungle in Mexico is being cleared to plant soy. Imagine the fear at the noise and vibration and the bellowing smoke and smell of diesel that countless beings experience as their homes and families are uprooted and destroyed by these frightening machines. The pain suffered as beings are suffocated and crushed and dismembered and burned to death by hot manifolds, exhaust gases and radiators. I don't think an argument can be made that this hasn't been done on purpose and even if one could make such an argument - it wouldn't change the tremendous amount of fear and pain and death that has occurred as the result of the process of producing a crop of soy beans. In other words, that tofu burger in one's hand may be drenched (symbolically) in bug-juice and blood.

As a Buddhist, I cannot ignore the suffering of beings affected by the growing of crops. Consumption of food involves not only the deaths of other living beings, but also a great deal of suffering as well. So, while I do admire the vegan aspiration to limit the suffering of beings, I DON'T perceive their diets as NECESSARILY decreasing the overall amount of suffering on the planet. It is my experience that vegans are generally ignorant as to the overall process that has taken place to bring their food to table and are not nuanced in regard to the TYPES of non-animal lifeforms they consume.

For example, Jains will distinguish the consumption of an almond vs the consumption of broccoli, cauliflower or a potato. A jain considers a potato a problematic item to eat because they understand it to be a being, not a leaf or a seed. Also they take into account the life forms that are destroyed when digging a potato up out of the ground. Broccoli and cauliflower are considered problematic because beings can be living in the ubiquitous labyrinth of their billowous forms. UNFORTUNATELY such practical considerations ARE NOT factored in when vegans state "The former option (meat) will always be greater than the latter option (veganism), even if crop production kills more animals than meat production."

Again, I respect the vegan aspiration to remove suffering from a diet and I approve of their diet as a voluntary temporary method to increase one's overall awareness of suffering. However, as indicated above, I think many of the statements vegans make in regard to human diets are problematic: the result of limited and/or non-existent real-life experiences of how their food is produced as well as a lack of consideration as to the subtleties involved in a non-animal-product diet. By this I refer to the consideration of the Jains as to how many life-forms can be reasonably expected to be killed in regard to each type of non-animal food source consumed.

I hope this gives you a bit to mull over, PsYcHo. I think it's great you take an interest in such things. -pax

[PsYcHo]

I hope this gives you a bit to mull over, PsYcHo. I think it's great you take an interest in such things. -pax

Interesting perspective, I think I see what you're getting at. I will mull this over.

Separate note, I see Cirion gave you some tips on the quote function, but you can also click the set of apostrophes in the corner of someone's post to reply by quoting them. This comes in handy if you would like to make someone aware that you are responding to them by sending an alert, otherwise unless they are following a specific topic and reading all posts, they may miss your responses.

[brimstoneSalad]

Cirion, let me know if you need help with any of this in particular.

I hope this gives you a bit to mull over, PsYcHo. I think it's great you take an interest in such things. -pax

Interesting perspective, I think I see what you're getting at. I will mull this over.

Just remember that forests are being cleared to plant soy to feed to livestock, not to make tofu.
Due to thermodynamics, animal foods are always less efficient than plant foods, and we could stop expanding farmland entirely (and for a very long time still) if we didn't eat animals. Even 100% grass fed animals are an environmental problem, and result in more deaths than grains and beans.

Maximo's claims are not the result of "intense study", but assumptions made with guessed-at estimations. Once you look at the numbers, it never works out like anti-vegans claim. How many hectares? How much meat? It's not a good value.

The best case I have ever seen for anti-vegans is Australia due to its mouse plagues (which are now being managed better). Even in terms of raw numbers (ignoring the sentience difference and cost of lost life between a cow and a mouse), it still doesn't work out in favor of Australian meat vs. Australian grain on average.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Cirion, let me know if you need help with any of this in particular.

Thanks, I will.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Dear PsYcHo, What I observe is that when a person goes into a store to purchase vegetables they have brought a product that was produced as the result of other beings. Slugs, snails, insects rodents etc. being killed.

Do you think the small animals mentioned have as much moral value as the livestock bred and produced for human consumption?

For example I have viewed online pictures of jungle being cleared in Mexico to plant soy.

Firstly, soy is one of the components of many livestock's typical diets. For example, soy is often fed to cows following a "corn-fed" diet.

Cattle called "corn-fed," "grain-fed", or "corn-finished" are typically fattened on maize, soy, and other types of feed for several months before slaughter. As a high-starch, high-energy food, corn decreases the time to fatten cattle and increases carcass yield. Some corn-fed cattle are fattened in concentrated animal feeding operations known as feed lots.

See the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding
The logical implication of this is that purchasing non-grass-fed beef not only fuels the demand for cattle, but also that for soy.

Secondly, your point presents no information regarding how often these deforestation operations occur and how many animals they kill.

On the other hand there is my neighbor who is raising grass-feed cattle on established fields.

Define "established fields".

This neighbor also grows the grains he feeds them.

Deaths from grain production < deaths from grain production + deaths from beef production
If your neighbor were to skip the beef and instead only consume the grains they grew, there would be less overall deaths.

I would say that were one to eat meat from one of my neighbor's steers, they would be "responsible" for less overall deaths than a person eating an equivalent amount of protein from soy coming from that Mexican field.

You've created an improbable dichotomy. The options are not eat grass-fed beef or eat from the worst possible soy farm. There are many others options, some of which are significantly more probable than these two. What will be the choice for most people is to either eat corn-fed beef from a factory farm or eat soy products from a plantation that may or may not be built on deforested land. EIther way, demand for soy increases, but in one, demand for beef does not.

In other words, I believe part of the problem when dealing with this topic is that many folks are so far removed from the actual production of what they eat that they are clueless as the where their food comes from, how it was produced and what were the ACTUAL resources used to produce it as opposed to GENERALIZED THEORETICAL CONDITIONS that are not the result of INTENSE STUDY (nor even necessarily based upon ACTUAL EVENTS).

Are what the actual events are determined by finding pictures of them, like you did? Is googling a picture intense study?

For example, I have not heard anyone here bring up the VERY REAL situation of land which is unsuitable for growing crops. Think of mountain regions around the world which are unsuitable for growing crops, but which have sustained grazing by domesticated goats for thousands of years. Goats which are NOT in "tiny enclosures" but rather are outside wandering around enjoying their lives and doing pretty much what they would naturally be doing.

It is not necessary to use land unsuitable for growing crops to grow some other food. This land could be used for countless other things. It may have been necessary for the people of these regions to farm goats in the past, but in the modern age of rapid transportation, it is completely and utterly unnecessary. You're appealing to tradition. See this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Folks who raise animals like this, be it goat or reindeer generally kill the animals they raise as compassionately as possible. This is a symbiotic relationship. The humans provide order and protection of the animals from death-by-predator and in exchange when they kill an animal for consumption they do it in the most compassionate pain-free manner they can.

How do you know (as it seems you think you do) with certainty that mountain livestock are raised compassionately?

The humans also kill these goats and reindeer, even if painlessly. Goats and reindeer, like most other animals, have a very strong interest in living, even if they have to endure pain. Have you ever seen an animal struggle for its life in great pain? It does this because it would prefer to live with injuries than to die. It is the same with these livestock.

Additionally, its important to consider that not having mountain livestock doesn't mean releasing mountain livestock into the brutal wild. If demand for mountain meat gradually decreases, farmers will gradually decrease their livestock populations until they are so low that the remaining population can simply be sold and utilized as pets by people.

Please consider that when a predator kills an animal it involves the fear of being chased, the pain of being bitten and otherwise mauled and finally the horrific act of literally being eaten alive.

When prey are brutally killed, they still put up a fight throughout the whole endeavor. They still want to live, even through all the pain.

This versus a death that is intended to be as painless and peaceful as possible.

Evidence?

We all have to die, so we may all ask ourselves which of these two deaths would we prefer?

The information presented omits relevant information for this choice. The choice is not die peacefully or die terribly as you present it. It is more nuanced than that. Assuming all the information regarding the treatment of mountain livestock is true, the choice is the following:
(1) Live peacefully, die peacefully, die prematurely
(2) Maybe live peacefully, maybe live in stress, maybe die peacefully, maybe die painfully, maybe die prematurely, maybe live longer

If it's not, which I think is more likely the case, the choice is this:
(1) Maybe live peacefully, maybe live in stress, maybe die peacefully, maybe die painfully, die prematurely
(2) Maybe live peacefully, maybe live in stress, maybe die peacefully, maybe die painfully, maybe die prematurely, maybe live longer

I'd pick the second one. Under most circumstances, a sentient organism's interest in living is greater than its interest in not suffering.

Now let's look at the death by bulldozer as a jungle in Mexico is being cleared to plant soy. Imagine the fear at the noise and vibration and the bellowing smoke and smell of diesel that countless beings experience as their homes and families are uprooted and destroyed by these frightening machines. The pain suffered as beings are suffocated and crushed and dismembered and burned to death by hot manifolds, exhaust gases and radiators. I don't think an argument can be made that this hasn't been done on purpose and even if one could make such an argument - it wouldn't change the tremendous amount of fear and pain and death that has occurred as the result of the process of producing a crop of soy beans.

Certainly we can agree that deforestation is terrifying for the animals involved, but colorful imagery does not change the fact that in most cases, for most people, eating beef requires this soy production to take place as well.

In other words, that tofu burger in one's hand may be drenched (symbolically) in bug-juice and blood.

Sentience and the moral worth of any given organism is a spectrum of values. Not all organisms were born equal. The mass killing of insects pales in comparison to the mass killing of cattle.

Jains will distinguish the consumption of an almond vs the consumption of broccoli, cauliflower or a potato. A jain considers a potato a problematic item to eat because they understand it to be a being, not a leaf or a seed. Also they take into account the life forms that are destroyed when digging a potato up out of the ground. Broccoli and cauliflower are considered problematic because beings can be living in the ubiquitous labyrinth of their billowous forms.

What defines a "being"?
Why should vegans care about all life forms, indiscriminately?

UNFORTUNATELY such practical considerations ARE NOT factored in when vegans state "The former option (meat) will always be greater than the latter option (veganism), even if crop production kills more animals than meat production."

Vegans are not bound by any dogmatic doctrine. We often disagree with one another and have different views. It's unreasonable to suggest that all vegans think this. I disagree with the statement, for one. I'd say: "The former option (meat) will almost always lead to more violated interests than the latter option (veganism), even if crop production kills more animals than meat production."

[maximo hudson]

A Sticky Wicket or When A Vegan Diet Kills More Beings Than That Of An Omnivore

The problem with vegans' "facts" and figures when it comes to a Vegan vs. Omnivore "kill ratio" (animals killed to produce one's diet) is that since most folks in the West don't know where their food comes from (and there are so many variables involved in the process of food production and consumption) the issue arises that IN GENERAL an average vegan CAN'T possibly state with ANY DEGREE OF ACCURACY that he or she kills less animals than a particular omnivore chosen at random. For example an omnivore who lives in Minnesota during the winter and survives on ice fishing, almonds, dried apples and (only) water kills less animals seasonally than a vegan in California who eats a whole variety of food from around the globe and consumes, beer, wine, fruit juice, coffee, tea, soy milk and spirits. As far as the morality of the two diets goes, it seems a bit of a sticky wicket and certainly requires a great deal of pondering. This is by way of saying to certain vegans: don't be so quick with that self-congratulatory slap on the back nor quite so quick to point the accusatory finger. I say this not to disparage, but rather as to encourage a more thoughtful and thorough exploration of the issues associated with the morality of diet. Again, the aspirational goal of NOT wanting to kill other beings in order to survive is indeed noble and is useful as an exercise in awareness and in developing compassion. HOWEVER, simply refraining from eating cows, pigs, goats, chickens, fish, etc. DOES NOT in itself achieve this goal, nor does it NECESSARILY mean (for reasons listed above) that one is killing less life than an omnivore. Thank you, pax and have a nice weekend. -maximo

P.S. Please note, I actually do live on a farm and there is a lot to be done here, so please forgive me, but I will have to forego posting for awhile - perhaps even till winter when I have more time for such things. I do thank all the folks who have responded to my posts for not only considering and responding to my words, but also for helping me think fuller and in greater depth upon the matter through their replies. Best of wishes and please keep up with your consideration and investigations on this pity topic.

A great website, btw, and a great forum for the discussion of such issues. -m

P.P.S. Please don't consider this post the dropping of a bomb. I really do have time constraints and the respondents here have given me a great deal to consider. I will now contemplate what has been said and when I next come back to post, hopefully my thoughts on this matter will have advanced. Take care and best wishes -m

P.P.P. I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wish I had more time to address all these interesting questions and points raised, but at the moment I just don't and since I will not be able to respond for a while, it really wouldn't be fair to address any more of them right now. But just wait till this winter!!! -m

[maximo hudson]

Make that "pithy" topic!

[maximo hudson]

The Non-Zen of Self-Righteousness

Drats,

Here I am again. I came back as the result of the following query - and boy, did it ever take me a long time to find!!! I have not been able to get it out of my head for a number of days. Perhaps in addressing it I can.

On Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:19 am PsYcHo wrote - "Some Vegans see killing slugs and snails as a bad thing. But are you trying to say because someone kills slugs, that means it is ok to kill other animals? Pigs show the intelligence of a three year old child; I would kill a slug in an instant to save my garden, but I would not kill a two year old who is capable of doing way more damage to my garden."

RESPONSE - Dear PsychHo, I would feel just as bad if I stepped on a snail as I would if I hit and killed a pig in my car. I don't think either you or I can say that a snail has less right to live than a pig. Folks generally create a hierarchy of what lifeforms they feel most comfortable consuming in order to survive. My observations tell me that this hierarchy is generally subjective. For example, most vegans do not distinguish between the various types of plants they eat, however, Jains do. Or take omnivores in the United States. While we will maintain diets that can included fish, chicken, pork and beef, as a rule Americans do not eat dogs or cats. Again, this is somewhat of a (culturally) subjective choice. While I do feel that PERCEIVED intelligence can and should have a place when it comes to consumption of food, I'm am worried about using it as a predominant factor. For one thing, basing a right-to-life on PERCEIVED intelligence has been an historical hallmark of race bias and eugenics - not to mention inhumane treatment to animals; for while you, PsYcHo, perceive the wonders of the pig as having the "intelligence of a three-year-old child," there are others out there who will see this as the very reason NOT to treat pigs humanely - the "They're just dumb animals" syndrome.

PsYcHo - My intention is NOT to sanction the killing of animals, but rather to highlight the fact that part of the great tragedy of our lives on this planet involves the consumption of other lifeforms in order to survive. This is dukkha / suffering / samsara. Vegans tend to trivialize the lifeforms they destroy in the process of consumption by focusing on the diets of others and this in turn has lead to a prevalent sense of self-righteousness amongst the fold. Self-righteousness is an obstacle to understanding and personal growth. And thus it is, that those buying completely into a groupthink can, if they choose to do so, benefit greatly when a well-meaning benevolent iconoclast happens to come along. All folks have to do to divorce themselves from the heartache of self-righteousness is to invest some time in a little open-minded INTROSPECTION. Yes, that's me - the well-meaning benevolent iconoclast endeavoring to help vegans up their philosophical game. Now ain't I the wonderful one? Mercy, mercy.

Okay, and now I really am gone for the season. -Pax!