ANIMAL FORUM

On 10 Apr 2006 18:16:23 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:


I pasted YOUR quote regarding the possibility of Pearl raising
kids from her nanny goat.


It provided them with life they would not have had. Logans Run
was the same idea. So is livestock farming.

All you did was change the subject. You need to explain--and will
ALWAYS fail to explain--how preventing life promotes a right to life.
It is now established by you that ar would not provide any sort of
rights for livestock...a fact that has been established in these ngs
for years.


Which would have provided more life for the beings in question?


I dont believe you, for reasons you have proven are too complicated
for you to understand.


Thats because you believe things that Im convinced are bullshit, such
as that eliminating livestock would somehow promote decent lives for billions
of happy wild animals, the likes of which you cant even comprehend.


Lives are influenced, and lives are promoted none the less.


Promoting diversity of species is what aras are supposedly trying
to do:

[...]
Many species have gone extinct over the Earths geologic history. The
primary reason for these extinctions is environmental change or biological
competition. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, a large number
of biologically classified species have gone extinct due to the actions of
humans. This includes 83 species of mammals, 113 species of birds, 23
species of amphibians and reptiles, 23 species of fish, about 100 species of
invertebrates, and over 350 species of plants. Scientists can only estimate
the number of unclassified species that have gone extinct.
[...]
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9h.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
which is where you get the idea that promoting any/all types of
wildlife is always better than anything to do with livestock. But the
reality is that grazing areas are better for wildlife than crop fields:

Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide T by 2000 legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits (T) by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which arent grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pastures/Grazing/Systems/Techniques/MIG/Why.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

Thats really more your problem than mine if its true, but I remember
one example had to do with whether or not ar would allow people to
raise more goats.


It cant promote any right to life.


Thats because its your fantasy/example. How could it become
my responsibility to provide examples for YOUR fantasy?

Now you sort of have. They lived okay lives. So why should we
feel that they would have been better off having no life, than having
the lives and deaths that they had?


How?


I believe that nature is often crueler than human farming, and
that it should be.


I believe sometimes it is and sometimes it isnt. ar insists that
it never is, and thats what Im opposed to.


Thats up to us to decide for ourselves. And how much we want
to consider. If you just want to consider how horrible the idea is, then
thats as far as you could go with it. If you wanted to consider what
the people raised by the company got out of it...well...Id be interested
in seeing you try it. And now that were finally considering details, if
you want to go for it, then please compare it to our particular situation
regarding the possibility or not of life after this, and you could go on to
compare that to the situation of all animals none of whom ever are
bothered by thoughts about death or after life. Or not. But there are
plenty of things to think about if you want to think on.

dh@. wrote:

No, as I explained, that wasnt what the quote was about.


So you think the companys behaviour was morally acceptable?


I have been trying to explain that, and I illustrated it with an
example. But you appear not to understand the concept of right to
life very well.


Nonsense.


For the company to bring them into existence and then kill them. But
that would have violated their right to life and would have been
morally wrong. The action which involves promoting more life still
involves violating the right to life. Thats the point you dont seem
to be able to grasp.


What reasons? Youve never discussed this issue.


There exist certain lives which would not otherwise have existed.
Thats not evidence that life is being promoted.


We may care about diversity of species to some extent. But were not
going to violate individuals right to life in the name of promoting
diversity of species.


What about areas that arent used by humans at all?


I said some supporters of AR would allow Pearl to keep a goat. How was
I making a claim I disagree with?


Whatever. The point is, if youre going to choose between bringing a
being into existence and killing it, and not bringing that being into
existence at all, and youre worried about respecting the right to
life, you should do that latter. Thats what is involved in respecting
the right to life.


If you think there are any such cases, its your responsibility to
provide them.


Okay, so you think the companys behaviour in The Island was morally
acceptable, do you?


What I meant was, I cant understand how raising livestock for food
promotes life, but I can understand how it promotes diversity of
species. You yourself made this point. You said that if we didnt raise
livestock for food, the livestock species would go extinct.


Well, be that as it may, I dont believe that justifies us in being
cruel to animals. We can bring animals into existence if we want to.
But we are obliged to respect their rights. And that means not
dehorning, branding, castrating, confining, or killing them.


All that AR insists is that if we bring livestock into existence and
keep them, we must respect their rights.


The people raised by the company got the chance to have a reasonably
pleasant life. If the company hadnt acted as it did, they wouldnt
have existed. But the companys actions were still wrong, in my view,
and I believe almost everybody would agree with me. Maybe you have a
different view. Feel free to tell me what it is. Im not sure what the
point of your speculations about the afterlife is. Maybe you can
elaborate.