Axel:

> true, but let's consider this: when you buy conventional produce ladden=
> with pesticides, do you pay for the environmental damage you are helping to
> create? do you pay for the health problems of the workers at the
> conventional farm because of the pesticides? of course not. do you pay for
> dead fish because of this pesticides? no way. there are hidden costs that we
> do not pay for.

I entirely agree, I was just saying that the _average consumer_
doesn't care about these considerations, and as long as he can save
money, he does it. The only ways to encourage people to eat organic
are:
 -create a tax on conventional (pesticide-laden) produce. But such a
tax wouldn't be very popular because many people (even in developed
countries) can't afford to pay more for food.
 -subsidize organic produce, in order to lower prices. But this could
be considered as unfair competition and, in addition, would increase
the income tax load.
 -give more financial incentives to farmers who convert to organic
agriculture. With increased production, we can hope that supermarkets
will devote larger aisles to organic fruits and vegetables; but there
is still a long way to go before high-quality food becomes affordable.

> > -You say "we have no spiritual/natural right to use the land of the
> >world to produce meat". Well, that's your opinion,
>
> what is your opinion? is it just fine to destroy the whole world (...)

I didn't say that. I said that no animal on earth has been given any
rights or duties by some mysterious entity (note: I am atheist, but if
you believe in God, you may of course disagree). In a sense, every
animal is "using" the world as well as possible in order to survive
(we could say that herbivores "use" the world's grass, etc). Humans
are not different. Certainly agriculture, cities, etc. have
irreversibly changed our landscapes, and since we have the
responsibility to leave a better world to our offspring, this includes
trying to reduce environmental damage/changes to the levels at which
humans could live correctly. So, like you, I am concerned about the
environment, but I consider that I have a responsibility toward
*humans*, not toward *nature*.

> this is a common fallacy. we all know about many rights. the right to live,
> to eat, not to be tortured, not to be stolen, to do what you please as long
> as you do not interfere with other's right to do the same, etc.

Again, these are rights that *humans* give to themselves, not rights
that pre-exist to them.

> you can not use the land of the world as you wish because it is not yours.
> it belongs to all species,

Many animals have "territories", that they decide to be their hunting
area. Animals rarely care about the well-being of other species, and
use the land as they wish. The difference with humans, of course, is
that man has the power to eradicate life on earth.

> if you take the whole world and you have to name one activity that is the
> most damaging, it will be animal husbandry. it destroys a lot in ANY
> country. i am not making this up. this is not MY opinion. it is very easy to
> check it out. there is plenty of info on all this in the web, specially if
> you go to a vegan web site.

I hope you'll pardon me if I say that most of the information on
vegan websites is flawed. (I am not saying that this is the case of
all past, present and future vegan websites, but I have seen so many
unscientific or illogical claims in pro-vegan or pro-vegetarian texts
that I now considered that information on vegan websites should be
taken with caution.) I would trust more reports by environment
agencies, since they are not biased on the "meat or not meat" question.


--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>