On Tue, 9 May 2000, Ray Audette wrote:

> Animals raised for food, fiber or fur suffer far less than do the equilivant
> wild animals.

This is partly because they don't live long.  Meat producers do
not waste feed on mature animals; when adult size (= maximum
yield) is reached, they are slaughtered quickly.  In fact, this
is one reason why "grain finishing" is used.  Grain-fed cows are
ready to slaughter in about 14 months; free-range cows take
another six months or so.  Anyway, the life of an animal raised
for food is a trade-off, compared to its wild counterpart:
shorter but easier.

> Agrairian societies and religions teach that human suffering is noble when
> it is of benifit to the crops.  They also teach falsehoods about animal
> suffering as an excuse to make the animals that compete with the agrairian
> crops extinct.  In places where man cannot grow enough crops to feed himself
> and must rely on animal foods to survive (such as Tibet) they must bend the
> rules.

This is not quite accurate.  Humans may suffer to produce the
crops, but what makes the suffering noble is the benefit to
*other humans*.  In addition, very few agrarian societies have
advocated ethical vegetarianism.  In our own agrarian society,
vast amounts of the crops are fed to animals.  While it is true
that farmers wage war on the animals that compete with their
crops, pastoralists do the same.  Herders have little patience
with the wolves that try to prey on calves, for example.  And
keep in mind that the "tender carnivore" concept applies to
pastoralists, who actually *raise* animals for food, not
hunter-gatherers.  The pastoralist ethos also requires that
humans endure hardships, for the benefit of other humans.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]