At 01:14 PM 1/11/99 -0800, Robin wrote:
>Here is a consequentialist argument for eating animals: cows lives are
>overall worth living, even if they are slaughtered at the end. What happens
>if you convince the world that you from now on you will no longer eat cows,
>and instead spend the same amount on fancy vegetable foods? The demand for
>cows goes down and the demand for veggies goes up. Farmers will choose to
>grow fewer cows to meet that demand, and will choose to plant more fancy
>veggie crops. People who used to have jobs processing cow meat will switch
>to jobs processing veggies. And so on.
Here is a consequentialist argument for raising cows not to be eaten: cows
lives are overall worth living because they produce dairy products that
some people enjoy such as milk, butter, cottage cheese, creme brulee,
tarimasu, not to mention eggnog or a white russian.
Another reason for keeping some Herefords, for example, around would
Another reason for keeping some Herefords, for example, around wouldbe for nostalgia, pastoral scenes that people driving down the highway can enjoy from afar -:)
>In order to eliminate that bad end-of-cow-life experience, you elimate
>the entire cow life experience. If that whole cow life is "worth living"
>in some sense, this wasn't necessarily a kind thing to do. (Unless you
>think those veggie lives are more worth living, even though they get
>killed in the end.)
Robin, forever the pragmatist, I revere you my friend.