Interesting post on veganism.
www.dogdoright.com
Ami Moore
Don Earl
ad hominem
You speak of ad hominem commentary, but throughout your article you associate anyone who doesn't agree with your view with racists, sexists and homophobes. I find that offensive. It is not as you put it "reasoned discourse".
Have you ever seen a flower open at sunrise and close at sunset? How do you suppose they are able to do that without a "nervous system"? Plants are quite obviously capable of responding to sensory input, whether or not they comply with your personal prejudices.
In your mind the wolf is non violent and morally right in killing to survive, but humans are not. So, tell us, professor, how you plan to feed some 7 billion people the 2000 calories a day they need to survive without animals or without any impact on animal habitats.
Give us something credible rather than unsubstantiated blue sky opinions. How much land is currently in a cultivatable condition to grow crops? Of that, how much is or will have to lay fallow after soil nutrients have been exhaused by crops? Subtract that part from the total. How much agricultural land is dedicated to producing non food crops, such as for medicine , industry, biofuel, clothing, etc.? Subtract that from the total.
Bone meal and manuer has been used for ages to supplement soil. Bone meal is an excellent source of the phosphorus plants require to grow. Maneure is an excellent source of nitrogen. Current projections indicate the world's mineral deposits of phosphorus used in farming will be exhausted in as little as 50 years. How do you propose to replace it? Natural gas (methane) is used to make nitrogen used in agriculture. What do you propose be used as a substitute if that becomes unavailable or prohibitively expensive?
What do you propose to do with the vast herds of food animals currently populating the world? Since you put forth the view it is morally wrong to kill them and morally wrong to keep them, what will be their impact on the environment when you turn them loose? Will they dispace native species? Instead of being a source of food for people, will they become competitors for the crops people need to eat to survive? With the increase of prey species in the wild, will there be a massive population explosion of predator species as well? Will you pat the wolf on the head after it tears out your child's throat and say, "Good boy"?
What will you do with the garbage generated from crops that is currently recycled to use for animal feed? It might be possible to compost it - if you're willing to accept the massive amounts of greenhouse gases that will be released on a global scale as a result.
Nature is red of tooth and claw. Survival is not morally right or wrong, it just is. By definition, survival and nature are violent. Whether it's at the expense of plant or animal, each species consumes some other living thing for the food it needs to survive - you included. Are you willing to slit your throat for the greater good? The food you eat, the habitat you occupy, the energy you use, the natural resources you consume are ALL obtained by force and violence at the expense of some other species. I don't have much use for the kind of hypocritacal, psuedo idealistic rants engaged in by those who live in wood houses while complaining of deforestation. You are a member of a species that eats meat to survive and enjoy all benefits of the same. Putting on airs to elevate yourself above the reality of survival of the fittest doesn't change the fact that you insist on surviving at the expense of some other species, directly or indirectly.
