(February 27, 2014 at 1:11 pm)là bạn điên Wrote:

(February 26, 2014 at 4:27 am)jg2014 Wrote: It is not fallacy of the beard because the definition of species is qualitative and there are no extremities. The fallacy of the beard is that quantitative changes cannot result in changes in quality. So one starts with a clean shaven individual, no hairs therefore no beard. One adds a hair at a time and one can never find the point at which beards start. Species unlike a beard is defined qualitatively, either they can produce fertile offspring or not.

Except that is not right. There are species of birds (ll try and find out what they are) that can mate with another species from the same familia which exist geographically near them but not those from further away however those that they can mate with can mate with those further away.

Imagine species A-B-C-D-E-F which circle the globe A can mate with B and F produces infertile offspring with C and E and cannot produce any offspring with D. B can mate with A and C and produce infertile hybrids with D and F but cannot produce anything with an E and so on.

The classic definition of species is as I said. It sounds like in the example you gave they are defining species as a population of animals that can share gentic information. So in the case you bring up genetic transfer happens through intermediate individuals. My point generally is not that "species" is not a useful categorisation in some circumstances, but that species lack any essential characteristic which would allow individuals to be grouped as such in a non-arbitrary way.

I'm a vegetarian, nearly vegan. And way too lazy to read a 96 page thread.

(March 3, 2014 at 3:10 pm)Fromper Wrote: I'm a vegetarian, nearly vegan.

Congratulations. You know you save roughly 500 lives a year as a veggie. 1,000 as a vegan.

(March 3, 2014 at 6:52 pm)shep Wrote:

(March 3, 2014 at 3:10 pm)Fromper Wrote: I'm a vegetarian, nearly vegan.

Congratulations. You know you save roughly 500 lives a year as a veggie. 1,000 as a vegan.

Really? Links? I'm not seeing how the math works.

Let's say I eat a few strips of bacon every breakfast. A single pig probably provides hundreds of strips. So that's maybe a pig a month, so 12 pigs. Now, let's say I eat a sandwich with generous amounts of meat-- that's another several kilograms/months. If it's beef, that's probably a single cow per year, total. But let's say it's chicken, and I have 1/4 chicken worth of meat per day-- that's rougly 91 chickens/ year, but let's call it 100. Same for dinner-- how about a pound (1/2 kilo) of hamburger meat per day-- that's still maybe 1 or 2 cows' worth of meat. So the consumption of meat is directly causing maybe 200 or 300 animals AT MOST.

Now, let's take dairy. How many cows kill per person of milk? Not even 1, I'd wager. There are fewer than 10 million milk cows in the US, and surely almost 100% of people drink milk. But even if we say only 50% drink milk, that's still 150 million milk-drinkers. Given a lifespan of just ONE year, that's still 1/15 of a single cow directly destroyed per person drinking milk.

Now, if you include insects, voles, etc. killed in the industrial VEGETABLE farming processes, you have a legitimate point. But in that case, your fight is much more with industrial farming than with meat-eating.


You should know that I'm a strict vegetarian, and now vegan. But bullshit numbers are bullshit numbers. I want to see some math.

(March 3, 2014 at 6:52 pm)shep Wrote:

(March 3, 2014 at 3:10 pm)Fromper Wrote: I'm a vegetarian, nearly vegan.

Congratulations. You know you save roughly 500 lives a year as a veggie. 1,000 as a vegan.

Not sure if sarcasm or stupidity...

(March 3, 2014 at 7:13 pm)bennyboy Wrote: So the consumption of meat is directly causing maybe 200 or 300 animals AT MOST.

Yes, the estimates that I have seen are more in the range that you suggest. This calculation below suggests that an average American diet would cause the deaths of 208 animals per year, which is about 16,000 animals in one's lifetime.



On another note, a new study has yet again highlighted the detrimental health effects of meat eating, especially in those under 65, which demonstrated that a high protein intake was associated with a "75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk during the following 18 years. These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant derived. Conversely, high protein intake was associated with reduced cancer and overall mortality in respondents over 65, but a 5-fold increase in diabetes mortality across all ages. Mouse studies confirmed the effect of high protein intake and GHR-IGF-1 signaling on the incidence and progression of breast and melanoma tumors, but also the detrimental effects of a low protein diet in the very old. These results suggest that low protein intake during middle age followed by moderate to high protein consumption in old adults may optimize healthspan and longevity."

(March 5, 2014 at 7:59 am)jg2014 Wrote: [quote='bennyboy' pid='615280' dateline='1393888410']
an average American diet would cause the deaths of 208 animals per year, which is about 16,000 animals in one's lifetime.

That's impressive. Now factor in the fact that I usually don't eat the entire animal it makes me wonder how many critters I've chewed on.

I'll probably poop a million animals before I die.

I've been a vegetarian since the beginning of this year.