Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Scabby Joe]

I think you have missed the point. Sure, we may kill something. Step on a bug etc. the point is, should we inflict UNNECESSRY pain and suffering when we can decide not to.

eating plants is killing something, and even competing for food resources. And the argument you are purposing is a guilt trip argument for people who eat meat. Tell me, do you tell this to bears or other animals? And do you have any idea how much natural habitat we would have to convert to farming to feed the world all on a vegetarian diet? You have any idea how many ecosystems we have destroyed as a human species just by converting natural habitat into farmland? agriculture is the principal cause of habitat destruction.

The Chaco thorn forest is being destroyed at a rate considered among the highest in the world to give way to soybean cultivation.



Satellite photograph of deforestation in Bolivia. Originally dry tropical forest, the land is being cleared for soybean cultivation.[6]

Or how about here in the United States where there are so few states that even have what you can actually call "wilderness"? :

United States agriculture in 2007, there were 2.2 million farms, covering an area of 922 million acres (3,730,000 km2).

And that doesn't include Urban sprawl, highway and road systems ect.. To put that into context, the size of the United States is about 3,794,100 sq miles (9,826,675 km²).. Remove Alaska and you kind of get the picture..So what do you plan to do to reduce "Unnecessary" pain and suffering on species in which we destroy by ripping apart their natural habitats so we can make you feel better about not eating meat?

There is no evidence that plants suffer or feel pain. They lack a central nervous system and of course it would serve no evolutionary purpose - they can't tun away.

The opposite is true of what you claim about the need to increase farm capacity to cater for bigger numbers on a vegetarian diet. Take a look at this United Nations report,

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

See also

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...ate-change

Cattle rearing is the biggest cause of deforestation by far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Brazil

What you dont seem to understand is that much of the soy bean production you mention is grown for animal consumption!! They feed cattle and chickens with it. Some estimate that as much as 80% of soy bean production is for animal feed.

It is simply less economic to produce meat because they have to be fed on plant foods. Theer are lots of reputable scientific sources to back this up which can be provided if you wish.

Meat production also contributes more to greenhouse gases than the whole of transportation combined!

It can provide lots of reputable sources to substantiate any statements I have made and which you dispute.

While you may be in error on some facts, the point of the thread was to look at the ethics of causing unnecessary suffering. If you thought it was necessary to protect the environment then you can see that the opposite is true. In the light of this, would still be interested tp hear your ethical justification.

PS I would not try to engage a bear or other animal in a discussion of ethics as they lack the ability to rationally discuss the issues.