Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[The Grand Nudger]

As I've explained, if an animals has the capacity to feel pain and suffer then it has interests. Without that capacity, it has no interests. This seems an entirely sensible approach.

Absolutely, if one wanted to base their morality on these terms, and they were willing to accept that a great amount of life is left out along those terms, it's perfectly sensible. I long ago conceded this point (even if only for the sake of moving the discussion forward). I don't agree, but I'm willing to go with it because I don't have to stop you there. I can stop you at any point in the process you have lain out.

Necessary harm & suffering could be a immunization injection. Unnecessary suffering would be in the main the eating of 10 billion animals in the US each year.

So if we eat them it is "unnecesary", and this would of course be the case if we granted you the above (which again, at least for the purposes of discussion I have, long ago). What if we annihilate them in the pursuit of other food sources? Is that necessary? If so, why would it matter which way they met their end?

No. I will go with the evidence. If you could demonstrate that the suffering attached to the harvest of a vegetable crops is greater than that caused by meat production then I would listen. Of course, we both realise that many crops are grown just to feed animals that will themselves be eaten. Come up with a convincing argument and I will listen.

What evidence? The evidence that tells us that crops require fertility? The evidence that lays out where we source this fertility? The evidence that provides a list of consequences for sourcing this fertility from either source? That evidence? Or the evidence that you yourself have opinions? It is not up to me to make a compelling argument for anything, you started in on this, you have an argument to make. Attempting to shift the burden onto those who would criticize your arguments isn't exactly looked upon as intellectual honesty. I'm asking you to provide a little consistency here, I have been for some time. Is it so difficult to simply say "yes, the sentient creatures which would be completely and utterly annihilated by our reliance on petrochem (and all that this entails) must die. It is necessary."?

Not everyone, no. For a start there are a of other vegans & vegetarians out there. I am not aware of any human medical condition that would require them to eat meat. There might be and if eating a sentient animal was the only option then as long as all practical steps were taken to minimise the suffering of the food source, then this minimal suffering could also be necessary.

The medical "condition" you are referring to is called "metabolism", expressed in human terms as "hunger". It does exist, or is this a point of contention between us? Those steps you describe can and have been taken. I guess that makes them necessary and removes that livestock operation from your list of unethical or immoral practices, doesn't it? Again, you're arguing for ethical omnivorism. So would I.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that your justifications actually contain within them, unexpressed but completely foundational, a massive list of idealized assumptions.

In a "perfect" world where
-resources were evenly distributed
-economics were a non issue
-environmental concerns did not apply (both in production and consequence)
-all agreed on the definition of morality
-there were enough food to go around
-the technology to accomplish this existed

Then, worldwide veganism or vegetarianism would be compelling, and achievable. Granted (and here again only to keep the discussion moving), sadly we live in no such world.