Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[The Grand Nudger]

Then you would be correct, it does not apply to me, nor does it apply to you, or, if it does, you're steadily shitting on your own moral principles.

You've made a case that we should cease current livestock production when possible. I agree (though likely for different reasons). This is not an issue of whether or not it would inconvenience anyone to have to transition their diets. I have explained to you, many times, that all agricultural production makes compromises. I will not explain something so basic as fertility to you again. I will not provide you with another source as to what is required, I have already given you an incredibly detailed account of it. I will, however, point out that you are not responding to my criticisms at all, instead creating your own arguments as though they were mine, and then arguing against yourself. I don't give a shit how much time you spend doing this, that's your own business. If you want to have a discussion with me, at any point, you are similarly free to do so. Just wrap up whatever disagreement you are having with your alter ego so that we can focus on our discussion.

My argument is that reducing intensive livestock production (regardless of whether we eat the meat or not, this is completely irrelevant to the issue of fertility and it's sources), would lead to increased reliance on petrochem. This isn't an entirely accurate statement, it is not my argument, it's a basic fact of agricultural production (and this would not be the only effect, but without you offering even a single workable solution, one potential crop and corresponding agricultural practice, how could I possibly give you a concise list?). You need sources that show you how destructive oil is on our environment, ourselves, and the creatures you hope to preserve? Is this a point of contention between us? If so, no problem, but I want to be absolutely certain you aren't just yanking my chain, I want to hear you say it. Don't you think that you might be left with the impression that agrees with your "moral principle" simply because you had not taken the time to see if they had also weighed in on the devastating effect of agricultural production in and of itself, or that of oil? Perhaps because you did just enough reading to find the answer you were looking for? You have given us numbers to show that current practices are a shit sandwich, this is not an argument for veganism, and I have never claimed that they weren't. Do your own work.

You realize that the crops grown for feed and the crops grown for human consumption are not the same, yes? Not in suitability for human consumption, land, water, or fertility requirements. Before we go any further, you are aware that "corn" isn't exactly a technical term for a single crop? If not, we have nothing to discuss, you allowed yourself to be misled through ignorance (or lack of interest) in the subject. If so, then what are we talking about here, reducing feed corn production, reducing livestock production..increasing mixed vegetable production? I agree, ethical omnivorism. We are a major livestock producer, I would expect to see alot of water go into it. Wouldn't you? You've ignored economics haven't you? Chances are any given tomato cames from Mexico, but roast beef is more likely to have been produced in the USA (this, of course, if you are a consumer in the US). Whether or not it is "morally right" as per the argument you have set out means very little to me if you cannot make a compelling argument in the first place Joe.

Let's take just one example that I think illustrates this basic lack of interest you have been expressing. You invoke the gallon of fuel required to produce a pound of beef, just where do you think most of that is consumed? Transportation of requirements and end product from producer to processor to consumer. This would be present even if the commodity produced were soybeans for human consumption (unless you want to drive over here to the US, pick up your soy allotment, then take it to wherever it is processed into whatever product you desire, and then drive home, and then, guess what...you've still used the fuel, and more so, since you aren't availing yourself of the system of distribution we have built in support of food production). How this little tidbit eluded you isn't even a mystery to me. You didn't want to consider it, and so you didn't. You also conveniently omit that these crops are being used to produce protein, a nutrient which they are often lacking themselves, not so in the case of soy, but just so in the case of grain. Protein, is being produced, feel free to gnaw on a cob of feed corn all day long, you won't be getting any.

No Joe, not just human people (but isn't this troubling for your argument in and of itself), agricultural production also exploits that other group of creatures you just declared "people", you know, the ones you're always thinking about whilst ignoring humans (it seems). You keep missing this point (or intentionally avoiding it). Your dietary choices have not afforded you an unassailable fortress from which you can shout moral proclamations down to the rest of us. You are a killer, same as me.

If I eat fish and veggies I'm likely to live longer and be healthier, you wan't sources? I'm going to repeat this again, because it bears mention. You are actually attempting many different debates, all rolled into one and called (by you) morality. The various subjects you have attempted to reduce to a single issue vote, as it were, are not being done any great service by this sort of reasoning. Neither you, nor I will see any of the changes we are both likely to support if this is what we present to the status quo as justification.