Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
JoshGuitar
Oct 25, 2005

Harold Fjord posted:

Going full vegan still seems unnecessarily extreme.

We'd probably get optimal* results pushing people to poultry over red meat.

*In terms of total benefit. more people doing a little vs one guy doing a lot and diminishing returns as you eliminate various animal products.


I think we'll also get more effective** results pushing to vote away factory farms than by trying to undermine them economically one spender at a time.

If you look at it purely in terms of animal welfare, or more specifically animal death, cows (or larger animals in general) will feed more people with fewer deaths than chickens will. Beef: 1 animal dies and feeds a family for a year. Chicken: 1 animal dies and feeds a family for a day. Shrimp: more than one animal dies to feed a single person a single meal.

Now that's obviously not looking at any other factors like the resources necessary to raise a pound of meat from a cow vs. a chicken, or the relative intelligence/capacity for suffering of different animals (which we can only make educated guesses at, unless one of us has personal experience living as a shrimp). But I've always preferred "one animal dies and feeds me for a long time" over "every time I get hungry something has to die".

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply