Comments on: Least Harm Principle suggests humans should eat beef, lamb, dairy, not a vegan diet.

By: Jan

Jan — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:17:32 +0000

how do you suppose we sustain a 6 billion people population if we all ate field crops? without animals?

By: Craig

Craig — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:03:37 +0000

Did no one notice this? .4 billion is actually 400 million. That entire last paragraph is completely ignorant to simple math. Not counting all other ignorance’s, oversights and just plain jibber-jabber, this article is useless.

By: David

David — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:04:02 +0000

“And, intensive agriculture such as corn and soybeans (products central to a vegan diet) kills far more animals of the field than would extensive agriculture like forage production, particularly if the forage was harvested by ruminant animals instead of machines. So perhaps fewer animals would be killed by producing beef, lamb, and dairy products for humans to eat instead of the vegan diet envisioned by Regan.”

This is fallacious reasoning. Intensive agriculture of corn and soybeans are also central products to a cow’s or a sheep’s diet… so much so that more than 75% of soy, corn and other major cereal are fed not to vegans, or even people in general, but to farm animals like cows, pigs, chickens and sheep.

People who don’t eat animals are responsible for less soy and corn since they’re consuming nutrients from these foods directly and not through an animal who used a lot of the calories of these foods for his own purposes. Even if every person in the world became vegan, its hard to imagine we’d consume as much more soy and corn as it takes to feed the 60 billion land animals we raise for food each year.

This is not to mention that the suffering and exploitation of farm animals is qualitatively worse than that of field animals on an order of magnitude that’s obvious to anyone familiar with common factory farming practices.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Wed, 04 May 2011 16:57:58 +0000

Or we could just go back to community farms plowed by hand. I mean, if we’re going to take the position of radically changing the massive food production system, why not just get away from the massive side?

I believe some calculations say that a family of 4 could grow all the food they need on less than .2 acres of land. Breaking it apart so everyone can manage their own food incomes in a way that does pollute as heavily (tractors and other farm equipment) seems more in keeping with LHP than Dr. Davis’ suggestion.

By: Rib Eye

Rib Eye — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 05:05:49 +0000

This article is dumb. I said it. Yup, completely absurd. Total twisted logic and BS with so much left out of the whole picture. I just have to say once again, this article is dumb.