jakovasaur wrote:So you're saying if I stopped eating meat today, that by this time next year 11 fewer chickens would have died? That sounds outrageous to me. The amount a company produces to meet the aggregate demand of each person in the entire country cannot possibly be affected by one person. They'd never notice.
Edit: What you seem to be saying is that if I suddenly go vegetarian, Perdue or whoever is going to notice that their demand has decreased by 11 chickens and set 11 of the little guys free or something. There is just no chance that is true. They will kill the exact same number.
Probably, but you're looking at it from an individual level, which is also the issue with the kinds of numbers being posted. The amount of chicken eaten amounts to the same weight as 11 chickens, but you're right that it's not going to literally be 11 individual chickens.
If you decided you don't wanna eat chicken anymore, the producers won't even notice. But 1,000 people decide to stop eating chicken? 10,000? 100,000? You can be damned sure they'll notice and likely have to dial back production unless they can convince the rest of the chicken-eating people to step up their consumption rates.
Falling wrote:..no? It's not zero-sum. If someone who would normally eat a hamburger for lunch decides to go to a vegan restaurant, how is that not competition?
Again, you seem to have it backwards: You are implying that it is
zero sum: the gain to the vegan establishment must necessarily come at a cost to the hamburger place.
But even if it were zero sum, the omnivore's diet already includes non-meats: patronising vegan establishments could just be a change in venue ("I was going to have a salad at home/at my desk, but you're right, that vegan place does sound great, let's go"), or time(Having eaten a vegan lunch yesterday may increase the chance of eating a hamburger today, and vice versa).
Wait, I don't get this. If we've got a person that has decided they're gonna eat out today and it's a toss-up between the burgers or that awesome hummus stuff the vegan place makes, and they decide on the vegan place, how is the burger joint not out of money in this situation? If the person had $5 to blow on eating out and they decided on veggies instead of burgers, that means the burger place isn't getting their money. If that happened consistently enough to develop into a trend, I'm pretty certain they'd notice it and consider the veggie people to be competitors.
Couldn't this also be applied to people making their food at home? You go to the grocery store to buy the food. What if someone decided to alter their diet (for whatever reason) to include more veggies and less meat? The meat producers are now making less money from that person because they're dividing their food money for the week or month so that they spend more of it on veggies now, and less of it on meat. Again, that would show up if enough people started doing it, and wouldn't that qualify the veggie people as competition for the meat folks? It's not direct competition within the same industry - they aren't, for example, going from buying from meat producer A to meat producer B - but it's competition for food production as a whole? I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your point or if I'm failing to get my point across correctly.
thc wrote:No, I don't believe there is a fundamental difference.
How so? Cats aside, I don't know of many animals that deliberately play with or otherwise antagonize their prey before killing it and eating it, outside of basic hunting practices (wolves coursing a herd of whatevers until they panic and scatter, for example.) More to the point, dousing a dog in gas and setting it on fire for shits and giggles isn't about hunting, or even feeding - you wouldn't douse a dog in gas if you were planning on eating it.
It's cruelty for the sake of cruelty. I don't see how you're able to see that as being the same as a predator-prey interaction.