i thought that was peter singer, now at princeton university?
> In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce
> food and require fewer entries into the fields with
> tractors and other equipment. In grazed pastures,
> according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the mower
> blades, and more find stable habitat in untilled
> fields. And no-till agriculture also helps stabilize
> soil and reduce run-off into streams.
>
> "Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting
> the forage, would be the ultimate in 'no-till'
> agriculture," Davis said.
>
> Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food
> production, which would replace all poultry, pig and
> lamb production with beef and dairy products.
> According to his calculations, such a model would
> result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals
> annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than
> would a total vegan model. This difference, according
> to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals
> killed in pasture and forage production than in the
> growing and harvest of grain, beans, and corn.
>
> Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that
> people may be morally obliged to consume a diet based
> on plants and grazing ruminants in order to cause the
> least harm to animals.
the last may be true, but is it not also true that today, animals farmed for meat are locked up and fed huge quantities of corn and other plant products which are once again cultivated using traditional means, often at much more wasteful rates than would be needed if they were to be consumed directly by humans (such as in a vegetarian or vegan diet)?
if the proposition above is true, then davis seems to be grandstanding (attacking a minority position that is also a pet peeve of the majority and powerful corporations), since veganism is still morally superior to eating meat, by his own measures.
and then of course there is the possibility of adopting farming practices that might not use tractors and such, reducing the death of rodents, etc. that would be morally superior to davis' position. of course, on this list such an option has been dismissed as primitivistic, etc.
if (as i would agree) the life of a rat is as sacred as that of a cow, then how about the lives of ticks and other such creatures that live on farm animals and which, i presume, are killed using various means by farmers? of course there are a large set (perhaps larger) of insects that affect plants, but can we really conclude either way until the count is in?
--ravi