@carnivore:

I’m assuming you’re not genuinely concerned about the aphids, so I’ll just repeat a response I’ve already given to people bringing up examples like this, rather than the animals I mention in the article eg cows, pigs, sheep and chickens:

As I’ve said to @Atman and others above: ‘If my argument about cows and pigs is so ridiculous, why bother going to flies and tics?’ If you and others were so confident that it is fine to slaughter animals like cows and pigs for food and clothing – then why go to cases where you think the case is weaker? Even if these more “marginal cases” are not found to be sentient, what does this have to do with whether we should be eating animals like cows and pigs, who clearly are sentient? If these “marginal cases” are found not to be sentient, does that somehow make it okay to eat cows who are clearly sentient? I don’t see how.

@Tony Lavis:

‘The … eggs over the fence from my neighbor's happy chooks are examples of edible animal products that don't involve any cruelty to animals.’

Is it not cruel to gas or blend baby chicks to death? Regardless of how your neighbour’s chooks are treated, they are likely to have come from hatcheries, where male chicks are killed in various horrible ways including the ones I’ve just described, just because they can’t produce eggs. Even if all the egg companies closed and we went to only backyard egg production, this wouldn’t solve the problem. People don’t want male chickens for the same reason that industry doesn't. If we want to eat eggs, even if eat them exclusively from backyard egg production, it is going to involve the killing of male chicks, who are killed at the hatcheries that provide people and industries with female chickens for egg production. See the section ‘A Rare Glimpse Inside a Hatchery’ from this site to learn more about hatcheries and it is for reasons such as this that I dispute the claim that the eggs from your neighbour do not involve any cruelty to animals:

http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html

I also doubt that the only animal products you eat are from your neighbour’s backyard. Animal industries (even ones with really happy labels on them) involve even more suffering – again, see the link above for more on that. There are standard practises that occur across the board “humane”, “free-range”, “organic” – meaning that all animal products lead to cruelty to animals. For one, all forms of animal production involve unnecessarily cutting someone’s life short for no good reason – I don’t see how that is ethical.

http://www.peacefulprairie.org/the-truth.html

Putting a word in front of something eg “ethical” may make us feel better about carrying on doing what we were already doing, but it doesn’t make it so. How is it ethical to unnecessarily cut someone’s life short just for our enjoyment or other trivial reasons (as I have argued at length above, there are no non-trivial reasons for eating animal products in our society eg necessity, survival).

*I don’t think dying in itself is suffering,*

Well that is the key point Nick, its not.

* when they could otherwise live longer, happy, healthy lives*

So where would they all go to live out their lives? If they jumped
over the fence and all settled on your vegie patch, how would you
then live?

*You are depriving them of future pleasure.*

No more than you are, by insisting that they should never have
lived at all, rather than say be a sheep on my farm. At least my
sheep get a life and whilst alive, they can enjoy their lives and
don't suffer.You have this romantic notion of what dying of natural
causes entails. Go to an old peoples home and watch a few dying.
Its not pleasant, often very slow, with lots of suffering.

*I don’t see how not killing animals is going to lead to mass starvation.*

Because they all need food and when the food runs out, who will
feed them? You are ignoring basic evolution theory.

Nicholas wrote "I don’t see why killing a dog in times of plenty is more subhuman..."

Sorry about delay Nick...

Ill try to address this important point...Also I suggest you read the judges 'Reason for Decision" in this case...itll give you an idea of what Law holds as high importance in these matters...

Ill approach it on evolutionary basis...

Since our ancestor climbed out of primordial ooze looking for better food supply...their brain was mainly 'brain stem' brain...which basically controls all internal functions, heart, breathing etc...and 'reflexes'...so hungry=get food...meaning little intelligence in it...

As evolution continued and brain developed...'midbrain' developed on top of brain stem...which among other things 'seat of emotion'...so allowed animals to develop higher social structure like herding for protection...

On top of the midbrain developed 'forebrain...which seat of 'Intelligence'...top of this evolution is humans...

medically we know that higher or advanced evolutionarily brain part is the more it requires the lower sections to work normally...so our forebrains are very dependent on midbrain(or our emotions) working normally...likewise midbrain is useless when brainstem is kaput...like a stroke in this region...ya?

So 'Love" is a very advanced emotional brain evolutionary expression...like in humans...this emotion alone and bonds it creates among humans are responsible for many of our behaviours and responses... conscious and unconscious...and possibly, when combined healthily with our intelligent brain...responsible for the intricate and complex cultures in history...eg Taj Mahal built in grief...

So...when emotions removed...and a situation viewed only in cold analysis...warning bells rings...sociopaths whom totally disregard norms of society and only interested in self power and control while using carefully crafted deceit to create an image of normal...is for example shows common situation when emotions suppressed and intelligence over applied...

In this meandering...answer is one must know where range of 'normal' is, and when its outside this range...and before you say it...no, there is a normal range and which expressed as action of an individual capable of creating and protecting a life of their choice that blends well into society as a whole...

contd

sam

and in this normal it is abnormal when a puppy comes to you with its tail wagging and eyes expressing love for you...grab it and kill it and eat it...and say huh its only meat...its not 'human'...
sam

@Yabby:

‘So where would they all go to live out their lives?’

I’ve already explained, a best case scenario for animals we farm is in an animal sanctuary like Edgar’s Mission.

‘Go to an old peoples home and watch a few dying.’

Most animals slaughtered are killed well before old age. Once again, there is a difference bewteen euthanasia when someone is killed because they have a disease they will not recover from and they are in chronic pain because of it, compared to killing someone simply because it is in your economic interest to do so (then justifying it along the lines of the completely different situation of euthanasia). Of course people can feel better if they feel they are doing the animal a service by “reducing their suffering”, rather than the reality of killing them when they can make the most money.

‘they all need food and when the food runs out, who will feed them?’

Animals such as cows, pigs, chickens and sheep are bred on a massive scale because people demand animal products. As less people demand animal products, there will be less animals bred for such purposes, therefore less grain fed to these animals. So veganism means less food is fed to animals, rather than more. Of course veganism would mean feeding the animals that are already here their whole lives, rather than only as long as they are “economically viable”, once again, like at Edgar’s Mission animal sanctuary. However, once again, there are only so many of these animals to feed because people demand animal products. If we did not demand these products, we would not have to continually breed and slaughter these animals, so there would be far less animals to feed.