"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
8<
> We ARE connected to the deaths of humans in industry when we use those
> products. That is why many trade unions and other groups boycotted
> California grapes, because migrant workers were being subjected to unsafe
> levels of pesticides (which incidentally also kill animals) Once
legislation
> was introduced to correct those abuses, and the level of safety was raised
> to an acceptable level the boycotts were lifted. This is called
> "mitigation". People are still harmed, as in any situation where humans,
> chemicals and machinery collide, it is inevitable, but the danger is
> "mitigated" to a degree that makes the consumption of those products no
> longer a complicity in immoral acts. In other words, it was the failure to
> provide safety measures (mitigation) that made people boycott the
products.

Are not vegans acting rather like trade unions by protecting the interests
of beings who cannot do so themselves, as is often the case with poor
workers?

> When you kill another person in an auto accident, one looks at to what
> degree you mitigated to prevent the accident. Did you drive in accordance
> with the laws? Did you use all due care and attention? If so, then you did
> nothing wrong, even though you killed someone.

Veganism is an attempt to mitigate against animal abuse and exploitation.

> No such mitigation exists in the vast majority of agriculture, in fact the
> very purpose of chemical sprays is to kill, and it is implausible to think
> you can protect all field animals from harm by machinery.

Yes, it was California grapes who were abusing people with pesticides, and
had their abuses legislated away, the consumers of Calfornia grapes were not
in judegment. This is a good example of how the law tells _the abuser_ to
fix his crap.

Humans have to compete with other herbivores to eat plants, and use natural
resources. This is a survival issue and a fact of life.

John