Hey Cousins , you like Dak ? ?? YOU LIKE DAK ? ! This makes me 20 in your Thanksgiving contests hahahaha I ' m not counting the other two because I didn ' t enter hahaEdit I ' m an ass and totally forgot to say thank you very much , again ! This will be so useful D <| sep |> I just do not buy into the whole harm reduction argument . How far should we take it ? Is it moral to kill predators because it would reduce the suffering of prey and there are more prey than predators so we ' d be reducing net suffering . That ' s the equivalent of this argument of it ' s fine to kill mammals for vegetables as long as we don ' t kill mammals for meat simply because we kill more for meat . What about in Appalachia where deer breed like crazy and if hunters did not cull their population there would be more deaths from auto accidents with deer along with other environmental issues . More than anything I find it immoral to disrupt the food chain and the natural balance as much as possible , and we sit on the top of that food chain . My entire point with the energy thing wasn ' t to compare wind to oil , it was to point out that no matter what choice of energy you end up killing animals . To get to work to allow for your comfortable modern life you kill animals on the road . Should we eliminate these things ? There is always room for reduction until we reduce ourselves to nothing . With that said , I do find it valid to reduce animal suffering . It ' s much easier and practical . We can continue living just as comfortably if we scrap factory farming or only kill animals ethically and without pain . If we scrap animals from our diet entirely it sacrifices comfort and convenience for the sake of reduction . We could do the same if we didn ' t use energy . We could do the same if we didn ' t build roads or bridges or infrastructure . The reduction argument just seems too abstract . edit scrapped half my argument because it was kind of rambling .