I started reading the article, but ended up skimming most of it because the author seems to be ignoring a very obvious point.
Sure, some animals do end up being killed or suffering as an unintended side-effect of horticulture. But what he's overlooking is that far fewer animals end up being killed or suffering than if the same land was being used to raise animals for slaughter.
It's obvious that you didn't read the whole thing then. Go back and read it in it's entirety. He addresses this multiple times.
Okay, I'll play along. I'll read through it all and try and find where he addresses the issue...
So now it’s not just suffering reduction, it’s that animals have rights. But if it’s wrong to kill an animal because it has rights, how do we justify the deaths of animals in plant agriculture? Not only are animals accidentally killed in the production of crops (ground up by wheat threshers, poisoned from pesticide runoff, or unable to survive because their habitat has been destroyed), they are intentionally killed as well. “Pest” animals are poisoned and shot to protect crops. What happened to their sentience, the basis of their rights? Once they got in our way, they stopped having interests and a capacity for pain?
Nope, that doesn't address it. Nowhere does he suggest that the animals killed in this way come close to the numbers killed when animals are specifically raised for slaughter.
1. These rights violations are “necessary.” It is impossible to eat without killing animals, and we need to eat something, therefore it is okay to kill animals for crops. This begs the question. If it’s okay to kill animals if you must do so in order to eat, why is it okay to kill animals so we can eat vegetables, but it is not okay to kill animals so we can eat meat?
Nope, that doesn't do it either. He still hasn't compared the quantity of animals killed or made to suffer.
2. The intent/accident argument. The intent argument states that yes, you must kill animals in order to eat vegetables, but it’s okay for animals to die due to the destruction of their habitats, pesticide runoff into the water, or getting caught in harvesting machines as long as those deaths are not our intended end.
Unfortunately, this works for meat eaters too. Meat eaters don’t necessarily want to kill animals. It just so happens that you must kill animals in order to eat meat. Since meat is the intended end, not the killing of animals, it is okay to eat meat.
Nope, still no comparison of quantity of killing/suffering.
3. “In the more enlightened future, when most people are vegan, it will be possible to avoid all or most animal deaths in crop production. But for now, since it’s too difficult for me to live up to my own high standards, I can violate the same rights that I criticize you for violating.” This is nothing but a confession to immorality and hypocrisy with a flippant rationalization tacked on. And it’s another argument that works for non-vegans too.
The issue still hasn't been addressed.
4. “Nobody claimed veganism was perfect, so why critique veganism for violating rights and causing harm?” This would be like a human rights advocate murdering someone or accidentally running over someone and then saying “Well, nobody said human rights are perfect. At least I kill fewer humans than some other people I know.” This is another appeal to harm reduction and makes no sense from a rights perspective.
This
almost touches on the point, but still fails to address it by focusing on animal rights instead of harm reduction.
Too bad suffering reduction doesn’t work as a justification for veganism as a minimum standard of decency either. One flaw is that if suffering is your whipping boy, this permits the slaughtering of animals so long as it is painless or nearly painless. For instance, it is possible to instantaneously knock a pig unconscious by hitting it on the head with the butt of an ax, and then drain it of blood while it is knocked out. If suffering is all you’re worried about, isn’t this okay? A vegan might say, “What about the emotional pain of the pigs left behind who miss their friend?” Okay, then, painlessly kill them too.
Naturally vegans try to get around this by saying, “Wait, you can’t do that because it’s not suffering that matters but animal rights.”
Not really addressing the issue, merely dismissing the "suffering reduction" argument out of hand under the assumption that slaughtering animals is mostly a suffering-free process. He ignores the point that some people may simply object to the unnecessary killing of animals, even if they don't suffer.
So no, point not addressed
Looking through the entire article, his point of view on "harm reduction" seems to be centered on suffering (and dismissed on the assumption that there is no suffering involved in killing them).
Nowhere in the article does he address the position of not eating meat simply for the sake of
reducing the
quantity of unnecessary animal deaths and suffering, except to point out that even a vegetarian diet will still result in
some animal deaths and suffering.
Your assertion that he addresses this point multiple times appears to be entirely unfounded.
EDIT:
Personally, I eat meat and see nothing wrong with killing animals if suffering is kept to the minimum. My only axe to grind here is that his argument against vegetarianism has a great gaping void in it.
Mildly annoying that he doesn't seem to be aware of the distinction between vegetarianism and veganism (he describes vegans as exploiting cows to harvest their milk). And by his use of "plant agriculture", the word "horticulture" seems to be missing from his vocabulary.
