- A vegetarian spares the lives of a certain number of animals each time he or she chooses to forgo meat for vegetables, fruits, grains, legumes and nuts. But, exactly how many animals does a vegetarian save each year? Given the scale and complexity of animal agriculture today, this number is impossibly difficult to determine accurately. But, it is possible to estimate a conservative number, say X, to allow a claim that a vegetarian saves at least X number of animals. In this post, I will attempt such an estimate for a vegetarian in the United States.
I think it's more complicated than this, at least for land mammals. The fact is we're not out hunting land mammals; we're raising them for slaughter in a controlled way. If we ate less meat, fewer animals would be born in the first place (since we strictly control their numbers). We can't really count an animal not ever born as a 'saved' animal. However, the animal never being born in the first place is the best possible scenario for our resources and the environment. So, really, while I question the author's math somewhat, I think he is actually under-representing the positive effects of shying away from meat.
> We can't really count an animal not ever born as a 'saved' animal.
That depends upon your goals. If your goal is to reduce the number of animals that are slaughtered, then that might be a standpoint for ethical vegetarianism. If your goal is to have more animals living at any given time, then that isn't a good reason (because it can be reasonably assumed that economic pressure by vegetarianism results in a lower breeding rate).
In short: ethical-vegetarianism is complicated.
According to this, since I eat neither shellfish nor fish, I'm saving ~370 animals a year.
That being said, sorry, I will still be eating meat. I do need to try and eat less of it, if only for my own health.
I have a pretty deep distaste - no pun intended - for moralizing food. Its a cheap way of making a group of people feel bad without actually giving them a good reason to change their behavior. The cruel, honest truth of the matter is that if we were all vegetarians somebody down the line is still suffering. Welcome to living in a wealthy country. Our wealth is derived from other people's suffering, and that won't change until we suddenly have more resources or less population.
If you eat soybeans you are contributing passively to the destruction of the rainforest. If you eat Quinoa - a very healthy grain by the way, its really great - you are robbing much of the Andes of its grain, since Quinoa has become a large export to the United States in the health food boom that's been happening recently. Eat any vegetables that aren't locally grown? Let's go out on a very stable limb here - its probably from Latin America and its probably part of an exploitative farm.
If we all ate locally we would soon be out of food - local farms do not have the capacity to serve areas. Farms by my town would have to provide food for over 16,000 people, and do it every day. And that's just one town.
Vegetarianism, veganism, doesn't matter in the end. Something suffers, whether its a cow or a chicken or a farmer or a worker. Someone down the line gets screwed, and if they aren't then you're the one getting it. The only way to fix it is to eat less, and let's be honest, especially in the U.S., we eat way too much.
Sweet, vegan hate! Yeah, FUCK THEM! That's certainly an unpopular view on the internet! (The parent comment was rated as the highest comment today in fact.)
@the parent comment.
The idea that veganism or vegetarianism just isn't worth it because 'something always suffers' is a pretty big logically fallacy. Veg* people aren't trying to delude themselves into thinking nothing will suffer because of their existence, but to try to reduce the suffering caused.
My sister is 2 years younger then me. At a certain point she could count, but didn't understand that different coins have different value. I figured out pretty quickly that I could give her 5 pennies in exchange for 2 quarters and she would be happy. 5 is obviously more then 2.. duh.
That's the same type of logical fallacy your displaying here. Not all suffering is equal. For instance, in some places animal's skulls are smashed and their brains are eaten while they are alive. This has been done to primates, no less. I've seen preparations for duck that stipulate the duck must be alive while being cooked. I've seen videos where Japanese chefs keep frogs alive and gut them for the novelty of eating something that can watch you eat it. What your saying is, doing this isn't really any worse then buying a vegetable, because maybe it was grown an a farm that might be exploitative in some way.
Your lack of acknowledgment that suffering can vary in intensity or severity is intellectually dishonest. Not all suffering is made equal, but I'm pretty sure you know that. I doubt you think the last time you suffered was just like dieing in slowly in Auschwitz. http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-am-so-starving-vs-i-am-so.../
You're operating under the assumption that vegetarians choose their food in order to make you feel bad (it's all about you, right?) and so you feel personally attacked. Since you feel attacked you don't mind a little bit of intellectual dishonesty in your counter attack, and I get that. I'm just saying you seem at least reasonably intelligent, and I think you can aspire to better.
It's like saying 'why should I stop killing people, people are still going to die.' Or "Why should we sign this peace treaty, war will still exist."
I grow quite a bit of my own food. In fact, I actually cleared my garden plot from several invasive species (like spider wort, crocosmia, and agapanthus) so I didn't even displace any indigenous wildlife... which really matters on an island like this one.
Far from suffering, I really enjoyed my time gardening. I find it helps when I get burned out from the very cerebral tedious work I do (things like designing the AI in video games and writing symphonies) to just put my hands in the dirt and do something simple.
So this idea that my food HAS to be the product of suffering is not only an absurd rationalization, but it's also false. I certainly didn't suffer to create the food I grew (Which is the implication behind "Someone down the line gets screwed, and if they aren't then you're the one getting it." I believe) far from it.
Working with my hands helps me when my work gets tedious and frustrating. I got to spend time gardening with my friends and my wife. This idea that I 'got screwed' because I grew some chard is just silly...
Just to drive this home...
What your basically saying is this http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v... doesn't cause a greater level of suffering then buying a vegetable.
This is baseless. Completely baseless. Also, I've clearly touched a nerve. Good. I made no comment on what I think of veganism, other than that it was painful to be around while traveling. My other statements are not anti vegetarian either. Read closely. Bringing Aushcwitz to the table is a ridiculous response. I've made no comment about suffering, although I have mentioned that I have slaughtered animals for meat, which was done with as little suffering and pain as possible.
I notice you haven't bothered to ask why it was a painful travel experience, instead choosing to dance on your pulpit that is really a pair of shoes with lifts, while fingerpointing and using my comments to push an issue that likely no one has asked you about because they have the feeling you'd be . . . the way you were when you posted your comment.
My point is, veganism is a choice, not a culture in the same sense that belonging to an ethnic group is. If you have traveled much and encountered people extending their homes and friendship according to their customs, it is incredibly arrogant and rude to refuse on the basis of satisfying your own self-imposed dietary restriction in the way my companion did.
I like hubski for discussion and because it is relatively free of reddit-esque exchanges in which fingers are pointed, high school debate terms are thrown about with a flailing wish for the impression of authority and credibilty and bible-thumping of any stripe. However, a few crop up now and then.
I don't think you've actually said much here to address the points I've made, and in fact they where not made towards your post, but the person you where replying to.
Which is what I meant by @the parent comment... as in the comment you where replying to.
Also, I think your writing style could merit some really good fiction. You certainly have projected quite a bit about me, and how other people view me in reality. It's actually kind of amusing... my comment leaving so much of an impression on you that your imagining what I must be like, how people must interact with me. It's almost like a fantasy.
I find it odd that you consider someone obtuse for not changing their entire world view just because meat is offered to them by someone. Should it matter the ethnicity of the person offering really? I wonder if you would eat human flesh because it would be arrogant to refuse based upon your selfish dietary restrictions.
You can frame this how ever you want, and it seems you are really good at abstract framing. Grandiose and descriptive ad-homonym attacks also seem to be your forte.... but they do little to address my points.
Firstly being their is an irrational culture of hate on the internet for vegetarians.
Secondly being that all suffering isn't equal. Even if someone might have suffered to get you that vegetable, it isn't likely that is was MORE suffering then animals who where mistreated by industry and factory farms their whole lives.
Thirdly this idea that vegetarians change their entire diet to feel 'better' then everyone else is absurd. It is more a manifestation of other people's (people who eat meat obviously) feelings then the feelings of vegetarians. I haven't eaten meat in maybe 15 years, and I've never felt 'better' then other people. I barely even tell other people unless they ask.
Put @ around the user name to tag them.
- First being their [sic] is an irrational culture of hate on the internet for vegetarians.
http://vegan-because-fuck-you.tumblr.com/
Its mostly vegans, actually. Its also because the loudest voices are the ones which are the most acidic. Same with feminism and MRAs. The majority of the group are well behaved and rational, but the ones people are exposed to the most are nuts, but happen to yell the loudest.
- Secondly being that all suffering isn't equal. Even if someone might have suffered to get you that vegetable, it isn't likely that it was MORE suffering than then animals who were mistreated by industry and factory farms their wholes lives.
Who if its a country? Do you like bananas? Make sure they aren't from Dole, because like most companies operating in Latin America they aren't exactly known for being great. There have been wars over this stuff. If you ever have a chance to take a course in Latin American history I greatly advise it, it gives a much better perspective of Cold War U.S. policy than people get in high school or even most college courses.
- Thirdly this idea that vegetarians change their entire diet to feel "better" then everyone else is absurd.
Question. If they do not change their diet to feel better, why is the article we are commenting on about how many animal lives are being saved? For jokes? Or to show how much more morally correct a vegetarian diet is?
- I wonder if you would eat human flesh because it would be arrogant to refuse based upon your selfish dietary restrictions.
Humans are sentient, highly intelligent organisms capable of creating vast intelligent works and shaping the world around them. Cows are more intelligent than most people give credit for, but a cow does not demonstrate the same level of self awareness as a human being. A cow is a cow.
That being said, if you were offered human flesh your first thought would be "oh my god this family murdered someone I need to get the fuck out of here" while being offered cow flesh is sort of normal.
Also did you just compare eating animals to eating a person?
This is interesting, but I have to say that the language of it bothers me. 'To save' is an active verb and 'to spare' generally is also. Yes, choosing how to eat is an active choice, but that doesn't mean that it directly results in stopping an animal's death. Furthermore, this article implies that the 'solution' is for humans to stop eating meat altogether, thereby saving animal lives and magically fixing ecological imbalances. Of course, the article implies this only in relation to fish.
The reality is that vegetarians rely on agriculture, which in its contemporary form is just as unnatural as the meat industries. In fact, runoff from commercial agriculture is the very reason for ecological imbalances within certain sectors of marine life. Jellyfish and algal blooms, the destruction of corals, etc. Furthermore, the sheer contamination of water via agriculture, which was mentioned in another article posted on hubski, is truly stupendous and growing, even as we are moving toward what scientists predict will be a fresh water shortage.
I'm all for eating more healthfully and more responsibly, but merely converting people to vegetarianism clearly is not the answer.
There are Bibles of all kinds, and there's more thumping going on in the world than doing. I'm not up on my deadly sins, but I'm pretty sure that inaction is a form of sloth.
If I'm not mistaken the majority of corn we grow and the overwhelming amount of antibiotics we deploy are given to animals. Less total agriculture would be necessary if we ate less meat. It's true that not eating meat won't solve all agricultural problems, but it sure would limit them.
I think that's right. However, I'm not sure it would limit agricultural problems overall. Given that variety is necessary for balanced nutrition and that novelty is part of the food culture in many Western countries including the U.S., I'd think that there would be an increased demand for different kinds of vegetables, many of which have different requirements for optimum yields, no?
The biomass required to raise a cow far outways the biomass that would have to be raised to substitute for the sustenance that cow would provide.
A study at cornell claims that "For every kilogram of high-quality animal protein produced, livestock are fed nearly 6 kg of plant protein."
Or sometimes the figure used is in acreage, as in 1lb beef = 20 acres of arable land used. I'm not arguing with what you're saying and I take your point, but it wasn't exactly what I was going for in what you responded to. I'm not arguing for meat either, I'm just not convinced that at the present time converting to an entirely plant-based diet would be as seamless and easy as the article implies it to be.
Let's say that we did convert to an all-vegetable diet. The first thing that comes to mind is, where would the seed come from? Well, Monsanto, likely. After the loss of their revenues from corn and soy I'd be surprised if they didn't try to recoup that with sales of other seeds.
Then there's the consideration of labor. It's one thing to harvest vast quantities of a grain crop, like corn, but an entirely different thing to harvest say, tomatoes. Basically, I don't know that converting to an all plant diet would save anything, at least in the short-term. The agriculture industry is largely set up to maintain our current system and I wonder how difficult it would be convert. Also, how would this impact farmers and the need for refrigerated trucks for shipping. Would there be any sort of impact in regard to food waste? Finally, what would happen to animals previously bred and developed to be large-yield food animals? They're not "natural." Would they go extinct?
Obviously I'm taking this to an extreme, but changes on such a large scale are bound to have large impacts.