Vegetarianism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backline

As to the suffering of slaughtered animals presently I'm afraid I see little difference in Nature: the lion is as deadly to the prey as Ted Nugent.

---

That's literally true, but actually, the lion is feeding off sustainable stocks of locally sourced animals that, themselves, have no impact on the environment and feed of grasses and shrubs unsuitable for consumption by any other creature.

Humans, on the other hand, are farming vast tracts of wheat and soya in order to feed cattle, cutting down rainforest to do so on land which isn't really fit for purpose, so the topsoil washes away after a few seasons leaving barren land, contributing hugely to environmental destruction, global warming and food shortages.

I can only speak of Britain because that is where I farm. There are 5.5 million acres of upland pasture. This is area is unsuitable for arable or vegetable cropping. It is too steep, and too exposed. It is currently being efficiently harvested by sheep and cattle.

Now, if I could grow crops I would, and so would all my nieghbours, not from any pseudo ethical stance, but simply because it is more profitable. But we can't, and thats a fact. The only thing that grows here is grass, so its livestock or nothing. The question is, can we afford to take 5.5 million acres or about 20% of farmed land out of food production?

prendrelemick, thanks for the great point. I've always felt that some of the (otherwise good) environmental arguments for vegetarianism conveniently ignored the 'efficiency' of grazing.

What is your opinion of cattle and/or other animals being raised in less 'natural' ways (e.g. being fed soy, stressful confines, etc.)?

Also, do you have an opinion regarding the large slaughter-house operations that are more mechanized and far less 'sensitive' to the experience of the animals?

I have seen indoor cattle rearing, and many years ago I worked on on a pig farm, before the current welfare standards were introduced. (Pig crates have been illegal for many years over here.)

I'm not an expert in animal welfare, but I have long experience in rearing sheep and cattle. One thing I have learned is that you simply cannot rear them profitably if they are suffering from constant stress. I don't know about other types of livestock but I suspect the same is true.

The pig farm where I worked (over 30 years ago) put up a new crate house for about 200 sows. Statistically the health of the herd dramatically improved, management was easier, costs were less, there were fewer casualties, injuries or diseases, BUT I didn't like it because the sows could hardly move. The sows seemed content, but I didn't like it.

The size of the slaughter-house doesn't matter, it's the design of pens, race, crush that really count. I've seen systems that had sweating men struggleing with bellowing cattle, and systems where the cattle just strolled into the crush without any drama. The mechanisation is mostly on the meat processing side.

What I am certain of, is that the Stun, then bleed method of slaughter is quick and painless.

prendrelemick, good to have your perspective. I think the point about certain land being unsuitable for anything but grazing comes up in the Guardian article too, or the comments below. Something about this being the rationale for most ruminant farming in much of Africa. The thing I struggle with, especially as a lover of cheese, is the thing in that article that says the greenhouse gas emissions from livestock farming account for a whopping 18% of overall UK emissions. Problematically for veggies (as opposed to vegans), cheese making is actually said to have higher emissions than meat farming.

But all that aside for the moment, it seems the major environmental problem is global demand for meat, especially beef, which apparently can't be met by farming only on existing grazing lands and that's why so much rainforest destruction is occurring.

I'm reviving this thread because it's is an issue I care about. Thanks to the OP for starting this (years ago haha).

I think there are strong ethical and ecological reasons to be a vegetarian (or a vegan, which is of course even better).

Ethics:
Why is sexism wrong? Why is racism wrong?
It may seem surprising, but the above are wrong for the same reason as our treatment of animals is wrong. Racists or sexists categorize people as 'inferior' without actually looking at their individual abilities. They think these 'others' don't deserve the same rights, simply because they don't belong to the priviledged group (say the white 'race', or the male gender). Even if it were true that i.e. women were on average dumber than men (it isn't), denying them all the rights men have is wrong, because the smartest woman would still be much smarter than an average man. One has to consider the actual abilities, not the 'group label'.

It is obvious to everyone that torturing humans is wrong, and that when they suffer, they should be helped. Is this so because humans are 'intelligent'? Do the intelligent deserve more moral care and attention than dumb people? Obviously not. Because what matters is the capacity to suffer.

A human infant, or a person with severe mental disabilities, have the same (or lesser even) mental abilities and capacity for suffering as pigs or cows. If a company were to inflicted suffering in human infants or disabled people for a marginal benefit equal to 'some tasty meals', the public would be beyond outraged and scream 'nazi'. So why is it suddenly okay to do the same thing to animals, if they're just as 'consciously aware of suffering' as the above mentioned members of the human species? The answer that unfortunately, we're biased. Biased to an 'in-group / out-group' mentality. Biased towards racism and sexism. But we've overcome these evils with time and are now aware that they're wrong. We're also biased towards 'speciesism'. And as of now, not much seems to be done against it. We can't just assume that the interests of beings ought only be considered when they belong to the species Homo sapiens. What matters is the capacity to suffer. And if it's wrong to let infants suffer (even if they're orphans and no one directly cries for them), it's also wrong to let pigs or cows suffer (and chicken, and other sentient animals).

Killing is another matter. Is it wrong to kill (non-human) animals? Many vegetarians would say 'yes', yet some say 'no' in theory. If it's done painlessly, there's not much wrong with it because as long as the animals aren't self-aware (and only humans and maybe some other great apes seem to be), they don't have future plans or interests. They live 'in the moment'. Analogically, abortion is allowed too, even at stages when the fetus has some level of consciousness and definitely feels pain. So while killing non self-aware beings might not be intrinsically 'wrong', it definitely is wrong when it's done with pain. And since the common practice of killing animals involves scary transports, crowding and a bolt into the brain (that in a significant percentage of cases doesn't kill instantly), it's safe to assume that killing animals the current way is wrong.

To me, those reasons alone seem absolutely sound and enough, and even though I LOVE eating meat, I stopped eventually (though only after about a year of rationalizing it, despite actually being aware of the facts and the ethical case). But there are other reasons still:

Ecological reasons:
Two pounds of meat (beef) use up 15'000 litres of water for its production, and obviously a whole lot of grain and crops too. The energy conversion from plant -> meat is very inefficient (only 10% at best). If the world went vegan, we could easily produce enough food for twice the current population.

Meat production releases a huge amount of greenhouse gases, it alone is responsible for nearly 20% of the planet's total emissions.

Health arguments:
The argument 'humans are omnivores and should thus eat meat' is absurd. What 'is', doesn't 'have to' be the case. Nature isn't ethical. And do we really need meat? The answer is cleary 'no'. In fact, vegetarians are significantly healthier than people who eat meat. There are virtually no risks of nutritional deficiencies for vegetarians, except for girls or young women with strong menstrual blood flow (they should make sure they get enough iron, but if you're aware of it then it's easy to cover it).

Veganism is a bit more difficult. In order to become a vegan, one actually has to learn a bit about nutrition and devise a plan as for what to eat. It's hard to find 'tasty menus' initially, but one does get used to it. Vegetarianism isn't hard, veganism is a bit of an effort, especially in the beginning, but it's the right thing. (Some vegans don't eat ANYTHING at all made from animals. That's clearly exagerated, there's nothing wrong with eating honey for instance, bees don't suffer from producing it.)

And if one simply 'can't abandon eating meat because it's so damn tasty', then one can at least eat less of it. For instance, only eat meat on weekends, or only eat it once a week. That already helps a lot and makes a difference. I was incapable of giving it all up at once, so I started by reducing it at first.

Think about it.

I have been thinking about this subject a lot recently. I have been trying to avoid buying intensively farmed food and only eating meat a few times a week.

I don't see that, simply because an animal may not have a sense of self, it should be less deserving of compassion. Animals feel pain and fear and trauma just the same as humans do. Why should I have more right to a pleasant life than an animal simply because I may be better able to appreciate it?

I don't actually have a problem with eating meat. It seems quite natural. I think, if I was hungry enough, I would eat a human flesh without too much revulsion. It is impossible to live in this world without being complicit in the death and suffering of others. How is eating meat any different from eating dairy products, wearing leather, wearing clothes made in a sweatshop, living in a country which profits from arms sales etc, etc? I guess everybody has to find a point at which they will draw a line they will not cross but, unless you are a jain monk, the line can only be arbitrary.

I have more reservations about the farming of animals. I don't like to think of intensively farmed animals but, arguably, an animal in captivity has a better life than an animal in the wild. I can imagine the majority of wild animals to be half starved, riddled with parasites and living in constant fear of their lives.

My real problem is with the production of a life to be used solely for consumption. It seems to be using a life as a means rather than an end, which is surely wrong in all but the most extreme of circumstances.

But are human lives that much different to those of farmed animals? Contrary to popular belief we are not born free. We (most of us) are born dependent, raised until we are fit enough to work, spend our lives in servitude and finally left to die when we are no longer strong or coherent enough to be of any use. Our lives are hopefully more rewarding than that of a battery hen but we are no less consumed by the world than any farm animal.

Perhaps it comes down to the religious idea of sanctity of life. If every life is worth living, no matter how degrading or painful, then I guess it is ok to breed animals and keep them locked up until they are fat enough to eat. Personally I don't believe there is any intrinsic value to just 'being alive' no matter what the cost, but this is just how I feel. It may be more a reflection of my pessimistic nature than anything else.

Well, these are some of the incoherent and contradictory thoughts I've been having lately. I am thinking about reading some books on animal rights. J M Coetzee's The Lives of Animals looks interesting, but I am worried it might completely freak me out.

I've been vegetarian since my teens. Eating meat is unjustifiable.

'It's the natural way. Lions eat zebras; big fish, little fish etc' Lions die if they don't eat zebras. If I was trapped in the wild for days and starving I would kill a rabbit. I'm not. There's no nutritional argument against vegetarianism. If you can't be bothered making healthy dishes then there are imitation schintzels, sausages, burgers etc that you could only reject because they taste ten per cent worse than the real thing. That downside is hardly the equivalent of dying.

Looking through the older posts there were arguments against vegetarianism made on an environmental basis. These should be given the same amount of credence that goes to those who believe that Shakespeare and Cervantes were the same person. The livestock industry produces more greenhouse gases than ANY OTHER MAN-MADE SOURCE. The biggest cause of deforestation is grazing ground for cattle. More than 200 times the amount of water per kilo is needed to rear cattle than wheat. I live in a country that has spent most of the last decade in intensive water restrictions.

But anyway, people can do as they please.

I've been a vegetarian since December and I must say I just feel all-round healthier (since I don't really eat junk food or drink pop, either). I have gotten a lot of ridicule - mostly from my peers - for it, but I just brush it off because I do this for me, not them.

I'm pesco vegetarian and there's no special reason to it.

I don't like the thought of animals being slaughtered and me eating them.

I wonder why non-vegetarians feel 'confronted' when somebody says they're vegetarian. Are they threatened in some way? I find my daughter is often asked to justify her choice not to eat meat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

I wonder why non-vegetarians feel 'confronted' when somebody says they're vegetarian. Are they threatened in some way? I find my daughter is often asked to justify her choice not to eat meat.

---

I wonder about that too. I'm always asked to justify it.

Beau Brummel, the Regency Dandy, never ate vegetables. At one dinner party, his dinner partner asked him, "Do you eat any vegetables at all, Mr. Brummel."

He glanced at her through his quizzing glass. "Once, several years ago, I ate a pea."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

I wonder why non-vegetarians feel 'confronted' when somebody says they're vegetarian. Are they threatened in some way? I find my daughter is often asked to justify her choice not to eat meat.

---

I never mention it unless I need to inform someone about it. I think many are challenged by it. You do get a couple of responses though. The embarrassed "well I only eat white meat and a bit of beef" type response, as if to say "I'm not all bad". Or you get the confident and sniffy put down of the Beau Brummel type mentioned earlier. This last sometimes seems an over compensation, and there's really nothing to say to it. It's usually followed by scornful comments varying in degree depending upon whether the speaker is an "alpha male bloke man", or just an ordinary person.

In my opnion soap box vegetarianism is as annoying as Beau Brummel's. It can only be down to personal choice - whatever that may be - at the moment. I certainly don't like embarrassing people or having them feel they have to justify themselves, when our eating habits are often just the result of culture and personal environment. Haranguing people doesn't produce converts to anything - which you'd lke to tell the preachers in town often. (I don't know what it's like in other places, but British public preaching often has an embarrassed edge to it. Perhaps it's the British character - but I digress).

There are some very interesting points raised in this thread. I recall a time when being a vegetarian was lampooned by the media and general public alike. It's indicative of a a shift in public opinion that vegetarianism is much more widespread than a few decades ago. I briefly took to it because I am a small eater and couldn't be bothered cooking anything that required much time to prepare. I also found that vegetables, such as those used for salads and stir fry dishes etc., appeared to be adequate for my requirements. Then a medico advised that I eat some meat as it was necessary for a person's nutrition, so I began eating things that could be grilled rather than oven cooked but, even so, it's kept to a minimum.
Food is a difficult subject to generalise about because people have different perspectives on it, but one thing I am certain of is that many people in the developed countries eat more food than is necessary for their general well being and meat is a major component of the excess.