There are good reasons, but this is not one-on a nutrient-and-calorie basis, food production easily provides for the population of earth and more. It's a local production issue, which is unaffected by distant food use, or alternately a distribution issue which similarly is not solved by simply freeing up more calories.
(This is even before we get to the more-damning fact that the recovered grain would vastly outpace the needs of the hungry-I'm finding an estimate that suggests that the grain fed to animals could feed more than 3.5 billion people, meaning that even assuming those 800 million people eat nothing whatsoever now and thus would be taking their entire caloric needs from that pool it would be necessary to cut meat production by less than a sixth to meet their requirements. Now that I look again, that's also based on a 3,000-calorie daily requirement-reasonable for large individuals or people doing continuous physical labor, but still a conservatively high estimate)
Read Diet For A New America. It explains the issue in extreme detail, and you'll see that it really is necessary to do this. One of the reasons being is that the land used to raise livestock detoriates much faster than land used to grow grain, vegetables, and fruits. So now we are destroying rain forests to then raise livestock there. We are going to run out of room eventually to keep doing this, not to mention we need the rain forests.
Right, but it doesn't change the incorrectness of the argument in the post. The issue of unsustainable practices is orthogonal to the issue of current uneven dispersal of nutrition.
You said the reason stated in the original post was not a good reason to go vegetarian. Think of it this way: if more people went vegetarian, there would be a less need for meat. Less meat would be produced, freeing up fields to make grains and what not. People in countries burdened with starvation that export their meat to us when then be making more grain. More grain would then be able to used to give to their own country instead of using the majority of it to feed the animals exported to other countries.
Saying that a reason like this is not a good reason to go vegetarian can have a powerful impact on someone who is a meat eater. This is a reason to go vegetarian no matter what way you look at it. It may not be of the highest priority to some people, but it is still a reason nonetheless.
I work in a grocery store, so I know that the fact that I'm not eating meat isn't going to stop our meat department from ordering the same amount of meat each week and packaging it. If anything by me not buying that meat to feed my family I'm allowing that product which the animal died for to simply be thrown away. I don't agree with the conditions that most animals are kept in, which is why I voted yes to more humane living conditions for livestock. But that isn't going to keep me from eating animals. Also, and this has nothing to do with you because I know that you were posting it as a quote. But I feel that people who preach to me about why I should be a vegetarian or a vegan are almost as bad as people who are trying to convert me to their religion.
if not me, then who? if not now, then when?lelenevityMay 3 2010, 01:40:02 UTC
you're right. one person reducing or eliminating meat from their diet will not effect change in very many grocery stores. it would require mass action. good thing i believe in changing myself and being responsible for myself!
"Cheap meat could never exist if the meat industry were required by law to give the animals humane living conditions, including spacious quarters, clean surroundings, fresh air, sunlight, and opportunities for social interaction, nor if it were simply illegal to drug the animals who would otherwise die from the conditions in which they live." Which means that actually, you do agree with the conditions in which they are kept. Your consumer power does not reflect your sentiments.
Comments 9
(This is even before we get to the more-damning fact that the recovered grain would vastly outpace the needs of the hungry-I'm finding an estimate that suggests that the grain fed to animals could feed more than 3.5 billion people, meaning that even assuming those 800 million people eat nothing whatsoever now and thus would be taking their entire caloric needs from that pool it would be necessary to cut meat production by less than a sixth to meet their requirements. Now that I look again, that's also based on a 3,000-calorie daily requirement-reasonable for large individuals or people doing continuous physical labor, but still a conservatively high estimate)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Saying that a reason like this is not a good reason to go vegetarian can have a powerful impact on someone who is a meat eater. This is a reason to go vegetarian no matter what way you look at it. It may not be of the highest priority to some people, but it is still a reason nonetheless.
Reply
Sorry Juli, I love eating meat =(
Reply
"Cheap meat could never exist if the meat industry were required by law to give the animals humane living conditions, including spacious quarters, clean surroundings, fresh air, sunlight, and opportunities for social interaction, nor if it were simply illegal to drug the animals who would otherwise die from the conditions in which they live." Which means that actually, you do agree with the conditions in which they are kept. Your consumer power does not reflect your sentiments.
Reply
Leave a comment