These
are the confession and thoughts of a formerly strict vegetarian, who is now a semi-vegetarian (does not eat meat at home, except during the
summer, but will eat meat if at a restaurant, or served meat at
someone else's residence. Complicated, I know).
Vegetarianism
isn't a solution to environmental problems.
Let's
repeat: vegetarianism (or veganism) is not a solution to the
ecological problems facing the planet. Not only because each
individual vegetarian has no effect, but for a more complicated
reason. The strongest argument for defenders of ecological
vegetarianism strongest is that producing meat requires a larger
acreage than a comparable amount of calories in fruits, vegetables,
nuts, and beans. More meat consumed means more land under
cultivation, more greenhouse gases produced, more wildlife displaced,
less pollution.
Ecological
vegetarians recently found themselves in a comical fight with CPAC
speaker and former Deputy Assistant to President Trump, Sebastian
Gorka. The Green New Deal received considerable, absurd
criticism by red
blooded Americans who will give up red meat over their dead
bodies. While GND creator Alexandria Ocasio Cortez doesn't plan to
ban cattle outright, meeting greenhouse gas targets, which will allow
humanity to maintain an Earth worth living on, requires everyone to
sacrifice what they believed was their birthright. Some people
believe their arteries and the planet's could bear this pressure, but
it can't. Returning to the
initial article of this series, readers must reconsider the
Categorical Imperative. Citizens of the United States are top 5 in
per capita meat consumption (by the lb). According to the
Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development,
the average person in the United States eats nearly twice as much
meat as a person in China, three times as much meat as a person in
Japan, and almost twenty-five times as much meat as the average
person in India. The Earth is already straining against the demands
imposed by humanity. Is it possible that everyone could eat like
Americans? The answer is, of course not, and therefore one must
consider whether it is the right thing to do.
Isn't
this article about the futility of vegetarianism? It sounds like the
author is advocating for not eating meat. Wait. In the media the
detrimental effects of eating meat have focused on greenhouse gases,
but the loss of wildlife, the loss of natural land, and the loss of
habitat are overlooked by a populace which remains ignorant. The
raising of cattle, and to a lesser degree, other livestock, requires
more land than producing vegetables for human consumption. This
makes sense. When a grasshopper eats grass, it only gains 10% of the
energy or one tenth of the energy the grass has accumulated. Each
step in the food chain functions at this same rate. Every step loses
90% of the energy accumulated from the past step. This explains at
least partially why meat production requires more resources than
plants. The details explaining why beef is more resource intensive
than chicken are unnecessary here. Fortunately the human race didn't
develop a taste for predators like the wolf, eagle, bear, or tiger.
There
is a common phrase in business, eliminate the middle man. One does
this because the middle man takes a piece of the profits the original
seller/producer would like to keep for themselves. Meat is a
middleman between the plants and humanity. We need to eliminate it
to save the planet.
Except
we don't, because it won't.
The
theory of environmental vegetarianism, is that eating less meat will
protect the wildlife, the natural habitat which remains. Less land
will be converted, and this may be true initially. If there was a
sudden, rapid transition to veganism, there would be little need to
cultivate new soil. But the global population would keep expanding.
A continually expanding population eventually requires additional
resources. It would require more land to produce its food. A
temporary cessation, would eventually lead to the same process
currently devastating the planet's wildlife. Without some sort of
political intervention, the entire planet will eventually be covered
by humanity and its food supplies. Only the most extreme habitats
(high mountains and deserts) will be left wild, and only because
humanity can't think of a efficient method to farm them.
Humanity
has always expanded to fill both their habitat and their food
resources. Today there are 7.7 billion people, and millions if not a
billion are starving. But in spite of this, the population of the
world is estimated to add another billion in 10 more years (and
another billion every ten years for at least a half century). Though
not enough food is delivered to provide the proper nutrition to the
world's current population, enough is sent out to make sure the
population of the world grows to 8.5 billion in a decade.
Vegetarianism will not convince wealthy corporations to feed the
underfed, nor will it alter human nature. As long as more food is
produced than is needed, humanity will continually strive to consume
it all.
Recent
theories hypothesize that humanity will expand to its resources.
Humanity, it is reasoned, will stabilize when everyone is well
educated, provided with a reasonable standard of living, and a modern
sensibility. These theorists will argue that population growth has
slowed. Their theory is possible. But fortunately for those fortune
tellers, this future is at least a quarter century, if not a half
century away. They may be dead, and if humanity waits to make
changes, it will be too late. For like global warming, if humanity
doesn't consider the problem now, it will be too late to preserve
wildlife and habitat in thirty years.
Ecological
vegetarianism will not save the environment, wildlife, or natural
habitats, because any land saved initially by producing fruits and
vegetables instead of meat, will inevitably be cultivated to feed an
ever expanding population which will always seek to grow to the
limits imposed by its environment.
On
the other hand, vegetarianism is healthier, and allows one to avoid
the ethically questionable activity of consuming another thinking,
pain feeling, creature for personal enjoyment.
Recent:
Doubting
Relevant:
Environmental
Ethics: The Categorical Imperative
Environmental
Ethics: Responsibility
A
Love Of Life
Comments
Post a Comment