|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:09 pm
I have come across this discussion many times in life, news articles, and even peta ads (they called al gore a hypocrite for not being vegetarian and claiming to being an environmentalist). Here is an EXTREMELY brief summary of my opinions and the facts I know: It is said that eating meat is one of the number one reason for global warming and many other environmental issues, but these claims have been denied by some environmentalists (most only denied the fact that it isn't the prime contributor to global warming, they did not say there is no environmental impact). It is a very possible theory especially because livestock consumes about 80% of the worlds food (if I remember correctly, probably less) and it uses a lot of fossil fuels to produce the grains live stock eats plus the fuel used to run factory farms, slaughter houses, and to transport the animals. Other than that there are many other concerns including health because of all the blood, guts, and feces of the animals plus the fertilizers and pesticides used to create their food cause great damage to water quality. This not only applies to land animals, but sea creatures. Because of greedy people in places like here in the US, there has become a problem called the "tragedy of the commons." This means that because there is no way to accurately measure the population of animals in the ocean and people always want their share, populations of fish decrease faster than they can reproduce. There is also a lot of waste where 25% of the catch is released as "by catch" right back into the ocean (ground up and not used animals). By supporting the fish industry it not only hurts fish, but also other animals that get caught in nets such as loggerhead turtles or animals that eat those fish. Anyways, what other reason is there to protect the environment... environment protecting is for the ecosystem which is very reliant on animals... so why would an environmentalist want to disturb a natural cycle. [Note: I'm not trying to push my beliefs on others I just want to hear others opinions and learn more on the subject as well as teach others].
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:20 pm
being a vegetarian and being an environmentalist are two completely separate things.
The domestication of animals (i.e. Livestock) was a major milestone in human development in the western world. it is simply a requirement for the sustainment of large populations. (cities, large towns). Granted factory farming is not the nicest way to raise and bergerfy animals but they are starting to look into a more eco-friendly manner of powering and fueling the vehicles and buildings using methane that is produced by the very livestock they produce.
livestock consumes a lot of food, yes. But it is nowhere near 80%. The U.S. produces more food then we need every year by the thousands of tons. The government buys up the excess in order to prevent another Depression. It takes more energy to have domesticated animals but it is a food source that is high in protein (something that is required for personal health) and is far more versatile than most plants.
Also one thing that many people who appose any form of animal domestication as a food source tend to overlook is that many of the domestic animals could not or would not exist/survive in the wild without us. they have adapted too fully to our symbiotic relationship. we eat a small percentage of their overall number each year. and in return we insure that animals genetic survival. we make sure that they will never die out completely.
Eating meat is something humans have done since before they evolved their abnormally over sized brains. This does not mean that the modern systems don't need some work, it just means that spewing pollutants from our vehicles and the refineries that lug oil from overseas to burn oil to turn oil into gasoline and then burn that in our cars.
Its 2:07 right now so I'm getting really tired. TTYL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:53 pm
I guess my question should be reworded to " should environmentalists be expected to become vegetarian or vegan in order to reduce their impact on the environment?"
Well I'd have to say a very true advocate of the protection of the environment would be vegetarian/vegan because it most definitely does have an impact (whether it is a large or small impact).
I am aware that the two concept are very different although they are still interrelated.
If everyone wanted to be even more like an environmentalist... they would just live off the land they live on instead of buying foods that are processed and shipped to their supermarket. In this scenario it would be perfectly environmentally friendly to consume animals you take care of yourself (especially since butchering the animal yourself does not use machines). Even better if you could use the manure from this livestock as fertilizer and not use pesticides (because pesticides also kill those insect that eat the pest-y ones). Or at least one can buy locally instead of becoming farmers lol .
I also believe that the current system for "manufacturing" animals takes away animals from the environment that they should participate in instead of keeping them in concrete cages. I don't want to participate in an industry that treats natures animals as products for us to utilize like oil. We shouldn't be able to own them the way we do because they are part of the environment like any other being.
I don't believe the symbiotic relationship between humans and domesticated livestock is a good relationship. I'm sure the cows would prefer to live on their own by eating up grass fields rather than eating a cornmeal (& cow remains) feed in an unsanitary, unnatural, and inhumane environment. They also have such a high population because we breed them for our own use and they could definitely be able to sustain their population as long as they aren't boarded up in stalls.
Yes, humans eating meat has long been a custom, but many practices die out because they aren't needed anymore. Since we have the capacity to not eat meat... then why not stop. I can honestly say our meat is much less sanitary than it was ages ago.
Here are some random interesting statistics/quotes/facts I have found from Grist & Newstarget which are online news sources for health and environmental issues:
*One study suggests that a shift towards vegetarianism in the United States could improve the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. (the dead zone is a waterway that has hypoxia--very low oxygen content-- caused by fertilizer runoff, soil erosion, animal wastes, and sewage coming from the Mississippi River)
*The study also says beef production has the is the biggest problem of deforestation and grassland usurpation worldwide.
*70 percent of previous forest land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures
-(this is also a problem with soy production too)
*The U.N. report concluded that the meat industry is "one of the ... most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."
*It specifically addressed the contribution of eating meat to "problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity."
*It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of animal flesh.
*According to John Robbins, the average vegan uses about one-sixth of an acre of land to satisfy his or her food requirements for a year; the average vegetarian who consumes dairy products and eggs requires about three times as much, and the average meat-eater requires about 20 times that much land.
*It requires about 300 gallons of water to feed a vegan for a day. It requires about four times as much water to feed a vegetarian and 14 times as much to feed a meat-eater.
*In 2006, the University of Chicago published a major report stating that adopting a vegan diet is more important in the fight against global warming than switching to a hybrid car.
*Most of what the fishing fleets get isn’t even eaten by human beings. Half is fed to animals who are raised for food, and about 30 million tons each year are just tossed back into the ocean, dead, which greatly disturbs the natural biological balance. Commercial fishing fleets are destroying sensitive aquatic ecosystems at a rate that is beyond comprehension. A major study found that in just the last 50 years, commercial fishing has reduced the populations of all large fish species by a staggering 90 percent.
Just curious... why do people become environmentalists?
I certainly want to protect the earth for its inhabitants: Us and other animals. I don't really get why the advocation of the environment and animals is separate when it comes to eating habits.
Thanks for your input on the subject! (and also I have to say that animal protein is not necessary for human health this is an old myth. Most vegetarian countries have a healthier population and die at a later age. Americans actually consume much much more protein than needed. I once counted my protein, being a vegetarian, I had consumed about double the required protein even without milk products). And btw... happy birthday!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:21 pm
Your views are completely true. in certain situations. Americans are the largest people in the world (in a general sense). I'm not talking about obesity. Im talking about general stature. we are taller and stronger physically than most other countries. this is largely do to our consumption of meat and cultural trends that encourage bodily strength.
also buying food from local farms is great and the best option for most people. but this is simply not an option for the mega cities that are growing. These cities are a bane in the sense that they are a draw on resources, heat island effect, urban sprawl, and overpopulation. but they also are a mark of a powerful economy of a developed nation. they focus more on academic and cultural relations rather than industrial/agricultural. this encourages technological development. The US is where most technological advancements are created. there is a disconnect however when it comes to production. (again the agriculture/industry fight trips up the world)
Consuming meat has an effect on the economy. but before we had a steady flow of meat from farms we used hunting and have hunted many animals to extinction. and personal farms tend to also breed more animosity toward nature as they encroach on the teritory of predators such as the Gray Wolf and the Grizzly.(both nearly hunted to extinction for simple eradication and not food)
on a scale from one to ten agriculture is maybe a 3 on the worst environmental damagers. The grazing land that is in areas that were once rain forest in the amazon (and Africa) are cleared by the lumber industry and sold off to farmers.
and if the University of Chicago said that then they A. receive funding from the automotive and/or Oil industries. (they do but it is not necessarily effecting their results) or B. they believe cow farts are the big bad the is killing the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:31 pm
yay I love talking about the environment.
I never really made the connection that if we were all to hunt for our own food it would go back to a state where we kill down all the other natural animals in our environment like they did with buffalo because Americans are power hungry. I guess in a way cows are kind of the sacrifice for the rest of the animals because... in my opinion... cows no longer contribute to the environment and its biodiversity and the only animals that would be effected if they became extinct would be humans... If cows were gone, as bad as this may sound, the world would be a better place.
I agree that America stresses physical strength and associates it with meat and being macho or manly. That's why less guys become vegetarian, because it makes them feel weaker and that is the one thing an American male cannot give up. Social pressures on guys for being strong may be even stronger than social pressures on girls for being pretty. I think it takes a real guy to go against the grain and actually stand up for what is right. Vegetarianism can be manly anyways... like Clint Eastwood who eats mostly vegan biggrin .
Well I think agriculture has a greater impact than 3 out of 10 (if you ignore obvious hazards like chemical and oil spills) because fertilizer run off completely ruins many aquatic systems such as the Gulf of Mexico's Dead Zone mentioned above. It the whole concept of the overpopulation of surface plants that cut off the sunlight for plants at the bottom of a water body cutting off oxygen and food supply for the aquatic animals. It also makes our limited quantity of drinkable water even slimmer. Drinkable water is only at about 0.25% of the worlds water. The heavy phosphorous and nitrogen run off throws off the natural phosphorous and nitrogen cycles. Feeding animals for meat increases the demand for crops and is a large contributor to deforestation and deforestation is key into increasing temperatures while decreasing available water supplies. Most of our genetically modified and heavily covered in pesticides corn crops go into the feed for animals in the meat industry.
I think the reason that the University of Chicago believes that cow flatulence is such a "threat" to the worlds climate because methane has a more damaging effect than carbon dioxide... but I completely agree that it is weird to blame them. Certainly if there were less of them there would be less of an impact but that applies with every living animal. There will always need to be a balance between animals and plants... I think the logical solution would be to cut down less trees and lower population of animals. But this would be a ridiculous idea to impose on a society that doesn't want to even change its habits to decrease obesity, an obvious health hazard.
Oh yeah, in AP Environmental Science (APES hehe), we watched this ridiculous video about trees which was surprisingly narrated by a guy from Green Peace. I was appalled at what he said. The entire class, including me, thought this video was a propaganda video for foresters. If that wasn't their intention, then the movie is just outdated because the Green Peace guy kept on saying over and over that to solve the environmental issues in the video, we should increase our use of tree-derived products. He rationalized that by using wood instead of oil for fuel, we are decreasing our demands on oil. Since this video is most likely outdated, he completely ignored the fact of alternative energy sources... or *gasp* reduce you energy consumption. That wasn't the only appalling thing the video said, but I forgot what they were.
mmk well I gotta go do my APES essays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:14 pm
My personal opinion is that becoming a vegetarian/vegan severely limits your ability to effect change in the areas of fishing and meat production- and if these are major areas of environmental concern, then it would be a very important area in which an environmentalist would want to be active.
Just from a purely practical point of view, the companies who produce meat and fish products will be more interested in the views of people who might actually buy their products. And we cast our vote on production methods and humane treatment of livestock every time we do buy something. When you come down to it, those votes- the ones backed by real money- are the only votes which the companies are going to care about. Vegetarians can protest until they're blue in the face, and write petitions and letters until their hands fall off- but if no one's out there buying responsibly raised or fished meat, or humanely raised and processed products, then even if the companies wanted to improve their system they would not be able to afford doing so.
We have to make this a real possibility if we expect them to change anything, and it is true that sometimes doing things the right way ends up costing more. That's how we came to be in this situation to begin with, after all. So if everyone who cares enough about the issue to change their buying habits goes over into vegetarianism, then they have lost their vote and so have we. The issue will be decided by those who are still actively consuming meat and fish products, and if the only ones left there are those who are only looking for cheap meat at any cost (environmental, humanity, or otherwise), then those are the people whom the meat supply business will try to please. It would be all that they'd be able to do.
So if you're really concerned about responsibly or humanely raised meat, don't go vegetarian. Buy meat which is responsibly raised or certified humanely raised and processed. It may cost more, you may not be able to buy as much- but hey, if you're considering a vegetarian lifestyle anyway, it's really not that big of a deal. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:24 am
Ah...The classic vegetarianism argument. whee
Well first of all just let me say that I am REALLY glad everyone's been posting long, well-informed posts to help educate the rest of us. Like REALLY, REALLY glad. ^^
Anyways. The only thing that wants to keep me from eating meat is really just the treatment of livestock. Taking up resources like water and forests to feed the livestock is just a consequence of our massive population. It's a big problem, yes, but it doesn't really have much to do with actual vegetarianism itself. I totally and completely share Weben's view:WebenBanu So if you're really concerned about responsibly or humanely raised meat, don't go vegetarian. Buy meat which is responsibly raised or certified humanely raised and processed. It may cost more, you may not be able to buy as much- but hey, if you're considering a vegetarian lifestyle anyway, it's really not that big of a deal.
And Bloogonis here:Bloogonis buying food from local farms is great and the best option for most people. but this is simply not an option for the mega cities that are growing. These cities are a bane in the sense that they are a draw on resources, heat island effect, urban sprawl, and overpopulation. but they also are a mark of a powerful economy of a developed nation. they focus more on academic and cultural relations rather than industrial/agricultural. this encourages technological development. The US is where most technological advancements are created. there is a disconnect however when it comes to production. (again the agriculture/industry fight trips up the world)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:21 pm
For those who are interested in buying locally produced or grown products, but live in a big city- check around for one of the large environmentally friendly chains of grocery stores. Whole Foods is great, Wild Oats is good too- even Trader Joes can custom order a few things. Look for Farmers' markets, as well- I live in a big city and I've found many outlets for buying local products. Which is not to say that it's ridiculously easy, or anything- but it is frequently possible. While it's true that cities tend to dominate the landscape and crowd out agricultural pursuits, it is also true that they gather together larger bases of humanity to support a range of goods and preferences... including environmental preferences.^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:39 pm
Well, even though I'm vegetarian because I wanted to be a better environmentalist, I honestly think you can get by with being both an omnivore and a treehugger, but with restraint. The reason meat is so damaging to the environment is because we consume so much of it. If it weren't for the fact that some people eat meat with every single meal then we wouldn't need to devote 70% of our wheat crop to the raising of livestock. As for fish, well it would sure do a lot of good if people actually bought their fish from a fish farm rather than constantly plundering the sea's bounty. Funny thing is, it might be a little more environmentally friendly for you to eat a little bit of meat than no meat at all. Turns out that grazing animals (cows) can really help out on the farm. Of course, we're not talking about a lot of meat here, we're talking 2 servings every 3 days. ( http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/10/foodprint.php ) What I'd advise is that you only eat farm raised fish, try eliminating shrimp all together, eat less beef, and try going for some chicken (probably the most environmentally friendly of all, and you can raise them in your backyard if you're really all that crazy about it). WebenBanu For those who are interested in buying locally produced or grown products, but live in a big city- check around for one of the large environmentally friendly chains of grocery stores. Whole Foods is great, Wild Oats is good too- even Trader Joes can custom order a few things. Look for Farmers' markets, as well- I live in a big city and I've found many outlets for buying local products. Which is not to say that it's ridiculously easy, or anything- but it is frequently possible. While it's true that cities tend to dominate the landscape and crowd out agricultural pursuits, it is also true that they gather together larger bases of humanity to support a range of goods and preferences... including environmental preferences.^_^ Lucky you, I live in Amarillo, largest city in the Texas panhandle yet it doesn't offer any of what you're talking about except for one small Farmer's Market which for some strange reason hasn't been doing business lately. It's because we're surrounded on all sides by large scale farms and slaughterhouses. In Hereford, self proclaimed "Beef Capital of the World", the stench is unbearable. It's kinda funny, whenever I told them I'm vegetarian they thought there was no way someone like me could live here. FFA group gives me hell about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:41 pm
Screaming Wombat What I'd advise is that you only eat farm raised fish, try eliminating shrimp all together, eat less beef, and try going for some chicken (probably the most environmentally friendly of all, and you can raise them in your backyard if you're really all that crazy about it). The weird thing is that sometimes, farm raised fish are actually worse for the environment than wild caught. 3nodding This is not always the case, obviously, but some types of farm raised fish have to be fed on other types of fish which may or may not be obtained through environmentally irresponsible fishing practices; since you go through a lot more feeder fish than you end up producing in food fish, the practice of fishing for the feeders can become more damaging than if you'd just caught the food fish from the wild in the first place. Salmon, for instance, are one of the problem farmed species- so avoid farm raised, buy wild caught. The aquariums around here all participate in a program called Seafood Watch, which keeps up to date regional seafood guides so we can know which species are being well-regulated and which are not. They have printable versions which you can take to the store with you- but remember to check back because they do change as the industries alter their fishing methods. Screaming Wombat Lucky you, I live in Amarillo, largest city in the Texas panhandle yet it doesn't offer any of what you're talking about except for one small Farmer's Market which for some strange reason hasn't been doing business lately. It's because we're surrounded on all sides by large scale farms and slaughterhouses. In Hereford, self proclaimed "Beef Capital of the World", the stench is unbearable. *nods* I may be spoiled- it's just that when I was growing up in a small, agricultural town, I had more trouble finding environmentally responsible products there than I did when I moved into a city. So it just goes to show that living in a city doesn't always sound a death knell for environmental outlets. Screaming Wombat It's kinda funny, whenever I told them I'm vegetarian they thought there was no way someone like me could live here. FFA group gives me hell about it. LOL! I can imagine.^_^ But when you put your heart into it, it's really amazing what you can do- even be a vegetarian in the beef capital of the world. wink Kudos to you for sticking by what you believe, and putting so much effort into your cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:02 pm
WebenBanu For those who are interested in buying locally produced or grown products, but live in a big city- check around for one of the large environmentally friendly chains of grocery stores. Whole Foods is great, Wild Oats is good too- even Trader Joes can custom order a few things. Look for Farmers' markets, as well- I live in a big city and I've found many outlets for buying local products. Which is not to say that it's ridiculously easy, or anything- but it is frequently possible. While it's true that cities tend to dominate the landscape and crowd out agricultural pursuits, it is also true that they gather together larger bases of humanity to support a range of goods and preferences... including environmental preferences.^_^
Yes, yes! There are also local environmentally-friendly chains of grocery stores too! Where I live, in the Pacific Northwest, there's PCC (which is AWESOME!). And how I LOVELOVELOVELOVELOVE Whole Foods. =D Trader Joe's is pretty cool too.
PS. Seafood Watch is AWESOME. My city aquarium does it too. heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:18 pm
Screaming Wombat What I'd advise is that you only eat farm raised fish, try eliminating shrimp all together, eat less beef, and try going for some chicken (probably the most environmentally friendly of all, and you can raise them in your backyard if you're really all that crazy about it).
And the link isn't working for me. sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:20 am
I have no idea, because I personally hate how they're abusing the chickens before we eat them, but I don't like many vegies at all and some fruit. I think I would be dead if I didn't eat meat. I thought about becoming a vegetarian, but I don't think its mandatory to become one, and your not the one abusing the animals or earth, your just eating to live.
Now if you like alot of vegis and fruit, I think it'd be best to become a vegetarian, but I honestly don't know
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:32 pm
tainted_nuggets I have no idea, because I personally hate how they're abusing the chickens before we eat them, but I don't like many vegies at all and some fruit. I think I would be dead if I didn't eat meat. I thought about becoming a vegetarian, but I don't think its mandatory to become one, and your not the one abusing the animals or earth, your just eating to live. Now if you like alot of vegis and fruit, I think it'd be best to become a vegetarian, but I honestly don't know
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:27 pm
Hmmm... well, when you put it like that... neutral
Cutting down on meat would help but I'm not sure if you need to stop eating meat completely. That's sort of like saying we shouldn't use paper at all because it destroys forests. So yes, eat less meat (some people eat way too much meat for their own good) but I don't think you need to be a full-fledged vegetarian to be an environmentalist. We're part of the food chain too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
