On the morality of eating meat...

[DealsGapRider]

Poll question: On the morality of eating meat...

I watched a program last night on (I think) the History Channel about the beef industry. Now, I love a good steak. I also consume myriad other beasts...winged creatures of all sorts, lamb, fish, you name it. But the sight of all these cows lined up in a row being fattened up for the slaughter made me feel guilty. Conversely, there is no way in hell I could ever be a vegeterian.

I am left wondering what the moral position should be for a society largely made up of meat-eaters who nevertheless feel the need to be humane toward the animals they consume.

What are your thoughts on this subject?

[FlashHarry]

1. It's a personal choice, IMHO.

Humans are naturally omnivorous (hence the sharp teeth and forward-facing binocular vision), but I have no problem with anyone who chooses not to eat meat. I rarely eat it, myself.

But, as the bumper sticker says, 'If God wanted humans to be vegetarians, why did he make animals out of meat?'

[MisterP]

3. humans are made of meat too

[slackmaster]

4. Dibs on the pituitary

n/t

[DealsGapRider]

6. I've got to be honest...

This is gross, but...I wouldn't have the slightest problem eating another human being if necessity dictated it. I watched that movie Alive with Ethan Hawke recently (great flick) about the rugby team that was forced to eat their dead teammates following that crash in the Andes, and I couldn't believe how much they debated about the morality of eating human flesh to survive. It's just meat, and if I had absolutely nothing else to eat and I was trapped, I wouldn't think twice.

[4_Legs_Good]

11. I've been a vegetarian for 10 years now

(with crustaceans once a year and fish once a year ish)

... and if the sh*t hit the fan and it was me or a brown pelican or my neighbor Totoro, you bet your ass they'd be going down. One of the main reasons I don't eat meat is because I don't have to. Why kill another thinking being if I don't have to??? Because it tastes good? Feh on all that!

*fumbles while trying to explain why he eats fish once a year*

david

Edit: grammeracology

[MiltonLeBerle]

12. Mmmmmmm....human...

And in some cultures it's a delicacy.

[Garage Queen]

41. Human - It's What's for Dinner.

:D

Why, yes I *am* sick and twisted, why do you ask?

[flama]

23. Long pork!

I hear we're delicious if you don't know what you're eating.

Ma

P.S. No, we don't taste like chicken!

[Astarho]

25. Two-legged mutton?

Like that far side cartoon with the alligators:

No fur, claws, horns, antlers, or nuthin'... Just soft and pink!

[4_Legs_Good]

2. Was it Einstein of DiVinci

who said that the eating of meat is barbaric and in the future people will look back on these times and wonder what the hell we were thinking.

Just picked up some peppered Tofurkey Jerky. Good stuff!! But expensive.

I would grade the morality of it on a sliding scale, though - somehow eating stuff closer to onesself is less "good".

Okay -> Not Okay

Bugs, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, primates, humans

As for the teeth and binocular vision, I don't completely buy it. Sure we're meant to be omnivorous, but we're also not meant to be monogamous or necessarily civil. There are many natural things (rape, which is common among animals, for one) that people give up in order to liven in a society.

Doh, pontificating - Sorry!!

david

Kucinich 2004

(in interest of full disclosure I had an ahi tuna steak last weekend on my once a year fish eatting binge.)

[slackmaster]

5. You're thinking of Adolf Hitler

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But Hitler was a strict vegetarian and a teetotaler.

[4_Legs_Good]

9. ;-)

But I think that's at least partly a myth. Here's a snopes-esque rebuttal...

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html

It was a great scene in "Remains of the Day" though when the Nazi wanted to make absolutely certain that there were no animal products in his soup.

As to teatotoalling, you can never trust someone who doesn't drink (unless they're recovering alcoholics, of course).

david

Kucinich 2004

Arianna YES
Recall No

[Dirk39]

15. It's different...

Although I couldn't resist provoking hardcore-vegetarians with that fact, my personal impression is that this guy simply hated everything that is alive, the physical aspect of our existence. It's the same with his dog: loving Schäferhunde (German shepherd) for their purity, their "loyalty" and their obedience might be the opposite of loving and admiring animals - same is true for children.
Or just take a look at Himmler: the marriage between a nurse - you know there are special kind of nurses, for whom humanity is a big big kitchen waiting to be organized - and a chicken-farm-owner...
Now, if only the repukes of this world were as delicious as some animals are. Maybe I would stop eating animals.
Miau from Germany,
Dirk

[kayell]

20. Gah! Hitler was NOT a vegetarian!

Goebbels put that story out as propaganda. (see how effective propaganda can be?) He wanted to make Hitler look ascetic and restrained.

In fact Hitler was very fond of bavarian sausages and stuffed squab, and drank watered wine and beer. Odd sort of vegetarian.

How many times does this story need to be shot down??? And why do so many people want to believe it???

http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/47.htm

[Dirk39]

29. I'm not convinced...

it wouldn't have had any effect on the masses, Goebbels might have had in mind, if Hitler would have been a vegetarian. To the typical german "Spießer", it would rather made him look strange. Being ascetic might have been different. Goebbels wanted to hide the fact that Hitler had any kind of relationship with a woman, 'cause he wanted every german woman to imagine herself as his wife. Hey our pop-band-promoters have studied Goebbels well. For the same reasons young pop-stars are not allowed to admit that they have girlfriends. And to eat young birds is very very exotic in Germany. Fits to my general impression, what the reason behind his "vegetarianism" was. As I stated before, although I dislike the kind of vegetarianism that is although linked to astrology, esoterism and stuff like this, Hitler had different reasons for doing so and it's simply cheap and stupid to offend real vegetarians with this stuff.
Greetings from Germany,
Dirk

[prolesunited]

36. And why do so many people want to believe it???

To equate vegetarians with Nazis, of course. :evilgrin:

I've been meat-free for 18 months. I could care less what other people eat but I must admit every time there is a meat recall (and there was a whole run of them for awhile), I was quite glad I didn't have to worry about it.

[amazona]

27. well, I have a different sliding scale...interesting

I don't go with the "close relatives" sliding scale.

If I had the choice between eating a cow or a crow, besides the fact that all taste and common sense screams eat the nice juicy beef and not the skinny stringy bird...the fact that a crow is at the intelligence level of a 3 year old, while the cow is just "there's nobody home" makes it an easy choice for me. In other words, I would eat a stupid, non-self aware mammal before I would eat an intelligent self aware bird.

Some people argue that pork should not be eaten because of the high intelligence of pigs, but I have wisely avoided getting to know any pigs. Most other food animals are, to put it mildly, VERY low on brain power. If cared for humanely, they should never have a clue that life is anything but a blissful interlude of eating whatever they like and then darkness. Alas, because of the high human population, this ideal cannot be achieved without actually starving humans.

I was a vegetarian for several years but it was becoming too much of a struggle to maintain a healthy weight. Not everyone really has a choice. In the end, I will eat what keeps me alive and healthy. I won't starve to death to prove a point.

Oh, and something else about the sliding scale: Some of those distantly related creatures are indeed insects (butterflies) and wildflowers, which are being severely impacted by Monsanto and the growing of soy -- another reason why I had to turn away from the vegetarian lifestyle. I want the beautiful wildlife and plants of the world to survive. Even if a butterfly is not my close relative...by eating soy, I am killing him, and my world is less. We have made amazing progress in exterminating about 90 percent of the biomass of our U.S. wildflowers...so soy/tofu...no...it's just wrong on so many levels. It cannot be heart healthy to close your heart to what is beautiful. (OK, sickening preachy rant OVER!)

[SiouxJ]

53. It was DaVinci

he was a Vegetarian. You think us veggies get a lot of shit now, can you imagine being a veggie in his time?

[kixot]

7. You should add another choice.

I believe it's wrong to kill any living animal for any reason. This notion has been with me ever since I studied Buddhism in high school.

Given that, I also came to terms long ago with the fact that none of my protesting will make any difference in this world and that I was probably healthier engaging in occasional meat-eating anyway. So, I believe it's wrong, but live with it in an ethical duality of sorts.

There is now nothing that I won't try eating and I regularly enjoy sashimi, medium rare filet mignion, veal, chicken, duck, and just about anything else served on a plate or in the half-shell. My ethics may trouble me but my pallate thanks me.

[dweller]

33. Thus the truth

Fear not what you may put in your body, for true evil erupts from the heart of man.
Duality will damage more than the diet.

or as the zen buddhist said to the hotdog vendor
"make me one with everything"

dp

[Occulus]

8. I like meat.

A good, rare flank steak is my favorite.


Plants electronically scream when they're cut.

Enjoy your salad. :)

[maveric]

10. Veal Cutlets...MMMMMMM!

If you have no problem eating the adult cattle then you should'nt with the young ones either.

[4_Legs_Good]

14. Buuuuut... isn't the living conditions

of the cows who generate veal vs. beef the moral problem with veal? That they're stuck in little cages, et.al.

Personally I think Kobe beef is a good thing to eat (if you do that kinda thing). Don't they just sit around all day getting masaged and drinking beer? That sounds like the life for me baby!

david

[4_Legs_Good]

13. Possibly true...

but that means that's one hellovalot of screaming plants being cut by the time it makes it into a steak.

The idea is to minimize misery (well one of the ideas).

david

Kucinich 2004

[kayell]

22. "Plants electronically scream when they're cut"

Puhlese, more pseudoscience, masquerading as conventional wisdom. After all, everyone has read this somewhere!

Plants have no need for a nervous system or a pain response. Pain is a warning that allows animals to move away from the source of harm causing the pain. An organism that is by nature unable to move would not have any reason to evolve in a way that would allow it to feel pain, or to evolve the other senses falsely attributed to plants.

Sorry, but no matter how many times you see the conclusions of pseudoscience repeated, it doesn't make it so. sheesh... from a frustrated horticulturist who spends way too much time debunking this myth.

http://skepdic.com/plants.html

[amazona]

28. while clive baxter is pseudoscience plants do feel and communicate...

...at least trees do. It is well known that if a tree is attacked by a parasite, then it will put out chemicals to let other trees know on down the line what is going on so they can be prepared.

It may not be a nervous system by our vertebrate-centered view, but it is certainly communication based on experience...which I would personally consider a form of intelligence.

So trees at least DO have senses...if a sense is considered the ability to gather data about one's environment.

I would be astounded if any plant lacked senses.

You can call the tree's response "pain" or you can call it a "dislike" of being consumed by parasites...but certainly it has a motive and a response...at least hardwoods do.

[kayell]

32. These are not senses in any way equivalant to those of animals

but biochemical and physical responses to stimuli. No central nervous system. Plants are wondrous organisms (I would not have gone into this field if I was not fascinated by them) but their methods of responding to situations in their environment are not done by any kind of central processing system.

The ways that plants respond to their environment may appear from an athropomorhic view to be thought out, but they simply aren't. The various tropisms that they exhibit are marvels of evolution, but plants went a different route then did animals in responding to stresses.

Huge old trees are amazing and wonderful organisms in their own right. There is no need to believe them to be something different than what they are.

[ott]

16. I wonder...

If the majority voting for, "It's okay to raise animals and then kill them for food as long as they are treated humanely," realize that 99% of the animals killed for food are treated anything BUT humanely. So, unless they're boycotting fast food, pretty much anything you buy at a grocery store or butcher shop, pretty much anything you don't kill yourself or know exactly where it comes from... Well, then you're pretty much condoning something you admit is NOT okay. And that's with some pretty twisted perspective on the word "humane," IMO.

[zizzer]

42. I buy what little meat my family eats at...

our local Farmers Market. My family of three eats about 2 maybe 3 pounds of meat a week, between the three of us. Sometimes, if it is REALLY cheap we may buy some chicken or beef from the grocery store. If we get there early enough I also buy my eggs there. I buy most of the cheese that we eat there as well, most of it is goat cheese. When they have it I buy goat and lamb.

I have met and talked to the farmers who sell me meat, I have seen pictures of their farms, I have not been to any of them but I would go if offered the chance. I cannot KNOW how these animals are treated but I have met their handlers and I choose to spend my money to buy their products above the products in the grocery store.

Given a chance I would gladly have my own chickens. My wife desperately wants diry goats. Unfurtunatly I live in suburbia and it is against the law to have chickens or cows or goats.

My objection to the meat industry is that we have become so seperate from our food sources. Food comes from the grocery store not farms or even animals. This seperation I think is what makes it so easy for us, we never have to hear the sheep bleating, we never have to see the cow kick when it is killed, we never have to wash the blood off of the floor after butchering.

Zizzer

[geniph]

17. While I haven't eaten red meat in 20 years,

I actually don't have moral objections to it, or health reasons for it - my reasons are environmental. If we raise animals in an ecologically-sensitive manner and slaughter them in as humane a manner as possible, I don't have objections to others eating what they choose to eat.

The problem is that we DON'T raise them in an ecologically-sensitive manner, and until we do, I believe in putting my money where my mouth is and not buying food raised in a manner I find objectionable. That's the only kind of judgement I feel is appropriate; modify one's own behavior and mind one's own business. Let others make their own decisions. I don't believe in trying to tell others how to live their lives, and I don't want them trying to tell me how to live mine.

[Xithras]

18. I have no moral objection to meat eating

Animals eat each other, that's the way of nature. As much as we may like to hold ourselves up or make ourselves seperate, when it comes right down to it humans are just intelligent mammals, evolved over millions of years like every other animal on the planet. While I believe that unneeded cruelty to ANY living thing should be avoided at all costs, I do not consider the killing of another animal for consumption to be cruel (the conditions they are raised in may be a different story which needs addressing, I know).

As far as I'm concerned, this is simply the natural order of things. We eat other animals, and occasionally they'll eat us too.

[bicentennial_baby]

19. Yeah

Being skinned alive isn't cruel or inhumane....that's what happens to cows in the slaughterhouse, y'know.

[Xithras]

21. Ever watch TLC? National Geographic?

Death is never pretty. I once watched footage on the Discovery Channel where a lion basically split the belly of a fleeing ox allowing its guts to spill out onto the dirt. The animal fell to the ground, and the other lions began ripping it apart and eating it while it still bellowed in pain. Nothing evil, immoral, or cruel about it...that's simply the way the world works.

That said, I've never seen any reference to skinning cows alive in a slaughterhouse. A good friend of mine once worked in a slaughterhouse killing cows and pigs. The cows ALWAYS took a sledgehammer to the forehead (quick, instant death) before anything else was done, and the pigs received similar treatment. They actually switched from shooting them to sledging them because the sledge was MORE humane than the alternatives (bullets can make holes in the brain without destroying enough tissue to kill the animal, while the sledge crushed the entire brain and resulting in an instant and painless death). If there are slaughterhouses out there skinning live animals, I WOULD call that cruel and challenge them on moral grounds.

[bicentennial_baby]

34. Indeed

"In the last fifteen years, more than 2,000 small to mid-sized slaughterhouses one-third of the nation's slaughterhouses have been displaced by a small number of large, high-speed facilities, each with the capacity to kill several million animals a year. In 1998, more than one-half of the nation's cattle were killed in 14 plants.

With fewer slaughterhouses killing a growing number of animals, packing companies have instituted dramatic increases in their production "line speeds". In high-speed operations where a minute of "down time" can spell a loss of several hundred dollars, slaughterhouse operators no longer stop the production line for injured workers, contaminated meat, or live animals that are not effectively stunned.

Workers who are required to move thousands of animals per day through the slaughter process are provided only a few seconds to perform their killing and butchering duties. Knowing that they will be disciplined or fired for impeding production, workers often find themselves resorting to brutality to keep the production line running uninterrupted.

When animals are excessively prodded, they arrive at the stun operator in an excited state. Because of this, and because workers do not have adequate time to properly perform the exacting stunning process, stunning is often ineffective. As a result, animals are often hung alive, or may regain consciousness down line, where they proceed through the skinning and dismemberment process fully conscious."

"1) Ineffective Stunning

Contrary to the requirements that animals be humanely handled and that they be delivered to the stun area in a calm state to ensure effective stunning, workers at IBP-Wallula excessively shock and torment animals in driveways, according to the affidavits. Because of this, and because of increased line speeds, stunning is often unsuccessful. Indeed, the affidavits suggest that roughly 10 to perhaps 30 percent of the animals slaughtered at IBP-Wallula are not rendered insensitive to pain and thus proceed through the skinning and dismemberment process in a fully conscious state"

http://www.hfa.org/hot_topic/wash_petition.html

"It takes 25 minutes to turn a live steer into steak at the modern slaughterhouse where Ramon Moreno works. For 20 years, his post was “second-legger,” a job that entails cutting hocks off carcasses as they whirl past at a rate of 309 an hour.

The cattle were supposed to be dead before they got to Moreno. But too often they weren’t.

“They blink. They make noises,” he said softly. “The head moves, the eyes are wide and looking around.” Still Moreno would cut. On bad days, he says, dozens of animals reached his station clearly alive and conscious. Some would survive as far as the tail cutter, the belly ripper, the hide puller. “They die,” said Moreno, “piece by piece.”

http://www.hfa.org/hot_topic/wash_post.html

[alphafemale]

35. Just wanted to let you know at least one person read and noticed.

The things you posted are disturbing...but (and read me through before you react.)

The dismemberment of living animals in a slaughterhouse would not be that different from a death they would likely experience in nature.

It's the life most of the animals lead before the slaughterhouse which I find the worst of the atrocisity.

And some of the dairy animals suffer this for a longer period.

I'm also disturbed about how people are treated in the "Factory Farms."

Both in meat production and produce production.

A large portion of them are illegals or barely legal. And they have no voice. They are exposed to dangerous conditions daily.

More people seem to care about the animals (which is valid) ...but WHAT ABBOUT THE PEOPLE!!??

[kayell]

38. The people in slaughterhouses

http://www.motherjones.com/magazine/JA01/meatpacking.html

The Chain Never Stops American slaughterhouses are grinding out meat faster than ever -- and the production line keeps moving, even when the workers are maimed by the machinery.
by Eric Schlosser July/August 2001


In the beginning he had been fresh and strong, and he had gotten a job the first day; but now he was second-hand, a damaged article, so to speak, and they did not want him... they had worn him out, with their speeding-up and their carelessness, and now they had thrown him away!
--Upton Sinclair, The Jungle (1906)


Kenny Dobbins was hired by the Monfort Beef Company in 1979. He was 24 years old, and 6 foot 5, and had no fear of the hard work in a slaughterhouse. He seemed invincible. Over the next two decades he suffered injuries working for Monfort that would have crippled or killed lesser men. He was struck by a falling 90-pound box of meat and pinned against the steel lip of a conveyor belt. He blew out a disc and had back surgery. He inhaled too much chlorine while cleaning some blood tanks and spent a month in the hospital, his lungs burned, his body covered in blisters. He damaged the rotator cuff in his left shoulder when a 10,000-pound hammer-mill cover dropped too quickly and pulled his arm straight backward. He broke a leg after stepping into a hole in the slaughterhouse's concrete floor. He got hit by a slow-moving train behind the plant, got bloodied and knocked right out of his boots, spent two weeks in the hospital, then returned to work. He shattered an ankle and had it mended with four steel pins. He got more bruises and cuts, muscle pulls and strains than he could remember.


Despite all the injuries and the pain, the frequent trips to the hospital and the metal brace that now supported one leg, Dobbins felt intensely loyal to Monfort and Con-Agra, its parent company. He'd left home at the age of 13 and never learned to read; Monfort had given him a steady job, and he was willing to do whatever the company asked. He moved from Grand Island, Nebraska, to Greeley, Colorado, to help Monfort reopen its slaughterhouse there without a union. He became an outspoken member of a group formed to keep union organizers out. He saved the life of a fellow worker—and was given a framed certificate of appreciation. And then, in December 1995, Dobbins felt a sharp pain in his chest while working in the plant. He thought it was a heart attack. According to Dobbins, the company nurse told him it was a muscle pull and sent him home. It was a heart attack, and Dobbins nearly died. While awaiting compensation for his injuries, he was fired. The company later agreed to pay him a settlement of $35,000.

snip

What happened to Kenny Dobbins is now being repeated, in various forms, at slaughterhouses throughout the United States. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, meatpacking is the nation's most dangerous occupation. In 1999, more than one-quarter of America's nearly 150,000 meatpacking workers suffered a job-related injury or illness. The meatpacking industry not only has the highest injury rate, but also has by far the highest rate of serious injury—more than five times the national average, as measured in lost workdays. If you accept the official figures, about 40,000 meatpacking workers are injured on the job every year. But the actual number is most likely higher. The meatpacking industry has a well-documented history of discouraging injury reports, falsifying injury data, and putting injured workers back on the job quickly to minimize the reporting of lost workdays. Over the past four years, I've met scores of meatpacking workers in Nebraska, Colorado, and Texas who tell stories of being injured and then discarded by their employers. Like Kenny Dobbins, many now rely on public assistance for their food, shelter, and medical care. Each new year throws more injured workers on the dole, forcing taxpayers to subsidize the meatpacking industry's poor safety record. No government statistics can measure the true amount of pain and suffering in the nation's meatpacking communities today.

more


So what did that tasty steak REALLY cost?

[alphafemale]

51. Amazing. I had thought of "The Jungle" when I posted that.

It's chilling how close we are to pre-union conditions Sinclair descibed,

(in the few industries that are left in this contry that is.)

Are conditions even worse in contries the corporates have fled to for labor?

And it's not just meat...or cheese...or onions, or bread.

It's practically everything you put in your body or touch.

Most is now manufactured and produced under conditions we'd rather not think about.

[Aristus]

24. God, on the meat issue, I sound like a frickin' freeper!

If cows were the dominant form of life on Earth, instead of humans, you can be darn sure they'd be eating us. I love meat. I love the taste. It's also a very efficient source of protein, and is cited as one of the reasons we evolved the way we did. (Okay, I don't sound so much like a freeper anymore. That word: evolve.)

I like the idea of raising animals for food and treating them humanely. But is that posssible? I'm asking in all seriousness. And how can you slaughter humanely? If you say 'kosher', you'll have a point. To an extent. But kosher slaughter is still slaughter.

[flama]

26. Sorry I couldn't vote in your poll

None of your options fit my rationalization of eating meat.

I've been attacked by hogs, pigs, deer, chickens, ducks, and one lone turkey. A prize-winning Angus stomped on my foot and broke my toe. I'll eat any animal (except bugs!) that hurts me first.

Of course, I can't excuse my love of lamb. They've always been friendly and shared their pens and trucks. I feel guilty when the chops are served up on the platter or that succulent leg is carved. But I eat it anyway because it tastes so darned good.

There will never be a Christmas goose at my house. Even ferocious watch-geese cuddle up to me like friendly kittens. Why eat a goose when you can have a duck? Or a turkey? Or ham?

Shoot! Think I'll have linguine with pesto sauce for dinner tomorrow. ;-)

[Pert_UK]

30. I'd vote "Other", but went with "Killing when essential is OK"......

One of my old philosophy lecturers, a massive pervert incidentally, used to explain why he ate meat. "It's because I'm a bastard", he used to say.

I think that this is fair enough. What he meant is that he acknowledges that there are other sources of required nutrition, animals inevitably suffer in the meat industry and during slaughter, and that causing suffering to a living thing is not a moral thing to do. However, he likes eating meat, so he does.

I share that position. I think it's entirely wrong, but I do it because I enjoy it. However, I do try to eat free-range wherever possible, as I think you should make life as good as possible for the animals you're going to eat.

I think that it's probably not such a big issue to eat shellfish, as I don't believe that they have the necessary mental processes or structures to suffer pain or stress...however, this causes further problems, because when you say it's OK to eat something without a certain level of consciousness you open up Pandora's box.

[stoner_guy]

31. Unnecessary cruelty is wrong...

But killing animals for food is OK. Especially tasty animals like cows pigs and chickens.

[Terwilliger]

37. Poll Question 7: I'm an animal...you're an animal...we eat animals

lets just stop being ignorant about the consequences of our choice

[mac56]

39. It's probably been stated already -

but in order to produce any food product, it is necessary for something to die. Whether it's the animal itself, the plants that are plowed under, the trees that are chopped down, the small animals that are displaced to plant fields, or the insects/microbes/bacteria that are wiped out to make the food safe, something along the way gets killed in order to produce - - - yes - - - even that big ol' plate of tofu.

[Cassandra]

43. Actually,

small animals are not merely displaced to plant fields, they are killed by the thousands when the machinery comes through.

I'll have that nice shell steak medium-rare, please. :evilgrin:

[kayell]

40. Meat production’s environmental toll

http://www.veg.ca/noframes/facts/enviro.htm

Production and Consumption of Meat: Implications for the Global Environment and Human Health
http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/course/papers/sapp.pdf

Clean Water and Factory Farms
http://www.sierraclub.org/factoryfarms/index.asp

http://www.factoryfarming.com/environment.htm

How Our Food Choices can Help Save the Environment
http://www.earthsave.org/environment/foodchoices.htm

So You're an Environmentalist; Why Are You Still Eating Meat?
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12162
"World Hunger and Resources
The 4.8 pounds of grain fed to cattle to produce one pound of beef for human beings represents a colossal waste of resources in a world still teeming with people who suffer from profound hunger and malnutrition.

According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britain – with 56 million people – could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable diet. Because 90 percent of U.S. and European meat eaters' grain consumption is indirect (first being fed to animals), westerners each consume 2,000 pounds of grain a year. Most grain in underdeveloped countries is consumed directly.

Somalian famine victims line up for food handouts. Producing a pound of beef requires 4.8 pounds of grain, and critics of our modern agricultural system say that the spread of meat-based diets aggravates world hunger. © David & Peter Turnley / Corbis

While it is true that many animals graze on land that would be unsuitable for cultivation, the demand for meat has taken millions of productive acres away from farm inventories. The cost of that is incalculable. As Diet For a Small Planet author Frances Moore Lappé writes, imagine sitting down to an eight-ounce steak. "Then imagine the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls in front of them. For the 'feed cost' of your steak, each of their bowls could be filled with a full cup of cooked cereal grains."

[chenGOD]

44. Umm faulty math?

imagine sitting down to an eight-ounce steak. "Then imagine the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls in front of them. For the 'feed cost' of your steak, each of their bowls could be filled with a full cup of cooked cereal grains."


8oz=1/2pound=2.4pounds of grain required(1088grams)

Let's take an average serving size of grains at 50g. 1088/50=21.76

so yeah it's more, but if you increase the serving size of grain (which is probably a good idea, 50g isn't gonna fill up most people), the number of people fed goes down.


The problem is not eating meat, it's eating too much (supply/demand thing): and let's face it, Candians, Americans and Western European nations consume far too much for their own good. A balanced diet is good for you, something like the South Korean or Japanese diet is what the world needs to hop on!!

[kayell]

46. Probably not faulty math

but two different sources on ratios of grain to meat. That does vary somewhat from country to country, state to state, different production systems, year to year. More important is that the results of feeding grain to meat animals and then to humans is inefficient and effectively robs some people of food. more to follow on that

[Kolesar]

45. If you were impoverished, you would become a vegitarian

>Conversely, there is no way in hell I could ever be a vegeterian.

Do you think those working-class families in Britain lived on oatmeal because they loved oatmeal? Truth is, they could not afford meat. Until I can be sure that meat I eat is raised humanely, I am going to stick with my vegetarian diet. By the way, I love what I eat and don't miss meat.

[sujan]

47. 'killing' 'humanely'

lol....

[HereSince1628]

56. I almost posted similar message then thought... but, humans are killers

human, an early spelling of human, refers to 1) the best human qualities and 2) that which is civilizing...

so under the old spelling and "2" killing humanely makes sense.
As the best human qualities include mercy and consideration, I suppose not killing like a cat playing with a mouse is merciful...

[sujan]

57. either way, its killing

Just use 'killing'...

Webster defines 'humane' as:
"marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals"...well, killing in itself is the ultimate antithesis of being 'humane', no need to go 'compassionate' because it really doesn't matter.

So I think that word is an oxymoron.

[HereSince1628]

59. Agreed, it is killing

My Webster's Deluxe (sic) Unabridged Dictionary was the source of my definition and it didn't include anything about treatment of animals. Its a second edition dating from the mid-80's

In the 1800's human treatment of animals was associated with an illness term "Zoophilpsychosis" which can be interpreted as a mental illness characterized by the love (sensu impassioned care) of animals.

In any case, the development of "humane" has come a long way since the 1800's or the mid-80's.

[sujan]

60. try the web edition

www.webster.com

[SiouxJ]

48. For me it's not just a moral issue

it's an environmental one. I've been a vegetarian for 10 years, mainly because I don't think I should eat anything I'm not capable of killing myself. But then I started looking into the damage caused to our environment by all these animal factories and it reaffirmed my decision.

One example from "Hog Watch's Poop Counter":

"North Carolina's hogs produce a mind-boggling amount of waste: 19 million tons of feces and urine a year, or over 50,000 tons every single day. That's more waste in one year than the entire human population of Charlotte, North Carolina produces in 58 years!"

more: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/system/templates/page/subissue.cfm?subissue=10


See how much animal poop is produced in your state:

http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/aw/


Sierra Club site about this:

http://www.sierraclub.org/factoryfarms/


Natural Resources Defense council on this:

http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/nspills.asp

I do think the highest priority for meat eaters should be to make sure their meat is humanely obtained but other than that I don't have a problem with people eating whatever they want even though I do wish they could have higher environmental standards in the meat industry. I actually think hunters have the right idea as they go out and bag their own. (though I could never do it) No factory farms, no pollution etc.

[kayell]

49. Much hunger caused by developed worlds excessive taste for meat

Hunger myths
http://academic.wsc.edu/faculty/jaknotw1/hungermyth.htm

http://schwartz.enviroweb.org/hunger.html
"Not only is much land and many resources used in the United States to raise beef, but the United States is also one of the world's largest importers of beef. We import approximately 1 million head of cattle every year from Mexico, half as much beef as all Mexicans have left for themselves. In spite of widespread poverty and malnutrition in Honduras, they export large amounts of beef to the United States.

Grains are increasingly being fed to livestock in the third world, although the majority of people there can't afford to eat meat. Much of the best land in poorer countries is used to graze livestock, often for export. In Central America, two-thirds of the agriculturally productive land is used for livestock production, for the wealthy or for export."

http://www.agitprop.org.au/lefthistory/1997_middleton_environment_hunger_population.htm
"The capacity to produce food is immense yet a large proportion of the world's population lives in conditions of abject poverty and deprivation: 700 million people go hungry throughout the world; 15 million die from starvation each year -- one person every two seconds.

Enough grain is produced to provide everyone with ample protein and more than 3,000 calories a day. However, over one-third of this grain is fed to livestock.

In Mexico, where at least 80 per cent of the children in rural areas are undernourished, livestock -- mostly for export to the USA -- consume more basic grains than the country's entire rural population."

First World Greed and Third World Debt
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Helen_Caldicott/Third_World_Debt_IYLTP.html
"The Feinstein World Hunger program at Brown University has estimated that if the world population is fed primarily with grains and vegetables, there is at present enough food to ensure the United Nations' recommended daily per capita calorie intake of 2,350 calories for six billion people. While billions starve, one-third of the grain grown in the world and half the fish caught are fed to animals in rich countries. If the world's population reaches eleven billion, its annual food production must increase two and a half times merely to maintain the current situation and low per capita output. We have work to do!"

"Huge U.S.-based corporations called agribusinesses also grow food in Third World countries for foreign markets, mainly the American, and the debt crisis ensures them a plentiful supply of cheap, if not slave, labor and cheap land. They pay virtually no taxes to the host country. Ninety percent of the protein fed to British animals comes from underdeveloped countries. The meat consumption of people in the First World accounts for a volume of grain that would feed 1.2 billion people."

Ecological footprint
http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp
This is a very interesting way of testing what effect you personally are having on the environment. Try taking the test, see your results, and then, go back and change only one factor - your animal product consumption - and see what your results are then.


So on the subject of morality, ask yourself, who went hungry today so that I could eat this burger?

[George_Bonanza]

52. The grain fed to animals

Are the roughest and coarsest parts of the wheat. So people wouldn't be able to eat it anyway. Like when corn is harvested and canned, the outer strips, which are inedible, are ground up and given to cattle and pigs.

[kayell]

58. SOME of the grain fed to cattle is the scrap you describe

the vast majority is a quality of corn, soybeans etc, that is perfectly edible by humans.

The conversion of scraps like this, or grazing lands unfit for cultivation (providing not subject to environmental degradation - a small percentage of that land) would be environmentally acceptable, although does not take into account the excess water use and pollution produced by most animal agriculture. This is the kind of animal ag usually practiced by subsistance farmers in less developed countries though, not US, UK, Canada etc. The vast majority of our animals are fed a luxury diet, under conditions that ensure severe pollution.

Animal ag is not what is portrayed in kid's farm story books, it is not the family farm situation that your grandparent's may have lived. It is corporate farming, where profit is the only consideration, not workers lives, not environmental effects, not world wide hunger.

By the way, a more environmentally friendly use for that scrap in developed countries would be for the production of ethanol, and another step on the way to energy self sufficiency.

[ChesWickatWork]

50. human, the other white meat....or not

it all depends on taste! :evilgrin:

[HereSince1628]

54. I really think there should be more attention paid to eating insects.

Who said there is no free lunch?

They are good raw and whole.

Snack while bike riding merely by leaving your mouth open long enough.

In difficult times uncooked meals can be obtained in suburban mall parking lots by licking off windshields, alternatively if you like cooked meat, you can have your pick of any caught in car radiators.

[kayell]

55. Worried about those "boring" vegetarian meals?

I live in upstate SC, not exactly a hotbed of vegetarianism, yet I eat delicious vegetarian (usually vegan) meals every day. Eating out - Indian restaurants are fabulous. This saturday I dined on a vegetarian thali, with saag paneer, a mild nut based curry, chana masala, stir fried cabbage, seasoned rice, and lovely puffy pooris, all followed up by ras malai. A feast! Definately not suffering.

(by the way, vegetarian eating out is always cheaper!)

Try some mideastern places for falafels, stuffed grapeleaves, baba ganouj, etc.

If you live in a large city, try out some buddhist chinese restaurants - you will not believe what can be done with "fake meats"

I've even learned to cook lots of southern dishes without meat. Of course a lot of southern cooking is based around vegetables, beans and corn, with side meat only used as a seasoning, so adapting many recipes is easy. For most things a dash of smoke seasoning, some sesame oil &/or extra onion will replace the side meat and approximate the traditional flavor.

Or learn to cook - so many wonderful dishes, many from around the world, since the vast majority of the worlds population eats minimal amounts of animal protein.

Good places to look for recipes include:
http://vegweb.com/food/
http://www.ivu.org/recipes/
http://www.interlog.com/~john13/recipes/ethiopia.htm
http://www.vegsoc.org/cordonvert/recipes/
http://www.vrg.org/recipes/egypt.htm
http://www.vegkitchen.com/recipes.htm
http://www.somacon.com/cookbook/

Even if you don't want to/aren't ready to go totally veg, how about starting to use a lot less meat, seriously thinking about the origin of what you are eating and asking whether this instant pleasure is worth the cost, especially when there are so many less destructive culinary pleasures?

[Kamika]

61. Treat them humanely?

Am i the only one who thinks this is pretty weird?

Why would we treat a "animal" "humanely" humanely is to treat them as a human.


Why not treat them as animals?

Anyway just thought of the day


ps. Im all for we eat all the meat we can, but treat animals well

[bicentennial_baby]

62. Definition

Main Entry: hu·mane
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain
Date: circa 1500
1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals

Ya, eat all the animals you can...your heart will love you for it. :eyes: