It's a little weird that no one on Gristmill has yet pointed to Mark Bittman's stellar NYT piece on the environmental ravages of industrial meat. Philpott, where you at?
Anyway, it's amazing. Go read it. Here's a taste (ha ha):
Growing meat (it's hard to use the word "raising" when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it's a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth's ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world's greenhouse gases -- more than transportation.
To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan -- a Camry, say -- to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
As I've said before, meat has the distinction of being one of the few big contributors to ecological destruction that is almost entirely voluntary. Very few people have to eat meat, and nobody has to eat as much as the average American.
Yet the suggestion that people go without produces more resistance and vitriol than almost any other "green tip." It's mysterious.
And just in case that doesn't get the comments going, I'll link back to my (hopefully definitive, for me anyway) take on vegetarianism.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
A tasting of four meatless “turkeys” for the holiday table
Comments
View as Threaded
sindark Posted 9:23 am
29 Jan 2008
I think diets including meat, vegetarian diets, and vegan diets can all be perfectly healthy, though the last may require the most effort to be so. Being vegan is probably the most ethically acceptable, but vegetarianism is a decent compromise between health, convenience, and good morals.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
kimberleywoelich Posted 10:35 am
29 Jan 2008
I like this approach of talking to people about food choices. because I think there is a great lack of good food education. However if you ever try to tell people the benefits of being veggie, they shut off!
Its like an investment, if you make an investment in your health, your body will grow to be strong and health in return. - but no one ever wants to hear that. People are too busy
with the big Mac and fries, with a "diet" coke!
And the skinless/lean crap is no better!
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 2:06 pm
29 Jan 2008
I'm talking the grow-out pens where cattle are confined in a small area, as opposed to 20 or 50 per acre. Here the cattle are fed a very rich diet of corn, ag waste, distiller's grains, and antibiotics because the cattle all get the shits from eating and living so bad. THAT'S where things went wrong, and why our business model is not working - all in a simple effort to but on a couple hundred pounds of fat into the beef before it is slaughtered.
I applaud people for being vegetarian mostly or vegan, but have you ever had real cow from a farm where they're treated like pets, with respect? First, the meat is sometimes so tender you don't need a fork, since the cow has not been stressed or exposed to all those chemicals. Second, the cattle eat renewable grass and mulch it as they go, I mean can't we give some credit for that?
Articles like these are so way off the truth many of us are just flabbergasted. Cattle are not born in a slaughterhouse, but are actually "raised" from a baby on pretty nice farms and ranches worth a few hundred, a yearling worth over a thousand. It is rather obvious that neither the author or Grist have the first clue about cattle raising, with is the proper term no matter what semantics you want to play with. In fact, it is so wrong as to be ludicrous and you should be ashamed.
If you don't like beef, don't try to push over your ideas on people who do. If you mean the slaughterhouses are no good, and I agree on that point, then act how you feel and please stop writing such useless drivel which is not based on any facts.
And for you fairies out there, when you eat a piece of fruit you are eating the vagina of a living thing which does in fact have a spirit. Have fun, help each other have fun, and unlitter. /sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
mdwalsh Posted 2:17 pm
29 Jan 2008
Pastured animals can be part of their resident ecosystem, recycling nutrients and keeping plant populations in grasslands in check. The fact that grazing animals live where there are few trees is a two way street (and prairies are important). Additionally, grass-fed beef is healthier. Not to mention, if all beef were pastured, there couldn't be so much, the price would rise and there wouldn't be as much demand and there would be fewer cows to gas out GHGs
Permalink
mdwalsh Posted 2:22 pm
29 Jan 2008
Cattle are not born in a slaughterhouse, but are actually "raised" from a baby on pretty nice farms and ranches worth a few hundred, a yearling worth over a thousand.
It is also true that some calves are more or less born into a slaughter house. They are separated from mothers at birth, fed formula in a 'calving shed' that "trains" them to be alone, but in reality keeps them isolated from sunlight, and upsets them terribly as evidenced by the moaning. They are kept here more or less until they are old enough to eat grain, when they are sent to the CAFO
But yes, if a cow is raised and slaughtered right, there is no reason not to eat it!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:43 pm
29 Jan 2008
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
mdwalsh Posted 2:46 pm
29 Jan 2008
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 2:54 pm
29 Jan 2008
Is there something wrong with the pills option?
Permalink
Martha Hagood Posted 4:32 pm
29 Jan 2008
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:32 pm
29 Jan 2008
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:46 pm
29 Jan 2008
The meat and dairy will cost more, so eat less than usual. Maybe half, with beans and other high protien veggies filling in the gap.
That way you get the products you want without the animal cruelty and pollution and GHG from chemical agribizz. You can even skip the antibiotics and hormones in most meat and dairy from the agribizz poison mongers.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:02 pm
29 Jan 2008
But just when you think you've seen it all, there's this gem!
And for you fairies out there, when you eat a piece of fruit you are eating the vagina of a living thing which does in fact have a spirit.
There's some great new-season navel oranges in my kitchen. Think I'll go and suck one for breakfast! Mmmm mmm mmm.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 1:06 am
30 Jan 2008
How the West Was Eaten by Jeffrey St. Clair
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair02102007.html
Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:12 am
30 Jan 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008 ...
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
javaearth Posted 4:22 am
30 Jan 2008
I would never want to give my hard earned money to support so much cruelty on this earth. I have too much love and respect for myself, and all other creatures!
I guess it's not my karma, nor my medical bill, so I really should not care about other people's heart disease and obesity!
From the strong 31 year old, life time veggie!
Permalink
mdwalsh Posted 5:15 am
30 Jan 2008
Permalink
amc89 Posted 5:15 am
30 Jan 2008
Somebody above mentioned how cows raised on family farms are treated like "pets". This strikes me as incredibly naive. Even on a small family farm, cows or other animals are being raised for profit. They're often treated better than on a more large-scale operation, but the fact that an animal was raised by a family farmer does not guarantee that it was raised or killed humanely. There's a farm animal sanctuary in my county that rescues farm animals from horrible conditions and provides them a safe haven. Most come from industrial farms. But many also came from small farmers in the county that were horribly abusing or neglecting the animals in their care.
Another person above asked about "farm" vs "pharm" in reference to eating a balanced diet. Well, if you want to avoid "pharm," the less meat you eat the better considering all the antibiotics given to the majority of animals raised in America today. The fact is that very few animals in the US are raised without antibiotics and even fewer are raised outside the industrial model, not nearly enough to feed American's current demand for meat, so it's clear to me that everybody in the country should be striving to eat little or no meat.
It's also important to keep in mind that there are plenty of plant-based sources of iron, calcium and other nutrients found in meat. The only vitamin a vegan in the developed world needs to take, either in the form of fortified foods like soy milk, cereals or nutritional yeast or in a pill is B12, a bacteria. If you're a vegan not in a developed world that drinks treated water, you would not need to take Vitamin B12 because it is found in water, but because we in the west treat our water and thus remove the Vitamin B12, we need to have suppliment. Still, I'll take my B12 pill, which one only needs to take once a week, over animal suffering, environmental damage, obesity, heart disease, cancer, salmonella, ecoli, hormones and antibiotics any day.
Permalink
kmp Posted 5:49 am
30 Jan 2008
I don't know why food is always a contentious issue, but it is... just see how many diets fail. People hate to be told what to eat. Somehow, through the magic of Michael Pollan, he manages to make us giggle while telling us that we should not eat too much, not eat junk, and eat a mostly vegetarian diet.
Maybe the very word "vegetarian," much like the word "environmentalist," has developed Pavlovian responses in us. I know it tends to tickle my irritation bone even though I do eat a mostly veg diet.
I have no food advice to give - but I do appreciate facts. Little, digestible (ha!) tidbits of data... like "if you eliminate one steak per week from your diet for one year, you will save as much money, and as much atmospheric CO2, as driving a Prius for one year." Who knows if this is true - but I think it is the kind of statement that may resonate, with omnivoric greens as well as with Middle America, more than "meat is murder."
Kaela
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:17 am
30 Jan 2008
Pure vegan, no dairy, is a very hard sell. Less practical politically. Cruelty, chemical ag free, locally produced, or hunted products give better total results. Pure veganism has a puritanical element that just doesn't lend itself to mass appeal.
It's the same reason Nader was never anything but a political spoiler in his presendential runs. Puritanism is not a populist theme.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:42 am
30 Jan 2008
Do you ever eat nutritionally-fortified foods?
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:44 am
30 Jan 2008
What exactly are people doing eating all that protein when about one eggs worth will fit most people's daily requirement for high grade protein?
I think meet is used to reward ourselves for overwork and over-stressed daily schedules. When people are stressed and "out of sorts" they can reward themselves with a concentrated dose of balance proteins and fats. Vegan food, despite the repeated claims of it's adherents, just doesn't appear to match that stimulus. No combination of beans, nuts, grains and vegetable oils has ever managed to match the immediate sense of well-being that I get when I eat sushi.
So when claims are made that the "only way to be green" is to give up meat, cars, climate-controlled buildings etc. people will just tune you out. This response is going to be particularly strong among people who don't have other means of maintaining a sense of well-being in their lives. People who are overworked, suffering from stress, cognitive dissonance, isolated, lacking community or lacking proper, attentive, health care. Most of us.
So next time you're at some pathetic climate change rally, and they're almost all pathetic, consider where your public is. Did somebody wave a "go vegan or go home" sign at them? Or maybe they just scanned this blog for a few days and decided they'd leave the work to those people most focused on it? Those "other" people; the vegans.
There's never a lack of people at a bar-b-que or a pig picking; that's for sure.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:56 am
30 Jan 2008
7 grams?
Source, please.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 7:03 am
30 Jan 2008
The reason why so many people in America eat meat is 'cause a) it's fairly cheap here and b) it tastes good.
Why do people eat so much food with artificial flavors, high-fructose syrup, preservatives, etc? Most people simply don't care 'bout the nutritional value or where it comes from (most don't even think 'bout it), they simply do it 'cause it tastes good.
I'm a vegetarian, but that doesn't mean I don't like meat. I love meat, and I love how it tastes. But I don't eat it now, 'cause it's healthier and better for the environment that I don't. That's also why I don't drink carbonated beverages, and why I generally try to avoid foods high in fructose corn syrup.
If I wasn't so concerned 'bout my health and the environment, then I'd probably still eat all those things 'cause I like the taste.
But most people (Americans especially), are more concerned with taste than they are with health or environment, at least most of the time.
It they were, then McDonalds would be outta business by now.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:04 am
30 Jan 2008
Shifting the use of animal derived food products to non-GHG, non-cruel, localized sources is a better approach than trying to get us all to go vegan.
Just like hybrid plugin cars, rather than exclusive advocacy for mass transit or bike power, is a better approach to transportation.
Combine the solutions. Point out that vegan diets are a healtheir substitue, if care is taken to insure all nutrients are included, but that organic meat and dairy, with a 50% reduction in consumption, can be just as green.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
javaearth Posted 7:28 am
30 Jan 2008
Organic/local has nothing to do with cruelty free! Words such as "natural", "green", "organic", "local", get thrown around so much, its not even funny! - But that does not ensure any better treatment of an animal!
If as a society we continue to treat the week creatures with such disrespect, how can we ever say we have ethics?
One day when I am mother, I hope to teach my child about ethics, respect, love and kindness, and so far I see every little of that in our factory farms.
How can we call ourselves an "advanced society", when we exploit everything that is weaker then us!!!!
America - learn to think for yourself!
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 8:18 am
30 Jan 2008
What would animals have to do with meat?
google.com/search?q=meat+%22Jason+Matheny%22
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:47 am
30 Jan 2008
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
javaearth Posted 8:48 am
30 Jan 2008
Also, if the meat is grown to be healthy, then the drug industry would also take a pretty big hit! - Again would they allow the development for something that makes people healthy? No!
That's two very big industries to take on! - This is like the oil and coal industry that is not allowing alternative energy sources. - We have the money, we have the intelligence, yet we do have a solid alternative energy! Erm,,,
I think if there is stop to cruelty, I would support this notion very much so! - but there are very powerful people that will not allow this!
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:05 am
30 Jan 2008
So the planet can support maybe 20 billion vegans?
Permalink
elbarto Posted 9:12 am
30 Jan 2008
"I walked into the slaughterhouse once again and this time three bullocks were waiting to die. I put on the white coat, hat and boots and waited in the office until the Meat Hygiene Inspector came in and said, 'They're ready for you now'.
"I followed him in and there was the first bullock waiting in the crush. His face was filled with panic and fear as the bar was pressed down hard across his neck. The stun operator walked round and put the gun to his head and there was a bang. The body which had been so full of life fell to the floor. It seemed to take far too long to shackle him up and hoist him round to the slaughterman.
"The other guys who worked there laughed and joked as the slaughterman plunged the knife in and blood splattered everywhere.
"I'll never forget the third bullock, he was terrified and he struggled to get out of the crush. He could see the other two bullocks hoisted up with blood gushing from their throats and he cried out in terror.
"The bar was repeatedly held down on his neck but there was no way he was giving up the right to his life without a fight. The guy with the gun put it to his head but the gun didn't seem to work right and although he fell to the floor he kicked and cried out. Then he moaned and I knew he had not been stunned properly.
"Blood was all over the floor from the other two bullocks and one was actually having his head cut off. The third bullock was eventually hoisted and his throat was cut and I was splattered with hot blood."
http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/std1.htm
Factory meat production. Not only is it exceptionally cruel to the animals, but utterly degrading to the human beings who work in the system.
How many people would eat meat if they had to slaughter and butcher the animal themselves? It's all too easy to do by proxy.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:13 am
30 Jan 2008
Truths by this time pretty much in the self-evident department.
And yet:
Yet the suggestion that people go without produces more resistance and vitriol than almost any other "green tip." It's mysterious.
Mysterious indeed.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 9:21 am
30 Jan 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008 ...
be sure to read the comments - very scary to see who we share this planet with..
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 9:58 am
30 Jan 2008
Regarding what?
Please, refer to statement.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 12:08 pm
30 Jan 2008
Nobody really cares. Well, not enough bodies to raise an impeachment case.
Go take a look at your local homeless population. Know that it is a FACT that it is cheaper to purchase housing for these people than to provide emergency medical care resulting from their homelessness. Those are fellow humans that are denied existing, vacant, housing in order to make a political point.
Nobody cares enough about the conditions of fellow humans to push through any kind of political correction. So what do you think the response to "meat is murder" really is?
When your arguments are only heard among people who already agree with you, you're probably losing. Vegetarianism is not a green issue with any traction outside of the set of current vegetarians. If climate change mitigation is associated with a vegan diet you might as well move to higher ground.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:20 pm
30 Jan 2008
Habit
Addiction
Lack of awareness of other options
Lack of awareness of gourmet vegetarian food
These will change and meat eating will decline no doubt.
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 4:14 am
31 Jan 2008
As I see it there are people who will listen if one is compassionate not just towards the animals but also towards those one is trying to convince. If they listen they may not change what they do or they may. If they do they may decide to not eat meat altogether, they may decide to eat less, or they may decide to switch to organic and/or local options, thereby not participating in the horror that is industrial meat production. These latter two options may not be ideal to a vegetarian or vegan, but they are positive changes that should be acknowledged and applauded. And for many, these last two choices are as good as you'll get. To continue to hound someone who has already made changes even though you may believe what they've done doesn't go far enough is counter-productive. Leave well enough alone and move on.
I work part-time in a small, locally-owned natural foods grocery. We sell local, organic, grassfed, meat (beef, buffalo, chicken, turkey, pork and occasionally when it's available, lamb). We also sell local dairy products and eggs. The eggs of one of our egg-sellers never even make it to the shelves because staff buy them so fast. These eggs are absolutely the best because, I'm convinced, of the love and care lavished upon the chickens by Dotty, their "human". She even labels the eggs by which bird laid them within the egg carton. I'm just telling this story because there are all kinds of options out there for cleaning and greening our diets without giving up anything, really. For me the important thing is to remove myself from industrial food production as much as possible whether it's eggs, meat or vegetables. After eating Dotty's chicken's eggs I could no more go back to eating eggs from suffering, caged, debeaked, chickens than I could to eating pork from the supermarket knowing full well how the chickens (or the pigs) were treated. And you can see and taste the difference, even in eggs.
What we eat is a loaded issue for meat eaters and vegans and everyone in between. More so than almost any other environmental issue. I think compassion and a nonjudgemental attitude will go a long, long way in this and other issues requiring life-style changes.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:37 am
31 Jan 2008
Bittman has no interest in alienating anyone. But it should be noted that just last year he published a book entitled "How to Cook Everything Vegetarian," a copy of which was given to my husband for Christmas (he had mentioned it in a letter to Santa Claus).
In general, it seemed to me that just about everything in the Bittman article was discussed at one point or another in Gristmill, so I did not rush to comment. I am on the side of AMC and Jason Scorse. But I certainly also agree with SMLowry, that well-intentioned conscientious omnivores do not need to be berated for continuing to eat meat. We must cordially trust that they will come around to seeing the right solution in the end.
On the other hand, there is no need to go too far in refraining from passing judgment. Those who try to apologize for the meat industry, by pretending that the animals caught up in it are not being so harshly and inhumanely treated as its critics say they are, are either blind, or foolish, or mean.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:44 am
31 Jan 2008
as soon as I read the Bittman piece on Saturday night, I knew one or another of you chez vous would be getting around to mentioning it.
But on a not altogether unrelated matter, so far there has been no mention of another fascinating article about cows, Andrew Rice's "A Dying Breed (Can A Cow Be An Endangered Species?)," in the NYTimes Magazine of the 27th, on the Ankole, a stunning ancient breed of cattle in Uganda, with gorgeous, huge, lyre-shaped horns, well-adapted to equatorial conditions, being genetically replaced by Holsteins, more productive of milk but much less well-adapted to that climate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27cow-t.html?_ ...
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
portiafaceslife Posted 9:52 am
31 Jan 2008
I grew up at a time when Australians ate meat 3 meals a day - mostly lamb. We came from English, Scottish or Irish stock, and the ability to have that much meat was one of the positive factors for our immigrant ancestors. Then we had the post-war (World War 2) waves of immigration - first southern & northern Europeans, then people from all over South-east Asia, and our cultural and culinary tastes changed to a much more varied diet.
The Mediterranean incomers taught us new ways with fruit and vegetables, and new vegetables to try, pasta and rice, all diversifying our diets from the basic 'meat and two veg'. Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans brought us even more exciting food options.
It's thanks to our Asian citizens that many of us have learnt to enjoy vegetarian meals and even vegan ones. Beef and lamb consumption are down - not from ethical reasons, but because the lighter Asian dishes, even when they use meat, use so much less of it.
What we eat is a complex mix of culture, taste (as in liking how particular dishes taste), personal finances, ethical and ecological considerations. Vegetarianism and veganism just do not suit everybody or everyone's body!
I balance my equation as best I can, buying organic eggs from a food co-op (they won't sell meat so as not to offend others). I buy organic meat when I can afford it. I eat a lot of rice, pasta, pulses, but temperamentally, I still like the taste of meat, & do my best to make sure it's ethically OK when I get it.
I also eat fish - & there's another ecological conundrum!
portiafaceslife
Permalink
wildtracker Posted 1:07 pm
04 Feb 2008
That said, where are your vegan products coming from? If you look at all the facts, it's much kinder for me to go shoot a deer in my backyard or raise chickens or goats than to eat vegetables grown on ANY farm unless they do all their work by hand. Do you know how many rabbits and raccoons get ground up by farm equipment? How many deer get hit by trucks hauling produce? How much wildlife is displaced when an acre of land is cleared to grow a crop? It may take a lot of fossil fuel to produce a piece of meat, but how much does it take to ship your soy products? Or your organic vegetables in the dead of winter? Game meat requires no fossil fuels whatsoever.
It seems to me that veganism/vegetarianism has become a sort of religion to a lot of you...there's a lot of talk about who's right and who just can't see the light...sounds suspiciously like religious psychobabble to me. You won't convince anyone to change unless you can give them real reasons and show them the numbers. Just because something feels right to you doesn't mean that it is right - think suicide bombers, the Inquisition, the crusades.
Permalink
catman Posted 5:40 am
05 Feb 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:30 am
05 Feb 2008
there are relatively few Gristmill contributors and commenters who profess being vegans or vegetarians. And there are far fewer -- if any --who directly pronounce, "You should all be veg*n, if you wish to avoid committing grave sin."
What, however, is your problem with "religion"? What is wrong with treating a serious moral issue with the same zeal that might also be a part of one or another "sort of religion"? Neither is religion bad in itself, nor is being seriously committed to a moral cause.
Also, it is crazy to accuse veg*ns of hypocrisy, on the grounds that animals are killed in the course of raising vegetables. We are indeed aware of the fact that every plant is its own mini-ecosystem, and the harvesting of that plant kills some animals (invertebrates), and leaves others homeless. Also, certain industrial methods of agriculture may directly kill vertebrates, especially amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals -- probably not rabbits, though, very often, and surely not raccoons, but a good many rodents. We are certainly not happy about that, and to suggest that we are complacent is an ignorant or mean slander.
I strongly agree with SMLowry, that there are many well-intentioned people, who take serious thought about the moral implications of their diet, and who have not yet come all the way to veg*nism; and that these people do not deserve to be "hounded." E.g., Portia in Australia: carry on, Portia, you are doing swell!
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:59 pm
05 Feb 2008
If the goddess Artemis, protectress of vulnerable animals, were to grant us a boon, to save all the members of any single vertebrate species, and it were up to us to name the species, we would do by far the most good, were we to choose the chickens.
In the January/February 2008 issue of Best Friends Magazine, Francis Battista defends Best Friends' emphasis on the no-kill philosophy, which mostly regards cats and dogs, in these words:
<<
There are some who argue that no-kill policies give special status to pets when other animals are suffering and dying by the billions in factory farms and in research laboratories. In other words, they say, it's more about placating human sensibility than about saving lives. I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but I would add that that is entirely the point: If we can't make no-kill policies the norm for animals who have already been accorded special status, and with whom we share our homes, how does the animal rights world expect to get consideration for aimals whom, sadly, most people still reard as necessary for food and health?
An ethical commitment to a cow or a laboratory rat, animals whom most people will never meet up close, is a pretty high threshold of sensitivity. Commitment to a family pet, and by extension to other pets, is a much lower, though no less significant hurdle.
When, finally, modern society is able to reach a new consensus on how we should treat our fellow animals, I believe that most people will have arrived there thanks to what they have learned from their best friends at home.
>>
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 7:39 pm
05 Feb 2008
I don't necessarily disagree with this, as I've never considered the possibility of such an offer from the goddess and so have not previously given it any thought, but it seems an odd choice. I'm sure you have a thoughtful explanation for this position, Caniscandida. May we hear it?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:36 pm
05 Feb 2008
Of course, there are lots of turkeys too, and lots of pigs and cattle. Also, there is the added fact that turkeys are so bred to be meat-producers, that they can never be healthy in themselves, even if left alone by their captors, as hypocritically seems to happen when the president of the US pardons two turkeys on the eve of Thanksgiving. And members of the very popular Holstein breed of dairy cattle, quite in-bred and descended from one or both of two American males of a couple of decades ago, are sent nowadays to live in equatorial climates, to which they are ill-adapted. During heat and drought, they suffer far more than cattle bred for that climate.
But numbers-wise, more chickens are exploited and kept in abusive confinement than any other kind of animal.
In their very helpful book "How We Eat," Jim Mason and Peter Singer speculate that, if it were necessary simply to satisfy the "needs" of committed human carnivores, we would be better off killing a single whale, and dividing its flesh, than very many smaller animals, such as chickens. (That sounds like a typically utilitarian idea of Peter Singer's, actually.)
It might be added that the numbers of fish who are hunted, caught and killed -- or rather, left to die -- are also vast. But I do not know how their numbers compare to that of chickens. And I do not know if there is a single species which is outstanding. Sardines, perhaps? We should remember that the suffering of fish barely registers with many observers at all.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:42 pm
05 Feb 2008
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink