Seattle's stellar Erica Barnett (writer for alt-weekly The Stranger, among other things) has pummeled PETA previously, as have a slew of bloggers -- and PETA just keeps asking for it. A recent campaign makes raw meat bikinis and vegan strip clubs look downright tame: Interns were made up to look like steaks and left shrink-wrapped on the pavement in 80-plus-degree heat for over an hour. Good lord.
Check out The SMH's article here, and don't miss the money quote:
A feminist commentator, Ann Friedman, summarises the message behind [PETA's] ads: "It's OK to buck the stereotype of real men eat red meat, because here are some naked ladies to reassure you that you're still a superhetero manly man!"
A tasting of four meatless “turkeys” for the holiday table
Gourmet’s conscience, Gopnik on cookbooks, and other tasty morsels
It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Maria Bamford
Comments
View as Threaded
PermieWriter Posted 2:46 am
17 Jul 2008
On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily call what PETA did with their interns abusive, or any more abusive than what folks usually do with interns. I mean, they're volunteers. Tacky, certainly. If they don't like it, they can walk away. That would mean doing without that tasty PETA reference on their resume, which could be handy when... Actually, why would someone intern with PETA?
Ye gods, the link is to Reason. You can't believe what those people say. Next to CATO, they're the most sold-out branch of the LP. Well, maybe recently they've been exceeded by the LP, itself. But everyone should feel free to disregard anything a libertarian says from now on. The party and movement are both failures and intellectually bankrupt.
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
sindark Posted 3:20 am
17 Jul 2008
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:37 am
17 Jul 2008
Can't they get the point across without actual cruelty? For instance, interns with farm animal masks rolling around in safe, clean mud, that only looks like waste? Strategically body suited interns (over the naughty bits) who look like they are nude would create quite a stir! Tabloid media being what it is.
That would get more publicity anyway. But is acting out cruelty to animals really degrading to interns acting as actors, voluntarilly? not unless they intentionally subject them to actual cruelty as this shrink wrapping seems to.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
TheJewAndTheCarrot Posted 4:31 am
17 Jul 2008
http://www.lilith.org/blog/?p=67
Permalink
javaearth Posted 5:50 am
17 Jul 2008
However you have to remember three things
1) The interns/employees volunteers etc.. are choosing this the animals never chose to be hurt!
2) the people in the marketing campaigns, can stop this any time they want, animals on the other hand have years of abuse and can not just get up and leave
3) If we are going to criticize one organizations marketing campaigns, surely, we sure about do the same for the: beer companies, car companies, fast food ad's, clothing, fashion etc...
If you are going to criticize them lets do it to all industries that use/exploited/degrade women.
I only have this one life, so I am going to try my very best to make a positive change.
--- The Happy & Healthy Vegan ---
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:17 am
17 Jul 2008
Also, the not researched but powerful impression I get is that the majority of people committed to the animal rights movement, including membership in PETA, are women. One might be forgiven for assuming that women are the best judges of when women are being exploited.
Still, as an animal-rights promoter myself, I am sad that the best-known animal-rights organization, PETA, has won for itself such a bad name. In this recent op-ed, on Spain's granting certain rights to apes, PETA's tactics are described as often "boneheaded":
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14mon4.html
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
James Harrison Posted 7:45 am
17 Jul 2008
PETA's campaigns work because they make people look, think and most importantly, take action.
Those women choose to help animals using their bodies. Would you prefer living in a society where women are told to keep covered at all times and cannot make their own decisions? They're denied choices--just like chickens in a slaughterhouse.
Permalink
James Harrison Posted 7:52 am
17 Jul 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:26 am
17 Jul 2008
Why in fact Gristmill chose to run with this particular story, of no particular value, is a question worth asking. The biodiversity crisis already gets only rare attention, in a news site that purports to cover environmental issues. Is the animal rights movement a target of particularly delicious preference?
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
LauraSeattle Posted 9:56 am
17 Jul 2008
The Sydney Morning Herald article points out that the message is completely lost on people: "A straw poll on the meaning of Monday's PETA demonstration among friends at the pub threw up responses including 'the Catholic church's treatment of women' and 'an ad for a new line of lacy underwear'. Attention was grabbed, but the message was lost."
I also think PETA is underestimating Americans' intelligence and willingness to try to do what is "right." Hello! We're capable of understanding a reasoned argument in favor of vegetarianism or veganism. Give us a chance!
Can't we try to respect animals and stop animal cruelty without dragging women through the mud yet again?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:00 am
17 Jul 2008
It's a tried and true tactic of the corporate serving (so-called libertarian) right. Lobbying organizations fund these kind of smear campaigns.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:28 pm
17 Jul 2008
Uh, sorry, that's impossible.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:16 pm
17 Jul 2008
I appreciate LauraSeattle's comment. And I might have added earlier, as a qualification to what I wrote then, that it seems that women are often their worst critics, and even their worst enemies. In the West (Europe and North America), women look to other women to learn how much of their bodies they should be exposing. By contrast, in conservative Afghanistan, it is in conversation with women that a woman may or may not decide to go out onto the street looking like an unremarkable blue fire-hydrant. In many African countries, it is women who conduct girls to have the clitoris excised.
Cf. the powerful movie "The Handmaid's Tale," based on Margaret Atwood's novel, with Harold Pinter's screenplay, about a dystopian post-modern American state, in which an important part of the exploitation of women by men involves maintaining a competitiveness and mutual distrust amongst the women.
Hey Amazing,
I do not have much of a fix on libertarians just yet, but I know enough to put a lot of distance between myself and anybody who is speaking in laudatory terms of Ayn Rand.
With regard to animal rights, actually, it strikes me that many animal-rights activists resemble many anti-abortion-rights activists: they are totalitarians. This saddens me, as a promoter of animal rights. Our job right now is to conduct a moral evolution, not to demand immediate change with threats and blackmail.
Anyway, the more fundamentally important issue should not be forgotten: Why, with all the countless stories about animals and animal welfare that are out there, does Gristmill choose to publish this quite unimportant and distracting story about PETA?
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:33 pm
17 Jul 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/07/17/kenya.masai/in ...
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:48 pm
17 Jul 2008
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:28 am
18 Jul 2008
Maybe this is justifiable in some cases? Unless we start at the conventional wisdom level and wean the reader away into our alternate reality, we lose them.
This was a Socratic tactic I believe? He started out restating the conventional wisdom accepted by his partner in dialogue, then showed how it was self-contradictory. Eventually bringing about a shift in the frame of reference, dragging the other person into it.
Gristmill kind of relies on us to do the dragging, hehey. The controversial news item gets the attention of the reader.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
woodrat Posted 2:18 am
18 Jul 2008
Permalink
banana republican Posted 7:19 am
18 Jul 2008
If they can use the excuse that "Sex Sells" objectify women, I should certainly be able to use the excuse that "Meat Tastes Great!" to continue eating meat.
Their biggest problem isn't even this, although it gives you a peephole into what they're really about..I've read that they have a freezer they throw all their "saved" animals into because supposedly they can't find homes for them? Sick. PETA is sick and disgusting.
And for the guy ooops person who says we have better things to talk about than this? Who are you to tell anyone what to talk about? You felt the need to comment on it so...why don't you stop talking about it?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:27 am
18 Jul 2008
My point is that nearly 100% of subjects in Gristmill involve global warming and energy, and related issues in engineering, economics and politics; meanwhile another serious environmental issue, the biodiversity crisis, is treated like a Cinderella; and now that an animal-related issue is raised, the point is simply to bash PETA, about whom everybody including myself already finds something to complain, with the VERY DANGEROUS implication that we promoters of animal rights are up to no good.
Not only are truly considerate promoters of animal rights NOT opponents of human rights and interests, as is falsely and wickedly believed by many, but they (we) are especially interested in rescuing human consciences from their dark, dank, stinky prejudices -- including the ridiculous suggestion that just because our prehistoric ancestors ate meat, it is impeccably correct and natural and healthful for us today to continue eating meat, no questions asked.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:37 am
18 Jul 2008
Banana Republican,
not enough can be said about the suffering of exploited animals. No apology is ever needed, for raising the issue of the thoughtless cruelty that human exploiters inflict on helpless sentient animals.
Meanwhile, pointing up the deficiencies of PETA, with regard to exploitation of women or any other issue, is certainly justified. You go, girl!
But as I have written before, my complaint is with regard to the unjust misbalance, regarding animal-related subjects, of Gristmill's editorial policy.
By all means, BR, write away! Regardless of sex, gender and orientation!
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 7:59 am
18 Jul 2008
Unfortunately, a lot of folks are more interested in their pet causes and venting their emotions than they are in real change. Check out the Daily Show coverage of the Berkeley Code Pink protest of the Armed Forced recruiting station for an excellent example of this.
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:11 am
18 Jul 2008
As to Grist, this place has become much more conservative over the years. "Credibility" is one possible reason, but another one that's likely to be an even stronger cause is that at least some people running Grist are on the conservative end of the environmental movement. My experience is that people who advocate more conservative methods want more conservative results. If you realize that things are dire, you're more willing to advocate any means necessary and are less concerned about methods, so long as they're effective.
Grist obsesses about global warming to the exclusion of other stories because global warming is a more conservative issue; it's somewhat nebulous and doesn't seem to require any changes or sacrifices in lifestyles or behaviors, but it allows people to bash the government and oil companies, which are favorite targets of almost everyone. And Grist has way too many stories about technology and economics because again those are more conservative issues that don't require any sacrifices. I totally agree with Canis: Grist spends way too much time on issues that are nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and nowhere near enough on really important environmental issues, such as the sixth great extinction, overpopulation, destruction of ecosystems, and unnatural human pollution of every inch of the planet, including its atmosphere.
Finally, the reason that a story like this doesn't belong in Grist is not that this issue shouldn't be discussed. It is that Grist is supposed to be an environmental online something (magazine?), not a discussion of animal rights and feminism. If you want to discuss those issues, I'm sure there are plenty of other places to do so without taking up space here and causing Grist to not post stories about environmental issues.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:39 am
18 Jul 2008
Sure, PETA can use other tactics (and regularly does so), but if they don't use this sorta thing, then the women=sexiness demographics will most likely ignore it, since it doesn't involve their primary concern, that bein' the opposite sex.
So, then one asks, why would PETA even wanna appeal to such a demographic to begin with? Once again, the answer is simple. PETA's primary concern is cruelty to animals. If they ignore a large demographic, then that demographic won't be "informed" of how their current behavioral and cultural patterns help enforce animal cruelty.
Will the message get through? Maybe, though probably slim chance.
However, the chances that the message will get through are a guaranteed zero if they don't at least try. And since this is the best way to catch that particular demographic's attention, it's the best way to get 'em to think 'bout the issue.
Try to get the demographic to associate "sexy" females with vegetarianism and animal rights the same way they've come to sub-conciously associate 'em with beer and fast sport cars from mass-media advertisements.
Permalink
woodrat Posted 10:21 am
19 Jul 2008
However, I think when we begin prioritizing is where we run into trouble. To say that it is acceptable to demean women to promote animal rights is equally dangerous, yet less noticeable begin it is so so so commonplace, as somehow using abusive animal tactics to promote feminism.
There is no reason for these issues to be at odds, and teasing out these differences is constructive and informative, not derogatory towards anybody's agenda.
To all who say that this conversation has no place on Grist, Grist is a phenomenally relevant and smart environmental publication. The reason it remains interesting and important is because it addresses the complexities of relationships like this gristmill entry does. This type of dialogue only stands to make environmentalism relevant to more people, and stronger by addressing its own weaknesses. The point has never been to pigeonhole, nor should it be.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:19 pm
19 Jul 2008
I completely agree that "there is no reason for these issues to be at odds."
And I also completely agree that "sexism still demands attention."
But I NEVER said that it is "acceptable to demean women to promote animal rights." I certainly do not agree with that. And that is because I completely agree with your fine statement, "There is no reason for these issues to be at odds."
On the other hand, I did at least imply that in order to evaluate this curious PETA publicity stunt, we need to hear from the female volunteers themselves, what they thought they were doing, when they stripped, painted their bodies to look like cuts of meat, wrapped themselves in Saran Wrap, and lay down for a long time in the hot sun. They are women; did they understand that what they were doing, apparently willingly, was a form of "demeaning women"? There is no reason why you, or anyone else who is following this thread with interest, cannot locate one of those women, and ask about these aspects which have troubled us.
(For that matter, it might be suggested that the author Holly Richmond's silence thus far indicates an interest on her part only in creating an anti-PETA sensation, NOT in defending the dignity of women. You decide for yourself, WoodRat, seeing that Richmond has absconded.)
Also, I do not think I said that "there is no place in Grist" for this particular conversation. Grist would be all the more beautiful and significant, if places were found not only for this conversation, but for many others of a similar nature.
But, I do not know how Grist's editorial policy works. It could be that they allow all their "Contributors" to post whatever they like, whenever they like -- in which case, the paucity of posts on animal-related subjects derives from the lack of interest in animal-related subjects on the part of the "Contributors." But it could also be a policy of "prioritization," as you say, on their part, by which animal-related posts are discouraged.
In fairness: I am happy that the story about a temporary reprieve for wolves in the Northern Rockies is up right now in "In the News"; I am happy whenever Suzannah from Oceana sends in a report from Andrew Sharpless on marine wildlife; I am happy whenever our excellent BioD sends us a post with pictures of lizards, etc.
But, if indeed there is a limited "budget," and animal-related stories are allowed only so much coverage, why in the world should we be made to return to that effete pin~ata, PETA, whom everyone loves to bash anyway, and who is regularly bashed in Grist?
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Terror and Tyranny Posted 12:03 am
21 Jul 2008
Last year, Australian live exporters dumped 41,000 dead and diseased livestock overboard. Between 2000 and 2007 some 414,000 livestock were dumped overboard, unable to endure the heinous voyage - mainly to the Middle East.
Sheep particularly are forced to stand or lie down in tonnes of faeces and urine for the entire journey. This muck is not disposed of until the completion of the voyage.
Former PM, John Howard banned live exports to Egypt due to the abject cruelty perpetrated on Australian livestock. This year our charming PM Rudd, who declared: "Cruelty to animals will not be tolerated," saw fit to resume trade with Egypt.
The following footage reveals what happens to Australia's animals overseas. Those whose sensitivities are easily offended need not view this footage since I too lacked the capacity to follow this heinous cruelty to the end.
And for those who remain unconvinced, there is more footage for the asking.
In the meantime, "Australians, hang your heads in shame."
This barbarity will continue whilst the sadists strut our halls of parliament and good men say nothing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_BOAF7qvk
Permalink
Nicky Posted 7:47 pm
21 Jul 2008
PETA grabbed world headlines, exposing the "mulesing" of Australian sheep, a gruesome procedure where farmers slice away flesh from the backsides of sheep to deter flystrike (admittedly itself a problem, but there are better alternatives than mutilation). PETA has also highlighted Australia's disgraceful trade in live animals to the Middle East and South East Asia, where tens of thousands die on old wrecks of ships en route. They die of starvation, heat exhaustion, disease and trauma from brutal handling, and those animals, as terrible as their suffering is, are in fact the "lucky" ones.
The survivors face appalling cruelty in importing countries, where no animal protection laws exist. Cattle are "brought down" by having their leg tendons slashed and eyes stabbed; terrified sheep are hog tied, and dragged by one leg (often broken already) to brutal slaughter, while conscious and aware throughout. Australia also exports goats, deer and camels.
Australia's intensive farming practices with pigs, meat chickens and battery hens are similarly atrocious.
Let's look at the big picture here, and applaud PETA for getting the message out there. How many other "industries" do that and worse?
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 8:11 pm
21 Jul 2008
Guess I'll have to go light on the sex for the future. Not only do I have to cut down on my meat consumption, but I have to cut down on my woman consumption too.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Applied Ecotechnics Posted 8:54 pm
21 Jul 2008
At one point PETA did some good. Then it got weirder and weirder, about the time Tipi Hedron came along.
For me the final straw was when they picketed a research lab in the facility I was working at claiming it was abusive to animals. However they neglected to check their facts, as they often have, or they would have found out that the lab in question dealt only with behavioral studies of fruit flies and they were not harmed, killed or maimed in any way.
On the topic of MEAT. It stands for Meat-eaters for Ethical Animal Treatment and as your would expect the goal is to stop the many abusive practices perpetuated on livestock and research animals and others around the world.
There has been some discussion of it but so far it hasn't gone very far to the best of my knowledge but the point is that if you want to serve the cause of animal rights issues and abuse you shouldn't be trying to confuse the issue with your own personal agenda about food choices.
Animal abuse can be stopped without trying to force everyone on the planet to become a vegetarian and the two issues can and should be considered entirely independently of each other.
Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.
Permalink
LindsayR Posted 3:00 am
23 Jul 2008
PETA would like nothing better than if the media considered the facts alone about cruelty to animals newsworthy enough to cover, but sadly, this isn't the case. Our eye-catching demonstrations, however, never fail to garner media coverage and make people look, think and most importantly, take action on animal issues that they would most likely otherwise ignore or never hear about. If shedding my clothes is what it takes to bring the animals' plight into the spotlight, I--and many other passionate animal rights supporters, female and male--am willing to do just that.
I hope you will take a moment to learn more about PETA's groundbreaking work to help animals by visiting www.PETA.org.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:23 am
23 Jul 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/Photos
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:23 am
23 Jul 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:36 pm
23 Jul 2008
...Though this may be true for some, other people actually see the slaughtering of animals for food as an abuse, not just a personal food choice.
So, really, no, the two aren't that seperate.
Look at it this way...abuse (by virtual definition) is anything that would intentionally and knowingly harm (physically or mentally) a creature in a way that is unnatural.
Industrial slaughter of animals pretty much does that. By killing it, you're harming it (obviously), and since it's intentional and done knowingly, it's abuse.
Another way to look at it...say an extremely advanced and much more "intelligent" race of beings suddenly appeared and decided to use humans as a food source...obviously, we'd consider it to be a form of abuse, even if the process was painless, because the "unnatural" death in and of itself would be considered abuse.
Incidentally, this is why most places outlaw murder and cannibalism amongst humans...it's considered abuse.
Permalink
Applied Ecotechnics Posted 1:26 pm
23 Jul 2008
Many of your statements revolve around rhetoric which is purely based on personal belief which is more of a religious nature than a scientific one.
Obviously anything "industrial" is by definition not "natural".
In fact most things done by mankind are by definition not natural, even if they are brought about by the all too natural needs dictated by the human body.
It is also an important fact that the reason eating of humans is considered immoral and unethical is that it is extremely risky behavior from a disease and health perspective.
I won't waste time debating with you about the issues of the healthiness, pro or con, of a vegetarian diet, except to say there are many people with far less of an agenda and well proven scientific and medical credentials who find serious health concerns stemming from vegetarian diets.
Your definition of abuse is also as selective and personally biased and not one which is commonly held or necessarily any more morally or logically valid than those held by others.
So in short, the entire personal bias of the belief system you are promoting is just that, personal, and to try to push it onto the rest of the people of the world is a violation of the basic rights and freedoms which you claim all living creatures should have.
Any claims to any moral high ground based on such beliefs are by definition nothing but spurious rhetoric.
Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 9:23 am
24 Jul 2008
Killin' a dog for food consumption is considered abuse. But the killin' of a cow is not, even though both are highly intelligent and essentially effected in the same way.
Though you're right in that abuse differs by culture and moral values, a good way to look at it would be, if it's not moral (or if it is abusive) to do a thing to another human being, then why is NOT abusive or immoral to do the same thing to an animal?
So the question then is, why is considered abusive to kill humans for food, but not considered abusive to kill other animals for food, particularly animals which have a proven intelligence equal to that of a human youngling, such as cows, dogs, pigs, or dolphins?
Permalink
Applied Ecotechnics Posted 12:56 pm
24 Jul 2008
The important point to bear in mind is that no matter what food lifestyle choices you make something alive is going to die.
A plant is no less alive than an animal and the distinction of placing it in another kingdom is completely arbitrary, because all taxonomy is purely a human consideration, not anything imposed by nature.
Vegetarianism kills as many living things as does eating meat, and in some cases even more.
Then there are the environmental issues. To eat a balanced vegetarian diet requires, in most cases, importing material from a much wider area, increasing the environmental damage caused per pound of food used.
Consider also that in the case of hunting, it is very necessary to control certain populations not only for the good of the local crops and vegetation but for the health of the species itself, at least until, and if ever, the proper predator balance can be reestablished in that area.
Further, is it any more humane to kill something that you cannot hear or see the suffering of? In this regard a plant is much the same as a fish or a clam or many others species.
I live by a native American philosophy in this regard and that means I respect the sacrifice that is made by the consumption of any living thing, be it plant, animal, or some other arbitrary human classification. It is still a living thing and it gives it's life so yours can continue, and deserves to be treated as humanely as possible in doing so, including doing all you can to help perpetuate it's species and offspring.
There is not ethical superiority to vegetarianism in this regard, you kill a plant, or you eat it's seeds or fruits and those are not returned to the earth in any way that perpetuates that species or the cycle of life and is just as effectively killing it as if you were to shoot a deer.
I also have to say I find the PETA stance against pet ownership distressing and hypocritical in light of the many donations accepted from pet owners, though I dislike the term, my cats own me more than I do them and they made the choice to adopt me when they invaded my house.
The policy position that bee keeping is slavery is yet another absurd and ethically dubious position that has been promoted by PETA.
Add to this the killing of animals in their shelters as well as the unethical clandestine obtaining and killing of animals from other no kill shelters and there are many, many reasons to be seriously dubious about just how much the organization is sticking to its original intended purpose.
National claims these are aberrations caused by overzealous people, yet we see it time and time again and when overzealous is more the rule than the exception you have to start asking just how much is independent and how much is actually instigated then simply denied after the fact.
So while some of the goals may still be quite worthy, the tactics and other agendas of the organization are offensive and the ethical claims are extremely dubious at best.
Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:08 pm
24 Jul 2008
Frankly I don't care. I am not a moralist, and I eat meat because it tastes good and will continue to do so.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:52 am
25 Jul 2008
Well, there is fruitarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism
Basically a diet of fruits, nuts, berries, peppers, tomatoes, legumes, and other things that don't need to kill the plant durin' harvestin'.
To eat a balanced vegetarian diet requires, in most cases, importing material from a much wider area, increasing the environmental damage caused per pound of food used.
Actually, though the food may come from a wider area, it's physical footprint is much less than that of a omniviore diet, 'specially one with cows.
More than half of all land devoted to agriculture in America is devoted to cattle grazing, and of the croplands in America, close to half is devoted to growin' feed for said cattle.
If everyone were to hypothetically switch over to a vegetarian diet, even taking into account the increased amount of crops it would take to supplement meat in their diets, agriculture, as a whole, would still have a much smaller physical footprint than it does currently.
The footprint is reduced even more if urban and community gardens are used in tandem with large-scale operations.
Further, is it any more humane to kill something that you cannot hear or see the suffering of? In this regard a plant is much the same as a fish or a clam or many others species.
Technically, plants can't feel pain, they are physically incapable of it, though there is evidence to suggest that some plants are aware of their own existence.
I live by a native American philosophy in this regard and that means I respect the sacrifice that is made by the consumption of any living thing, be it plant, animal, or some other arbitrary human classification.
Native Americans traditionally hunted their own meat. They didn't have large cattle operations, nor did they breed the animals and keep 'em confined for the specific purpose of consumption.
So how exactly are ya followin' a Native American philosophy if ya go to a store and buy meat that came from an animal that wasn't hunted, and was just raised for the sole purpose that it would be slaughtered later for consumption by humans?
For that matter, how, exactly, do ya show respect for the animal that made the sacrifice?
Permalink