Sustainability Vegetarianism for the Environment

[Mycernius]

Cats a picky eaters, but they are a carnivore by nature, not omnivores. Sometimes a cat will eat vegetable because there is a taste or smell of meat on it. Two of my cats eat chips, probably because of the smell of fat on it, but as SVF says a cat will die if kept on a vegetarian diet.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

And don't you think that some (primitive) humans also lacked such control ? What about prehistoric humans ? I believe that civilisations gradually taught humans (and domesticated animals) to change their natural behaviour. But in a "wild" (precivilisation) state, I don't think there is so much difference.

Sure, Maciamo. That is all possible. But, not being in a primitive state now, we have much more self control and the opportunity to exercise it more by the abundant choices our modern infrastructure and supermarkets have to offer us. We need not act as we did in primitive times -- to eat opportunistically. Wouldn`t you agree to that?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

3. Environmental : I agree that endangered species shouldn't be eaten. I also agree that keeping farm animals create a lot of CO2 and uses a lot of vegetal resources.

Then, logically, why would you want to produce more CO2 when the alternative to having less of it without losing any ability to supply all dietary needs and still have health benefits associated with a vegetarian diet is readily available?

In addition CO2 is not the only thing 'farms' are producing as bi-product from animals. Animal waste run-off and spillage has also resulted in environmental damage to aquatic systems and have leached themselves into the underground water table.

But let's not forget that there has never been so many chickens, turkeys, cows and pigs as today, because we raise them to be eaten. If we stopped eaten them, it could even be argued that some of these species would disappear, as they cannot cope by themselves in today's world (well, depends how industralised the country is).

Why would it be a loss to the world`s ecosystem if man made species dissappeared? What value are they other than to serve us as slaves for exploitation? There is no suffering in death and if they pass from us the environment stands to benefit.

Some people will say, "well, if we stopped eating them, then we would have to let them lose and they would die suffering because they could not survive on their own." My answer to that is it is highly unlikely that all humanity will stop on a dime and one day say, "no more eating meat from today," and then be in a quandery as what to do with all the domesticated animals on farms. No, in reality if vegetarianism picks up speed and spreads faster, the simple rules of supply and demand will cause the farms to empty due to economic forces and perhaps gradual legislation.

Note that eating eggs or drinking milk create as much CO2 as eating these animals' meat. We still need to raise them and feed them as much. There is not the slightest moral reason to eat eggs and drink milk though.

Agreed. Veganism has the least impact on the environment and if one becomes a vegetarian first, they may want to consider moving as much as possible on the spectrum over to veganism.

It's also good for health. So point 3. would occur even in absence of point 1. and 2.

You mean "milk" and "eggs" good for health, right? In some ways, perhaps. In other ways, perhaps not. I will go into milk and eggs in more detail later. But, for right now, the mass producing of these products definitely impacts on the environment through waste and methane production. A degraded environment does nothing for health.

This being said, I haven't eaten beef in 5 years because of BSE risks. I go for ostrich or kangaroo instead when it's available (i.e. not in Japan).
I also agree that meat should be eaten in moderation. Fish can be eaten more often. It's important to keep a diversified and balanced diet, but meat should be part of it.

Diversified is good, but it does not need to include any meat for optimal health. The ADA link in post 112 (I think) of this thread clearly puts for their professional opinion on this matter. They are the world`s largest association of professional dieticians and their position paper is well referenced to original source and scientific data research.

btw, glad to see you not eating beef.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Just to be clear, Maciamo, post #112 I meant to say is in the thread "Are You Vegetarian" and can be seen here: Are You Vegetarian? #112.

It is a short post but I follow it up with other posts as my discussion with Tokis-Pheonix continued.

 

[Maciamo]

Then, logically, why would you want to produce more CO2 when the alternative to having less of it without losing any ability to supply all dietary needs and still have health benefits associated with a vegetarian diet is readily available?

I don't see CO2 as negative for the environment. In fact CO2 is 'food' for plants, so it stimulates vegetal growth. The media often sound confusing in this regard. CO2 is only "bad" because it fosters global warming - but is that such a bad thing in itself ? The Earth has been much warmer than now in the past and life thrived. Areas like Canada, Northern Europe and Russia would be advantaged by global warming rather than suffer from it (at least if dikes are built to prevent floods from rising sea levels). All we need to do is live with changed conditions (e.g. by irrigating better hot and dry areas to prevent desertification).

In addition CO2 is not the only thing 'farms' are producing as bi-product from animals. Animal waste run-off and spillage has also resulted in environmental damage to aquatic systems and have leached themselves into the underground water table.

It's mostly a matter of better recycling and waste management. Organic waste can be used as fertiliser.

Why would it be a loss to the world`s ecosystem if man made species dissappeared? What value are they other than to serve us as slaves for exploitation? There is no suffering in death and if they pass from us the environment stands to benefit.

Pigs may be "man-made" (I prefer "fostered by humans"), but they are also some of the most intelligent mamals on earth. I tend to put more value in preserving intelligent species at the top of the evolutionary ladder (e.g. big mamals) over others.

Agreed. Veganism has the least impact on the environment and if one becomes a vegetarian first, they may want to consider moving as much as possible on the spectrum over to veganism.

As I said before, had our ancestors be vegan we would not be discussing this, as out brain wouldn't be so big. Think about future generations over the coming millenia.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't see CO2 as negative for the environment.

A lot of low laying island nations' people will disagree with you.

In fact CO2 is 'food' for plants, so it stimulates vegetal growth. The media often sound confusing in this regard. CO2 is only "bad" because it fosters global warming - but is that such a bad thing in itself ?

Personally, I like it hot.

The Earth has been much warmer than now in the past and life thrived. Areas like Canada, Northern Europe and Russia would be advantaged by global warming rather than suffer from it (at least if dikes are built to prevent floods from rising sea levels).

Yes, but the warming or lowering of temperature trends in the past have happened very gradually, allowing for species to adopt or evolve with the changes. Sure, probably some had died off due to the change, but the biodiversity of the planet probably did not experience much of a set back. The rate in which species are being threatened now is overly accelerated due to our activities and warming trends at this speed will not allow for adjustments which will cause fish species to come under threat which will work its way up the chain, not to mention much habitat loss and wetland lost due to rising seas.

Sea walls and dikes are not the answer to protect ourselves from the damage to ecological life. Shallow sandy areas and marshy with reeds and coral on coasts and on rivershores are essential for smaller animals which are fed on by the larger animals -- not to mention places for depositing eggs. Take that out of the mix and a lot more than just the scenery could be affected.

All we need to do is live with changed conditions (e.g. by irrigating better hot and dry areas to prevent desertification).
It's mostly a matter of better recycling and waste management. Organic waste can be used as fertiliser.

Agreed, and in fact -- we don`t have a choice. It is imperative that we do so. However, if we are in the process of breaking something that has served us for our entire civilization, I think it is more wise to try and value what we know that works -- i.e. no need to re-invent the wheel. Why not work hard to maintain this wheel we have? -- and in the process of doing so even repair some of the places that are damaged.

Pigs may be "man-made" (I prefer "fostered by humans"), but they are also some of the most intelligent mamals on earth. I tend to put more value in preserving intelligent species at the top of the evolutionary ladder (e.g. big mamals) over others.

Preserving them for existence for their own sake? I have no problem with that. Preserving them for existence for suffering and butchering? In that case they are worse off for their intelligence -- for to know what the screams are meaning in front of them as they are pushed toward the "stick pit" makes their intelligence a cruel thing to have.

As I said before, had our ancestors be vegan we would not be discussing this, as out brain wouldn't be so big. Think about future generations over the coming millenia.

That is an assumption. And if our species destroys ourselves due to our folly or intelligence -- then what has that existance served, or for that matter even this conversation served? But that, too, is an assumption.

If we were not to be having this conversation now due to not getting to such an advanced stage, then so what? The conversation would not be missed or mourned by us because it would not be on our perceptual screen -- just as advanced conversation or the technology that would be allowing it to happen 5,000 years from now in the future; it, too, is not on our perceptual screen, but are we mourning it because we have not obtained it or can`t conceive of it? No. And if we destroy ourselves before we reach it, then it never existed in the first place. Why mourn non-existance?

 

[MagnusAurelius]

I like carrots.

 

[Guivre]

Well, since this thread was bumped, I thought I might add that vegetarianism/veganism for environmentalism would appeal to the young over other motivations. It was the one thing that tipped me over the edge when I was in HS. I felt concerns about other issues, but when you are young health does not seem as vital as it does when you are older and compassion is always better but every day we are surrounded by animal products and to me it was not enough for me to say "no". Except for pork, which I gave up long before becoming vegetarian (and later vegan) for multiple reasons.