strongvoicesforward said:
There are 3 reasons for choosing to become a vegetarian. Those are:
1. Moral/ethical (may be based on religious beliefs or not)
2. Health
3. Environmental
This thread will focus on the
environmental aspect of the argument for choosing a non-flesh diet.
-----------------------
*New thread opened to clearly separate the issues of health and morals which were being discussed on other threads. Having separate discussions clearly delineated will allow for a smoother flowing discussion staying more focused.
Hello?c.
So an environmentally oriented debate thread then SVF?
Hmm?cMorality and health aside then, lets discuss the Environmental aspects of animal agriculture and plant agriculture.
You seem to believe that if everyone were vegetarians (by this, I assume you mean true vegetarians that don?ft eat or use any animal products rather than say lacto-ovo vegetarians or semi-vegetarians etc, yes?).
Here are some interesting links on water consumption and meat and wheat and things;
Wasteful farming;
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32601
Water crisis;
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/water/
Fertiliser definitions;
http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1568_2390_19401-49341--,00.html
(More importantly) Fertiliser and crop type usage in the US;
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs155-99/fs155-99.html
The vast bulk of crops farmed for animals go into poultry. Cows can survive very happily on grass, water to drink and hay (dried grass) alone, they do not need cereal products. Most of the cereal products that go into animal feed are there to feed factory farmed animals because they cannot survive any other way, so the solution is to decrease factory farming and to increase the efficiency of crop farming.
Very little fertilisers go into crops intended for animal feed as they are not fussy about how big their wheat grains are or if their potatoes aren?ft the right shape and stuff, most fertilisers go into food used for human consumption or in countries where they suffer weather problems like water shortages (Potassium found in fertilisers helps facilitate sugar movement through plants, and boosts resistance to stresses such as drought and disease, so potassium rich fertilisers are essential for countries with low water fall, but this inevitably leads to more harmful nutrients running off into the water systems).
Less factory farming= big decrease in crops used for animals
No animal farming at all= big increase in crop farming= more artificial fertilisers= bad for the environment.
More fertilisers=more mining, more fossil fuels, more industrial activity= even worse for the environment.
Fertilisers obtained from animals make up a large percentage of fertilisers(I think something like 37% in the US), these animal fertilisers are often a by-product of animal farming. Without animal farming to supply these fertiliser needs, the need for artificial fertilisers rockets, and thus bad for the environment because that means more mining and more fossil fuels and poisoned rivers and stuff. It would also probably spell some of the Doom of organic farming as that relies heavily on natural fertilisers.
So more GM farming, which is even worse for the environment.
Also, on the subject of wheat versus beef water requirements, I found those statistics very misleading. All those statistics show is the water present in the plant/animal product at its finished state/final product. It does not take into account the serious problems with evaporation on fields or the polluted water run-off from them.
The other thing you need to take into consideration, is do you eat wheat dry? No, you have to mix it with water and other products to make it edible. While a piece of beef can happily fry or roast or whatever in its own water-rich juices, cereal products need to be cooked in some liquid product like water to make them edible- otherwise you?fd just be eating flour, literally. And unless you make that into a soup or something, the water you boil it in goes down the drain unlike the juices from the beef which you consume.
Aside from the problems of crop farming poisoning the environment, you also have to consider what and increased demand for crops would do on the wildlife. Crop farming is NOT good for wildlife. Arable/crop farming as well as the use of pesticides and weed killers result in a loss of biodiversity, and with fields getting larger and larger now days this is becoming a major problem.
Crop farming upsets the ecosystems- for example, where there was once a flourishing meadow with thousands of varieties of grasses, plants and insects- now stands hundreds of acres of one plant, wheat. The natural food chain collapses. The farmer tries to combat the influx of insects that now have no natural food chain to keep them in check by using pesticides?cBiodiversity is lost. The soils and waters are polluted, the hedges cut down because they are no longer needed to act as wind shields for animals. All is left is green deserts?c
Take the plight of the English hare. This beautiful native animal is going extinct because its natural habitats are being destroyed by crop farming- where once it lived by the peaceful traditional life-rich cattle meadows, now it is stranded in a wilderness of endless one-plant crops. The hare needs a variety of types of plants, most found in meadows, to survive. With modern arable/crop farming, this way of life no longer is and it is going extinct.
If everyone ate plants, demand for crops farmed in poor countries would go through the roof, most poor countries in this world are dry and thus artificial fertiliser demand would also shoot through the roof, thus more fossil fuels, industrial activity, mining etc- unbalanced ecosystems would mean more pesticide use, which would be even worse for the environment.
Thousands of species of farm animals would go extinct with no need for them anymore as well- take the plight of the Essex Saddleback pig. Once, it used to be farmed for hundreds of years- until modern pig breeds came along and out-competed it. With no need for it anymore, its practically extinct now days with less than a hundred of them in the world or so. If you think its morally correct to cause animal species to go extinct, then I think you need to re-think your morals.
Think of the financial losses of animal products as well- no wool, no feathers, no leather, no gelatine etc. Seriously bad news for the economies across the world?c
SVF, to say that if everyone ate plants, the environment would benefit, is very delusional IMO.
My solution to all this- decrease factory farming, hopefully crushing its existence. Getting rid of factory farming would mean the high percentage of crops that go into animal feed would no longer be needed.
Secondly, increase efficiency of water and fertiliser management of agriculture across the world- a heck of a lot of water would be saved if this was done and gone about properly.
Thirdly- encourage traditional farming that co-exists with the environment/ecosystems and encourages biodiversity amongst wildlife.
As to the lakes & seas- encourage salt, brackish and freshwater farming instead of relying of the natural harvest of the seas. We are currently taking far more fish/water animals out of the worlds water systems that what nature can provide, what we really need to do is instead of relying on natures bounty, we need to create artificial systems like building lakes or sectioning bits off coastline for our needs instead of just taking life from everywhere- we know better than to act like hunter gatherers, so we shouldn?ft act like them.
Our civilisation was built on farming. The environment and farming used to co-exist fine with each other well for thousands upon thousands of years until we became greedy. We need to stop our greedy ways and learn to live with the environment instead of abusing its ecosystems with the likes of modern farming methods.
I believe in a world where tamed and wild plants and animals can live together, as they once did long ago.
