Mailing List
Sign up for updates in your city.
All He is Saying, Is Give Peas a Chance
Submitted by KAT on Thu, 12/20/2007 - 10:20am.
I don’t know how many rockstars spend their free time reading UN reports, but Paul McCartney’s apparently devoured and digested the UN’s study on the meat industry’s contribution to global warming, “Livestock’s Long Shadow.” He cites the report as the clearest evidence yet that a vegetarian diet is the most effective way that we, as individuals, can combat climate change. In a letter to the Press Association, McCartney wrote:
That this message comes directly from an authoritative body such as the UN (whose member states, it should be remembered, are not generally considered vegetarian) rather than an organisation committed to vegetarianism is significant. What I think is especially compelling is that this report should now encourage everybody to 'do their bit' for the planet... the evidence that the report gives is, frankly, stunning. It points directly to the striking detrimental effects of excessive livestock farming on the environment.
McCartney cites the study’s conclusion that 70% of the Amazon’s forests have been razed for grazing and that livestock now take up 30% of the entire world's land surface, and adds:
By simply considering altering eating habits people can strike a blow for the environment, our children and the future. Such facts and data as those listed above can't be ignored.
Will the beloved ex-Beatle prove to be a more effective advocate than his ex, Heather Mills? Mills, a vociferous vegan, caused a ruckus last month when she asked ‘Why don’t we drink rats’ milk, cats’ milk or dogs’ milk?’ Mills also attempted to make some converts by offering the fifteen contractors who are working on her swanky new Sussex home a holiday feast. They were psyched until they peeked into her freezer and spotted the Tofurkey. One worker complained:
“It's all strictly vegetarian - they've just shaped the stuff to look like turkey. What's the point of that? It's all in individual packs. All she has to do is warm them up."
Nonetheless, he added:
"We will choke it down. After all, Heather's not against alcohol. Apparently there's going to be plenty to drink.”
- KAT's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- See other Eating Liberally blogs
It's sad that these
It's sad that these "reports" and articles like McCartney's never mention how ecologically friendly small diversified family farms are - including those that raise meat the right way - on pasture, with plenty of space. In those cases, the animals fertilize and enhance the land, rather than harming it, and on biodynamic farms in particularly, they are a crucial part of the ecosystem. Enough of the one-sided arguments - every farm is not a factory farm, every cow is not a antibiotic filled, grainfed, polluter. We need to look at the big picture. (to be clear, i'm criticizing paul mccartney, not Eating Liberally - you guys are great!)
you're so right
Thanks, Anne, your point is well-taken. The reality is that we are a nation of meat eaters and the majority of us are not likely to go vegetarian voluntarily. So the small farmers who give us the option of grass-fed products are our best hope for weaning people off the factory farms. That's why my friends at the Humane Society, who don't consume any animal products themselves, are nonetheless supportive of the "grass" farmers and us "conscientious carnivores." They recognize that the best thing you can do on behalf of farm animals is to convince consumers to boycott the factory farms. As the demand for pasture-raised meats, poultry and dairy rises, it will encourage more farmers to go back to grass. And that's progress.
Pastured or grass fed
Pastured or grass fed animals are still ethically problematic, despite the endorsement of welfare organizations like the Humane Society. Not subjecting animals to the cruelties of confined animal feeeding operations does not change the reality of slaughter or the fundemental power dynamic between humans/other animals it preserves. I have yet to hear a well reasoned, philosophical defense of consuming animal products; without some distinction between human and animals, which ulitmately proves arbitrary or untenable when universally applied, raising and killing animals for food is akin to forms of human slavery and other grave injustices.
Beyond the ethical dimension, switching to purely pastured animal products would necessitate a vast reduction in the amount of animals products consumed. Your objection that people like McCartney are generalizing by focusing on CAFOs is true in principle but falls apart in practice. The vast vast majority of animals raised in this country and worldwide are raised in high density confinement. To speak of modern animal agriculture is to talk about this system, not what has become a retro niche for the food concious and a dwindling tradition in scattered rural pockets. While I'd love to see any reduction in the production and consumption of animal products, I doubt that Americans would be any more amenable to eating only 20% of their current average 230+ pounds of meat per person a year, than going vegetarian entirely.
Lastly, raising animals for food is still and always will be an inefficient process. Even if you use every scrap from the animal, every cut, piece of offal, and odd bone for stock, a significant portion of the weight of the animal still goes into the trash upon butchering. Every pound that is unusuable represents calories that animal had to consume and water it needed to drink in order to produce that weight. In addition the conversion of plant matter to animal protein is itself a very inefficient process. The most efficient example is battery raised chickens at a ratio of 3 pounds of plant matter per pound of animal flesh.
Ultimately there is no such thing as "ethical" or "humane" meat. One can raise animals under better conditions, slaughter them more quickly/less painfully, and do so more in tune with the environment. However, even under the best conceivable circumstances, meat comes at a high and unecessary cost.
Are you drawing another arbitrary distinction?
So are you prescribing vegetarianism or veganism as the one universal principle to replace all other universal principles based on the idea that the distinction between humans and other animals is that we are moral and they are not? Are natural predators somehow lesser species than humans because they don't know better than to not kill for food? What do you think about indigenous peoples with a long history of connecting with animals and nature through hunting traditions?
"So are you prescribing
"So are you prescribing vegetarianism or veganism as the one universal principle to replace all other universal principles based on the idea that the distinction between humans and other animals is that we are moral and they are not?"
I never said that veganism should "replace all other universal principles." However, we ought to recognize and accept animals of all stripes (pun intended) as part of the greater moral community. Any distinction between animals or humans, such as our ability to ponder such questions become arbitrary when one considers humans who lack those traditionally "human" capacities. If we were to differentiate animals and humans on the basis of some level of conciousness or intelligence, how would we consider the mentally handicapped child or the alheizmer's afflicted senior? I have never heard of a justifiable distinction that could, in the spirit of Kant, be universally and comfortably applied. What people end up doing in my experience is appealing to speciesism even though they recognize that it has no moral basis and leaving it at that.
"Are natural predators somehow lesser species than humans because they don't know better than to not kill for food?"
Parsing "natural predators" reveals the answer. These are animals that do not have the capacity in principle or otherwise to not eat other animals for their sustenance. A wolf kills other animals for food because everything in its experience from its biology to its social structure to its instincts demands that it prey on other animals. They are not lesser creatures; indeed, part of my point is that we should reject heirarchies like that in the first place.
"What do you think about indigenous peoples with a long history of connecting with animals and nature through hunting traditions?"
While I do respect and appreciate the vibrant cultural traditions of indigenous people, the fact that they have hunted for a long time or that it formed the basis for their survival in centuries past does not justify its continued practice. Many of these same indigenous populations have also practiced human slavery or promote practices like female circumcision. Should these activities continue out of deference to "tradition" and the legacy of the dominant culture (that is the legacy of the slave holder and males)? The hunting/raising of animals for slaughter should similiarly be rejected as an outmoded way of sustaining life while also trying to preserve as much of the cultural memory and practices that were once tied to such acts (and perhaps recrafting them in new forms).
I agree that animals are
I agree that animals are part of the moral community, but how that works out in practice is highly complex. It cannot be resolved by making generalizations such as "there is no such thing as 'ethical' or 'humane' meat" (which implies that veganism is the higher/ideal moral ground) or "killing animals for food is akin to human slavery." Universal, unsituated moral principles are highly problematic and don't encourage us to reflect on our own cultural or personal pressupositions or to come to deeper understandings of what moral relations with animals might look like.
Related to that, should we accept wholesale any sort of cultural tradition, whether that be hunting animals or female circumcision (although you cannot make a straight comparison between females of one species and all other animals as if 'animals' is a monolithic term)? Absolutely not. We look to reason and evidence to discern what is the ethical course of action. We use not one principle applied without regard to circumstances, but a constellation of principles for guidance (in the tradition of practical reasoning or practical ethics). This is certainly not always or even usually easy to work out but it cannot be resolved by telling others that eating meat is always wrong or outmoded, except possibly in the case of survival, in which case, we might hope that one day, certain people will be able to live out the ideal.
As to the natural behaviors of certain animals such as predators, you say that 'everything in its experience from its biology to its social structure to its instincts demands that it prey on other animals.' And yet instead of looking to the behaviors of these animals for insight about how we ought to live, we reject them. That's how they are, but we don't have to/need to live that way.
I sincerely believe that veganism is an admirable and often appropriate moral response to the abuse of animals particularly in factory farming, but it does not the constitute the only way to be moral relationship with animals.