Does eating meat require excessive amounts of animal suffering? I don’t think so. The real problem isn’t that everyone needs to become a vegetarian, it is the shocking and outrageous treatment of animals in the mainstream food production stream.
Even humanely farmed meat has far more ecological impact per calorie (in terms of fertilizer runoff, loss of arable land, aquifer depletion, fossil fuels, etc.) than a vegetarian diet. Unsurprising when you consider that every calorie of farmed meat requires about an order of magnitude more calories of agriculture to support it.
At least 1 of your negative impacts is false.
Have you seen this TED talk? It seems that grazing cattle can actually restore deserts into grasslands, when for decades it was believed only the opposite could happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
It’s possible to raise cattle in this way, but that doesn’t mean that if you buy beef, any of it will be raised in that way. If you buy cattle that’s grazing at all, you’re paying extra for it. It’s not possible to satisfy more than a fraction of current demand with ecologically friendly grazing. It’s not grazing I’m referring to which is resulting in desertification, but monoculture agriculture which is used to support the livestock.
Emphasis on the word can, I doubt that the majority of cattle are farmed in a more resource-efficient way than the plant-based alternatives. The video certainly doesn’t establish that.
You’re latching onto the emotional argument and ignoring what the post is about. It’s an intriguing observation about consequentialist vs. virtue ethics, not about whether vegetarianism or meat-eating is good or bad.
That part is interesting, but the author basically concludes in the 1st paragraph that people who take morality seriously are vegetarians. That implies that people who aren’t vegetarians don’t take morality seriously, doesn’t it? Aside from that, another aspect that is ignored is that our actions don’t exist in a void. The person I’m paying to not eat meat can see that I’m still eating meat. My family, my friends, my coworkers, etc. all can see that I’m eating meat. This also has consequences as far as influencing the opinions & future behavior of others.
The author basically concludes in the 1st paragraph that people who take morality seriously are vegetarians. That implies that people who aren’t vegetarians don’t take morality seriously, doesn’t it?
Sorry, no? I’ve noticed that people who take morality seriously are more likely to be vegetarian than the general population, but that’s very much not the same thing.
My family, my friends, my coworkers, etc. all can see that I’m eating meat. This also has consequences as far as influencing the opinions & future behavior of others.
But if someone else is a vegetarian instead of you, presumably their family, friends, and coworkers will see them not eating meat, and it should roughly balance out. Unless you think you have more influence than the people you’d be paying to advertise to and convert? (Which is quite possible.)
Does eating meat require excessive amounts of animal suffering? I don’t think so. The real problem isn’t that everyone needs to become a vegetarian, it is the shocking and outrageous treatment of animals in the mainstream food production stream.
Even humanely farmed meat has far more ecological impact per calorie (in terms of fertilizer runoff, loss of arable land, aquifer depletion, fossil fuels, etc.) than a vegetarian diet. Unsurprising when you consider that every calorie of farmed meat requires about an order of magnitude more calories of agriculture to support it.
At least 1 of your negative impacts is false. Have you seen this TED talk? It seems that grazing cattle can actually restore deserts into grasslands, when for decades it was believed only the opposite could happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
It’s possible to raise cattle in this way, but that doesn’t mean that if you buy beef, any of it will be raised in that way. If you buy cattle that’s grazing at all, you’re paying extra for it. It’s not possible to satisfy more than a fraction of current demand with ecologically friendly grazing. It’s not grazing I’m referring to which is resulting in desertification, but monoculture agriculture which is used to support the livestock.
Emphasis on the word can, I doubt that the majority of cattle are farmed in a more resource-efficient way than the plant-based alternatives. The video certainly doesn’t establish that.
You’re latching onto the emotional argument and ignoring what the post is about. It’s an intriguing observation about consequentialist vs. virtue ethics, not about whether vegetarianism or meat-eating is good or bad.
That part is interesting, but the author basically concludes in the 1st paragraph that people who take morality seriously are vegetarians. That implies that people who aren’t vegetarians don’t take morality seriously, doesn’t it? Aside from that, another aspect that is ignored is that our actions don’t exist in a void. The person I’m paying to not eat meat can see that I’m still eating meat. My family, my friends, my coworkers, etc. all can see that I’m eating meat. This also has consequences as far as influencing the opinions & future behavior of others.
Sorry, no? I’ve noticed that people who take morality seriously are more likely to be vegetarian than the general population, but that’s very much not the same thing.
But if someone else is a vegetarian instead of you, presumably their family, friends, and coworkers will see them not eating meat, and it should roughly balance out. Unless you think you have more influence than the people you’d be paying to advertise to and convert? (Which is quite possible.)