I was recently accused of using emotion and no reason when arguing my passions. I would first like to direct the accuser to a discussion I had with myself here, in order to explain the way I think and feel about "reason versus emotion" in the first place. Second, s/he should visit the paragraph under the kitty picture of this post to understand that this is not school. It is a blog. Thirdly, I will now demonstrate that I do indeed have supreme reasoning skills in addition to my overly-emotional core: *ahem*
Eating meat is morally wrong. I do not believe this is a matter of opinion or subjectivity, and my reason dictates so (not my emotions.)
It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. It takes 3 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of chicken. On average, it takes 10 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of meat.
Consider the following: There are people all over the world going hungry; they eat literal mud cakes to fill their stomachs. Many would argue that this is not a problem of food production but a problem of food distribution. However, as developing countries consume more meat, the cost of grain is rising. Why? Because wealthier people are using that grain to feed animals, and essentially losing 9 pounds of food in the process. This higher demand for grain increases the price of it. It is a simple economics question of supply and demand. The result: people who could once afford grains no longer can.
Now, one could argue that meat consumption IN THE UNITED STATES does not drive the cost of grain up overseas. And they would be right in the most literal sense. However, the reason developing countries are consuming more meat is largely because of Western influence. A vegan I know from school who is from India and who is in my Fundraising and Developing class explained how McDonald's is popping up all over the place in India. (McDonald's is so successful because it brands itself as a "family restaurant.") You cannot tell me, with a straight face, that the "convenient," fast-food, excessive meat-consumption culture did not develop in the West. Therefore, indirectly yes, consuming meat even in the United States raises the price of grain overseas. This in turn, causes the starvation of human beings. Causing the starvation of a human being through negligence is immoral.
Furthermore, one may not be worried about a food shortage in the United States, but one should worry, I argue one is morally obligated to worry, about the effects one's food choices have on other people. With respect to the amount of grain used to produce meat, field upon field are devoted to government-subsidized corn. (see the original rant here.) This corn is used to feed animals. (I think this is also immoral as the animals eating corn cannot digest corn properly an we are commanded by God to take care of animals, not abuse them. . . but I will leave the Christian and animal argument out. Those can be found elsewhere on this blog anyway.) This makes both corn and meat CHEAP. So, anyone who, either through necessity or their own decision, buys inexpensive food is buying either products full of corn syrup or meat. The diabetes and obesity rates in this country are absurdly high, largely because of meat and corn syrup consumption. (The human digestive track was not meant to consume animal products in large quantities leading to a whole slew of other health problems as well.)
Every time you purchase meat (or something with corn-syrup in it for that matter) when you have the spending power to purchase something else, you are essentially approving the government's corn-subsidy policy. Healthful foods are more expensive, in part, because not enough of the public is willing to stand against this government policy. Instead, people exasperate the problem by purchasing inexpensive animal products. Healthful foods remain costly, and those who cannot afford to spend a lot of money on food, those living in poverty, pay the price with their health.
Meat does not just hurt other people's health directly through consumption, it harms people indirectly. Industry Factory Farm jobs are some of the most horrendous jobs in the country. Because workers are largely unable to unionize, the pay is awful and the conditions are dangerous. Granted, one could argue it is better to support these farms so that these individuals have SOME employments; clearly it is better to work in dangerous conditions than to be better employed. First, I would argue that many of these same people are opposed to sweatshops overseas, yet the same logic about employment applies. Until they figure out their argument, I won't listen to them. Second, job creation is indeed a problem in this country, and I will not deny that. But there are countless USEFUL jobs that should be created that could easily replace the jobs lost in factory farms. (I am thinking of 'green-collar' work, improving infrastructure work, safer factories that produce inanimate objects that won't act out and ram you in the gut so that we CAN stop importing all our products from sweatshops in China.)
In addition to the workers, communities located near Industry Factory Farms suffer. They are, without fail, polluted. They do not have clean air or clean water. This inevitably leads to health problems.
Speaking of water, according to most estimates, it takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef. According to the beef industry it takes 441 gallons to produce a pound of meat. Now, let's be civil and give the beef industry the benefit of the doubt and say it takes "only" 441 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat. Is this justifiable? Is it morally acceptable to waste 441 gallons of water for one hamburger when clean water is a problem across the globe? When innumerable children are dying from diarrhea because they do not have clean water, can you use a product that wastes so much without a nagging at your conscious? I can't. And I won't.
On a global level the problem of climate change, while stemming from a variety of sources, is effected by meat consumption. Studies show that meat production is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the world's transportation combined. For starters, factories naturally emit a lot of pollutants into the atmosphere. But there are many other reasons for these emissions not as readily understood.
Billions of animals produce a lot of methane. This is through both digestion and because of the cesspools of waste created by factory farms. (the same cesspools polluting local waterways) Methane is more than 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. In the United States, animal agriculture is the number one source of methane emissions.
Nitrous oxide is another problem. 65% of the nitrous oxide emissions worldwide come from animal-product industries. And nitrous oxide is a lot more potent of a global warming gas than carbon dioxide is.
Brush, including the RAIN FOREST, is cleared so animals can graze in places like Brazil. Granted, this is not industry factory farming, but this post is about consuming animals. When Brazil recently decided to double their output of cattle, this problem became even worse. Anyone who went to the zoo as a child has learned about the importance of the Rain Forest and the necessity of protecting it. While, consuming meat causes the destruction of the Rain Forest, and, in turn, causes an increase in greenhouse gases as the Rain Forest is not able to absorb as much carbon. (Furthermore, and beside the point of the post, how can destroying God's creation to feed one's gluttony be considered anything but immoral in the first place?)
Additionally, animals are shipped all over the world for consumption. These factors make the meat industry the number one industry in greenhouse gas emissions. For the sake of all humanity, it is better not to contribute to this problem by supporting this industry. In fact, I argue, it is immoral to knowingly contribute to a problem that may cause countless deaths. (Some argue that global warming is already killing people. See Jessica Williams's 50 Facts That Should Change the World 2.0)
To summarize, eating meat supports a dangerous industry. It contributes to global warming, community pollution, the food shortage and the clean water crisis. Knowingly engaging in these acts, without doing everything reasonable to prevent them, is both negligent and immoral.
As alluded to earlier, I have many posts relating to animal welfare and Christianity and vegetarianism if you are interested. Feel free to explore the labels to the right.
May I remind you again, that this is not school. So, I know I do not have many hard statistics or citations. This was only an exercise in reasoning, and a demonstration of my ability to do so. Statistics and citations could easily be copied and pasted if I had the time to re-research all of this information–– which I do not. It is late.
Also, because it is so late, I do not want to proofread this. And so if I have made a fool of myself by not demonstrating my ability to use logic because my arguments are incoherent, feel free to point and laugh. Perhaps I will revise it later.
These are goat friends who live in Arizona at this weird Western-themed amusement park. THEY ARE SOOOOO CUTE. I wanna take them home. :)
P.S. I don't know why all those words are underlined, or how to get them not to be so.
No comments:
Post a Comment