I remember as a child going to an aquarium that had a dolphin in a pool. I remember walking down into a concrete tunnel and peering through a glass window and seeing this dolphin staring back at me. I have always been haunted by the sadness I felt. As a child all I knew that this was wrong. It didn’t feel right. For years I forgot about it and every now and then I would remember this. I have never seen nor had an urge to see a dolphin in captivity ever again. I don’t understand why one would think that was normal. It’s the same as zoo’s. It isn’t their natural habitats. I don’t give a rats ass about ‘educating’ people. It’s a load of bollocks. You learn more being in their own environments not our man made ones.
Tonight I watched The Cove. About 23,000 dolphins, porpoises and other small whales are killed in Japan every year, making it the largest scale slaughter of cetaceans in the world. I have tears. It’s absolutely horrid. Dolphins like many other species of animals on this earth are a gift. They are not there for our amusement nor our monetary greed. This is human greed at it’s worst.
You can watch it below.
As a writer I have a voice and I don’t know how many of you are aware of what goes on in this small fishing village in Japan but I know that it’s important that people need to know. I want my child and his children to grow up enjoying these beautiful creatures that grace our planet.
The majority of people in Japan have no idea this goes on. The majority of the world is not aware this is happening as the Taiji cove is blocked off from the public. The slaughtered dolphins are processed into meat and distributed to supermarkets throughout Japan for human consumption. Dolphin meat from drive hunts in Taiji proved to be highly contaminated with toxic chemicals such as mercury, methyl mercury and PCBs. Some of the dolphin meat is given to children as part of their school lunch program. The Japanese government and the supermarkets issue no warning that dolphin meat is mercury-contaminated. The fishermen of Taiji have told us that the Japanese people have no right to know about the dolphin hunt or the high levels of mercury found in the meat.
The dolphin hunt in Japan is supported by people from the international dolphinarium industry. The annual dolphin slaughter provides an easy way for dolphinariums to obtain young, unblemished dolphins, suitable for commercial exploitation in captive dolphin shows and swim-with-dolphins programs.
What can you do? Watch the documentary. Spread the word.
Every single person who takes action be it small or big can help.
That’s one of many New Years Resolutions to myself this year.
Take action.
So are you going to do something to start the new year in that isn’t self gratifying?
I dare you. It takes a few minutes of your day to do something selfless.
Chloe
on Dec 31st, 2009
@ 02:54:
I IZ VEGAN! That counts as selfless, right? Nothing sentient dies or is enslaved or exploited so I can eat. And I give money to vegan outreach and animal rights foundations. (Not the crazy ones that try to bomb animal testing facilities and stuff. Though those places probably SHOULD be bombed, I doubt it reeks of compassion to do so.)
All meat – be it chicken, pork, or dolphin – is truly RED meat.
People are such a virus – consuming and only giving a crap about their own desires. The leaders of any group, town, country, or planet can only be GOOD leaders if they look out for the welfare of those they influence and control. Humans need to step it the fuck up, or we’re going to lose the planet, and probably our souls in the process.
Thanks for this, miss Impy.
~Chloe
Tristan
on Dec 31st, 2009
@ 06:18:
Well, maybe, I can’t know until the final act is completed and I discover if the world is truly filled with sentients, at which proof I will apologize to all I may have offended. Still, I look in my mouth and see incisors and canines as well as molars. My diet seems to require proteins and fats. I love the feeling of biting into sticky, well braised tissue. I can make no apology because I feel none is required.
It’s easy to anthropomorphise animals and attribute aspects to them that we wish were there. That kitten loves it when I talk to her, etc. but even a zoo can be a safe comfortable home to an animal, one with known boundaries and ready food supplies, all those things animals look for in the wild. All the things they long for, if I can use your arguments.
Do you think that the tiger wants to roam or does it roam in search of food? Do you think the gazelle herds because it likes company or because it’s less likely to be eaten if a bunch of other gazelles are between it and the tiger?
If it is a crime for humans to eat meat, because this meat is sentient, then is it not also a crime for the tiger? Can I be forgiven, on your terms, if the only meat I eat is meat from animals that eat other animals? If the tiger is not a criminal, because it can’t think through the morality of it’s crime, then is it a crime only for humans? If humans are only another animal on earth, then are we not part of the great cycle? Do we somehow stand outside the cycle and see it as if we are aliens? Do we have a more responsible role? How do we justify placing ourselves outside the food chain?
Meat is not murder if it is food. Food perpetuates, not ends an animal’s existence. Is the eagle murdering the rabbit? I agree there are food crimes. Stealing a single organ from a bear carcass leaving the meat to rot, or killing a bird for feathers to decorate clothes, fur for fashion. These are true crimes but food is a requirement and my body manages to eat meat just fine.
As for dolphins and whales, I eat neither and I choose my fish carefully to avoid eating fish that are caught in a way that might capture animals I have no interest in eating and which will be disposed of and not eaten at all. Food must be food, never wasted. Food is ours to find but it does not mean we should disrespect it’s value.
I seriously question the need for certain things, like dolphins and whales, to be eaten by humans. Some people, however, have less choice than I and must hunt for whales. Those that do so in a way that honours the beast, like the native people of Canada’s north, give me no trouble.
My argument is one of natural order. I CAN live without killing animals, but I am elegantly equipped to kill and eat them. All primates are and do. I need only understand that excess is unnatural and that not all things NEED to be eaten just to see if it tastes good.
Eat local, eat well and eat what you need to.
vanimp
on Dec 31st, 2009
@ 08:48:
I have been on both sides of the fence so the to eat meat or not to eat meat discussion is one I have views on both sides of the coin. Man has become greedy all in the name of wealth. That’s the disgusting part.
Thing is my views probably won’t do diddly squat but they might just make a few stop and think. They might just get a few more names on the petition, they might just get a few people making others aware of this barbaric shit.
We don’t need to eat whales or dolphins. Just like we don’t eat freekin elephants and wolves and various other animals on a regular basis. What drives this crap is simply money.
Feeding mercury ridden meat and not informing the public, feeding it to children? Absolutely wrong. Taking wild animals from theri habitats to train them and box them up for our own amusement and hide it under the guise of ‘education’? Bullshit.
The video shows a literal bloodbath. It’s designed to shock. Getting that actual footage itself was a task that wasn’t easy. People have been killed for trying to do the right thing and expose these people. 8 hours of herding dolphins into a bay and systematically stabbing them to death in a frenzy of blood. It was horrifying to watch.
I sincerely hope each one of those human beings that is involved will have the wrath of the goddess upon them. It’s quite sickening.
Tristan
on Dec 31st, 2009
@ 22:20:
“… but they might just make a few stop and think. ”
What more can we ask for? I agree that zoos are of limited use and seem horribly cruel. I think humans are, generally, (and we know that all general statements are false) disgusting, wasteful and evil.
I signed the petition, BTW, and good work bringing this, and the associated other issues to our attention.
Chloe
on Jan 1st, 2010
@ 12:34:
I’ve stepped on a cat’s tail. It’s obvious they feel pain. I’ve watched abused dogs cower. It’s obvious they fear. They feel, they are sentient. That’s all sentient means. Endowed with feeling and consciousness.
Do not confuse being sentient (which animals clearly are) with being a moral agent. THAT would certainly be anthropomorphizing them. Animals are not moral agents. Neither are infant humans, for that matter. So their meat-eating is not a “crime” at all because they are not acting as moral agents – they can’t. We can. Besides, many of them are OBLIGATE carnivores. They will die without meat. Snakes, for example. Felines as well.
Humans are simply not in those ranks. We have a long digestive tract. We have molars to grind plant material, even a couple that grow in when we’re older to ensure we can keep eating if the important teeth (the flat ones!!!) rot out of our heads. (Also, don’t be fooled – our incisors don’t “make” us carnivores any more than the 3-foot-long incisors on hippos make them carnivores. They don’t. Hippos are happy herbivores, with giant incisors but ALSO with lots of flat teeth for grinding. Just like humans.) We perspire through pores, not our tongues. We have stomach acid 20 times weaker than carnivores. We have well-developed salivary glands with alkaline saliva. And on and on and on.
Can we digest meat? Yes. Not very well, and the fact that we have an intestinal track 10 times the length of our bodies (when those of carnivores are only 3 times the length) means the decomposing flesh rots in there for a LONG time and it makes people have horrible smelling feces. But, in case of dire emergency, we can derive nutrients from meat. But it is not, by any stretch of the imagination or science, anything we should be eating on a regular basis. We are not designed to get our nutrition from meat as an optimum source, not at all. Not even a little.
We are, in fact, much closer to chimpanzees. Jane Goodall’s research tells us a TINY fraction of their diet comes from animal sources – mostly insects at that. And that’s because they are at the whims of nature. I don’t. I am lucky enough to do my hunting and gathering at the grocery store and farmers markets – so that 1% of my diet that might come from insects or small mammals? Can easily be replaced with the kinder, more compassionate option like tofu, rice, beans, pulses, etc. If someone feels he or she simply HAS to have that tiny percentage, that’s fine. But I’ve yet to meat a SINGLE omnivore – myself included when I ate meat – who ate that little food from animal sources. If I met ANYONE who had one single steak a MONTH and nothing else in terms of meat or animal products the rest of the time? I’d buy that they are trying to do what they felt was “natural.” I’d accept that they were eating what they honestly believe they “need to” eat. I wouldn’t necessarily agree, because we do not live in a state of undisturbed nature when food is not readily available, but I’d think they were at least living with some form of logic. Otherwise? I don’t see it as anything more than an excuse to rationalize a behavior they enjoy.
And it IS wasteful, to eat meat. Horrifically. The raising of animals for flesh and milk and eggs accounts for more greenhouse gas emissions than all of transportation COMBINED. This fabricated “need” to eat meat will destroy the planet. This “need” to be a part of the “food chain” will destroy life on Earth. It’s insanity fueled by a desire to excuse negative behavior.
And, humans do not stand outside the food chain. It’s not nearly as simple as a food chain anyway.
And zoos are… Atrocious. Rescue and rehabilitation facilities are all right. But the vast majority of zoos are cruel. I was reminded of that the other day, while reading an article about a monkey who was stockpiling rocks every night when the zoo closed, and using them to hurl at people when the zoo was open. His behavior stopped entirely when the zoo was closed for the winter. The zookeepers’ solution? They castrated him. Disgusting. Additionally, studies have shown there is little to no educational value to a zoo – an argument many people use as to why we “need” to keep animals captured and caged.
It’s just… It’s all so sad.
There are, of course, as you (Tristen) pointed out – many cultures that depend on meat. I don’t begrudge them that, or think they are “wrong” for doing it. I just simply refuse to pretend that’s justification for ME to have anything to do with meat. It’s not. (Nor do I think you were saying that, just so we’re clear. I realize you weren’t saying that at all – just saying that some people do depend on species you don’t feel are necessary to, say, most Americans.)
I just feel, living how I live where I live… There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever to continue the cruel practice (both to human bodies, to animals, and to the environment and planet as a whole) of eating animal products.
Tristan
on Jan 1st, 2010
@ 23:00:
Well I can’t argue with that. You’ve set yourself on some pretty high moral ground and since I can’t prove or disprove your morality, I can’t really pose a counter argument. Not that I want to, I agree with most of what you’ve said, It’s just that you have removed any hope of a discussion by stating that we’re all wrong and you aren’t.
Eat what you like, but try to refrain from calling those of us who do eat meat less moral.
vanimp
on Jan 2nd, 2010
@ 00:27:
Chloe you are so wonderfully passionate about this issue you make me smile *smooch*
Fact: man has hunted animals for a food source for a long time yet somewhere along the way human greed got in the way. Sadly it’s not about to stop anytime soon BUT making people aware of issues in regards to animal rights is a positive step. Awareness is a step in the right direction.
Chloe
on Jan 2nd, 2010
@ 03:04:
I know this is a touchy subject, in general, so I’m tempted to just leave it alone. But your comment, Tristan, BLEW me away. I re-read my comment, too, just in case. And I’m still shocked. Why? Because my entire platform there? It was scientifically based, and didn’t make more than a passing mention once or twice to my moral grounds.
I do have moral views on this issue. I just didn’t talk about them.
I talked about the science. And it was shocking, and a little bit saddening, to see you say I had called people amoral.
I never once… never ONCE… said anyone else is being amoral. I never said anyone is WRONG.
It’s just science. And I’m pretty clear on it – I mean, I don’t say it’s impossible for humans to digest meat or anything radical (and incorrect) like that. It’s not impossible, I know that and I readily admit it!
And the judgments? About rationalizing negative behavior, etc.? Those are worded the way they are because they are based on scientific evidence not an ethical code..They stand – BASED ON THE SCIENCE – as is. I think it’s scientifically obvious humans are rationalizing a behavior that is almost wholly negative for the environment, the body, and the animals. (If someone disagrees, that’s fine. Scientific debate is fine! You are just acting like I was making entirely MORAL judgments, when these were 99% scientific.)
It makes me angry, and a little sad, to have words forcibly shoved in my mouth.
Obviously, I said that the forced castration of a chimpanzee was cruel, and toward the end, I said the words “cruel practice”… So those lines can easily be viewed as moral judgments. I admit those lines are moral. However, in this case I’m basing this moral implication on science – on how animals register pain and fear and forced confinement in cages/enclosures. Now… Me saying that’s cruel is a fairly general comment. And that’s my fault for not saying “it seems cruel to me, but maybe it’s not.”
And I suppose the reason is because I actually haven’t met a single person who would disagree (which is perhaps why I said it without qualification here). If I ask someone if hurts to scald an animal while he’s a alive, or peel his fur from his flesh while it’s conscious, or slice her throat and let her writhe and bleed out on the floor…. I haven’t met anyone who would say that is perfectly painless and un-cruel. They have agreed with me that something like that IS cruel. So perhaps the fact that no one has ever disagreed with me has led me to make that statement without saying “this is, in fact, just my opinion.”
I suppose that is my mistake there. There are people who may feel that is not cruel. They may feel it strongly, and have something legitimate and completely worthy of evaluation and discussion to back it up. That’s entirely possible, and for making it sound like there is NO possible way anyone could believe those things are not cruel, I apologize. I didn’t mean to make it sound that way. I would welcome an intelligent discussion on why those things are not cruel.
I just… I didn’t make any other moral statements! Science is worthy of discussion, but people typically don’t shut down about it based on thinking it says anything about morals. It doesn’t.
And while I literally didn’t discuss them at ANY length here, my ethics are STRONG. I believe in them deeply. But I have NEVER ONCE asserted that my ethics need to be anyone else’s ethics. If you have a different view, a different moral code? That’s great. And my ONLY hope in terms of us being the same is that you have the same passion for it that I have more mine. And only because I know how wonderful that feels.
My entire family are omnivores. The Man is an omnivore. I am around plenty of intelligent, wonderful, moral people who eat meat. We can still talk about it in an educated way based on science, and on moral grounds. I don’t pretend my ethical code is THE ethical code.
I think the science is not really up for debate (though I’m sure people would disagree). The morals though? They obviously ARE. And that’s okay. That’s great, in fact. I’d welcome someone talking about it with intelligence and composure and confidence. I’m positive it’s possible, too, I’m not saying that in a facetious way. I’m sure there must be smart people who have considered the merits – both scientific and moral – of vegetarianism/veganism and decided to remain omnivorous. I’d love to hear from them – I haven’t yet, and I’d love to.
Tristan
on Jan 2nd, 2010
@ 12:28:
not the right forum, Happy New Year.
Tristan
on Jan 2nd, 2010
@ 23:42:
but for the record you brought no science. Feel free to cite a source or we could take up an email exchange (saving poor Impy’s bandwidth) to discuss the rhetorical content of your comments since there is no “science” to discuss outside of that.
Chloe
on Jan 4th, 2010
@ 03:58:
You comment with a blank name, so I’m sorry, but I have no idea what your email address is.
If Impy has a problem with me commenting here about this stuff, I’m sure she’ll tell me/us. And of course I’ll listen to her if she’s against it.
Until then, let’s see. Well, it’s obvious in my head that the length of the human digestive tract, the shape of our teeth, the strength of our stomach acid, the shape of hippos’ teeth, human perspiration, etc. are all very basic,/b> science. Do you want sources cited for that anyway? I mean… I’ve got some human anatomy books lying around. One is an old-ass copy of Gray’s Anatomy. It’s from the 1970s, but it should work for the human stuff. Let me know if you truly feel this needs citation or if we can agree on basic human anatomy.
I’m also not sure if you truly want references about animals feeling pain… I suppose since inference is the only way to gauge pain in all creatures – even humans – who are non-verbal, then it can be contested that animals feel pain. I believe that is a minority view though. If you’re in the minority who believes vertebrate animals do no feel pain, we can take that up.
But I think the science most intelligent people will dismiss as rhetoric before they’ve read anything to back it up is the “more emissions than transportation” idea when it comes to raising of livestock for meat, eggs, and dairy. I get that. I completely understand and respect questioning ideas that sound sensational like that. So if you want further reading about the livestock sector contributing more to greenhouse gas emissions than the transportation sector, I encourage you to read the 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations called “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” You can read/download it right here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
(Actually, I DON’T encourage you to read it. That UN report is hundreds of pages long and horrifically boring – I can’t even get through it all and I care about it pretty deeply. But still. There it is in case you feel like torturing yourself!)
Chloe
on Jan 4th, 2010
@ 03:59:
(I forgot to close a tag, sorry about all the bold!)
Tristan
on Jan 4th, 2010
@ 05:23:
I prefer to torture the pet, to be honest, but thanks for the link and I will take a look. And thank you, Impy, for letting us have this discussion.
Why cite a source? If you say a certain biological thing, like GI tract design, is a bad thing for meat eaters, then a study may have been done which discusses this. That would be helpful to me in understanding your perspective. I could just as easily point to the same design and say it is proof we can eat difficult substances due to it’s great efficiency, which may or may not be wrong, but unless I can point to a study that proves it I’d be ill advised to use that as an argument.
The term rhetoric is a tricky one. It has come to be seen as a term of dismissal, but it is a study of the meaning of words in context. When I refer to rhetorical content, I refer to word choices and the subtle changes the words we choose make to the reader when they absorb our statements. Words like horrific, disgusting and atrocious are heavily weighted but are only the most obvious examples. Certain phrases can cary huge rhetorical baggage. Your statement about pretending (“I just simply refuse to pretend that’s justification for ME to have anything to do with meat”) strikes right to my morality, calling me, in all ways but directly, a fool or an idiot for believing otherwise.That’s probably unfair at this point as I have said I have agreed with many points.
Let’s look at this thread for a second. The killing of animals in inhumane ways was the starting point but it soon wandered off to food choices. I would like to just clarify that from this point on we can agree that the killings Impy pointed out are wrong. I am on your side on that point. I have a huge hatred of people who kill for trophies or waste an animal in order to harvest just one small part of it. I know several people though, that hunt in the Fall to fill the freezer for their family. It’s a very difficult line to draw, but I try to draw it at the value the animal has for the hunter.
Humans as vegetarians are not uncommon. I’ve met all sorts from “I can’t eat anything with a face” (my friend, Lelland) to “Fish is not meat”. I admire vegans for their commitment to the choices they make. It takes a lot of work to manage a balanced diet without animal products. (I hope you’re noting how I am mentioning animals as products, it’s my rhetorical response)
I recently witnessed the killing of two geese and two turkeys. They were killed as a demonstration. It was fast and clean and the birds did not seem to suffer. They were killed in a facility designed to kill and prepare them for food. It was quite interesting to see how it was done and I’m not sure if I was more impressed with speed and efficiency of the process or the way the handler’s worked to make the process as undisturbing as possible for the birds. My point here is that not all killing for food is done in horrible ways, unless you don’t want the birds to die at all, in which case, it would seem unfair to your expectation of life.
So it comes down to points of view. If a person clearly thinks all life is to be cherished, no amount of killing can be tolerated. If a person thinks some animals are food, then in order to eat them they must be killed. I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is cutting down huge tracts of forest to allow a few skinny cows to graze. What I can’t tolerate is flooding a desert with water in order to have a golf course. What I abhor beyond mention is the wasteful slaughter of animals for parts that are superstitiously believed to bring male potency.
In summary, then, Your point about humans being poorly designed for eating meat needs proof or it’s just opinion. My point that you coloured your statement with words aimed to make your opinion incontrovertible, is at least valid if a little harsh. This discussion has run into a road block as I go off to read more on this and if you like, you can take that as a victory because I never would have bothered until we had this talk.
vanimp
on Jan 4th, 2010
@ 19:16:
I am all for intelligent conversation and the points you both bring to the table are valid hence I haven’t stepped in as I saw absolutely no need. I like it when something I post can bring out healthy discussions. Like I said it makes people think
xxx
Chloe
on Jan 6th, 2010
@ 07:39:
I appreciate the conversation too.
And you make many totally fair points, Tristen – several I need to pay close attention to. Thank you, for discussing this intelligently and reasonably. I hate when these things spiral into total negativity and judgment. I’m sorry if anything I’ve said has appeared that way (or has downright BEEN that way), or hasn’t been qualified carefully enough as a personal view.
Humans are adapted to be able to eat meat. Yes. 100%, we CAN eat it. The ability to derive nutrients from many food sources has probably been a great evolutionary advantage for humans – it likely allowed us to survive in the pre-civilized times, in a variety of environments.
So, you’re right, me saying we have digestive systems closer to those of herbivores isn’t proof that we should eat that way. Just because I do have a digestive tract that resembles a herbivore’s doesn’t mean I need to eat that way, because it IS possible for me to eat another way. While I think the many resemblances we have to herbivores that are in direct contradiction to carnivores are important, they are really not “THE” defining point. I shouldn’t have made it sound like they were. To me, it is sort of like, “Well… LOOK at us. We look just like herbivores, so that’s probably best for us!” but you’re right in saying that’s not proof. It’s not.
The “proof” then would come not from a comparison of what our innards look like, but from defining what “best” means for a species in terms of diet.
I would think a general agreement could be reached by saying, “Which way of eating leads to longer lives coupled with higher quality of life (i.e. less diseases/chronic conditions that shorten life), and a sustainable environment in which to live?”
*I* would think that would work as a universal goal of a species – to have longer, healthier lives via a diet that prevents disease and that will make the landscape of Earth habitable for a longer time. That would seem like success to me.
Basing it on THAT (which I’ll readily admit you or others may not agree with), I think scientific studies have shown that a vegan/vegetarian (henceforth I’ll say veg*n to shorten it up!) lifestyle is a great way to go, and is better than eating as an omnivore.
There are countless studies on this sort of thing, though more are always needed! I’ll give a few examples. For one thing, these studies are not new. The Oxford Vegetarian Study was done back in the 1980s and there was a 12-year follow up which showed that death rates in the veg*n groups were lower for ALL mortality endpoints they studied (including various heart diseases and cancer) and had a few interesting health benefits as well (for instance, veg*ns had half the risk of meat-eaters of needing emergency emergency appendectomies). Here’s one about current disease… “A low-fat vegan diet and a conventional diabetes diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled, 74-wk clinical trial” (Am J Clin Nutr 89: 1588S-1596S, 2009). This study showed that a low-fat vegan diet was superior in improving glycemia and plasma lipids among diabetics. So that is one example of a vegan diet improving a current medical condition above and beyond what adherence to the medically recommended diabetic diet can do.
The most sweeping collection of science about eating animal products and links to diseases including (but not limited to) a dozen forms of cancer, obesity, brain diseases, diabetes, and autoimmune diseases, is probably the China Project. (There is a book that discusses these findings called The China Study.) The New York Times has called it “the Grand Prix” of epidemiological studies. And while it faces criticism (as virtually every statistically driven study does), I think there are valuable points to be taken away from it.
I haven’t read Eat To Live, but I hear it’s a good one as well. The author doesn’t specifically call for a vegan diet or anything, but his book is well cited and compiles information about how lowering the consumption of animal products is better for human health.
The other thing, the “environment” thing… Is more straightforward, I think. The amount of water that goes into creating meat DRASTICALLY outweighs the amount of water that goes into making any plant product. Water figures are all over the internet, and are easily found on google. (I’ll have to go look this up again, but as far as I can remember, when you use the concept of “virutal water” – meaning the water that goes into making, refining, transporting, etc. something (oh, and, this concept of virtual water is an interesting one in general, and was put forth by John Anthony Allan in the early 90s. He also won the Stockholm Water Prize from the Stockholm International Water Institute) – anyway, when you talk about virtual water, for every gallon of water used to make wheat, we get about 28 calories worth of food. However, for every gallon of water used to make beef, we get less than a single calorie – about three-quarters of a calorie.) The water issues on the planet are very, very important and frequently ignored. I was just listening to a discussion about it on NPR. Water is crucial, it’s a worsening issue, and we waste SO much of it by producing and consuming meat.
Also, of course, the greenhouse gasses emitted that are more than all transportation combined -that are detailed by the UN report, Livestock’s Long Shadow.
With the health benefits and the environmental benefits that have been scientifically studied, I feel confident saying the optimum human diet would not include meat, or would include very, very little.
However, there is one personal point that prevents me from taking the “very, very little” route or even from being a lacto-ovo vegetarian who only buys from small farms. And it comes down to the word “humane.” Ethically, I am simply uncomfortable killing or exploiting an animal without any NEED to do so.
I know people argue back and forth about the humane and inhumane methods of killing animals. There are people who will say that NO killing can be humane, but I’m not one of those people. For instance, if my dog gets too old and sick to have any quality of life, I believe getting a vet to euthanize her IS humane. However, I suppose I view humane to be tied to NECESSITY. And, when it comes to killing animals, I think necessity even takes precedence over humane. (Eg. If a rabid fox attacked me in the woods, I will not be looking for the most humane way to kill the animal – I will be looking for the quickest way because it is totally necessary that I kill this animal and kill it now!)
I think many people in many countries CAN adopt vegetarian or vegan lifestyles without compromising their health. (Some can’t, and that’s different. They have TRUE need for animal products and I wouldn’t in a million years suggest they try vegetarianism or anything.) I also think the more people who are able to who DO will promote the idea and it will become a viable option for even larger amounts of people as it gains popularity. The American Dietetic Association approves it as well saying,” appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”
The days of thinking a vegetarian or vegan is an unhealthy diet are (medically) over for the most part, and people actually agree that many health benefits come from it. The average person might still wonder how it can possibly be maintained, of course. (I think the idea of meat eggs and milk being necessary is an easy one to have. The meat, egg, and milk industries exist to sell themselves. Of COURSE they are going to promote themselves through advertisement which will make them appear totally necessary in your life. Every company does that! And a few lucky ones, like milk, eggs, meat, pharmaceutical companies, certain lawyers, etc. get to prey DIRECTLY on humans through their basic human needs.)
Anyway, it’s supported by much research that a well-rounded veg*n diet is healthy and it’s gaining popular support. (I just read an article today that Compass Food Groups – the world’s largest food service company – is promoting “flexitarian” eating. Basically, people actively incorporating veggie days/meals into their lives. So Compass will be offering many meat-free meals now. It’s gaining ground as a responsible choice.)
The point here, for me, is that it is clear that I do not NEED animal products as food or clothing to survive. (I may, however, need them medically, and that’s a whole different conversation!) But, by my own understanding of the concept of humane, I can’t call the killing or exploitation of ANY animal for food “humane” because it is not, in any way, necessary. Killing or exploiting can be humane. But needless killing/exploiting doesn’t ever qualify as humane in my head.
That is obviously a very personal view, and I don’t think people have to agree with me there. It’s just how I see it.
And thankfully, these days? It doesn’t take a lot of work at all to maintain a balanced diet without animal products. Thirty or forty years ago? Yes, it was much worse. I think the dedication there would be pretty intense, and I applaud those people too. But there is no need to applaud the vegans of today for their work at maintaining a balanced diet. These days everyone is encouraged to take a multi-vitamin no matter what their diet is, so I do that (and have long before becoming vegan). The substitutes for milk, yogurt, and meat contain plenty of calcium, iron, B12, and complete proteins. The only work comes from sorting through the animal products used in convenience foods. In fact, to AVOID that work, I have cooked more at home and frozen meals for easier eating without the “What the heck is L-cysteine???” issues.
Lastly, as a thank you… Thinking about your point about me using language that asserts that my view is incontrovertible… Yes, that is valid. I think it comes from the fact that many people I’ve spoke to are not only hesitant to accept that meat eating might not be the best choice, they are (often) downright nasty about it. Not everyone is, of course, but enough are that I have started coming at this with a harsher approach than is appropriate. And thank you, to you (and to Impy) for being among the open-minded. I value that a lot, and it’s worth thinking about how I talk about things so I don’t alienate open-minded people. I don’t want to give vegans a bad name!