-Jeremy Bentham
Late in 1981 a reporter for a large metropolitan newspaper (we'll call her Karen to protect her interest in remaining anonymous) gained access to some previously classified government files. Using the Freedom of Information Act, Karen was investigating the federal government's funding of research into the short- and long-term effects of exposure to radioactive waste. it was with understandable surprise that, included in these files, she discovered the records of a series of experiments involving the induction and treatment of coronary thrombosis (heart attack). Conducted over a period of fifteen years by a renowned heart specialist (we'll call him Dr. Ventricle) and financed with federal funds, the experiments in all likelihood would have remained unknown to anyone outside Dr. Ventricle's sphere of power and influence had not Karen chanced upon them.
Karen's surprise soon gave way to shock and disbelief. In case after case she read of how Ventricle and his associates took otherwise healthy individuals, with no previous record of heart disease, and intentionally caused their heart to fail. The methods used to occasion the "attack" were a veritable shopping list of experimental techniques, from massive doses of stimulants (adrenaline was a favorite) to electrical damage of the coronary artery, which, in its weakened state, yielded the desired thrombosis. Members of Ventricle's team then set to work testing the efficacy of various drugs developed in the hope that they would help the heart withstand a second "attack." Dosages varied, and there were the usual control groups. In some cases, certain drugs administered to "patients" proved more efficacious than cases in which others received no medication or smaller amounts of the same drugs. The research came to an abrupt end in the fall of 1981, but not because the project was judged unpromising or because someone raised a hue and cry about the ethics involved. Like so much else in the world at that time, Ventricle's project was a casualty of austere economic times. There simply wasn't enough federal money available to renew the grant application.
One would have to forsake all the instincts of a reporter to let the story end there. Karen persevered and, under false pretenses, secured an interview with Ventricle. When she revealed that she had gained access to the file, knew in detail the largely fruitless research conducted over fifteen years, Ventricle was dumbfounded. But not because Karen had unearthed the file. And not even because it was filed where it was (a "clerical error," he assured her). What surprised Ventricle was that anyone would think there was a serious ethical question to be raised about what he had done. Karen's notes of their conversation include the following:
- Ventricle:
- But I don't understand what you're getting at. Surely you know that heart disease is the leading cause of death. How can there be any ethical question about developing drugs which literally promise to be life-saving?
- Karen:
- Some people might agree that the goal--to save life--is a good, a noble end, and still question the means used to achieve it. Your "patients," after all, had no previous history of heart disease. They were healthy before you got your hands on them.
- Ventricle:
- But medical progress simply isn't possible if we wait for people to get sick and then see what works. There are too many variables, too much beyond our control and comprehension, if we try to do our medical research in a clinical setting. The history of medicine shows how hopeless that approach is.
- Karen:
- And I read, too, that upon completion of the experiment, assuming that the "patient" didn't die in the process--it says that those who survived were "sacrificed." You mean killed?
- Ventricle:
- Yes, that's right. But always painlessly, always painlessly. And the body went immediately to the lab, where further tests were done. Nothing was wasted.
- Karen:
- And it didn't bother you--I mean, you didn't ever ask yourself whether what you were doing was wrong? I mean...
- Ventricle (interrupting):
- My dear young lady, you make it seem as if I'm some kind of moral monster. I work for the benefit of humanity, and I have achieved some small success, I hope you will agree. Those who raise cries of wrong-doing about what I've done are well intentioned but misguided. After all, I use animals in my research--chimpanzees, to be precise--not human beings.
The story about Karen and Dr. Ventricle is just that--a story, a small piece of fiction. There is no real Dr. Ventricle, no real Karen, and so on. But there is widespread use of animals in scientific research, including research like our imaginary Dr. Ventricle's. So the story, while its details are imaginary--while it is, let it be clear, a literary device, not a factual account--is a story with a point. Most people reading it would be morally outraged if there actually were a Dr. Ventricle who did coronary research of the sort described on otherwise healthy human beings. Considerably fewer would raise a morally quizzical eyebrow when informed of such research done on animals, chimpanzees, or whatever. The story has a point, or so I hope, because catching us off guard, it brings this difference home to us, gives it life in our experience, and, in doing so, reveals something about ourselves, something about our own constellation of values. If we think what Ventricle did would be wrong if done to human beings but all right if done to chimpanzees, then we must believe that there are different moral standards that apply to how we may treat the two--human beings and chimpanzees. But to acknowledge this difference, if acknowledge it we do, is only the beginning, not the end, of our moral thinking. We can meet the challenge to think well from the moral point of view only if we are able to cite a morally relevant difference between humans and chimpanzees, one that illuminates in a clear, coherent, and rationally defensible way why it would be wrong to use humans, but not chimpanzees, in research like Dr. Ventricle's....
-Tom Regan
"Ill-Gotten Gains"
18 comments:
Wherever you got this article it's ridiculous and horribly constructed...where is Bentham's argument? In formulating a hypothetical story with no truth value it does two things off the top of my head...
1. Weakens, if not kills, his conclusions on account of his premises are fake! If there's no evidence, how can you make any type of point.?
2. His conclusion, after a mildly long writing, is summed up in three sentences! But what are they? "Locate a morally relevant difference."
How about...
Rational thought! Have chimpanzees built houses, cities, automobiles, have they developed philosophies about life, constructed a political system, understood the psychology of their fellow primates, made strides in the field of medicine and so on
Please tell me what evidence Bentham uses to refute these claims of what I present as "clear, coherent, and rational" differences? For example, I could create an entire hypothetical story about the positive attributes of Nazism, and thus conclude that their ideologies were justified, but would you believe that? I could even conclude my argument with the question of locating a "morally relevant difference" between American's and Nazi's. To beg a question at the end of an argument does not strengthen the argument. Fuck.
Rational thought is something attributed to human beings, yes. What about newborn children, mentally retarded human beings, comatose human beings, even fetuses if you want to go that route. They all lack rational thought. Do they not?
I've never seen a retarded person build a house, develop philosophies about life,etc. All I'm trying to say, as well as Tom Regan (the author of this article) that causing these animals to suffer is wrong. Especially for arbitrary reasons such as "they taste good". It's as simple as that, I just think it is wrong to do that. What's so bad about that.
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Ill-Gotten%20Gains.htm
I haven't read the article yet, but in response to the examples you have given I would mostly disagree yet again. The fact is that newborn children have the mental capacity to MOST LIKELY develop rational thought. Comatose victims had the capacity once upon a time (in most cases) of utilizing rational. Finally for mental retardation victims this is where I could agree to you to a certain extent, but as you know with my working in summer camps with cognitively disabled (the new PC term) kids, MOST of them had very high functioning skills and abilities that were simply not as developed, but nevertheless in conjunction with most human mental activities. If they didn't possess this capacity then why would there ever be employment for Special Education Instructors like my mommy?
Thus this leaves you with one example which I agree with - a cognitively disabled person who was born in an apparent catatonic state. Yet even in this regard, I have been instructed from special education majors (prevalent in the camp) that they commonly understood what was going on, but simply were incapable of exerting their thoughts in the physical sense.
The fact remains that all of the aforementioned people are still regarded as humans and not animals. While in some cases, like the one I just discussed, these people could potentially have the functioning of particular animals, they nevertheless are regarded as humans. Period. Given the 99% of humans (approximate figure) that are in a relatively normal state of mind and functioning, it seems fallacious and derogatory to even try and compare such people to animals. Animals do not have the potential! I look at it as being on any type of team, just because a certain player is not as beneficial as others does not mean that person is not on the team@
"a cognitively disabled person who was born in an apparent catatonic state. Yet even in this regard, I have been instructed from special education majors (prevalent in the camp) that they commonly understood what was going on, but simply were incapable of exerting their thoughts in the physical sense."
Although I still think "lack of" rationality is no reason to kill over 27 billion animals per year for food, I must address the fact that a cognitively disabled person understands what is going on can also be attributed to, lets say, Biff? I would say that Biff cares about you, understands what is going on, knows when your mad or happy, and what pleases you. Just because he can't build a house, doesn't mean that gives me a reason to cut off his face and eat his eyeballs.
I think you and I would agree that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on an innocent being. Whether it be a human or an animal. The mere fact that this being is sentient is criterion for not harming this being. If you accidentally stepped on Biff's paw and he cried out in pain and ran away, would you feel bad for doing so? Or would you shrug it off and say "eh, whatever, he's not rational".
Regan, in his article, argues that animals are "subjects of a life"-df "the experiencing subjects of a life that fares well or ill for them over time, those who have an individual experiential welfare, logically independent of their utility relative to the interests or welfare of others." I think we could both agree that this can be attributed to humans and animals alike. I think we could also both agree than an animal has an interest not to be harmed (or even killed and eaten)whatsoever. Pain is pain, no matter what being is experiencing it.
I understand your point about Biff, but you overlooked my final analogy that a person who is cognitively disabled is still a human being. My argument is that the analogy simply does not work - its comparing apples and asparagus (both are plants, but one is a fruit and one is a vegetable - yet even this analogy doesn't illuminate the distinction enough). Bottom line, I can't even argue with this analogy because it doesn't work. Humans cannot be put into individual categories of functioning - for instance, my mental capacity compared to a cognitively disabled person is probably proportional to Albert Einstein's compared to that of a twelve year old boy. Humans are humans, and our rational thought allows us to understand this.
Now, in regards to Biff, you're still limiting yourself to a slippery analogy. Cats, dogs, goldfish and so on are all animals that have been socially constructed as house pets. I'm assuming the reason dogs are is for their ability to be trained and assist hunters in gathering food, eventually leading to their house pet status (and no, this doesn't mean they are rational beings). I assume the reason for this is because the amount of meat obtained from killing cats, goldfish and dogs is not worth the slaughter. Yes, I would feel bad for stepping on Biff's paw, but that is because I have developed a relationship towards him as a house pet. And although I would never want to see him killed for food, if I had to choose between a complete stranger and Biff in terms of who would be murdered I would of course choose the stranger (as hard as it'd be).
The fact is that the pain is not unnecessary, it is necessary for the livelihood of human sustenance. I know your argument about us having enough wheat and other vegetation to feed the entire world's population without meat, but be realistic, this just is not going to happen! I find vegetarianism in this sense as analogous to communism or socialism in America. There was a socialist party on the election ballots, but will this party ever be elected? Unless there is a major shift towards detrimental socio-economic standards, no it will not. I'm not talking about the kind of shift like this depression we're in, though I guess it could lead to one if the big 3 auto industries collapsed, but a HUGE class shift/division. The closest this came to happening was obviously during the industrial revolution, but it did not. Yet people still are passionate about socialism and some type of revolution in the united states, even though the original bourgeoisie/proletariat dichotomy is not nearly as horrendous. They are living in a fantasy world because with this two party system it will never happen.
I would even dare say that a socialist revolution stands a better chance of occurring than your vegetarianism because the fact remains that a huge portion of a economic system relies on the buying/selling of meat products. What you hope to obtain is pretty much a revolution inside of a thoroughly grounded enterprise that has been around since the dawn of man! Man hunted because he needed food, man hunted because the clan needed food, man hunted because people would buy the food, and so on to our current capitalistic state. It cannot happen, its a fantasy!
Although I support Marx and his ideas, I would not call myself a Marxist - I have to be happy with what I have. The same goes for vegetarianism, I think that in theory its a good idea, but it just cannot happen.
Oops, I would of course choose Biff to be murdered compared to a human being!
Vegetarianism cannot happen? I'm a vegetarian. I don't expect meat consumption to stop, that'd be great but I agree, it will not happen. That doesn't mean that I should start eating meat again. I simply find it wrong to do so, and will not take an anthropomorphic view on the matter. You're basically trying to tell me I'm wrong for thinking it wrong to eat meat.
Rational or not, human or not, I still think it wrong to inflict the unnecessary pain on these animals for food! Sure my argument, as you called, would be that there is no need for us to consume meat, especially in this day and age. the possibilities are endless for alternative sources of food.
And I'd beg to differ on your assertion that "the amount of meat obtained from killing cats, goldfish and dogs is not worth the slaughter" is also not legitimate. For the meat on a chicken, as an example, would amount to that of a dog or a cat. People eat sardines,relatively a little larger than goldfish. The size is irrelevant. People in China and Korea slaughter thousands of dogs and cats every year for food.
Another point I'd like to make is that, sure cats and dogs are domestic animals, so we feel outraged if something such as the cat/dog markets in China and Korea. The closest contact we make with the animals we eat is when we buy neatly packaged meat at the grocer. Most people would plead ignorance to the fact that there are billions of animals being slaughtered every year,and yet have never come in contact with any of these animals (except maybe a petting zoo when you're 7 years old). If one were to actually visit a factory farm and see what is happening there, I think their mind would be changed, indubitably.
- "There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties ... The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind."
- "The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man."
-Darwin, Charles, Fuck
"And while there are varying estimates, it takes between 3 and 15 pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat. It also takes 10 times the fossil fuels to produce a calorie of animal food as it does a calorie of plant food."
-animalethics.blogspot.com
I get what you're saying about the sardines, cat and dog examples, and I should have thought about that. Nonetheless, in America we do NOT eat goldfish, dogs or cats and its clearly because of our social constructions of these species as domestic animals. So while I admit I was dumb for not looking into those facts, the reason was not the point. The point was to refute the claim of you wrongly comparing Biff to other animals we consume. Me GUESSING the reasoning as to WHY certain animals are pets and others are food is not the point and serves no purpose for what we're talking about.
Now, here is my issue. You consistently have spoken about the direct effects of being a vegetarian, saving a shitload of water being the one that I can remember amongst other things. Or you discuss the moral ramifications of eating meat, such as the article that started this whole debate.
First off, I should have specified that I don't think UNIVERSAL vegetarianism can happen.
Secondly, these type of claims regarding the benefits of vegetarianism are what you're using for evidence/reasoning as to WHY you are a vegetarian. What I am arguing is that these reasons are fallacious and not argued well. Yet again, if you're using THESE PREMISES to reach your CONCLUSION, and yet the premises can easily be dismissed, then shouldn't your conclusion be faulty?
For example, if I was one of the right-wingers who believed Barack Obama was a terrorist because of his association with Bill Ayers would I be wrong? Yes, because Bill Ayers was not a terrorist and if I looked into it further I would discover such a fact. Hence, my conclusion was not properly supported.
My opinion is this - if people are going to be vegetarians because they PERSONALLY think killing animals is wrong, then that is fine. But to justify this choice upon faulty articles like the one you posted, or use quotes from people like Darwin, is choosing to believe a bunch of skewed propaganda. I'm only 22 years old and I can easily refute these claims! I do not think that makes me smart, I just think it reveals how poorly formulated the arguments are.
For instance, what about Darwin's survival of the fittest. Is it not correct to say that we as humans are more capable of conquering the species below us, providing jobs and food as a result? That our survival which has been based on meat from the dawn of modern humanity was gained because we were better equipped to hunt?
You're quotes are good, BUT did you not realize that Darwin created his theories around 1840...a time period predating both modern psychology and medicine? How could a man come to conclusions about the mind of an animal if during his time there haven't even been proper develops in the mind of a human being yet?!
I see what you and what these websites are doing, taking quotes from a well respected scientists in order to prevent me, or others, from arguing against them (I googled Darwin and Vegetarianism, getting a shitload of results) . Now, I cannot refute these claims because I am not nearly as intelligent as Charles Darwin was, but I can put them into the proper context of other sciences and realize that it's completely fallacious to think he had proper support for making these proclamations!
I'll save my next part for after your response.
But aren't we talking animals in general, whether it be cats or cows? Why can we make exceptions for one type of animal and not another? Sure, blame society Jon...
And I used the Darwin quote because I think it makes a point. You say we're rational creatures, and animals are not. I say that animals are, but in a different degree, as Darwin puts it, not in kind. Universal vegetarianism would be a good thing, but most likely not going to happen. I'm not advocating that, I guess I'm just trying to defend myself in why I don't eat meat. I still don't understand what this is all trying to prove. I mean, if you think we have evolved from hominoids, then we're animals as well. (but we're talking about NON-HUMAN animals here).
And if you're saying that dismissing cats,dogs,goldfish from this argument because we're "socially constructed" to treat them as domestic animals, couldn't you also say that we're socially constructed to say that the other animals are viewed solely as a "tool" for us? If so, I say go read the old testament.
Animals were here way before we were; That is, if you believe in Darwinian evolution. This seems to me that you're, yet again, taking this anthropocentric view on these issues. I get the feeling that you think that animals (and even nature for that matter) have no intrinsic value whatsoever, and they are just mere instruments to use at our disposal.
you said:
"Secondly, these type of claims regarding the benefits of vegetarianism are what you're using for evidence/reasoning as to WHY you are a vegetarian. What I am arguing is that these reasons are fallacious and not argued well. Yet again, if you're using THESE PREMISES to reach your CONCLUSION, and yet the premises can easily be dismissed, then shouldn't your conclusion be faulty?"
I'm not sure which "premises" you are referring to, or what reasons I may or may not have for not eating meat that seem "fallacious" to you. I would not want to ever kick a newborn child, an adult human being, or a beaver. I would never think to myself that maybe it is okay to harm the latter because it is not rational. But I wouldn't think twice of kicking a rock or a house. The reason is simple, I would not want to inflict pain on an innocent being that is capable of feeling pain. People go to jail for animal abuse, do they not? I'd like to see someone get out of this sentence by arguing that "the animal they harmed was not rational". I find that argument of yours,simply, specious.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Before I force you to watch some videos of animals being slaughtered, and then proceeding to force you to eat a cheeseburger and a veal cutlet.
Ain't over yet.
By you failing to address that certain things are grounded as common through the progression of society you are failing to understand a big point. Here are some examples of other hegemonic ideals: How come marriage involves only two individuals? How come bisexuality is not much more common as Alfred Kinsey proved that it should be? How come we view America's two party system as representing polar-opposite viewpoints instead of being under a rather conservative ideology of strict capitalism? And thus, how come cats are domestic animals and chickens are not?
So although I'm sensing the sarcasm in your "blame society Jon..." you have to admit that society plays a huge role in dictating what we believe as normal and what is not, as the above examples illustrated.
Yet I feel pretty stupid for even comparing the question of domestic animals with the others. Chickens vs. cats provide the same amount of meat yes, but cats can be trained and chickens can not. Cows vs dogs does make no sense either, how the hell would a family have a cow as a pet - it would cost a fortune and it can't even walk down stairs! As for goldfish vs. sardines, I bet any money that within the history of domestic fish sardines were not as physically elegant as GOLD fish, nor as cheap, and probably tasted better too...hence it was just logical to have goldfish be the common domestic fish. The big question is why are chimpanzees and/or spider monkey's illegal? Like dogs and cats they can be trained, and along with this understanding we do not eat monkeys! Like dogs and cats dolphins can be trained and yet again, we don't eat them! I can't really think of any animal (off the top of my head) that can be trained of which we consume. If you know any, please tell me.
You have to admit the societal/phycological differences in animals! I'm not saying cows, chickens, pigs and what not to do not possess mental capacities to solve simple problems, but they are not AS intelligent as dogs, cats, monkeys, dolphins, etc...
This leads me to my other issue that it seems like you're not understanding how powerful the argument of rational thought is! Please take five minutes to ponder this, look at what humans have done compared to any other species. It DOES NOT matter where we came from because yet again, if you're using Darwin as a source for your argument, look towards his evolution and survival of the fittest. We have rational thought, animals do not regardless of where we came from.
"I used the Darwin quote because I think it makes a point. You say we're rational creatures, and animals are not. I say that animals are, but in a different degree, as Darwin puts it, not in kind." How can there be a "kind" of rational thought, please answer this?! Yet again, you're using Darwin as evidence... "as Darwin puts it"....that this claim makes sense...when it does not. The mind as Darwin knew it was COMPLETELY different than the mind as we know it. It's no different than the once held geocentric belief that Earth is the center of our universe - it wasn't that people were wrong for thinking this as fact, they just didn't have the scientific evidence to know otherwise. Hence, you saying Darwin "makes a point" is wrong. If I wanted to say I believed the Earth as the center of the universe by quoting Aristotle's astronomy, I would be wrong by you quoting the more recent Galileo or Copernicus, am I right? Darwin than cannot have a point by me looking up the specific theories of psychology or medicine.
Now, some animals need plants for survival. You buy MORE plants than a normal human thus depleting the vegetative food supply for particular wild animals who dwell on crops, thus causing them to suffer (such as squirrels, rabbits, birds, mice, deer, etc....). By being a vegetarian you could hypothetically lead to increase land usage and kill the homes of some of the aforementioned animals. By being a vegetarian you stand the potential of causing increased crop production and therefore leading to an increased use of toxic fertilizer/pesticides, causing not only harm to wild animals, but to humans as well on account of run-off and soil depletion. I think its more realistic to think that you stand a better chance of harming wild animals/humans than you do of saving animals we consume.
I feel like I just had an epiphany with this idea so I will stop there and await your response anxiously.
It has been proven that Pigs are much smarter than dogs, and are also kept as pets. George Clooney has a pet pig named Bruce, and don't ever question Clooney.
I'll give you a million dollars if you can actually prove that being a vegetarian is worse for the environment than eating meat.
Here's some facts:
all the agricultural land in the U.S., nearly 80 percent is used in some way to raise animals—that's roughly half of the total land mass of the U.S.More than 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to create cropland to grow grain to feed farmed animals.
You give Tom Regan shit for formulating a "hypothetical theory with no truth value", yet you pontificate like that? gee wiz.
And I've also told you about (i think) the study that the University of Chicago did that postulates that you can reduce your carbon emission by 1.5 megatons per year by sticking to a vegetarian diet. Driving a Prius only reduces it by only 1 megaton. Sure this is only one study, that I have heard of thus far, but I'm sure there's more and can guarantee there is. Yet what you said is just ludicrous. But I still love you like a sister.
And so you're saying that it is wrong for us to eat cats and dogs because we have them as pets, yet it is okay for those in Korea and China to boil cats alive, and serve them as some "exotic cuisine"? If you're going to use ridiculous analogies, then so am I.
It's wrong for us to slaughter 6 million jews, but it's okay for the Nazi's because they were socially constructed to think that way.
Oh but the jews were humans, and not animals. Who gives a shit. They're still suffering. Like I quoted Bentham at the top of my blog entry, "The question is not can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer?". I think that's simple enough reason not to harm a sentient being with a two hemisphere brain, a fully operational limbic and central nervous system,etc.
"Animal behaviorists have found that cows interact in socially complex ways, developing friendships over time, sometimes holding grudges against cows who treat them badly, forming social hierarchies within their herds, and choosing leaders based upon intelligence. They are emotionally complex as well and even have the capacity to worry about the future."
http://www.goveg.com/f-hiddenlivescows.asp
oFirst off, I was going to write something about pigs knowing that you would bring up that point, but then I read this...
http://www.rps.psu.edu/probing/pigs.html
Considering its Penn State and directly from the college's website I will say its of the highest quality.
Specifically this passage, "If you're thinking by now that it might be nice to have a pig as a pet, think twice. They're as curious as they are clever, and can be destructive as they explore, says Coe. And they need a lot of space. Market hogs are sold at around 250 pounds for slaughter, but can reach 600 to 700 pounds. Though many people are happy owners of potbelly pigs, she adds, these much-smaller animals can sometimes be aggressive."
Yet again, not an economically viable alternative to a dog or cat would you say? Though I'm sure George Clooney has no problem maintaining it, nor his hundred million dollar home...
This another example of whatever vegetarian propaganda you were looking at selectively choosing what information to include and which to not. They MIGHT be smarter than dogs, but they are not better domestic animals than dogs.
So for the third time, the domestic animals we have are not only socially constructed, but are LOGICALLY the most viable house pets to adopt. As for the Asian countries that boil cats, it is a tradition that has probably been around for thousands of years and hence is unquestionable by them. You say ethical relativism is bullshit, I don't know if I necessarily agree. Native Americans who consume peyote on a religious basis have the right to do so in my opinion. I may not agree with boiling cats, but I would not say its necessarily wrong from a cultural standpoint.
Secondly, your Nazi analogy is faulty. Did we throw the entire German country into jail for their support of Nazism? Nope, only a select few who were in power. As Marx has said (I don't have my book so this won't be a direct quote) those with the power are the ones who develop ideas. It wasn't the masses, or even the Nazi Soldiers who were subject to the Nuremburg trials, it was the TOP officers who developed and implemented Nazi ideologies.
The underlying hegemony that Jews were terrible people who were unfit to live was based upon EXTREMELY effective Nazi propaganda that permeated throughout the country. By the majority of citizens not even being put to TRIAL let alone jail, all while supporting Germany's genocidal policies even FURTHER illuminates my point. I'll even say thank you for a prime example of horrendous social construction!
Alas,
You have to start looking at how my arguments are structured, something you are continually failing to do. I'm using hypotheticals to illustrate my conclusions, NOT to develop them as Regan has done.
The reason I am using hypotheticals regarding the effects of large scale vegetarianism is because there is no direct, tangible evidence of such a thing. Here is the issue which I'm sure you can further explain to me, animals are raised in horrible conditions, allowing for very little free movement. Even "free grazing" animals I have learned are not experiencing the ideal conditions that one might think. But regardless, they must be fed correct?
So lets think about this - in order to feed animals who are raised within extremely strict confines, we need to cultivate vast amounts of land. More simply put, we raise the grain to feed the animals to feed us. Therefore, the food we consumed was raised/slaughtered in a relatively small section of land...or put differently, land mass per individual consumer is pretty low. Land mass per livestock, on the other hand, is pretty high (hence the 80%).
Now, imagine if we did not eat animals, but only vegetation. First off, we could not confine our production of vegetables/fruit to the small spacial confines that animals are subjected to. The land mass per individual would have to INCREASE DRASTICALLY to properly feed people. Yet again, the statistic on 80% of the land being used to raise animals is not really proving anything because vegetarianism would not change this number, in fact it would probably increase it to a higher percentage. Instead of 80% of land being used to raise animals, it would probably be (maybe) 95% of land being used to feed our OWN population. This would probably have a dire effect on food donations/supplies to third world countries, thus causing people to suffer. This is not a slippery slope, but a legitimate claim. If we would be barely producing enough food for ourselves then how could we afford to export anything?
As I've said, this situation would also demand more efficient means of production. Afterall, the amount of food gained from a three plants in two square yards is a lot less than the amount of food a cow provides in the same two square yards. How does one accomplish better efficiency? Fertilizer, select vegetative hormones, pesticides and other toxic chemicals. I hope this isn't what you mean by "hypothetically" ludicrous because its extremely viable in theory.
So ponder that - imagine the effects of widespread vegetarianism. I have a whole other theory on why I do not think you're necessarily relieving any suffering on animals by being a vegetarian, but I'll save that for Tuesday and Whiskeys.
"If Americans were to reduce their meat consumption by only 10 percent for one year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption- or enough to feed 60 million people."
"One pound of steak from steer raised in a feedlot costs five pounds of grain, 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 35 pounds of eroded topsoil....More than half of all water consumed in the United States goes to livestock."
"It takes 21 pounds of protein fed to a calf to produce a single pound of animal protein for humans.We get back less than 5 percent of what we put in. No wonder that Frances Moore Lappe has called this kind of farming "a protein factory in reverse!"
"Assume we have one acre of fertile land. We can use this acre to grow a high-protein plan food, like peas or beans. If we do this, we will get between three hundred and five hundred pounds of protein from our acre. Alteranitvely we can use our acre to grow a crop that we will feed to animals, and then kill and eat the animals. Then we will end up with between forty and fifty-five pounds of protein from our acre."
"In Costa Rica, Colombia, and Brazil, in Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, rainforests are being cleared to provide grazing land for cattle. But the meat produced from the cattle does not benefit the poor of those countries. Instead it is sold to the well-to-do in the big cities, or it is exported. Over the past 25 years, nearly half of Central America's tropical rainforests have been destroyed, largely to provide beef to North America. Perhaps 90 percent of the plant and animal species on this planet live in the tropics, many of them still unrecorded by science. In addition, clearing the land causing erosions, the increased runoff leads to flooding, peasants no longer have wood for fuel and rainfall may be reduced.....we are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet- for the sake of hamburgers"
question: Which would conserve more water: Not showering for 5 months or not eating a pound of beef?
answer: Not eating a pound of a beef.
"We slaughter and kill 1 million cattle PER HOUR in the U.S"
"The typical US diet, about 28 per cent of which comes from animal sources, generates the equivalent of nearly 1.5 tonnes more carbon dioxide per person per year than a vegan diet with the same number of calories, say the researchers, who presented their results at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco last week.
By comparison, the difference in annual emissions between driving a typical saloon car and a hybrid car, which runs off a rechargeable battery and gasoline, is just over 1 tonne. If you don't want to go vegan, choosing less-processed animal products and poultry instead of red meat can help reduce the greenhouse load."
"According to statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly one in three slaughterhouse workers suffers from illness or injury every year, compared to one in 10 workers in other manufacturing jobs.1 The rate of repetitive stress injury for slaughterhouse employees is 35 times higher than it is for those with other manufacturing jobs."
"A low-fat vegetarian diet is very efficient in terms of how much land is needed to support it.
This deduction stems from the findings of their new study, which concludes that if everyone in New York state followed a low-fat vegetarian diet, the state could directly support almost 50 percent more people, or about 32 percent of its population, agriculturally. With today's high-meat, high-dairy diet, the state is able to support directly only 22 percent of its population, say the researchers."
"There is more than enough food in the world to feed the entire human population. So why are more than 840 million people still going hungry?1
Our meat-based diet is partly to blame, as land, water, and other resources that could be used to grow food for human beings are being used to grow crops for farmed animals instead. According to a recent report by Compassion in World Framing, "[c]rops that could be used to feed the hungry are instead being used to fatten animals raised for food." It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh."
"Cattle on feedlots are fed a very unnatural diet to fatten them up. This diet causes chronic digestive pain—imagine your worst case of gastritis never going away—and some of their innards actually become ulcerated and eventually rupture (the industry calls this condition “bloat”). According to a study published in the Journal of Animal Science, this diet also causes potentially fatal liver abscesses in as many as 32 percent of cattle raised for beef."
"Just this week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures to halt the burning and cutting of the country’s rain forests for crop and grazing land. In the last five months alone, the government says, 1,250 square miles were lost....
a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will contribute to higher prices.
This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially if higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops. The demand for ethanol is already pushing up prices, and explains, in part, the 40 percent rise last year in the food price index calculated by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization.
Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.
The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is profound. Agriculture in the United States — much of which now serves the demand for meat — contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals.
Mr. Rosegrant of the food policy research institute says he foresees “a stronger public relations campaign in the reduction of meat consumption — one like that around cigarettes — emphasizing personal health, compassion for animals, and doing good for the poor and the planet.”
and just for shits and gigs, I'd like to include this even though it won't matter to you, or me, for that matter, I just find it interesting.
In Genesis 1:29, God prescribes an entirely plant-based, Vegan diet.
But after "the fall", in Gensis 9:3, God "changes his mind", saying "every moving thing that lives shall be food for you". So it seems that AFTER the fall, proving that after committing the "original sin", we are no longer able to judge right and wrong. This being why God now allows the slaughter of animals for food.
hehehehe
There is a plethora of reasons to be a vegetarian, or even just reduce your consumption of meat if you enjoy it that much. I saw Peter Wenz lecture at my school last year on his view that vegetarianism is a "synergistic" approach to environmentalism. Whether you're not eating meat for health reasons (Research has shown that vegetarians are 50 percent less likely to develop heart disease, and they have 40 percent of the cancer rate of meat-eaters.The consumption of meat, eggs, and dairy products has also been strongly linked to osteoporosis, Alzheimer's, asthma, and male impotence. Scientists have also found that vegetarians have stronger immune systems than their meat-eating friends; this means that they are less susceptible to everyday illnesses like the flu.Vegetarians and vegans live, on average, six to 10 years longer than meat-eaters.), to help the environment (see above posting), or just for the sake of animals. Either way, all 3 of these things are a part of it, whether they are your reason or not for being vegetarian or vegan. I think, and hope, that you can agree that being vegetarian does more good than harm. My reasons are my own, as I've been saying, I just find it wrong to slaughter animals for food. You may not agree with that, as most people don't, but it just makes sense to me. And the benefits of it are twofold. I feel much healthier than I ever did while eating meat, and I'm contributing to a healthier environment. Sure my impact is not doing much, for I am just one person, but I'm also a part of a larger group. I'm not a vegetarian "in a bubble", I'm part of a collection of other folks doing the same thing.
Post a Comment