On the Language of the Meat/Climate Change Connection
I’ve been trolling around reading some heated debates regarding meat-eating and the environment (one on Grist regarding PETA and another on Grist regarding veganism immediately come to mind). It appears that meat-eaters are trying desperately to continue to feel good–or at least not so bad–about eating meat.
Let’s deconstruct:
- As far as the insanity regarding can we say Meat-eating is the #1 cause of global warming, there’s a staggeringly simply solution: Don’t say it. There is enough evidence that eating animals–particularly given the way they are "produced" (bred, raised and slaughtered) in 2007, is deleterious enough to the environment that quibbling about whether or not it is number one is a waste of time.
- The meat-eating environmentalists are correct about one thing: If you, say, have a small plot of land and raise chickens, eat their eggs, then slaughter, butcher and eat them when they’re spent, your carbon footprint could indeed be smaller than a vegan who drives an SUV, has two kids and lives in suburbia (in Grist on veganism, there is reference to a spreadsheet you can download that compares the footprint of vegans and non-vegans, given other considerations such as the having of pets, size of house, usage of a car, and whether the person is overweight).
- Glaringly absent from the discussion is something that some Grist readers actually think is inappropriate to discuss on Grist: ethics (they will say Grist is the inappropriate forum for a discussion about animal rights or veganism, which is basically saying that ethics apply to the environment and somehow nonhuman animals are unrelated).
Reading these debates was the first time I was embarrassed to consider myself an environmentalist. The meat-eating enviros had nasty things to say about vegans (and yes, that might have something to do with the fact that they put all of us in the PETA pile), all while saying vegans are the ones whose approach and/or personalities are in need of revamping. And there was no shortage of "humans are designed to eat meat" and "some people just can’t be vegetarians."
I’m writing a brief section regarding the impact on the environment of raising animals for food for my pamphlet, and I won’t be saying you can’t be a meat-eating environmentalist (though I have said that in the past), because I think there is a way you can do it. However, you have to remove ethics toward sentient beings from the equation to make it work. If you’re an enviro, I’d assume that ethics toward the beings who live in "the environment" are important to you. But I have learned that I cannot make that assumption.
Finally, part of the debate on Grist regarding veganism, which confirms the point above, is that having cats and dogs (and the creator of the spreadsheet assumes the dogs are vegans) adds to your carbon footprint. Though I won’t argue with that, there is a larger ethical concern. We created the cat and dog overpopulation crisis, and we have a moral obligation to attempt to do something about it by ceasing breeding and giving loving homes to homeless cats and dogs if we are in a position to do so. To omit that aspect of the cat and dog issue is to refuse to deal with the actual problem (perhaps similar to: if we weren’t using animals for food we wouldn’t be having this debate about the environment. You have to deal with the root cause: using animals for food.)
My message, as an environmentalist and vegan, is that you must factor your behavior (direct or indirect, as in by purchasing food) toward sentient beings into the decisions you are making for the environment. If you don’t, what are you telling the world about your values, your goal, and your ability to close your eyes to suffering as well as to the root cause of what ails our planet?
I only wonder whether they had anything nasty to say against "veganism". I see that you mention that they had nasty things to say against "vegans", and that makes a lot of difference. I personally have lots of nasty things to say against any kind of people, simply because any group is made up of individuals. If the group is comparatively large, you will be sure to find a "nasty type" in the group.
As for their comment on "pet footprint" on the environment, maybe they would be surprised to learn that abolitionists oppose all "domestic animal" breeding. Welfarists attack us exactly on that point.
"We are DESIGNED to eat meat"…whenever I read that phrase, I hear an alarm call telling me "don't waste too much time here, they're only seeking excuses to justify the unjustifiable".
Nope. No nasty comments about veganism, although there is A LOT about how ineffective it is regarding the environment. Again, I interpreted the entire discussion as attempts to justify using animals. I was surprised to see so many people spend so much time on these particular debates when the likelihood of affecting change in someone's beliefs (for these two groups) is so low. It reminds me of the ANIMALBLAWG discussion that seemingly went on forever between Bruce Friedrich (and other welfarists) and abolitionists. We'll never change each other's minds and I think we need to be out there talking to people who are wondering if they should stop eating meat. That's why I linked to that Rethos post–the people there are new to vegetarianism and need information and guidance. My intention, from now on, is to point my readers to places where they can make a difference, or where they can learn something (I think today's links are illuminating as I learned what many enviros are thinking about and I was shocked).
This kind of calculation is focused on maintaining complex, cycling ecosystems, wild and domestic. Predation adds to the complexity of cycling ecosystems. Not to harp on but I think interpersonal ethics (not killing sentients) are a separate ethical system and people have to appreciate the two separately then prioritise them. Most things are win-win for both ethics, some aren't.
The principle of justice and individual rights to life are more important than attempts to perfect the environment and ecosystems. When meat-eating environmentalists place a premium on reducing footprints, but refuse to go vegan as part of that footprint reduction because animals’ lives don’t matter as much as their gustatory preferences (which is exactly what’s going through their minds), then they fall into gross hypocrisy.
Oil company executives and wealthy “bigfoot” families with lots of kids owning multiple homes, multiple SUVs, and jetting around regularly just don’t see the their “footprint” as mattering as much as their lifestyle preferences. It may be too bad for future generations, but fortunately, we’re not future generations.
What’s the difference between the paragraph above and meat-eating “greenies” not seeing animals as mattering as much as their gustatory preferences? For them, it may be too bad for the animals, but fortunately, the “greenies” aren’t the animals.
The meat-eating greenies have no room to criticize Exxon, et al when they trivialize others’ ethical concerns.
I’ll be writing in my blog about the hypocrisy and stupidity of various groups (environmental, feminist, civil rights, and human rights), including some so-called animal “rights” groups, when they trivialize others’ causes which have the same root of exploitation, oppression, and violence as their own precious cause.
I look forward to that post, Dan. As a woman, I find it especially difficult to understand feminists who eat meat. Or my several friends who are equestrians, one of whom breeds horses: Do they not connect the subjugation they are responsible for (and in the case of the breeder, the rape she arranges) to the subjugation of their own sex?
It is frustrating. The common denominator of exploitation and the common dismissive attitude of the indifferent “opposition” are glaringly obvious in all of these causes. But because people are so myopic in seeing their Cause as the “real problem” and their current habits as “politically correct”, they bend down low to trivialize other forms of exploitation as if that would somehow raise their cause, when all it does is to ultimately trivialize all exploitation.
That’s not to say that we should have all causes against exploitation in any form on our front burner or that we shouldn’t devote our lives to one single cause, but let’s stop and think about the common denominator and realize the blatant hypocrisy and self-defeating nature of belittling the ethical significance of other forms of exploitation.
I’m looking forward to writing the post. I’m not sure whether I’ll interrupt the current series on moral development or wait a few weeks until it’s finished.
My current minor cause is to try and have animal welfare even mentioned on wikipedia's veal page. It is a very small battle, but a real one. Industry groups hijack wikis, and many people do depend upon them as a first port of research (and sometimes, sadly, a last).
I think we might be justified in making the environmental argument our #1 argument. Meat eating probably is in the Top 3 causes of global warming, behind overpopulation and general overconsumption/industrialization.
The fact is, if we don't do something serious about global warming right now (and it may be too late already), by 2100 (after the rain forests become net carbon producers) animal rights will be irrelevant as the planet will be uninhabitable for humans or any other animals.
I often wonder whether our time is better spent joining the zero population growth (or reduction) people. A vegan does more harm to the environment and animals by having a vegan child (who may or may not remain vegan, not to mention future descendants if the air is still breathable), than one would do by remaining childless while going back to eating meat and becoming vivisector during the week and dogfighting gambler on the weekends.
I know of one "vegan" who had her 4th child not long ago, it's disgusting, selfish, and wholly narcissistic.
Sean D:
The problem with putting the environmental argument before the moral argument as reasons to go vegan is that it 1) demotes the moral status of animals to “things” which are merely a part of the environment, and 2) makes veganism primarily an optional “tool” to reduce global warming, similar to a morally optional choice to use a more fuel efficient car.
For me, environment protection and the reduction of global warming is a classic *utilitarian* moral choice: we want to maximize the benefit for all impacted by our decisions, both current and future generations. We have no “direct duties” toward the environment, only indirect duties to protect it for future generations. BY CONTRAST, animal protection is a classic *deontological* and *right-based* moral imperative: animals are moral persons, just like humans, toward whom we have *direct duties* to not intentionally kill or harm. These two issues (AR and global warming), in a very significant sense, are not even comparable. It just so happens that veganism also helps the environment tremendously, which gives us even more reason to go vegan, not that we need any more reason.
Finally, there’s a huge difference in the nature of individual action when it comes to reducing one’s impact on intentional animal exploitation versus reducing one’s impact on global warming. As a vegan, one can *eliminate* contributing to intentional animal exploitation (deaths from plant harvesting are not intentional; deaths from meat, eggs, and dairy are intentional). By contrast, there is nothing except subsistence plant farming without the use of any energy (i.e. get off the grid) which would have the same impact on eliminating one’s personal effects on global warming that a vegan has on eliminating his or her personal effects on intentional animal exploitation.
Incidentally, I agree that the best thing one can do for the environment is to forgo having children. The second best thing is to forgo excessive energy consumption, and very close behind that, or perhaps tied for second, is to go vegan.
I'm all for being biological-child free, but I'd take the footprint involved with adopting a child who needs a home over the environmental savings any day (if I were inclined to be a parent).
I certainly did mean “biological child” when I said “having children.” 😉 Adoption is an awesome choice if you’re so inclined. 🙂
For the folks who are so concerned about population as to call someone else disgusting for giving life to 'too many' kids, why not have some personal integrity and just kill yourself?
The actual truth of the matter is that it is better to have many children and teach them to bring more goodness into the world. If you believe a person can't improve the world, again integrity, kill yourself before complaining about others.
We're looking forward to the birth of our fifth. If you don't think there's enough room, then get yourself out of the way.
I ought to say a little background before folks start freaking out. In college about 15 years ago I seriously considered whether I should kill myself to reduce the burden of the human race, after finding that people in general care so little about the world and our environmental impact. I was thoroughly committed to nonviolence, so what could I do? I took up very strict yoga to practice stopping the breathing. I decided to find a spot in a dense forest and live as a hermit, attempting to bring my live air to a stop.
Shortly after my graduation, I packed up my few belongings and drove from Buffalo, NY, to Olympia, WA, where I intended to prepare to hide in the Olympic National Forest. My first day in Olympia I found a used copy of Bhagavad-gita As It Is ( http://vedabase.net/bg/en ). I was intrigued by it, and at the end of one week of study, Krishna appeared and laughed at my attempt at yoga. (long story made short here) He immediately gave me better than raja yoga can ever give, and told me to always chant His names, whom to marry, and to have children, naming them after Him.
When I wrote last night I was a little offended having found my way to a feminist web site from here, so I used an improper phrase. Please accept my apologies. However, so you know, I am having children on direct order from my beloved Lord Sri Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. To follow His order is most glorious.
I ought to say a little background before folks start freaking out. In college about 15 years ago I seriously considered whether I should kill myself to reduce the burden of the human race, after finding that people in general care so little about the world and our environmental impact. I was thoroughly committed to nonviolence, so what could I do? I took up very strict yoga to practice stopping the breathing. I decided to find a spot in a dense forest and live as a hermit, attempting to bring my live air to a stop.
Shortly after my graduation, I packed up my few belongings and drove from Buffalo, NY, to Olympia, WA, where I intended to prepare to hide in the Olympic National Forest. My first day in Olympia I found a used copy of Bhagavad-gita As It Is ( http://vedabase.net/bg/en ). I was intrigued by it, and at the end of one week of study, Krishna appeared and laughed at my attempt at yoga. (long story made short here) He immediately gave me better than raja yoga can ever give, and told me to always chant His names, whom to marry, and to have children, naming them after Him.
When I wrote last night I was a little offended having found my way to a feminist web site from here, so I used an improper phrase. Please accept my apologies. However, so you know, I am having children on direct order from my beloved Lord Sri Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
BG 2.21: “O Pārtha, how can a person who knows that the soul is indestructible, eternal, unborn and immutable kill anyone or cause anyone to kill?”
Ok, now you can freak out if you want.
For someone who claims to be so spiritual, Pandu, the comment about population is shockingly offensive.
I do not believe in God, and I certainly do not live by any books written by men about a God they may or may not have invented. To base your sexism on those books is irrational. And as a woman, I'm profoundly offended. I am not "freaking out."
As an individual with her own mind who takes responsibility for her own choices and is creating her own life the way she thinks is best, I would never, ever consider it reasonable that anyone, ever "order" me to have children.
Was is necessary to project 'freaking out' onto us (three times) to express your opinion? Personally I can see it either way. But I am a welfare-pragmatist. I would think having a proportion of future adults raised in by their biological parent/s in vegan househoulds would contribute to cultural diversity in a constructive way.
I certainly don't think it's wrong to have biological children, and adoption is also wonderful. The important thing is raising these children to care about other living beings and the environment.
Also, not that anyone suggested it, but talk of limiting the human population always seems to verge on social engineering, which is thin ice.
I've heard about a "Church of Euthanasia", whose members believe the best thing you can do for the world is kill yourself– and I find that absolutely crazy!
Your children can be good people, but their footprint on the planet will be large unless they live in a cave. If your children follow your example, 5 children having 5 children having 5 children, before your death you will have spawned 125 people. And why stop at 5 Mini-Me's, Pandu? If 5 is good, 10 is better. Go for 10, teach your children to have 10, their children have 10, and by the time of your death you will have 1000 Mini-Me's. Nothing wrong with that at all, even though you have no guarantee any of the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on will be good people.
You truly are a narcissist for wanting to have so many Mini-Me's. As for my suicide, that's ridiculous. I didn't ask to be here, but I am, and it stops with me. On a different planet I might want to have biological children, but as long as there are selfish people like you spawning so many kids, some of us have to try to be responsible and compensate for the narcissists by having no children.
If everyone had your selfish mentality, we would already have what, 500 billion people on the planet? No, actually we would have zero humans, the planet is on the verge of a breakdown with 6 billion people, it would have become uninhabitable a long time ago if everyone had 5 children.
Veganism is rich with ethics and philosophy that will only ever be presented by vegans.
Yes, ethics, environment and health are interrelated but the environmental and health arguments are best left to scientists, nutritionists and doctors to make and vegans to list as bullet points below the ethics. Non-vegans don’t accept hearing these things from vegans as valid, but they do listen to accredited experts reporting cold facts.
Generally, exclusive health vegetarians don’t last in the long run compared to vegetarians who embrace the philosophy — it’s not just a diet plan. Environmental vegetarians won’t last either, especially as most people are waiting around for government to legislate conservation or the hopeful discovery of some new form of clean energy.
The term vegetarian became so convoluted as to what was practiced and why, that the very specific term vegan came about. Look at the confusion done when vegan advocacy verged slightly off the mark from “use” to “treatment”. Indeed, it is a zero sum game.
The population is very perplexed about health and diet and the data will always be far from complete. People are also getting a bit weary of hearing about carbon footprints and climate change, a phenomenon they largely feel powerless to change if they even believe in it in the first place.
Veganism and vegetarianism should stick to the ancient yet always-relevant ethical origins of why it was conceived and what it is truly about.
I agree completely, Porphry. Veganism is about ethics. It's not a fad, or a temporary committment until something "better" comes along. Non-vegans don't want to hear it, but I think ethics are really our strong point. Judging from the hunters who visited briefly, and some environmentalists on Grist, I'd say they don't want to hear it because they're afraid to find out they're wrong.
"I do not believe in God, and I certainly do not live by any books written by men about a God they may or may not have invented. To base your sexism on those books is irrational. And as a woman, I'm profoundly offended."
I'm sorry for offending you and your readers. I did it because I was angry, and I should have waited to express myself. Ideally one should speak the truth in a pleasant manner, but sometimes this is very difficult. Svami Bhakti Bhavana Visnu described like this, "The truth is not always pleasant, satyam bruyat priyam bruyat. However, it is the duty of all honest devotees to illuminate the truth, satyam, even though it may not be priyam, palatable. Indeed, it is written in sastra that a sadhu cuts away the maya with strong words. To tell the truth and expose improprieties is seen by some as disturbing and undesirable, yet they delude themselves by thinking that to proceed in illusion is better."
Hearing someone say "I do not believe in God" sounds as reasonable to me as a blind person saying "I do not believe in the sun. What for do I need a sun?" Rational or not, studying this book, Bhagavad-gita As It Is, put me in the position to see Krishna face to face in the privacy of my bedroom in the middle of the night and interact with Him for close to two hours. I was reading a book of Krishna speaking, saying He is the Supreme Lord, and suddenly a painting of Him came to full life, as if I were looking through a clear window, while I was stunned perfectly still like a painting. Years later I found a description of this effect in the Vedic literatures. After that there is no question for me of not believing every word He says.
Again, I'm sorry for offending you and your readers. I was shocked at what I had read here that night and at that other site I foolishly accessed through your link, and I was also under stress for other reasons. I felt bad for expressing myself in such an insensitive way, and tried to soften it as soon as I could. As a matter of principle, though, my point remains. My children whether present or future, have just as much right to life as anyone. If someone thinks there are too many people, that person can elminate himself or herself. It doesn't require violence at all. I used to support ZPG and NPG and wanted to sacrifice myself for the sake of the others on the earth, but I felt it would contradict my commitment to nonviolence to kill myself by some external action, so I decided to do it by wilfully stopping my breathing through pranayam. I knew through yoga study that it would produce enlightenment by either strength of sacrifice or direct perception of the truth. I found too many distractions so I actually intended to find a cave to inhabit. Before I found a cave outside I found Krishna, God, in the cave of my heart, Who then appeared inside and outside simultaneously and personally advised me to have children. For a devotee, God's advice is taken as an order, as one is compelled by the force of love.
I guess I shouldn't expect much congratulation on my wife's recent pregnancy. 8^)
Just as Krishna's mystic potency is unlimited, there is no limit to His ability to maintain His devotees. The more the merrier. It's the atheists who are a burden. If we don't live for spiritual reasons, to know and please God, then why? How can material life be of any value at all? If all manifestations are temporary, then time ultimately reduces everything to zero. We may be vegetarians or vegans or whatever, but we can never stop the death of even one animal, including our own. Only that which is eternal, transcending the passage of time, has any real value.
http://vedabase.net/bg/2/28/en
Atheism is not necessarily a synonym of immorality. We don't have to appeal to the supernatural to act morally. Actually, behaving ethically only because God wants us to behave morally is not true ethical behavior but merely blind obedience. We shouldn’t act morally because otherwise God will punish us, but because we are able to evaluate the consequences of our actions towards other sentient beings. We must base our ethic purely on rational reasoning.
Here is a entretaining link about how far not thinking rationally can lead: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Cláudio,
That's a cute page you linked to, and probably does a better job than I can of demonstrating the fact that one must take care to identify the proper means for acquiring knowledge. If one wants to understand that which exists beyond the senses, the only means is to hear from authorities who are not subject to such limitations as imperfect senses, making mistakes, cheating, and being covered by illusion. Logic and reason can never conclusively establish the absolute truth. Even in mundane matters, good student listens to the teacher to understand the lesson before considering making a challenge. If the teacher has mastery over the subject, a good student hears, makes appropriate inquiries, and applies the knowledge.
One such teacher was Srila Jiva Gosvami, who in his _Tattva Sandharba_ conclusively established the basis for accepting pure devotional service as the supreme goal of life, by step by step analysis of the various considerations and potential challenges. This text is provided free for online reading at this page: http://tinyurl.com/yw9j4g There is nothing illogical or irrational about this, actually it is the proper use of reason. I don't know if you are interested in serious inquiry or merely objecting to support a preconceived conclusion. If you don't mind encountering superior, life-changing reasoning, then I would urge you to read that book. The font for displaying the diacriticals properly can be downloaded here: http://www.dipika.org/downloads/tamal.zip If anyone cares to read this, let me know, because otherwise I have more pressing engagements.
It's not blind obedience to tentatively accept an argument for the sake of understanding it. If anything, it gives one the ability to genuinely refute the position if that is appropriate. If you don't understand my position, why should I care at all for your objections?
By the way, your argument is refuted thus:
In the absense of real spiritual knowledge, the consequences of our actions when dealing with other sentient beings is that we increase their false bodily conception of life and they invariably die in due course of time. If nothing survives the body, then the atheistic so-called help is ultimately meaningless. You can save some animal from apparently imminent death, but death comes anyway when death is actually ready.
It seems you're a man of faith, Pandu. As an agnostic, I don't need to believe there is life after death, but I want to repeat that I think children– biological or adopted– are wonderful. I think every living being, human and non-human, has a purpose, whether or not there is a God.
Pandu,
If we didn’t believe in absolute truths, we wouldn’t think, for instance, that killing sentient beings for pleasure is absolutely wrong. As I stated, we can be moral absolutists without appealing to the supernatural. What I find disturbing is the automatic identification of atheists with lack of morals, because “if God didn’t exist, everything would be allowed”. Why we shouldn’t ask that since God does exist, every misery inflicted on the innocents seems to be allowed since He doesn’t interfere to save them? Perhaps each one of these atrocities should be part of a utilitarian Superior Plan.
I really understand the need some people feel to appeal to the supernatural, because the mere idea of our own and our beloved non-existence in the future is overwhelming. But basing our morals on what a supposedly supernatural entity says it should be seems quite dangerous. First of all, since these entities are human created, they’re subject to the same prejudices of their inventors. Secondly, the believers will be afraid to question these supposedly truths and will tend to blind obedience instead of rational reflection. In a very significant way, some “gods” are responsible for the way most humans see non-human animals. They say non-human animals lack souls, so they must be inferior and be treated like disposable objects. They say non-human animals were created for our use. And so on.
That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be happy if everybody went vegan because God said they should be. In a utilitarian way, of course.
"Why we shouldn’t ask that since God does exist, every misery inflicted on the innocents seems to be allowed since He doesn’t interfere to save them?"
Who is innocent? If you think our current bodies are our only birth, then the world would seem terribly injust. However, that's not the Vedic explanation. As Krishna said in Bhagavad-gita 2.13, "dehino 'smin yatha dehe, kaumaram yauvanam jarah, yata dehantara praptir, dhiras tatra na muhyati" — "As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change." In the modern Christian conception, the soul is said to have a beginning and then eternal existence afterward, but the Vedic teaching is that,… well again in Bhagavad-gita, Krishna said, "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings, nor will any of us cease to be…. I can remember all these births, but you cannot."
So the point is that even an infant has so much history, one could expect countless prior births. Every material action, that is an action not done for Krishna's pleasure, has a material reaction, whether in the present life or another one, and the natural justice is very precise. The way things play out is more complicated than we can understand, but the principle is that sooner later we end up the recipient of our deeds. Thus it can be understood that the cow who is killed for meat may have once been a man who had killed a cow, or a fetus who is aborted had likely caused an abortion in a previous adult life. The animals whom we help may have been our mothers, fathers, friends, or our enemies; and by showing them mercy we are gradually stopping the cycle of cruelty.
It's interesting to ponder. If you knew the animal you rescued from suffering had inflicted the same cruelty upon another helpless animal in some previous birth, would you forgive it and give help? I expect you would, and so would I.
I don't see how you can act so certain that God is a creation of the human imagination. I’m sure you don’t know, and one cannot prove the nonexistence of the Personality of Godhead merely by negative example, or at all. It would be easier to prove your own nonexistence than to prove there’s no God. I've questioned my own beliefs very aggressively. You should not assume. Two years ago I demonstrated a serious moral flaw in a final request of a recently deceased guru in my spiritual community, and his disciples practically exiled me for it. I was so hurt that I questioned my spiritual beliefs to their very core, but I found it impossible for me to disbelieve in Krishna.
I cannot defend Biblical teachings. I don’t follow the Bible. The Bible is as much about political control as religious text. Why not at least read Chapter 2 of Bhagavad-gita so you can get a better idea of what I’m talking about? http://bhagavatam.net/bg/2/en It would only take a few minutes. The idea of animals having no souls and thus being suitable food for people is ridiculous and insanely ironic. The souls of animals had once given life to meat-eating persons. No one can beat Krishna’s sense of humor.
I’m glad I came back here for another visit. I’d been debating with folks on the Mensa discussion boards lately, and finding many people there surprisingly closed minded and some quite mean. IQ is sort of cool, but I’ve always thought morality is a better measure of true intelligence. Not to mention that it’s much more pleasant.