Hey beloved fruity friends,
I am stuck in a Facebook debate about the *environmental* aspect of vegetarianism vs. meat eating. The main point I am trying to make is that another person eating meat affects ME as well as others, through environmental causes...
The guy I am conversing with has made some points (see last post by Josh Spradley) and on specific point I may actually be wrong (about sustainably supporting billions of cows)... well, I'm just posting the whole discussion below.
I need help with responses! What would you guys say next?! (I am Rain.)
Original discussion
(direct link: here)
- Dave D Barlow I don't C what difference it makes what anyone eats. It only matters what I (u) eat.3 hours ago ·
Josh Spradley I feel the same. I have no problem looking at Doug Graham and saying "fruitarianism works great for him!" Or at Melissa and saying "raw works great for her!" Even though I don't do either of those...like Dave said it only matters what you yourself do. I don't get a kickback from the beef industry when someone eats a steak so I have nothing to gain from making converts. Lol3 hours ago ·
Rain Ss-an ChenDave, Josh, I disagree. Eating meat effects EVERYONE around you. 70% of the country's grain produced goes to feeding livestock, as well as over half of the country's fresh water. Livestock are responsible for an estimated 55% of erosion, 37% of the pesticides applied, 50% of the volume of antibiotics consumed and for 32% of the nitrogen load and 33% of the phosphorus load into freshwater sources. Not to mention greenhouse gasses and much more...
So yes, I have an interest in inspiring people around me into vegetarianism, not for selfish reasons but out of concern for the air I breathe, and the future of our species and others.2 hours ago ·- Josh Spradley No cow should be fed grain. AG subsidies are the reason why cows can be fed grain profitably, properly grazed grassfeeding operations are actually very good for the environment.2 hours ago ·
- Rain Ss-an ChenJosh, interesting point. Cows and pigs, in naturally-occurring population sizes, are no threat to the environment because they evolved as part of the ecosystem. But the number of livestock animals needed to satisfy the appetites of an entire meat-eating nation is no longer in balance with the ecosystem.
There is no way to sustainably support that amount of livestock, no matter what they eat... they have been force-bred to exist in the billions, literally, and their numbers are reflective of the rate at which they are being consumed. Here's an example of why these numbers are unsustainable: livestock annually produces about 100 times more manure than the amount of human sewage sludge processed in US municipal wastewater plants. It pollutes the air and water being the largest source of greenhouses gases (over vehicles), and is the source of massive dead-zones in the Gulf of Mexico where runoff occurs.
There is no solution to these issues except to stop breeding, farming, and consuming them on a mass scale, and that would require lots of people going vegetarian.31 minutes ago · - Josh SpradleyActually, pre-Columbian contact America had an estimated population of Bison very close to the amount of cows raised annually in the US and supported a human population almost 2/3 of current US population with no mass agriculture.
The problem is not the manure, but the way we handle it. Instead of using it to return fertility to the land we concentrate it into lagoons where it becomes a liability instead of an amazing resource for soil fertility. Manure is life to soil and is what created the most fertile soil in North America in the great plains.
Its not the total amount of animals we raise but the way we raise them in a system that doesn't return fertility to the soil and uses massive amounts of petrochemicals to add the illusion of fertility and Burns oil to transport animals all across the country needlessly.
If someone is against eating animals for moral reasons that's OK, its a subjective decision and your morals are just as valid as mine but to condemn in total based on a system that is known to be flawed when a sustainable, environmentally beneficial system exists (that benefits everyone except for Big Agra and Big Pharma) is incorrect.22 minutes ago ·
Replies