I am not a vegetarian, though I have recently sworn meat off again excepting dinners with friends (excluding my girlfriend,) because I am in China, after all (no more than a rationalization) but a recent
article in the NYTimes makes the plain case that our meat habits (both growing and eating, which are, of course, connected) are wreaking havoc on just about everything indiscriminately.
To wit:
-"...assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains," leading to "the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests."
-"...an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production," which also "generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation." (Fortunately, with all those gases in the atmosphere, the percentage of land that's ice-free should be growing rather conveniently.)
-"...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."
-"More meat means a corresponding increase in demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will contribute to higher prices." As mentioned later, while this is inconvenient for wealthier countries and people, for the not-so-fortunate this can spell famine.
-"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..."
- The "administration of
antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of medicines that treat people."
-"...grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health problems among the world’s wealthier citizens — heart disease, some types of
cancer,
diabetes."
-"...hog production [yes, 'production'] facilities that resemble prisons more than farms ... pollute streams and groundwater. (In Iowa alone, hog factories and farms produce more than 50 million tons of excrement annually.)" An excised passage provides the technical term for the "manure lagoons."
And this is not even comprehensive, as most of this has nothing to do with how animals are treated in such facilities, or the squeeze rising food prices puts on starving people. (both of which the article and this blog, below, cover.)
Interestingly, the article goes on to say that "[p]erhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers’ becoming aware of the true costs of industrial meat production."
I have not seen much of a better explanation of the emerging ethos that is called "conscious capitalism." (Be wary of that label, though; I feel many people who use it may not be particularly "conscious," or "capitalist.") The basic idea is that with an increasingly open information economy, people can choose to support companies whose values they share, even if it means the product is slightly more expensive, basically underwriting one's values. (Buying organic steak is a simple example of this.) In a way, of course, this is a natural extension of capitalism (buy the things you like that you can afford,) adding only a sort of moral sense or duty, and it is already what has been emerging in the last ten to fifteen years, though it is not exactly main-stream. It is still to be seen whether this ethos will have any sort of effect, whether it's a trend of the baby-boomer and post-boomer middle-class generations, or whether the general apathy of people will vote these businesses into bankruptcy with their dollars.
But it shouldn't be surprising that what works extremely poorly for one reason would also be a disaster in every other arena, which is basically what I take from all of this. As I've said, this blog is a way for me to start testing out ideas and to get some feedback on them, to say a few things and ask a number of questions. A friend asked me recently what I believed in, and I replied that it was hard to pin down, but that basically I believed that things are, and that works. There is a basic underlying reality in everything, and everything is an expression of this, and so, as is relevant here, if anything is wrong, it is never wrong for any one reason, but for an infinite amount of reasons, all of which are really only reflections of that thing's "wrongness." This is far from being comprehensive, and I do also believe that ultimately terms like "wrong" are meaningless, but at this level of discussion, on our subjective planet, basically, something that is bad for humans is likely bad for the planet, something bad for the planet is likely bad for humans, something bad for pigs is probably bad for humans, something bad for pigs is probably bad for the economy, (this may need an entire different post to defend if anybody wants to take an easy objection to this) etc, etc. Everyone wins, or everyone loses. With our factory farming, it is clear that everyone is losing.
But there's got to be a reason for factory farming, right? It's economical, and so how would it have become the dominant model unless a) capitalism is terrible, or b) it's just the best way? Somebody's making big.
From the Times article: "factory farming is ‘optimal’ only as long as degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff [that is, billions of pounds of manure] becomes costly — even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag — the entire structure of food production will change dramatically."
Basically, free pollution, not having to concern oneself with the by-products of one's production, is a sort of subsidy for this whole process. On an old farm, or, as the article notes, even 50 years ago in Seacaucus NJ, manure was used as fertilizer for local farms. Here's another chain of problems caused by one broken link: well, if pig farms are centralized and removed from vegetable farms, how will we fertilize vegetable farms? Aha! Dangerous chemicals. And what to do with the manure? Ummm, let it sit! (Not the only broken link, of course, as is well known, antibiotics must be used extensively on pigs b/c the manner in which they are crammed together makes them crazily bite each other's rumps raw, and makes chickens peck each other silly, though the consequences of these reactions are preempted by antibiotics and the removal of the pigs' tails/ soldering of the chickens' beaks, and if you think this is evidence of less intelligence on the animals' parts, imagine what you would do if your whole life you were on an elevator with twenty people. Yeah, it's where you go to the bathroom too. And eat.) Part of the idea above, that everything done wrong (or right) is not simply wrong/right for one reason, but for an infinite number of them, is that, since everything is in this elaborate conjoined dance, anything that disrupts the natural flow of this dance is detrimental. Solve one "problem," cause a thousand far-reaching ones. I do not have the space to write more about this, so let it suffice to say that I am not, however, a back-to naturist (not permanently at least, though someone who doesn't spend some time in forests might not be human,) far from it. Man is not unnatural, though we do some odd things.
Anyway,
There's another and possibly more important reason factory farming is economical, if you don't buy the pollution argument (after all, 50 million tons isn't
that much, right? and Iowa's a big state, with lots of farms!) and that's subsidies. Meat is heavily subsidized, as is all agricultural product in possibly every country in the world (I cannot authoritatively say that it is
every country) and accounts for 31% of farmers' incomes. Removing subsidies on meat makes all of the extra expenses required for factory farming much less attractive, not to mention that grain subsidies make feed (unnatural food for these animals) more expensive. But if the cows, for example, produced more than just T-bones, it would still make sense (as it always has) to raise them in pastures.
And, in any case, why the hell, if I find the idea of eating a steak morally repugnant, am I paying for a part of yours anyway? Why is that coming out of my (let's assume pleather) wallet? This is a historical relic.
Of course, politically, the odds of removing subsidies are running about even with the odds of having our first atheist anarchist trans-gendered president.
But, as mentioned above, consciousness on these issues may just pull off the end of factory farming anyway (growth from below) along with some other changing circumstances challenging the model.
"'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.'" An expert is quoted in the article as saying.
Animal cruelty? Well, yes, though only mentioned briefly before, these factory farms are hard on a lot of things, the workers, the environment, our hearts (corn leads to more damaging heart marbled fatty meat than grass, which tastes better anyway,) but probably most of all the animals.
Who cares?
Something of a lucky coincidence that
this article appears online at the same time in the Times, an article about eating dog-meat in China. (For my cellphone text messaging the number one collocation for the character 狗，or "dog," is 肉，or, meat. 狗肉。Dogmeat.) If you don't read the article, the point here is, what makes it so cruel to torture a cat or a dog if you can do the same to any number of other animals?
Now, as an ex-avid meat-eater myself (still an occasional meat-eater, just without any of the militarism) who is to say that you shouldn't eat meat? Nobody, and that is another rather important point. Conscious capitalism is the economic equivalent of soft power. As a teenaged meat-eater, I always found vegetarians noxious, a cult of self-satisfied whiners and values snobs. Since I've grown up a bit, I realized that this is only the most militant brand of vegetarianism (emphasis on the -ism) but still, it makes it difficult for vegetarians to have a serious conversation without being branded as these people, like I'd imagine it makes it difficult to identify yourself as "Christian," without being lumped in with Jerry Falwell. But, crusade you must, the manner in which you do it can be much more effective, though. Patience backed by fact is perhaps the strongest tool in the teacher's shed. It may not be as sharp as the hedge pruners, but it's as heavy and inexorable as a sledgehammer, when wielded on the side of what is true and obvious. It takes time for people to accept rational arguments in the face of their emotions, but in time, without shouting, or belittling people (this is an especially strong turn-off) it works.
Of course, it wouldn't work in Soviet Russia, but we don't live there, and this displays a requirement of conscious capitalism: the open and unrestricted flow of information without edit or censorship. Given the facts, people will make the right decisions. This has always terrified governments. We're perhaps not quite there now, though that's a whole other topic, the point is, we're certainly close enough to start moving.
In any case, it's perfectly imaginable that eating meat will be around for as long as there are humans, and no matter how much you hate it, it's not within the scope of your power to change any one else's mind about this without their permission, but with an ideally open society, the concept is that what will naturally happen will be the best for everybody, just as in evolution, what does not work, does not pass, as in economics, if you can do an equivalent service cheaper, your competitor will go out of business, as in everything, what is, is, and that always works. (Maybe not for your perceived benefit, but that's another conversation.)
And finally, for those die-hard meat eaters out there, (you ought to understand that I've got nothing against you as people,) the counter to the age-old protein argument.
"The argument that meat provides useful protein makes sense, if the quantities are small. But the “you gotta eat meat” claim collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of meat we eat weren’t harmful, it’s way more than enough. We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government’s recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary experts to be higher than it needs to be.) It’s likely that most of us would do just fine on around 30 grams of protein a day, virtually all of it from plant sources." 'Likely' is almost propaganda here, there are
vegan triathletes, for god's sake.
Not to mention that an overload of protein has been linked to
higher-rates of cancer. (sorry, but you'll have to search on that page, I'm not so tech-savvy yet.)
So, what's beneficial for you is probably beneficial for everyone else, not in the sense that if a bath is good for Reggie, you need one, but in the sense that if Reggie bathes, you don't have to smell him.
Pay attention.
ALV
P.S. I am planning on writing a number of "Google Knols," since so much of what I think on the small things is wrapped up by what I think on the big issues, so I'd like to get those big issues down as reference, so that I can simply offhandedly refer to one of these upcoming links if somebody would like the reasoning behind the reasoning behind something, and I can just write straightforwardly about the task at hand. I'll keep you updated.
The first article, if you wish to look it up and it's no longer there, was called, "Re-thinking the Meat Guzzler," It's by Mark Bittman, and it first appeared January 27th, 2008.
Posts
