Counter this article?

[Guest guest]

Hi all,I haven't had time to read this article, but can some of you come up with a counter-argument?http://www.alternet.org/environment/141898/eating_meat_isn%27t_bad_for_the_planet,_it%27s_our_system_of_raising_the_animals_that%27s_wrong/?utm_source=feedblitz & utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss & utm_campaign=alternet

" Eating Meat Isn't Bad for the Planet, It's Our System of Raising the Animals That's Wrong "

--Ruchira

[Guest guest]

This assumes that the number of animals now raised for meat consumption could

all be raised ecologically. It ignores why factory farming came about in the

first place - sheer volume. Ecological meat eating would be possible if people

ate meat probably once a week. I haven't actually done the math on that, I just

know that 2-3 meals with meat each day will never be sustainable no matter how

you raise the livestock.

 

It doesn't matter anyway, because it is wrong to take a life unnecessarily, and

we won't solve our environmental problems until we kick the destructive habit of

harming nonhuman persons (by killing them directly or destroying their habitat)

for the sake of humans' " luxury " .

[Guest guest]

The author claims that defenders of fossil fuel consumption are attacking the

practice of eating meat to deflect attention from the real problem of increased

fossil fuel consumption. This is a rather bizaare claim. Giving up meat is a

much less popular and far more controversial idea than cutting down on fossil

fuel consumption.

 

The author claims that there would be no connection between meat eating and

global warming, if human beings were only eating animals that have lived

" sustainably " on natural grasses (without, I assume, needing water and extra

food sources to be brought in by humans).

 

The author argues that the UN Report " Livestock's Long Shadow " attacks meat

eating erroneously and uses it as a straw man. However, the author's idea of

eating only sustainable meat is a much bigger straw man. How would that even be

possible for the majority of Americans? Assuming 95% of the meat available comes

from factory farms, how easy is it to restrict your meat to the 5% that does

not? And how will you know the difference? It is much easier to go vegan and

boycott 100% of the meat from factory farms. Consider also that the cheapest

meat (i.e., the meat the average person is most likely to choose) will almost

certainly come from a factory farm. It is better to face the reality that

almost all meat in America comes from the very same factory farms that the

author admits are major contributors to global warming.

 

Now, even if the factory farms are abolished, most grassfed cattle operations

are not sustainable. They require huge amounts of water while depleting the

nutrients in the land. Part of the problem is that we do not let " the buffalo

roam " the way the Plains Indians did. We put up fences and force the cattle to

graze in only certain areas. We kill the wolves, the prairie dogs, and many

other so-called pests that in the past formed an integral part of the ecosystem

with the truly free range bison of yesteryear. On top of that, we have built

suburbs, strip malls, big box retail, office plazas, theme parks, expansive

parking lots, and more, over many of the areas where the bison once roamed.

Furthermore, the amount of people being supported by the roaming buffalo was far

less than the amount of people we have scarfing down all the factory-farmed

animal meat today.

 

The author was partially right in saying that meat eating is not at th crux of

the global warming problem. It is really a problem of too many people consuming

too many resources on one small planet. The only ethical solution is to learn

to share the resources we've got. That means cutting back on the most

resource-intensive activities such as raising animals for meat, driving around

in fossil-fuel burning cars, ordering products from faraway places instead of

buying local, running the air conditioner instead of opening windows, and a host

of others.

 

Take care,

Rachel D.

San Francisco, CA

 

 

 

, Ruchira Datta <Ruchira.Datta wrote:

>

> Hi all,

> I haven't had time to read this article, but can some of you come up with a

> counter-argument?

>

>

http://www.alternet.org/environment/141898/eating_meat_isn%27t_bad_for_the_plane\

t,_it%27s_our_system_of_raising_the_animals_that%27s_wrong/?utm_source=feedblitz\

& utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss & utm_campaign=alternet

>

> " Eating Meat Isn't Bad for the Planet, It's Our System of Raising the

> Animals That's Wrong "

>

> --Ruchira

>