Should veg lifestyle be imposed in order to save the planet?

Question

80% of grains are fed to animals for slaughter!
They consume more water than veg.[x5]

Answer 1

While a vegetarian, lifestyle might be a more healthy choice. (I was reading that average life spans of vegetarians are significantly longer than non-vegetarians.) The problem you are really addressing is the impact on the environment by ranching practices. The use of feed that you are referring to, can be seen as an unnecessary expense to ranchers and a truly inefficient process. (First the energy and pollution it takes to grow crops destined for livestock feed, harvesting it, transporting it, and the output by cows of high starch feed; notably corn feed producing methane gases from livestock). The practice of free-range grazing for raising livestock is a proactive solution to help supplement the need for livestock feed, which is a large and considerable amount.

The water use you are referring to is an unsupported claim. Just think about how much water it takes to grow fruits and vegetables and then the pollution caused by transporting these products to your local store from foreign growers not to mention the pesticides and chemicals expended by farming practices. Most of the water expended in farming does not even go towards raising crops, it evaporates which is extremely inefficient (root drip watering practices help to get water directly to the plants and nurture the soil while avoiding evaporation). The environment would not be "saved" by reducing meat consumption. The fundamental problem is consumption and how we consume. If grocers where encouraged and rewarded for purchasing locally grown and raised resources the strain on our environment would be severely lessened and would have a greater impact than becoming a vegan.

If you are interested and want to learn more about the topic I would strongly recommend reading "Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution" by Paul Hawken or a summarized version provided in the "Harvard Business Review on Business and the Environment".

Answer 2

The world's a complicated place. Saying stuff like "save the planet" is a very vague term. I live in Berkeley, CA, where people drive SUVs to the supermarket to buy organic vegan produce. The gas they spend, and the gas spent shipping their produce across the nation and globe doesn't do this planet any good.

You have to consider the obvious practicality that you could never impose a vegetarian lifestyle or diet on anyone no matter how hard you tried, and you also have to think about the fact that one person spending a whole life time doing things that are good for the planet will still not have nearly the impact of an environmentalist who convinces a huge company like General Motors that they would save money AND help the planet by turning off the lights when everybody goes home. The United States actually pays farmers not to grow food in order to stabilize prices; we could feed most of Africa if we wanted to, we just don't want to. So it's an international policy decision, not a capacity decision. There are many aspects to "saving the planet"--global warming, energy consumption, changing ecosystems, mass extinctions, endless wars (cough, Middle East, cough), etc.

All I can say is the world is a complicated place and simplistic and unrealistic thinking will get us nowhere.

!!!Also, on the practical side of things, most of the guns in this country are owned by the meat-eaters!!!

Answer 3

The pressing concerns regarding the environment are not the result of eating meat.

The primary concern is global heating, a worldwide raising of temperatures which is melting the polar ice caps. A wealth of evidence exists to backup this claim. I admit, before looking into the actual data, I doubted the claim of global warming. But it is destroying ecosystems. Temperature regulates where an organism can live--based on living conditions, prey availability, and offspring birthrate (which is directly effected by temperature).

Other concerns for the environment revolve around human destruction of ecosystems. This is done by introducing a non-native species to an environment. Sometimes, upon introduction, a non-native species can out compete the natives of the region, forcing them to shrink, if not go extinct. Humans also tend to use up the resources of an area, which also disrupts ecosystems.

As far as grains used to feed animals--not really an issue. We are currently in a mass extinction pattern. In the next few hundred years over 50% of species will go extinct.

Good luck.

Answer 4

Are you suggesting that by not slaughtering animals, the world's environment would be better? I was ready to subscribe to your thinking without putting much thought into it, but then you mentioned that animals consume much more water. If we don't kill the animals, they'll drink all of our water.

I think that its more likely that people will live longer with a proper diet that strongly favors a non genetically modified steroid enhanced pesticide rich veggy lifestyle. I also think more effort should be spent working on laws that protect the food chain.

These things that I feel are ideals of course, and I usually try to follow proper eating habits. That being said, last night I got drunk, went to a work party, stole a pizza from the party at the end of the night and I've been slowly eating it cold all day. (-:

Answer 5

omg i'm studying this in school.

Grains are being fed to animals in order to fatten them up for consumption. If humans ate just a little bit less meat, some of the grains would go to those that don't have enough to eat. Although I am a vegetarian, it shouldn't be forced on everyone else since people would just eat meat anyway. However, instead of eating too much meat, they could just lower their amounts of consumption.

btw Berkeley is awesome and so is Cafe Gratitude-really good vegan food

Answer 6

NO

Even if we don't feed the corn to the pigs, sheep, and force-feed it to the cows, we still will use TONS AND TONS of fertilizer (made with Natural gas) to grow said grains....

That being said, I am doing research to find out if an Organic lifestyle should be promoted.... That is looking Bleak.

Answer 7

Push/pull my state representatives to place windmills alongside Lake Michigan (5 miles off shore). one hundred fifty of the 100ft tall version could ability the state of Michigan thoroughly. each and every shopper could pay right into a fund, and own somewhat of their grandchildrens destiny. the situation is keeping the Corperate greed out of it (like OUR different organic supplies)! look at who's paying for into those renewable energies, so as to regulate and benefit.

Answer 8

No.
Only through the most brutal dictatorship could whole populations be forced to abandon meat eating.

People could be taught and encouraged how to raise and kill animals more humanely and more sustainably. I believe that this is an attainable goal.

Answer 9

I think that I will go have a hamburger.