If the farm production of MEAT adds to global warming, does it become unethical to eat meat? Why or why not?

Question

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/29/business/climate.php

Please state your faith / non-faith tradition?

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 1

If you follow that line of reasoning, you had better not fart or you will contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Answer 2

Some people on this planet have always been farmers raising both crops and animals for a very long time.

America has lost a good deal of its farms because our government has made agriculture an undesirable lifestyle. There are less farms today than there was 200 years ago and more are dying off every day because they cannot afford to operate. Given that, I find it hard to believe that the production of meat is the greatest contributor to global warming when I know switching from a regular vehicle to a hybrid will cut down far more CO2 emissions.

Given that, I don't think on the overall it is unethical to eat meat. I think whether one chooses to or not is a matter of personal choice.

Answer 3

Don't go bazooka with any law. If a necessary process produces some heat then that is unfortunate. However there are many processes that are not necessary, that also produce heat. Let us work on those wasteful processes, those extravagants, those luxuries first.

Sometimes I feel unethical eating meat when I think that 10 pounds of plants are consumed for each pound of meat produced. I would be willing to eat less meat, or even no meat at all, if it meant an end to the starvation going on in this world.

Answer 4

You should read some of the ISKCON Publications. It explains a lot in detail why meat eating is bad for the environment and how we could also save thousands from starvation by switching over to a vegetarian diet. Eating lower on the food chain is beneficial for everyone.
You will find the most vegetarians amongst hindus in India. Even the Dalai Lama eats meat but most hindus are very strict vegetarians. People laugh at them for considering the Cow holy but the Ancient Hindus were on to something. Giving the cow that status has made Beef taboo to majority hindus.
You will find the "Bishnoi" community in India, mostly illiterate village folk who live near the forests who'd rather die than let any harm come to the wildlife. Hinduism is a religion about coexisting with nature rather than trying to conquer it.

Answer 5

It does make experience, even if it really applies to eating pink meat and a lot less to different meats. in reality there are 2 significant factors wherein cattle farming contributes to international warming: a million) quickly through methane emissions. 2) indirectly through land use variations. the first is because cows are ruminant animals, meaning they launch methane even as they burp (and of their manure). Methane is a fantastically solid greenhouse gas, so this contributes to international warming. the 2d is because cows require large pastures for grazing. The extra pink meat we devour, the further cows are raised, and the further land is switched over from say wooded area land to pasture. i have were given some further discussions about the problem contained in the hyperlinks decrease than.

Answer 6

I wouldn't say it's unethical to eat meat at all, but it's unethical to eat too much, just like it's unethical to drive a big honking gas-guzzler for your daily commute, or to throw reams of paper into the garbage instead of recycling it. It's like saying, "My enjoyment of luxuries is more important than the condition of the environment for everyone else in the future."

People in some parts of the world eat meat only once a week. I guess it gives new meaning to the term "rare steak."

I am an atheist.

Answer 7

It's a question of balance, but the OVERCONSUMPTION of meat is probably unethical and certainly given the circumstances pretty stupid. We've switched to more fish and chicken to improve our health, and choose to pay more for free range and organic. The really unethical production of meat is the cheap factory based method (the whole process making massive profit and based on cheap energy). We'd all be better off returning to medium scale local production of food. More jobs locally also.

Answer 8

Atheist here. Then what do you propose as an alternative? Should we eat soy? And if so, are we contributing to deforestation as trees are cleared to make space for fields to compensate for an increased demand for soy? I agree that we may be able to soften the blow to the planet by eating less meat in our diets, but ultimately I think it's simply a matter of the population of humans exceeding the planet's ability to meet our needs.

Answer 9

Hmm - it may be unethical to *cultivate* meat using current methods.

But this is a transition period. Chances are we'll soon work out how to grow steak in huge lumps using industrial tissue culture, and be able to buy genetically modified, healthy lean steaks of any practical size, with zero ethical factors.

Which will reduce the numbers of cows to a few in zoos, of course.

Answer 10

Farm produciton of ANYTHING adds to global warming. It is also an established FACT that "organic" farming is unable to produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet. Anything people do to reduce modern farming techniques is unethical because you are taking food out of the mouths of starving people.

Answer 11

Eating most meat in the west is definitely unethical... starving children in 3rd world countries are dying while food is grown right next to them which they can't eat because it's sent to feed farmed animals in the west. Thats not to mention the water they drink! 70% of the destroyed rainforest land is directly used for meat production while most of the remaining 30% is used to make food for animals in the west.

I have my own beliefs (non-religious) but meat immorality is a fact.

Cows' methane gas contributes to 17% of the world's pollution compared to 3% that areoplanes make up which is bad enough.

It takes 10 times the amount of food to create the same amount of meat. Also, if people reduced their meat intake by 5% in the US which is the equivalent to one meat meal a week, the grain used to feed the animals would be enough to feed 25 million people... roughly the amount of americans that go hungry. I could go on... there are so many reasons why eating meat is bad and only one that is good... it tastes good. How selfish is that??