To perhaps make Ezra Klein's point a bit more briefly there's no reason to frame the question of whether or not we should reduce meat consumption for environmental reasons as a question or whether or not we should all become vegetarians. Most of us who eat meat in the developed world eat a sufficient amount of meat that we could eat less meat without giving meat up entirely. And since people eat food multiple times every day, this is the kind of thing where small reductions in the meat content of the average meal would have a substantial impact over the course of a year.
« Shifting Sands | Main | Woo Data »
More Or Less
19 Jul 2008 02:14 pm
Comments (34)
It's far more important, from an environmental perspective, to stop eating fish, yes? I appreciate all the commentary about bicycle lanes and light rail, but shouldn't we also be focusing on crises in food supplies, especially those, like extreme over-fishing, where our species is making a severe impact?
This makes an enormous amount of sense, since what helps is an absolute reduction of energy/resources producing meat rather than a relative reduction. It does little good more broadly for someone who eats meat a handful of times a year to abstain entirely. On the other hand, if everyone who currently eats meat two meals per day reduces her or his consumption of the root resources even a little, that will help dramatically...
This is akin to focusing on reducing the gas used by folks who tool around by themselves in 10-mpg vehicles rather than trying to get everyone who currently drives 35-mpg vehicles up to 50 mpg.
It's far more important, from an environmental perspective, to stop eating fish, yes?
Or we could simply restrict to sustainable levels the amount of fish which we allow fishermen to harvest--which will cause the price of fish to rise and therefore presumably decrease consumption. Unfortunately, under that plan, low-income fish-lovers will be unable to afford as much fish as they presently do.
This general dilemma seems, to me, to be the baseline issue with any plan to conserve a limited resource under the free-market system.
Unfortunately, under that plan, low-income fish-lovers will be unable to afford as much fish as they presently do.
Coming up with some kind of sustainable fish-farming might help, though.
Let me just add: I do not think that "reducing national beef consumption by persuading people to eat less beef" will be an effective strategy.
Coming up with some kind of sustainable fish-farming might help, though.
Sure. The problem with food-as-a-resource, as with energy (and probably other resources that don't immediately come to my mind), is that at present, sustainability doesn't enter into pricing at all. "Tragedy of the commons" and all that.
It is important to keep in mind that while the environmental arguments for vegetarianism are strong, the ethical arguments are far stronger. Supporting the brutality of factory farms ( http://www.meat.org/ ) and paying others to kill a fellow animal because we can't be bothered to have a Boca Burger or tofu stir fry is indefensible.
I agree with the morality case for vegetarianism, but I think the more advisable route is promote the environmental and food supply impact. In my experience, the morality argument often leads to meat-eaters become extremely defensive, and in reaction entrenching themselves in their dietary habits as a way of sticking it to the moral preacher. Can't say I blame them or that I'd react differently. Global impact should be the face of vegetarianism, not morality.
paying others to kill a fellow animal because we can't be bothered to have a Boca Burger or tofu stir fry is indefensible.
This claim strikes me as something in the category of "proof by vigorous assertion."
Also, people: there is little point to eating a Boca Burger. Are you really so attached to the "hamburger experience" since you became a vegetarian that you have to "play pretend" by eating a Boca Burger?
I agree with the morality case for vegetarianism
Some people make a morality case for not having sex before marriage. While one can agree with the merits of such an argument, it is also quite clear that the argument isn't a particularly popular or successful one. Some moral choices are profoundly personal ones. The moral case for vegetarianism isn't a good place to start when thinking about the policies we should be pursuing.
All we'd really have to do is take every 10th grader on a field trip to a meat packer, hog farm, or chicken farm.
People's behaviour is incredibly destructive when the consumption is divorced from the effects of the consumption.
O Karma, thee a bitch!
In 1979, the shia's of Iran sank the presidency of Carter when they played him and refused to turn over the hostages, and in essences handed the presidency to Ronald Reagan! In 2008, the shia's of Iraq are going to sink the chances of Mccain becoming the president of the U.S.
O Karma, thee a bitch!
Or we could simply restrict to sustainable levels the amount of fish which we allow fishermen to harvest
Given how few few fisheries are not already decimated, and given the stresses that would be put on these if we eliminated fishing for non-sustainable fish, this would effectively end the consumption of fish anyway.
~
Coming up with some kind of sustainable fish-farming might help, though.
Might as well come up with a perpetual motion machine too. Fish farming generally requires huge amounts of protein, which is energy inefficient (and essentially the opposite of sustainable). The fact is that fish farming is very, very bad for the environment.
~
Some people make a morality case for not having sex before marriage
As a non-animal eater for both moral and environmental reasons, I agree that selling vegetarianism is probably best marketed for its environmental impact, rather than morality - I think Ryan's comment on the defensiveness of carnivores is on point. But there is a difference in morality between abstinence and eating meat, in that the latter affects other living things, whereas the former affects oneself alone (well, and the unhappy potential mate).
We can also choose to eat more meats that require less energy to produce. More pork and chicken. Less beef.
I blame Jews and Muslims.
We can also choose to eat more meats that require less energy to produce. More pork and chicken. Less beef.
I blame Jews and Muslims.
Or we can just have the price of meat reflect the environmental damage caused by production. There! Problem solved!
Anyone who has ever eaten a tofu stir-fry knows that the ethical case for vegetarianism is, at best, overstated.
Um, sustainable fish farming already exists. Tilapia, catfish and carp eat plant matter and can be raised with low inputs and minimal environmental impact. There aren't _too_ many herbivororus fish so it definitely restricts what you can eat, but it's definitely possible to produce large quantities of tilapia, for example, in a sustainable manner. (Tilapia are warm water fish of course so if you live in northern US and want to eat loclaly you may have to stick with catfish.) I worked for a couple of years in rural Africa and have talked to quite a few fish farmers (both subsistence aquaculturists and people working with international development agencies) as well as some academic fish biologists, so I know a bit about this. There is a reason tilapia are being promoted all over the developing world right now. Tilapia, being cold blooded, are a much more efficient transformer of plant material into high-protein food than a cow or a pig or a chicken.
Molluscs can also be raised pretty sustianbly, at least the ones which eat algae or zooplankton (i.e. scallops, oysters, and clams). It takes a decent sized initial investment but can be a both economically and environmentally sustainable enterprise. This obviously works better if you
re by the coast but I do know someone who raised freshwater clams in a Central American village. Oysters and clams can actually help to cleanse the water they live in since they are filter feeders.
Moreover there are many areas where it would be better for the environment if they were left as aquatic or grassland environments and used for pasture/aquaculture rather than for agriculture.
I don't eat much red meat for a variety of cultural and environmental reasons but I certainly don't think there is anything _wrong_ with killing and eating an animal (I don't see anything remotely wrong with hunting deer for example). It's hard for me to see what your proposition "killing animals is wrong' rests on other than your opinion, which does not reflect any kind of general native moral intuition. Hell, I don't think killing _people_ is always wrong (in war, tyrannicide, capital punishment, and so forth) so certainly I don't think that about animals.
Same goes for driving. If we limited ourselves to one car per family and phased out commuting to work, we could save a lot of gas and still keep cars for recreation and non-essential trips.
My pet(a) idea is that rather than give up meat entirely, everyone should give up eating at fast-food chain restaurants entirely. This would make the world a much better place. Of course, I don't think it is going to happen.
I certainly don't think there is anything _wrong_ with killing and eating an animal (I don't see anything remotely wrong with hunting deer for example). It's hard for me to see what your proposition "killing animals is wrong' rests on other than your opinion, which does not reflect any kind of general native moral intuition.
Not claiming to speak for everyone, but, as an ex-vegetarian (I was one for about 15 years) who knew a lot of other vegetarians, in many cases the moral case rests not on the proposition that 'killing animals is wrong,' but on the proposition that 'torturing animals is wrong,' together with the empirical fact that very many of them are tortured in the course of being made into food. And I would argue that 'torturing animals is wrong' is in fact a "general native moral intuition."
Also, people: there is little point to eating a Boca Burger. Are you really so attached to the "hamburger experience" since you became a vegetarian that you have to "play pretend" by eating a Boca Burger?
Yes, very much so. It's a form of role-playing that I find very enjoyable.
Honestly, I love the taste of meat, and by the looks of the freezer aisles in the grocery stores, so do a lot of vegetarians. In all my experience with my lithe, vegetarian/vegan, hipster friends, I have met but two who do not like the taste of meat and/or find meat-replacement products disgusting via association. In other words, it's very rarely a case of a souring of the "hamburger experience." I can readily report that the majority of us will agree that the devouring of a bacon cheeseburger is a sublime event in a human life, and thus we do our utmost to duplicate it in absence of farm animals.
Meat IS America's second favorite condiment, after all.
Granted that I smoked Camels for 5 years, but meat-eating leftists should really boycott American corporate meat anyway. They're at the top of the Evil Corporation lists.
Quit eating corporate meat, America!
To perhaps make Ezra Klein's point a bit more briefly there's no reason to frame the question of whether or not we should reduce meat consumption for environmental reasons as a question or whether or not we should all become vegetarians. Most of us who eat meat in the developed world eat a sufficient amount of meat that we could eat less meat without giving meat up entirely.
Yeah, fine.
If history is any measure, though, if such a broad-scale change in our society like almost everyone's reducing their meat intake happens through some means, there will probably be a corresponding change in consciousness for a lot of people about the meat-- many will probably naturally consider the other benefits/detriments the change in their diets has in store, like a benefit to the animals, and if it is acceptable to them they will additionally rationalize their change of diet around animal welfare (for example, thinking things like, "One great thing about us all agreeing to eat less meat is that at least now less animals have to suffer for us. You know, come to think of it, it's really lame that people didn't do more to help the animals sooner, since anyone can see now we didn't really need the meat, and it was actually hurting us more than it was helping us to consume so much."). This will in turn lead to people being more accepting of the idea of animal rights more broadly.
This is an anthropology question that will sound familiar to many who are a little familiar with the discipline. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and because human beings are more technologically proficient and educated now then they have when they've experience great technological changes in the past, such psychological/cultural changes aren't bound to occur alongside such a big shift in our technological / physical culture. But that seems very unlikely given the scope and possible permanence of the change.
I love the taste of meat, and by the looks of the freezer aisles in the grocery stores, so do a lot of vegetarians.
While your larger point may well be correct, I don't think the routine use of "meat replacement products" provides good evidence for your thesis. Stuff like Gardenburgers are more of a socio-cultural replacement for meat than a flavor/mouthfeel replacement. They're the same shape and size as the other stuff at the bbq, and they cook on the grill the same way, and fit on the same buns with the same toppings. While some meat replacers do seem to try to approximate the flavor or texture of meat (generally poorly), some of the more popular ones (like Gardenburgers) don't really seem to be trying at all.
All we'd really have to do is take every 10th grader on a field trip to a meat packer, hog farm, or chicken farm.
"when I go up, I want to go to Bovine University."
I used to dislike tofu, too, but if you eat it on its own terms and not as a meat substitute it's great. For instance, one of my favorite Chinese dishes is Ma Po Tofu (AKA Ma Po Doufu and half a dozen other variations). The tofu is not pretending to be meat, and in fact traditionally there's ground or minced beef in the dish. But if done right it can be glorious.
Getting people to eat less meat isn't as difficult as it sounds. When I was a kid I remember a quarter pounder was plenty of beef for a hamburger. Then restaurants started serving half-pounders and people adjusted. Now I go to restaurants and they offer 10 or even 12 ounce burgers, which is ridiculous. Let's just go back to the way it was a few years ago.
Let me just add: I do not think that "reducing national beef consumption by persuading people to eat less beef" will be an effective strategy.
Oh, I don't know. I think most Americans know that America is a nation of fatsoes and we need to do something about it.
I see that people appear to be more interested in debating the taste of Gardenburgers at a barbeque than discussing serious issues like the sustainability of tropical tilapia farming, which I brought up, or the relative merits of oyster vs. clam aquaculture. I suppose that I could draw some conclusions about the intellectual decay of the modern Western intelligentsia, but I think that that "res ipsa loquitur' as the Latin proverb would have it.
As for the omega-6 fatty acids in tilapia, that is dubious to say the least. The article mentions that the tilapia involved were fed on corn, which contains lots of omega-6 fatty acids. That is pretty silly from a sustainability point of view, and if corn were not subsidized it would probably not be done. Tilapia farming is most sustainable when the fish eat naturally growing algae and plant matter rather than corn. If tilapia farming becomes a bigger thing in the USA, it will be because we can no longer afford to feed corn to cows and pigs, and so it will involve tilapia eating algae, which is what they are adapted to do anyway. Incidentally, I don't see that the countries where tilapia is widely eaten have particularly high levels of obesity or heart disease. Perhaps yoo ought to take that idea back to the drawing board.
euthanize your pet if you really want to make a difference
Posted by Hector | July 19, 2008 10:53 PM
As for the omega-6 fatty acids in tilapia, that is dubious to say the least. The article mentions that the tilapia involved were fed on corn, which contains lots of omega-6 fatty acids. That is pretty silly from a sustainability point of view, and if corn were not subsidized it would probably not be done. Tilapia farming is most sustainable when the fish eat naturally growing algae and plant matter rather than corn.
... getting back to the fundamental equation of sustainability,
sustainable + unsustainable = unsustainable
People stumble across the side effects of this all the time in the blogosphere as a way of dismissing steps toward sustainability ... "but that's not sustainable because of this input produced unsustainably!" ... but, obviously, the only way to get sustainable technology all around is to develop lots of solutions that are sustainable in terms of their direct impact, and then push toward getting enough of those technologies in place to make a complete system.
Indeed, one of the improvements in sustainability from a reduction in average beef consumption per person in the US is the opportunity to shift toward more range-finished beef, since there is a substantial increase in total impact for every pound that is put on in the feedlot.
And of course, that's a move that would also appeal to opponents of factory farming on ethical grounds.
I see that people appear to be more interested in debating the taste of Gardenburgers at a barbeque than discussing serious issues like the sustainability of tropical tilapia farming, which I brought up, or the relative merits of oyster vs. clam aquaculture.
My goodness, Hector, you're certainly the life of the party . . .
Sorry to be so late to the party, suppose it's too late for anyone to read my comment. Still: one of the things that is neglected in the less-meat debate is the ways in which nature can help us. For example, and rather dramatically, two existing farmed plants can easily help us reduce the impact of meat production by 50% or more.
The first is Asafoetida, or "the root that stinks" in Sanscrit. Our lust for meat is in much part actually a lust for decomposing things - as every butcher knows (which is why meat is never sold fresh). Hindus figured this out long ago and use tiny amounts of Asafoetida to give their tastebuds the same punch as a week-old dead cow. (Personally I think that Indian cooking is the only vegan cooking that satisfies.) If we did as the Indians do, we could reduce our craving for dead animals.
The second is Colocasia, better known as Giant Taro, which when mixed with soya or corn dramatically increases the efficiency of protein extraction by animals (and humans). The reason is that plant protein doesn't correspond to animal needs - its mix of aminoacids is different. In particular, aminoacid number 11 (I forgot its name) is available in such small quantities in typical feedstuffs, that the protein efficiency of the latter is only around 40%. Giant Taro has high levels of aminoacid no. 11, meaning that when it is added to soya or corn, the protein efficiency of the latter is much increased - to perhaps 60%. In other words, if Giant Taro is mixed with soya or corn, the same meat production can be achieved with much less feed.
Promotion of just these two plants - Giant Taro and Asafoetida - could decrease the environmental impact of meat consumption so incredibly much that it wouldn't be an issue.
I love the taste of meat, and by the looks of the freezer aisles in the grocery stores, so do a lot of vegetarians.
While your larger point may well be correct, I don't think the routine use of "meat replacement products" provides good evidence for your thesis. Stuff like Gardenburgers are more of a socio-cultural replacement for meat than a flavor/mouthfeel replacement. They're the same shape and size as the other stuff at the bbq, and they cook on the grill the same way, and fit on the same buns with the same toppings. While some meat replacers do seem to try to approximate the flavor or texture of meat (generally poorly), some of the more popular ones (like Gardenburgers) don't really seem to be trying at all.
Comments closed August 02, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
We can also choose to eat more meats that require less energy to produce. More pork and chicken. Less beef.
Posted by Jake | July 19, 2008 2:50 PM