Thanks for posting this, Ezra. If you are able to visit a factory farm, you'll find things are far worse than can be conveyed in print.

What shocks me is how mocking and dismissive otherwise thoughtful people can be of those who use their choices to make a difference in the world (e.g., "You're not one of those vegetarians, are you?"). As though you can't be a real man unless you pay others to slaughter other animals on your behalf.

Of course, one can find crazy statements from vegans, just as you can find absurd claims from "liberals." But the statements of others is not the issue -- it is choosing not to support a cruel, destructive system.

What shocks me is how mocking and dismissive otherwise thoughtful people can be of those who use their choices to make a difference in the world...

Hey, it's not just the vegerarian choice, it's the belief that your choice is making a difference that they're laughing at. It may make you feel somehow superior or helpful, but in the end, your choice is like pissing in the wind.

Remember "What if they gave a war, and nobody came" from the sixties? Same with trying to not make a carbon footprint while China and India are spewing carbon out the waazoo. It's a crock and it only helps you, not the environment.

Next will come the argument "Well, what if everyoone did this...it would make a difference..." So when was the last time *that* happened?

Bottom line is it's just you. It's all about YOU.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose factory farming that make sense. The size of their carbon footprint is not one of them.

Shoehorning easily disputed factoids into arguments for causes like global warming and vegetarianism hurt more than they help.

The size of their carbon footprint is not one of them.

It is generally considered bad form to blithely make a random statement and then not back it up with a actual data.

In any case, Ezra's post did not say that factory farming resulted in an oversized carbon footprint compared to, say, grass-fed beef. He implied that it compared poorly to vegetarianism. Now, you're welcome to claim otherwise, but it would only be polite to back up your argument with data that contradicts ezra's claim. And you believe in being polite, right?

It may make you feel somehow superior or helpful, but in the end, your choice is like pissing in the wind.

you're absolutely right that one person not eating meat will not make a significant change. it will save the lives of hundreds of individual animals, which is no small thing, but i get the point that in the face of this overwhelming problem that seems like nothing.

but once you're vegetarian, you also give yourself the opportunity to spread the word and try to bring other people on board. i've had a hand in convincing at least ten people to give up meat, and they in turn talk to other people. they also put pressure on publications like the times to give attention to the issue - before this article the stunning fact that the livestock industry produces more greenhouse gases than cars was not reported in the times or elsewhere.

every movement for fundamental social changes is a slow and often frustrating process. that hardly justifies disparaging the endeavor and hiding from your own responsibilities.

I just finished reading Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, and she argues for eating locally grown produce and meat (after making sure the meat is pasture finished -- apparently corporations are twisting the definition of grass-fed).

She notes that vegetarians are also the death of animals, although indirectly, when they eat corporate farmed produce. Only, in those cases, the animal goes to waste, so to speak.

And it burns a lot of fuel to ship corporate farmed produce from California to Washington, DC.

OK...
So let's name names here and credit Mark Bittmann..
..the great 'Minimalist' in cooking and someone who should be
on Ezra's top cooking...[stir-fry is? cooking, isn't it]..reference shelf.
It is just a teeny chiding after all, isn't it Ezra?
Chut..chut and like that.

Even (compassionate) conservatives can get this issue. Everyone, of whatever political stripe, should read Dominion, by Matthew Scully, former speechwriter to Dubya.

http://www.matthewscully.com/reviews.htm

Native born Americans are quite illiterate about what being a vegetarian means. I cannot count the number of times the people have asked me, once they find out that I do not eat meat, that surely I must eat fish and chicken. Forget about being offered vegetable beef soup as a vegetarian dish.

Monoculture farming of any sort is environmentally toxic. Whether that is setting aside large lots to house animals beside huge manmade pools to store urine and poop, or planting thousands of acre in a single sterile bean or grain crop or the pesticides necessary to ensure a picture perfect peach, monoculture is anathema to good land management. It is necessary to provide huge variety to people who routinely eat only a small percentage of the available foods in their markets. We need better food education rather than a war over whose diet is better when both aren't particularly good at the moment.

"Hey, it's not just the vegerarian choice, it's the belief that your choice is making a difference that they're laughing at. It may make you feel somehow superior or helpful, but in the end, your choice is like pissing in the wind...
Next will come the argument "Well, what if everyoone did this...it would make a difference..." So when was the last time *that* happened?

Bottom line is it's just you. It's all about YOU."

Posted by: El Viajero |

No offense, but this is a tired argument. If one person's decision doesn't make a difference than why vote? Why listen to Obama or Hilary, Huckabee or even Ezra for that matter? - All individuals trying to effectively make change - either in what you think about or how things are run.
Because individual decisions make up our world and taking a personal stand against a bigger (impossible?) status quo is no easy task. Why be one of the naysayers standing in the way?
Small, individual choices do make a difference (it is, after all, how we created this problem in the first place, isn't it?)
And it's not like anyone's asking anyone to completely give up meat, just to cut down a little and to think about the impact that little choices can (and do) make.
Plus, you can easily be against the process of meat production (like I am) but not against the principle of eating meat. Every little thing counts.
Don't be such a humbug.

Science is your friend. Just as nuclear power is the most environmentally responsible energy source that is reliable (wind and solar depend on the weather, uranium and thorium do not), genetic research is leading to a more environmentally responsible food supply.

In vitro meat (sheets of muscle fibers growing from animal stem cells) is the future. In 50 years our grandchildren will be shocked we killed animals to harvest their flesh.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11ideas_section2-9.html

Native born Americans are quite illiterate about what being a vegetarian means.

I was once at a Burmese restaurant in New York's Chinatown with my vegetarian then-girlfriend, and she bristled at the fact that the top item under "vegetarian" dishes on the menu was "crispy intestine."

All else being equal, yes it would be better for the planet if there was less meat consumption. But I think that this argues more in favor of a carbon tax. For example, I rarely drive (I live in Brooklyn and travel by subway and foot), but I love meat. A carbon tax woudl enable me to choose how to apportion my carbon footprint.

The most staggering food industry statistic I know is that 25% of the global fish catch is used for animal feed, including for farmed fish.

I think we should use our choices to make a difference in the world by eating El Viajero. Granted, he'd probably be tough and gamey, it won't do much for the environment, and it's not really sustainable, but geez, it would definitely do a little to help make a better world.

More seriously, one suspects that folks like El Viajero will insist that social programs should be replaced by charity based on individual choices, as well as emphasizing the efficiency, value, and god-like nature of the free market, which of course is based on countless individual decisions.

Shorter Fred Pendejones: "sure, I could try not to be a sociopath, but it's not like it'll stop other trolling sociopaths. So, whatever."

Your Republican party in action.

Tyro said, "In any case, Ezra's post did not say that factory farming resulted in an oversized carbon footprint compared to, say, grass-fed beef. He implied that it compared poorly to vegetarianism."

So what do we do with the animals when we all become vegetarians? Kill them? Maybe keep a few around as zoo exhibits and novelties? Will they cease to breed naturally?

While the extremists here have argued that it's and EITHER/OR decision,.....it's not.
Beef has one of the most inefficient protein conversion percentages of all production meat. There are tasty animals that are much more efficient.

Of course, if you are arguing the moral aspects of killing animals for food, then this won't help you at all...

My diabetes became much more controlable after I quit eating meat. Much more. And I feel much better most of the time. And it wasn't even hard to do.
Just sayin'.

"While the extremists here have argued that it's and EITHER/OR decision,.....it's not.

I agree that it isn't, El Viajero, but no-one here is arguing that. However, pointing out that "Beef has one of the most inefficient protein conversion percentages of all production meat. There are tasty animals that are much more efficient." was in fact helpful - thanks. There are all sort of important details like this: for example, how much meat, how sustainably is it raised, even not just what species but what variety - for example, the NY Times Magazine had an article yesterday about how Holsteins are replacing Ankole cattle in East Africa. Holsteins can have a vastly higher milk output than Ankoles (20 - 30x!), but to do so also require vastly more resources (It's a very complicated issue all around - read the article if interested - it's even suggested that the Ankole's future, if any, may lie in meat production - high quality, and on limited resources).

If you want to support the environment and reduce your reliance on factory farming, then go out and shoot yourself a whitetail deer or feral hog. The former is an over abundant renewable completely sustainable local organic free range (any more marketing buzzwords I can use?) source of animal protein. In fact, by not killing whitetail deer you are causing the loss of many native plant species and the deaths of many native animal species that rely on those plants. The latter (the hogs) are non-native invasive species also destroying the habitat and should be hunted down.

Oh, there is also the fact that you cannot grow vegetables without killing deer anyway (at least not at costs that can be borne by all but the largest agribusiness). Since organic farming eschews many of the poisons used to control animal predation of crops, organic farming is particularly susceptible to deer (and rabbits, squirrels, woodchucks, etc.) and reliant on hunting.

But I forgot, we are Democrats and afraid of guns. Maybe bowhunting?

Holsteins are replacing Ankole cattle in East Africa.

That always cracks me up!!

I envision a bull with a Yarmulke

Since organic farming eschews many of the poisons used to control animal predation of crops, organic farming is particularly susceptible to deer (and rabbits, squirrels, woodchucks, etc.) and reliant on hunting.

True that. I have a cousin who studied "sustainable agriculture" at the University of Vermont, a cousin who is, in general, the kind of person who would study sustainable agriculture at the University of Vermont. And it did kind of mess with him that his first task, upon signing on with a crunchy hippie vegetable farm somewhere after graduation, was being handed a rifle and told to go kill things.

[i]Hey, it's not just the vegerarian choice, it's the belief that your choice is making a difference that they're laughing at. It may make you feel somehow superior or helpful, but in the end, your choice is like pissing in the wind.

Remember "What if they gave a war, and nobody came" from the sixties? Same with trying to not make a carbon footprint while China and India are spewing carbon out the waazoo. It's a crock and it only helps you, not the environment.

Next will come the argument "Well, what if everyoone did this...it would make a difference..." So when was the last time *that* happened?

Bottom line is it's just you. It's all about YOU.[/i]

What form of idiocy [i]is[/i] this?

You imagine that the behaviour of a single person has ZERO influence on the conduct of those around him, do you?

Next you'll be saying that there's such thing as an entirely private action...

There are some people who are in severe need of some Sartre, you are unquestionably one of them. No piece of behaviour can be judged entirely on the [i]direct[/i] impact which is leaves.

This is an immensely small-minded approach to the perfectly valid teleological method of ethics: your action's consequences are not purely those that occur physically {less meat consumed, less money spent on meat, less funding for the meat industry} but instead the impact which you have upon others.

If you are truly of the view that a certain action is unethical you would not continue to do it unless you deemed some other factor as more important. To argue that something is of importance yet to contribute nothing towards it because others will never is the height of idiocy: how [i]exactly[/i] do you intend to avert India and China from their present policy of environmental annihilation if you yourself are not doing everything which you can to prevent it yourself?

Either you do not cherish human life upon earth or you are acting in bad faith.

It has come to my attention that the formatting on my previous attempt at a post was poor. Here is my second effort:

Hey, it's not just the vegerarian choice, it's the belief that your choice is making a difference that they're laughing at. It may make you feel somehow superior or helpful, but in the end, your choice is like pissing in the wind.

Remember "What if they gave a war, and nobody came" from the sixties? Same with trying to not make a carbon footprint while China and India are spewing carbon out the waazoo. It's a crock and it only helps you, not the environment.

Next will come the argument "Well, what if everyoone did this...it would make a difference..." So when was the last time *that* happened?

Bottom line is it's just you. It's all about YOU.

What form of idiocy is this?

You imagine that the behaviour of a single person has ZERO influence on the conduct of those around him, do you?

Next you'll be saying that there's such thing as an entirely private action...

There are some people who are in severe need of some Sartre, you are unquestionably one of them. No piece of behaviour can be judged entirely on the direct impact which is leaves.

This is an immensely small-minded approach to the perfectly valid teleological method of ethics: your action's consequences are not purely those that occur physically {less meat consumed, less money spent on meat, less funding for the meat industry} but instead the impact which you have upon others.

If you are truly of the view that a certain action is unethical you would not continue to do it unless you deemed some other factor as more important. To argue that something is of importance yet to contribute nothing towards it because others will never is the height of idiocy: how exactly do you intend to avert India and China from their present policy of environmental annihilation if you yourself are not doing everything which you can to prevent it yourself?

Either you do not cherish human life upon earth or you are acting in bad faith.

If you are truly of the view that a certain action is unethical you would not continue to do it unless you deemed some other factor as more important.

Revamp,

When that statement was made, the ethics of meat eating was not being discussed...

...how exactly do you intend to avert India and China from their present policy of environmental annihilation if you yourself are not doing everything which you can to prevent it yourself?

India and China will not stop because *I* stop. They will stop when it's in their best economic interest to stop. They don't care if you or I sing Kumbaya or not...

When we talk about sustainable agriculture, and not wasting food, and using the most of all the foods we grow, I can't help but wonder about making stock.

Chicken stock isn't so bad to make at home, since it's largely using bones from other meals and a few parts that you add, later saving the meat for other things. (I don't eat a lot of meat, but I eat some, and I loves me some homemade chicken salad.) I imagine that industrial stock processing is largely the same, although Cook's Illustrated testing shows that they skimp on the chicken and amp up the vegetables to try to make flavor cheaper.

But what about vegetable stock? Every recipe I've seen for making it at home calls for something like two meals' worth of vegetables, which are then boiled and thrown away, keeping only the broth. You can use leftover vegetable scraps in stock,but you usually need to add other fresh veggies as well.

And it seems like every health-conscious recipe these days calls for a cup, or two, or six, of either chicken or vegetable stock.

I don't actually know if it's a problem or not. It just makes me wonder.

If anyone ever tells me to give up a medium-rare Kansas City Strip for Tofu, I'm gonna drive my H2 right over their Smart for Two.

Switching to locally raised, grass-fed beef, or better yet, buffalo, would be a vast improvement for the planet over our conventional and quite horrific livestock industry.

Conventional beef is raised as follows:
- Grow corn and other grains (on what used to be prairie) to feed livestock
- Use massive amounts of fossil fuel (tractors, irrigation pumps, ...) and fossil fuel derivatives (fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides) to grow the corn much less efficiently than mother nature grows prairie grass
- Corn requires more water than almost any crop - add that too.
- Feed the corn to cows
- Then use incredible amounts of antibiotics on the cattle because corn is not a natural food for cattle and causes ulcers. And, given the crowding at feedlots and disgusting, cruel conditions the animals immune systems are weakened - so give 'em antibiotics for that too.
- Note that these antibiotics will become less and less useful for the people as more and more germs become resistant to them.
- Since the slaughter houses are also utterly disgusting, inhuman and unsafe for the workers and consumers, well irradiate the meat to make it "safe" to eat.

It would be hard to design a more wasteful and insane system.

I agree completely with the above we literally have millions of unused acres of grassland in our CRP program, which would be put to much better use than factory farms as well as environmentally much friendlier

Ezra,

Give it a try! It's tasty and you'll feel great!

Beowulf beat me to it: in vitro meat. Imagine what a breakthrough it would be (it will be) to be able to grow beef, pork, chicken, tuna, etc. etc. in a vat. Especially if the vats were cheap and easy to construct and could be run with solar energy and fed with weeds, grass clippings, and other biomass. The world would change in drastic ways. I don't think the idea is far-fetched or a dream of the distant future.

Meet your in-vitro meat:
http://new-harvest.org/default.php

Think of the possibilities! Human flesh will become an viable commercial product, available in supermarkets and restaurants. You'll even be able to culture your own cells and eat yourself. Or celebrities could license their cells: "Our special tonight is rump of Britney Spears."

Before you say "Yuck", think of what you're eating now: mutilated cow or pig corpse. And you'll be able to eat environmentally friendly human flesh with a clear conscience. ("No animals, human or otherwise, were harmed in the production of this meat.")

Same with trying to not make a carbon footprint while China and India are spewing carbon out the waazoo.

El Viajero, your other "argument" from your first post has already been skewered well by others (I hope it's vegetarian :)), so I won't bother with it.

As for the statement about China and India, take a look at this chart from the EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html
and keep in mind that those are absolute figures, not per-capita. (I'm curious - do you think per-capita consumption is irrelevant? In that case, all countries should break up into lots of smaller countries - that'll drastically reduce country-wise emissions.)

I'd appreciate it if someone could point me to projections of growths rates (of carbon emissions) by country. I'd be interested to find out how much faster India's and China's emissions are projected to grow, compared to the US.

Heh, I should read my own links :). The EPA page does have a projection of growth rates, and though it's for developing versus developed countries in aggregate, the contrast for India/China versus the US would probably be as stark (or worse). So in the long run, India and China will be worse offenders, although in terms of per-capita emissions, they'd still take a while to catch up.