Pharyngula

Our cows are more solar powered than yours.

Yeah, but they're less tasty, and I've eaten both, so I know.

But a carbon tax seems like a great idea, as long as there's a mechanism in place to ensure that people who are too poor to buy a Prius don't get screwed.

Posted by: Alon Levy | May 8, 2006 12:44 AM

These old hens have no value, that's the problem

But old hens DO have value! A poule au pot is a great way to eat an old hen. I guess most Americans have rejected cooking - it's easier to buy McNuggets.

A culture out of control, all the evidence points to it.

Posted by: wcamps | May 8, 2006 2:32 AM

"The fossil fuel goes into the fertilizer used to fertilize these acres of grain, which are then harvested and processed and transported to the cattle for feed."

I'd like to see the maths behind the figure. I've got this feeling that they're assuming you use your barrels of oil soley for the production of the fertiliser, when most of the oil would be used for other things. Or to put it another way, the feedstocks for your fertiliser production can be waste from the production of other feedstocks and fuels.

It's a good point in qualitative terms, I'm just not sure about the quantification.

Posted by: sockatume | May 8, 2006 3:28 AM

Besides bringing up reasonable environmental and health problems caused by factory farms, however, Singer unfortunately makes the typical stupid animal rights error. He compares our treatment of animals to the actions of slave owners, Nazis, and racism in general. The reason why "specism" is not the same as "racism" is that in the latter, the difference between the oppressor and oppressed is purely arbitrary, but this just isn't true in the former case -- humans really *are* more clever than other animals. So his analogy taken at face value is really an insult to Blacks and Jews.

Posted by: Jonathan Badger | May 8, 2006 6:24 AM

We're still producing just as many pigs, in fact more pigs, but there has been such concentration that we are now producing more pigs with a tenth as many pig farms. The same has happened in dairy and many other areas.

Is this supposed to be a bad thing? "concentration" in this context could be called "productivity growth".

Posted by: maria | May 8, 2006 7:12 AM

I am so glad to see this discussion! I have been a vegan for 3 years and it was one of the best decisions I ever made. Leaving aside the ethical considerations, I have lost a lot of weight (at 48!) and am healthier than I have been in decades. People often see vegetarianism as deprivational but it actually is one of the best things you can do for yourself, the planet, society (because the animal industries are among the very worst labor exploiters) and of course the animals. it is win, win, win...win.

Vegetarianism is is also a deeply **rational** decision, and I know all Pharyngulists (Pharyngulars? Pharyngulatists?) pride themselves on their rationality. :-) btw, another science blog I follow is inventor Ray Kurzweil's longevity blog, kurzweilai.net. Some of you may know that Kurzweil is now seriously into life extension technologies including nanotech, prostheses, and enhanced nutrition. he doesn't recommend a vegan diet, but comes VERY close to doing so. (During a recent NYT interview, he's eating tofu.) He pulls his punches, I think...I think for anyone wishing to living the longest possible lifespan, flooding your body with the hormones, pesticides, antibiotics, heavy metals (from fish), cholesterol, etc., is a bad bet.

I will be happy to answer any questions people have on vegetarianism and veganism. ask me here or email me at lifelongactivist at yah00. In the meantime, below are some resources for those who wish to learn more.

Dawn

Resources:

-there is probably a vegetarian club in your local community. check it out

-The China Diet by T. Colin Campbell is the largest epidemiological nutrition study ever conducted, and he comes out firmly on the side of vegetarianism.

-Here is a Website by an M.D. that is chockablock filled with scientific information on the advantages of veganism and disadvantages of animal products: www.veganmd.com. click over to his "newsletters" and start reading the archives.

- Becoming Vegan by Brenda Davis. She is a nutritionist and a great writer.

-There are also tons of other websites, books etc.

-again, feel free to email me at lifelongactivist at yah00 for more information, or with any questions...

Posted by: Dawn O'Day | May 8, 2006 7:19 AM

The reason why "specism" is not the same as "racism" is that in the latter, the difference between the oppressor and oppressed is purely arbitrary, but this just isn't true in the former case -- humans really *are* more clever than other animals. So his analogy taken at face value is really an insult to Blacks and Jews.

So as long as there is a non-arbitrary difference between the oppressor and the oppressed, it's okay? That permits oppression of women, various ethnic minority groups, all religious groups, sexualities, political affiliations, etc. I wouldn't want to be a Libertarian lesbian black Jewish woman meeting you in a dark alley.

Or is it just being cleverer that makes atrocity all right? So it's all right for me to commit atrocities against everyone dumber than I am?

What's your real name and address? I'd like to come over and 'discuss' these issues further with you.

Posted by: Caledonian | May 8, 2006 7:31 AM

humans really *are* more clever than other animals. So his analogy taken at face value is really an insult to Blacks and Jews.

And yet a large part of the justification for both slavery and the nazi's treatment of jews (and others) was that they were dealing with inferior creatures. Furthermore, I'm at a loss to link requisite cleverness with the capacity for suffering.

Posted by: josefek | May 8, 2006 7:49 AM

How to become vegetarian in 3 easy steps

1. visit your supermarket and familiarize yourself with the vegetarian options. There are probably many more of them than you realize, and there are probably vegetarian substitutes for many of the foods you like to easy (e.g., veggie burgers for burgers; vegan "spread" for butter; tofutti for ice-cream). Check out frozen foods, international foods, the dairy section (for dairy substitutes) and also produce.

2. choose 2 foods or ingredients you regularly eat and start eating the vegetarian equivalents. For example, substitute vegan spread for butter (probably the least healthy common food in our diets), tofu for meat dishes in Chinese takeout, or soy milk for cow milk in your coffee.

3. Then, only when you're comfortable with the above change, make two more substitutions.

I know that in their zealotry a lot of veg*ns can be obnoxious, but veganism or vegetarianism is not an all-or-nothing thing. Make the change at your own pace, and to the degree that's comfortable for you. Remember that a balanced vegetarian diet with a bit of dairy or meat or eggs can give you all the nutrients you need, including all the protein you need. And for a vegan diet (no animal products at all) the only nutrient you will lack (and need to supplement for) is B12. But it's always a good idea to take a supplement no matter which diet you follow.

Again, I'm available to answer any questions Pharyngulists have either in the comments or at lifelongactivist at yah00.

Dawn

Posted by: Dawn O'Day | May 8, 2006 8:02 AM

If some people choose to be vegan, I have no problem with that choice. But if someone says ANY meat eating is wrong, I do have a problem. My ancestors are from a part of the world where they had no option but to eat meat if they wanted to live. Vegetarian offerings were just not available year-round to keep them fed. If I choose to responsibly eat meat, it's part of my cultural heritage and not wrong.

Posted by: bill | May 8, 2006 8:14 AM

The points of Mr. Smith and Mr. Badger combine to make an *excellent* argument in favor of baby eating.

Bill's reliance on "cultural heritage" seems misbegotten. The fact is, Bill's options are different from those of his ancestors. In particular, he has the option to ameliorate suffering by modifying his eating habits, in relatively trivial ways.

Posted by: "Q" the Enchanter | May 8, 2006 8:32 AM

Singer's always an interesting read, and I'm happy he does what he does just to make people reconsider their values occasionally, but his straightforward, logical arguments from utilitarian postulates to sometimes horrifying conclusions mostly makes me think I'm not a utilitarian.

I think he has a stronger case here than he does talking about other things. For instance, he's argued elsewhere on grounds of maximizing utility that all Westerners have a moral obligation to reduce their standard of living all the way to that of marginally surviving people in underdeveloped countries, and send all the surplus money overseas to save the lives of many others. There's certainly a rich tradition behind it--Jesus said something similar. And most of us could stand to do a little more of that, which I think is Singer's real goal in advocating this. But it leads to weird consequences if taken seriously. The sciences and arts as we know them would have to simply shut down, for instance; a society in which everyone is living on the edge of survival can't do much of that. Also, the surpluses we'd be sending over would dry up pretty quickly as our economy stopped functioning. (I suppose, on the other hand, that you could argue that since obviously not everybody is really going to do this, those of us who know better can sacrifice our own comfort knowing that the rest of society will keep churning away.)

Singer argued from the analogy of a situation in which somebody has to destroy his fancy car in order to save a child from a speeding train; anyone would say he has the obligation to do it. But I then read someone (on LiveJournal, I think) pointing out that if you take his logic a step further, actually the person's obligation is to let the kid die, sell the car and send the money to UNICEF to save hundreds of kids somewhere else.

Posted by: Matt McIrvin | May 8, 2006 8:47 AM

Given the amount of suffering seen in nature as it is, I find it self-indulgent to point fingers at anyone for simply eating other animals. Now if you can demonstrate how there may be a degree of needless cruelty involved (as is the case with modern pork production, IMO), that's another matter.

As for the economic impact of modern farming on small towns, so what? You might as well bemoan how the economic impact of machine tools and robotics has impacted the traditional blue collar neighborhood or how technology has vastly reduced the number of workers involved in fishing and depopulated many an old fishing town. I'm more concerned about the impact on the natural environment by the intensive application of technology on the land and sea than I am on the human impact, which for the most part is not that devastating to anyone other than those who sentimentalize such things. I've seen small burgs fade away and pass on in my own life, and noted how thousands of midwestern hamlets that were once shown on old maps aren't there anymore. I personally think the depopulation of large portions of the northern high plains is to be expected, and that the people who leave generally move on to better things than they left behind. I see no reason to preserve them as some sort of historical theme park.

Posted by: David Wilford | May 8, 2006 8:50 AM

Assuming nonhuman animals are somehow subhuman is not really a fact. If came along and said You are subMe, therefore I think i'll eat you, I think you might have a problem with my logic.

Certainly most people would agree that it would unethical to eat elves or wookies if such things existed -- those would be good examples of non-human animals that weren't sub-human. And many science fiction stories bring up the problem of artifical intelligences -- if intelligent programs existed, it would be unethical to delete them or even to turn off the computer they were running on. But in all these cases, there is a common reason why people would agree that killing them would be unethical -- that they have human levels of intelligence.

I love(d) meat, I ate it three times a day, but I cant accept that those animals are not unhappy about being kept locked up and killed they way they are.

And perhaps the most ironical thing about this discussion is that I *don't* eat meat (well, I have been known to eat crabs and shrimp sometimes) -- but that's mostly because I don't like the texture or taste of meat, combined with a lesser concern for the environmental and health issues involved with the meat industry.

Posted by: Jonathan Badger | May 8, 2006 9:19 AM

bill's point is almost correct, though. A vegetarian diet is not practical in the Arctic, for example, at least not for anyone but the fabulously wealthy. Even there one would be paying the massive fuel costs Singer talks about.

Singer also has a recipe for lentils in one of his books. Feuerbach ("people are what they eat") would have been proud.

Posted by: Keith Douglas | May 8, 2006 9:39 AM

"I'd like to see the maths behind the figure."

I believe this is the paper they're referencing:

http://laweekly.blogs.com/judith_lewis/files/diet_energy_and_global_warming-1.pdf

Posted by: astranick | May 8, 2006 10:12 AM

Whitey -

Of course, partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils are dangerous - I never said all plant foods were healthy and I emphasized "balanced" diet in my post. the resources I mention discuss this, trans fats, over-processed grains, and other unhealthy vegetable products that should be avoided.

Your point about veganism/carnism being a false choice has some merits and there are vegans workiing on it. At the cutting edge of veganism is something called freeganism that addresses this concern in toto. You can read about at www.freegan.info .

However, the evidence is overwhelming and widely accepted that animal agriculture is intrinsically and in practice far more wasteful of resources, and far more cruel to all involved, than plant agriculture.

Dawn

Posted by: Dawn O'Day | May 8, 2006 10:45 AM

Your point about veganism/carnism being a false choice has some merits...

It doesn't merely have some merits, it is true. "Ethical" veg*nism is a perfect example of the classical fallacy of denying the antecedent. It is just as stupid as this argument:

1) All poodles are dogs.
2) My dog is not a poodle.
3) Therefore, my dog is not a dog.

... and there are vegans workiing on it.

See, Dawn, if they were actually working on it, they would reject the label "vegan." Your motivation is not concern for animals, it is maintaining the fiction that you are morally superior to the majority of people. That's why you'll choose 50 animal deaths/pound (rice) over 1 animal death/500 pounds (a succulent elk steak). The animals and their suffering are simply tools for you to use.

However, the evidence is overwhelming and widely accepted that animal agriculture is intrinsically and in practice far more wasteful of resources, and far more cruel to all involved, than plant agriculture.

Pure BS, because you simply can't be bothered to assess the impact of plant agriculture. I live in central Montana, and trout-filled rivers flow through ranches and hay farms, only to be ruined by the silt produced by barley farming (most of it goes into Budweiser).

The evidence is overwhelming that ranching maintains native flora and fauna far better than farming.

Posted by: Whitey | May 8, 2006 11:09 AM

Arun wrote:
Unless you eat locally grown organic food, there is a significant energy cost in transportation and storage; also you have to worry about pesticides depending on where the food was imported from.

"Organic" is a false bifurcation, too. Here, Arun exhibits a complete ignorance of organic standards. "Organic" in no way means "no pesticides." There are plenty of nasty organic pesticides (such as rotenone), because evolution does a far better job of producing toxins than our intelligent design. In fact, many synthetic pesticides are modifications of natural ones to make them more labile.

That being said, Arun's point about local food is a good one.

Posted by: Whitey | May 8, 2006 11:17 AM

I have a small question for all the vegetarians/vegans out there. Ya'll are stating that the main reason for not eating meat is animal suffering. Others have pointed out that the degree of suffering must be taken into account etc.

In your animalcentric universe, you are assuming that plants do not suffer when you eat their children (seeds) or ovaries (fruit) etc. I'm sorry, but that's not something any of us have the experience to speak about. It is very difficult to understand the suffering of animals that are very different from us (like all non-mammals). I have even heard some people claim that lobsters cannot feel pain, so it is okay to cook them alive. These kinds of ethical arguments are simply window dressing on life. Lions do not agonize over the pain of the gazelle when they kill, not because they are cruel, but because death is part of life.

Second, there are real nutritional dangers of being vegan, particularly to children. The genus Homo is characterized through time by an increased reliance on meat as part of the diet. Increased use of animal protein has provided raw material for encephalization. Without meat or other animal products, in the diet, many children suffer cognitive delays in development that take years to alleviate.

I believe there is a very good ethical and evironmental argument against industrial farms of both the vegetable and animal kind. I eat less meat than I did because now I only buy local beef where I know the cows are pastured most of the year, and that beef is more expensive than the stuff at Wal-Mart. I also replaced much of the beef in my diet with venison (naturally organic!). But I still eat meat.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | May 8, 2006 12:08 PM

I don't think most vegetarians realize what industrialized agriculture is really like.

As a side note, an organic, vegetarian diet is prohibitively expensive for many people including broke grad students.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | May 8, 2006 12:26 PM

I have a small question for all the vegetarians/vegans out there.

I'm only a mostly-vegetarian (mostly vegan, too), but I'll respond anyway.

Ya'll are stating that the main reason for not eating meat is animal suffering.

Vegetarians' motivations vary quite widely. There's usually some mix of the following three:

1. Wanting to reduce animal suffering.

2. Wanting to reduce ecological damage.

3. Wanting to be healthier.

Others have pointed out that the degree of suffering must be taken into account etc.

In your animalcentric universe, you are assuming that plants do not suffer when you eat their children (seeds) or ovaries (fruit) etc.

Most of us are not just assuming this; we're making an educated guess.

Plants do not appear to have emotions. They do exhibit various kinds of adaptation, but not of the kind or complexity that seems necessary to support emotions.
It's a good guess that they don't suffer, because suffering is something that happens in brains (or similarly complex and similarly-structured information processing systems).

I'm sorry, but that's not something any of us have the experience to speak about.

Some of us do have relevant scientific knowledge.

It is very difficult to understand the suffering of animals that are very different from us (like all non-mammals). I have even heard some people claim that lobsters cannot feel pain, so it is okay to cook them alive.

I certainly wouldn't say that, nor would most vegetarians I know. It's not clear what it's like to be a lobster, or whether it's like anything at all to be one, but if you don't know and have a good argument that they don't suffer, I'd definitely err on the side of not doing it. A lobster is cognitively far more complex than a plant, even if it's nowhere near as complex as a human.

These kinds of ethical arguments are simply window dressing on life.

Huh?

Lions do not agonize over the pain of the gazelle when they kill, not because they are cruel, but because death is part of life.

Lions are amoral. We don't have to be.

But I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Second, there are real nutritional dangers of being vegan, particularly to children.

Certainly. If you're going to be a strict vegan, you should be very, very careful about your diet.

Without meat or other animal products, in the diet, many children suffer cognitive delays in development that take years to alleviate.

Animal products are the easiest way to make sure you get all of your amino acids, but my impression is that a properly balanced vegan diet is just fine. (If you eat a good combination of incomplete proteins and take your vitamins.)

I believe there is a very good ethical and evironmental argument against industrial farms of both the vegetable and animal kind.

One of Singer's main arguments is that animal farming is generally several times more expensive in several ways than plant farming, because it requires 3-10 times as much plant farming to feed the animals. In most respects, animal farming amplifies the damage of plant farming by a factor of 3 to 10.

(For example, if you're worried about the animals that get caught in combines, you should realize that 3 to 10 times as many will have that happen to them if you eat meat instead of plants. If you're not worried about those critters, but are worried about fossil fuel consumption and global warming, roughly the same multiplier applies.)

I eat less meat than I did because now I only buy local beef where I know the cows are pastured most of the year, and that beef is more expensive than the stuff at Wal-Mart. I also replaced much of the beef in my diet with venison (naturally organic!). But I still eat meat.

Up to a point, I think that's fine. And I think Singer would say so, too. If you really, really enjoy the luxury of eating meat, eating some humanely-grown-and-harvested meat is a reasonable way to spend your discretionary income. (Given his ideas about income disparities, Singer would draw some important lines in different places than most people---meat would be a "very luxurious" luxury item, not just a luxury item. I myself buy his basic argument that meat should be regarded as more of a luxury and less of a staple, even if I don't go as far.)

Unfortunately, things like wild venison or organic free-range beef are just not cost-effective for most people most of the time, and there's no way we can sustainably support the kind of meat consumption we're used to. (If everybody replaced their farmed meat with wild venison, deer would quickly disappear from the wild. If we switched to free-range beef, we'd tie up a lot of land as pasture that would be better used for more efficient agriculture or left more or less wild.)

Posted by: Paul W. | May 8, 2006 2:01 PM

But what about a severely autisitic human? In that case, the chimp might be more self-aware than the human.

Why assume that the more severly autistic are less self-aware? In the past decade or so some of the less verbal set of those with that disorder have been shown to be aware of their outside environment with alternative forms of communication, not all of them facillitated. And even if other people out there are so severly disabled they can't take advantage of writing or type writing, you're still operating from an assumption based on evidence you do not have. But anyway...

Anyway, the problem isn't meat, the problem is capitolism and the industrialization of the food supply. The meat industry is only a part of what is affecting our environment in a negative fashion. Over 85 percent of soy on the US market is now genetically modified. Forests in the Amazon is now being cut down for soy crops. Even the companies raising organic soy aren't always run by hippies, they have to make money off a target market, and can exploit workers as much as the actual land. (Much of the same can be said about crops such as corn, wheat, fruit and so forth, albiet in somewhat different fashions.) And even before capitolism, plant based agriculture has always had its affects on the environment. Land must be cleared, and can affect the surrounding environment in a negative fashion.

As for ethics, I find it mostly questionable. We evolved to eat meat, and to say that animals only kill out of necessity is ridiculous. Predators have been shown to sometimes kill their prey and never eat it, sometimes playing with the corpse at most. Death by predators in the wild can be very painful and slow, depending on the circumstances. And to say that animals such as foxes and lions be allowed to eat meat, and that humans should not is in my opinion speciest and hypocritical.

I used to be a vegetarian for years due to concerns over factory farming, and I, like most people who get involved in that lifestyle, inevitably went back to meat eating. This is natural, considering how human beings have evolved, and I have no regrets going back. In the end I feel that people concerned with animal welfare should attack the system that creates these problems instead of shaming and guilting people into a lifestyle that will most likely not work for them in the long run.

Posted by: Eukarya | May 8, 2006 2:35 PM

But what about a severely autisitic human? In that case, the chimp might be more self-aware than the human. Thus, it becomes impossible to construct a set of criteria based on mental capacity that simultaneously includes all humans and excludes all animals.

So what? There's no dilemma here, because the criterion isn't mental capacity, it's reciprocity.

I will never be a chimp. I may become a disabled human. Therefore, I want all disabled humans to have rights. If a human fails to reciprocate, disabled or not, she/he loses basic human rights.

Posted by: Whitey | May 8, 2006 2:49 PM

Re Dawn:
* Meat is not "a product that is fundamentally unhealthy." As a matter of fact meat is very nutrient-rich. The very fact that you have to take a B12 supplement when you stop eating meat should suggest that the opposite is true. It's just like sugar, or fat, or any of the other foods that people demonize for religi-nutritious reasons - none are fundamentally unhealthy, but you can be unhealthy if you eat too much of them, or don't eat them at all. *

I once had a conversation with a vegetarian who claimed that a fat person walking by was fat because of how much meat they ate. Show me the science. And then tell me why all the fat in vegan cookies that people devour is not a problem!

Personally, I try to buy grass-fed beef, and free-range chickens. I used to raise sheep for food/auction when I was young, and they were treated very well. Currently, I have honeybees and believe it or not, people actually campaign against beekeeping for ethical reasons. Do a search for honey bee and "rape rack" to see some of the inanity. If I have land in the future, I might raise a couple sheep and have a spearmint patch nearby. My point is it is possible to reduce animal suffering and still eat meat.

Dlanod is right on when it comes to organic agriculture - I would go further and say that organic agriculture is dependent upon animals for manure. Some organic folks are also trying to go back to using animals for plowing again. Sick 'em, Singer!

I've often wondered, though, for reasons of ethics, as one person mentioned above, aren't they suggesting that these animals which are raised for meat not be born at all? What about animals that are hunted in the wild, aren't we obligated, therefore, to end their suffering? What if we simply replaced their predators with ourselves... doesn't that result in the same amount of animal death?

Finally, Lions are not amoral. They are social animals that can have social relationships even beyond their own species.

Posted by: Inoculated Mind | May 8, 2006 2:54 PM

It's a good guess that they don't suffer, because suffering is something that happens in brains (or similarly complex and similarly-structured information processing systems).

I don't know -- that sounds rather cerbocentric. I've recently written a grant to study the genomes of predatory bacteria -- bacteria that can track and attack other bacteria. Despite lacking a brain, they seem to have nearly as complex behavior as do many animals. Maybe they suffer too, if suffering is a function of information processing of stimuli.

Posted by: Jonathan Badger | May 8, 2006 3:10 PM