(ONE OF) THE FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE(S) WITH MORAL VEGETARIANISM

I like getting into arguments with vegetarians. I find it amusing at times because they usually find themselves getting into the same old arguments with the same old people, making the same points over and over again. However, I tend to agree with a lot of the basic premises of vegetarianism, but I believe that the answer of vegetarianism (and by this, I mean merely not eating any meat) glosses over the complexities of the issues underlying our food producing system.

I disagree with vegetarians in two different ways, depending upon which way they choose to make there argument. Usually, vegetarians make their decision to become vegetarian based on a combination of these two moral arguments, although some tend to lean on one of these arguments more than others. (Obviously, for many individuals, turning to vegetarianism can be a lot more complex, and quite often includes health reasons as well; I don't mean to oversimplify a complex issue, but these tend to be the two common responses.) The reasons for becoming a vegetarian tend to be either a moral response to the killing of animals in general, or a moral response to the way we go about killing animals now, i.e. factory farming, etc.

As for the first part, this is where I believe vegetarians gloss over a very important issue, and that is the damage that is being done to the planet through the use of agriculture. According Union of Concerned Scientists’ The Consumer’s Guide to Effective Environmental Choices, these are the consumer-related activities that most harm the environment:

1. Driving (because of air pollution and greenhouse gasses)
2. Production of meat and poultry (because of land use that destroys natural habitats, use of water, water pollution, and production of methane, a greenhouse gas)
3. Cultivation of fruits, vegetables and grains (because of water use, soil erosion, and water pollution through pesticide and fertilizer use)
4. Home heating, hot water and air conditioning (because of air pollution and greenhouse gasses)
5. Household appliances and lighting (because of air pollution and greenhouse gasses)
6. Home construction (because of land use that destroys natural habitats, timber harvesting, and water pollution due to materials production)
7. Household water, sewage and solid waste disposal (because of water pollution and air pollution from incinerators)

Obviously, meat and poultry are number two, but unfortunately, the way agriculture is currently produced, it's still high ranking in the damage that it does. Agriculture reduces biodiversity, extracts all the nutrients from the soil, and is fundamentally unnatural compared to the way plant life normally grows (read here: http://www.urbanscout.org/agriculture-vs-rewilding/ ). Vegetarians are aware that they are cutting down Brazilian rainforests in order to grow the soy that your meatless body needs for protein, correct? No? Hmmm...

This is the problem, and I'm not claiming an easy solution, but I think it's much more complicated than the average vegetarian makes it out to be. I try to buy organic and local as often as I can, as well as trying to reduce my consumption of meat if I can, but I do believe we can produce this food without destroying the natural world. However, whether we can do it and still produce enough food to feed the planet, I'm not sure. Ultimately, I don't propose a perfect solution, or even a good one, but I have an answer to why I can agree with all of vegetarians' premises and not agree with vegetarians. Plus, I enjoy meat, and I can enjoy meat without doing some of the damage that meat currently does to the environment (by eating free-range meat without steroids and all that SHIT they put into cows now), I will.

The second argument is about whether it is moral for us to take another life for food, and to this, I give a resounding YES. The problem is even that the question is posed, because it reveals that they buy into the fundamental assumption that is actually causing a lot of the problems in the first place, which is this: we are fundamentally different and separate from nature, and must control, dominate, and subdue nature for our purposes, instead of functioning inside and as a part of the natural world. It is this assumption that allows us to have factory farming and argiculture and its inherent destruction in the first place. It is this assumption that you are protesting against AND supporting by attempting to make this argument. Is it immoral for the hawk to kill a rat to eat? Is it immoral for the lion to kill the gazelle to eat? No, of course not, only an idiot could possibly think it is, and this is where the divide comes in. Humans and humanity are NOT fundamentally different from the natural world we participate it, and if we thought that way, we wouldn't even pose this question. It is the belief that we are separate that gave rise to this method of food, and it is this same belief that gave rise to the moral question of eating animals.

Basically, vegetarian diets still do damage to the environment, and by switching to a vegetarian diet, you may merely be shifting the damage from one source to another. Vegetarians who are morally opposed to eating animals are perpetuating the system they claim to be railing against. My response: buy local, buy organic, and VOTE. Learn, pay attention, and do the best you can. I'm not perfect, and neither are you.