[916] in Vegetarian_Support_Group
issues for all
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Seelig)
Mon Apr 15 04:09:22 1996
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 04:04:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Seelig <david.seelig@yale.edu>
To: yvs.issues-list@minerva.cis.yale.edu, vsg@MIT.EDU
Hello everyone on yvs.issues and vsg,
As the year winds down, I thought I would summerize a few of the issues
which are brought up by vegetarianism, and possibly catalyze a discussion
on one or more of them. What makes vegetarianism unique is the number of
individuals and causes it supports. It seems that this would cause nearly
everyone to be a vegetarian. At this point in time, I believe this can
more readily be attributed to the fact few people truly understand the
issues, and most would not activly search them out, probably preferring
not to know. However, as I think is becoming apparent, as more people are
becoming exposed to the issues, they come to the same conclusion about
their diet.
As people become more aware of the health risks of eating meat, we should
see a rise in the number of vegetarians (53% of vegetarians, according to
a survey conducted by the Vegetarian Times, are so for health reasons).
This rise, though, does not seem to reflect how bad for people meat-eating
really is. This is difficult to understand, considering various studies
(such as the one in China) and the statistics, which illustrate the
drastic reduction in heart attack and cancer proferred by eliminating
meat. Even carnivores (e.g. domestic cats) benefit from a completly
vegetarian diet, despite the fact that their fast digestive systems have
evolved for meat-eating, unlike ours, which digest much slower and allow
the toxins in meat to be absorbed. The "normal" cholesteral guidelines
are surprisingly dangerous compared to the average level achieved by
vegetarians.
While the health issues are strong enough to convince some, others say
they don't care about their health, using similar arguments as smoking.
However, vegetarianism, unlike smoking, transcends health issues, which is
why it should gainsupport from other people. I would even argue, though
some might disagree, that the very fact the issues transcend health should
mandate having the choice to eat meat taken out of the hands of
individuals. One issue that directly or indirectly concerns many people
in different ways is the environmental distruction caused by meat diets in
America (14% cite this as their primary reason for vegetarianism).
Rainforests are continually destroyed for inefficient cattle ranching, 90%
of the product of which is bought by the U.S. (I have heard the
McDonald's, which buys much of this, feeds no less than 10% of the country
_every day_. With the distruction of the rainforests, not only are the
most beautiful areas of the world destroyed, the lifeline of the planet is
as well. It is predicted at the current rate, humans will cause the sixth
"great extinction" in geology, which probably will include humans (my
biology professor expects molluscs to take over).
Human lives are destroyed by deforestation (e.g. forest natives and rubber
tappers), but, more directly, much of the starvation of the world could be
alleviated by vegetarianism. The fact is, meat-centered diets are
draining to American economy and resources. Not only does it take over 10
times as much land to feed someone with meat (it is estimated a vegetarian
saves an acre of trees each year), the resources invested to feed a person
in meat could feed more than ten people in non-animal food sources. In
addition, more than half of the country's water is squandered on the meat
industry, which comes out of our taxes. John Robbins in Diet for a New
America writes that the amount of meat one buys from a store for 15
dollars actually costs in excess of 85 dollars due to the "free" water the
government provides (a comparable quantity of grain would cost about one
and a half dollars). What this means is that meat is affordable only
because 80 percent of it has already been paid for, by vegetarians and
nonvegetarians alike, through our taxes. This does not even factor in the
major waste and pollution problems caused by the factory farming industry.
One major factor that it seems to me would include many more people than
it does is the animal rights issue (17% cite this as their primary
reason). This reason would seem to influence people due to the strong
relationship so many Americans have with dogs and cats. That this does
not influence their decisions on what to eat can only be attributed to
them ignoring where meat in supermarkets come from. Sure, they may know
that animals are slaughtered before becoming groceries, but it is not a
visualized concept. Even visualizations would rarly envision what
actually happens on modern factory farms, which endorses practices such as
housing pigs for their whole lives in cages to small to turn around in in
complete darkness, slaughtering still fully conscious animals because the
one penny it costs to render them unconscious "costs too much," and having
unskilled amatures responsible for the slaughtering since veterens rarly
exist (for understandable reasons). While glass slaughterhouses (which
would have to be shown to the public, because few would look) would
probably influence many, there would be those who might still use
philosophical "naturalistic" arguments to justify to themselves their
diets. These, simply, are not logical when analyzed. The fact is, most
people would not be willing to kill animals if given the option, and those
that do have managed (to some extent) to desensitize themselves to their
victims. This does not speak as evidence against animal sentience-
history has repeatedly demonstrated such desensitation practiced on humans
as well. For a good experiment showing this capacity, read about Stanley
Milgrim's studies on obedience.
I hope some of the issues and concerns I mentioned will provoke some
meaningful discussions, be them on these lists or across dinner tables.
David Seelig
