I am not a humanist and I'm not a vegan. Sarah Moglia explains why I don't subscribe to either of those two beliefs. I first saw this on Skepchick: Why Vegan Values are Humanist Values.
I hope 1 out of 2 is not bad. I consider myself to be a humanist, but I am also an omnivore. My first thought about applying humanist principles to eating habits is that a humanist should not be a cannibal.
I didn't watch the whole thing - there are a number of serious flaws early on to make me question the remainder of the content - at least at the level of her claims vis-a-vis the environmental impacts of animal vs. plant agriculture. This is a large and complex issue, but the general concept that animals = higher CO2/other environmental impacts than plants is not really true. For example, per mass, chickens are as efficient a source of protein as plants in terms of their CO2 footprint. Monoculture of plants has a large environmental impact on resident species; an impact that is greatly reduced with free-range animal husbandry.
Reality is that farming of any sort is not overly environmentally friendly; large tracts of land are cleared of their natural fauna & flora. Chemicals - in the form of industrially produced chemicals or "organically" derived "natural" chemicals - ravage waterways. CO2 footprints are typically quite large, regardless of the crop of animal being farmed. Methane emissions are large; from both plant (esp rice) and anima (esp. cattle) farming. The pro-vegetarian lobby has done a good job using the animal numbers to make animals seem like a bad environmental choice. The reality is far more complex; free-range cattle farming is "green" in its water use and relatively small impact on the land; conversely, it is "non-green" in its CO2 emissions. Plants are "green" in their methane emissions (ignoring rice), but have high CO2, chemical and monoculture burdens.
I agree that there can be ethical issues; especially with factory-style farming. But oddly the ethical issues of monoculture - species extinction, reduction of biodiversity and high chemical burdens - never seem to be mentioned in the discussions of animal farming. I guess, for the vegitarian lobby, the only animals whose suffering matters are those raised on farms...
I could go on a half-hour rant about this issue and various related ones, but I'll just stick to saying that her premise, " Why Vegan Values are Humanist Values", is, in my opinion, wrong.
I hope 1 out of 2 is not bad. I consider myself to be a humanist, but I am also an omnivore. My first thought about applying humanist principles to eating habits is that a humanist should not be a cannibal.
ReplyDeleteBut a humanitarian *should* be -- after all, what do vegetarians eat?
DeleteAnimals are friends, not food.
ReplyDeleteDo wolverines subscribe to that idea?
Somehow, it's so universal, until, well, it's not.
Glen Davidson
Carrots are my friends.
DeleteI didn't watch the whole thing - there are a number of serious flaws early on to make me question the remainder of the content - at least at the level of her claims vis-a-vis the environmental impacts of animal vs. plant agriculture. This is a large and complex issue, but the general concept that animals = higher CO2/other environmental impacts than plants is not really true. For example, per mass, chickens are as efficient a source of protein as plants in terms of their CO2 footprint. Monoculture of plants has a large environmental impact on resident species; an impact that is greatly reduced with free-range animal husbandry.
ReplyDeleteReality is that farming of any sort is not overly environmentally friendly; large tracts of land are cleared of their natural fauna & flora. Chemicals - in the form of industrially produced chemicals or "organically" derived "natural" chemicals - ravage waterways. CO2 footprints are typically quite large, regardless of the crop of animal being farmed. Methane emissions are large; from both plant (esp rice) and anima (esp. cattle) farming. The pro-vegetarian lobby has done a good job using the animal numbers to make animals seem like a bad environmental choice. The reality is far more complex; free-range cattle farming is "green" in its water use and relatively small impact on the land; conversely, it is "non-green" in its CO2 emissions. Plants are "green" in their methane emissions (ignoring rice), but have high CO2, chemical and monoculture burdens.
I agree that there can be ethical issues; especially with factory-style farming. But oddly the ethical issues of monoculture - species extinction, reduction of biodiversity and high chemical burdens - never seem to be mentioned in the discussions of animal farming. I guess, for the vegitarian lobby, the only animals whose suffering matters are those raised on farms...
A true humanist should recognize that he is an animal.
ReplyDeleteI could go on a half-hour rant about this issue and various related ones, but I'll just stick to saying that her premise, " Why Vegan Values are Humanist Values", is, in my opinion, wrong.
ReplyDeleteDave Bailey