Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Let me get this straight without any further ambiguities... you disagree that a vegetarian diet is better for the environment than a meat-oriented
Funny... I never thought I was the least ambiguous in any of my previous responses. I think that you are attempting to play on semantics in an
attempt to get me to say what you want me to say. Well, ain't gonna happen!
Here, let me help you see in color - since you seem to see everything as merely back and white. Let's pretend that the totality of the Earth is 100
acres. 50 acres are arable and the other 50 are not. 25 arable acres are forest and 25 acres of non-arable land is forest. Got that? You now have
25 acres each of arable and non-arable, non-forest land. Responsible land management techniques would utilize the 25 non-arable, non-forest land for
raising live-stock and the 25 arable acres for growing crops.
Further, proper land management techniques would allow the livestock the freedom to live free-range and graze naturally upon the flora provided by
nature - after all, evolution has left them equipped to do so! Ergo ther eis no need to use any of the arable land to grow fodder for the livestock
and there is no need to cut down any forest either.
Subsequently, the 25 acres of arable land would be farmed utilizing crop rotation techniques and fertilization techniques by recycling the livestock
waste to avoid chemical fertilization. Healthy crops are generally disease and pest resistant thus eliminating the need for chemical pesticides.
Also, crops would be grown in their native climates to ensure that the weather and rainfall would adequately provide for said crops without having to
rely on the aquafiers that people need to survive.
Your arguments fall flat on their face whne you attempt to make the arguments for veganism/anti-meat and responsible/sustainable farming mutually
inclusive when they are, in fact complete non-sequiturs.
Choosing to live a vegan lifestyle can have the same consequences, environmentally as a diet containing livestock - depending on how the resources are
managed. Is that so hard to see?
Looking back at my scenario - let's assume that all of the sudden, the majority of the population decided that they would become vegan. We would
need to cut down the forest on the remaining 25 acres of arable land to sustain the food requirements of the population. I think we can agree that
would be bad thing.
On the other hand, let's assume that everyone decided that they needed to have a giant steak for dinner every single night - then we would either
need to cut down 25 acres of non-arable forest or intrude upon the arable land - again a bad thing.
You cannot discuss the morality of eating meat in the same debate as it's environmental sustainablity - as you are attempting to do (intentionally or
not) because they are mutually exclusive of one another.
The Reader's Digest summary: Neither is better than the other, more or less environmental, when responsible land managment techniques are employed.
Nature has evolved to be in balance and it is up to us to ensure that our food procurement practices are in sync with nature. Summarily, either one
can be environmentally devastating when gluttonous or abusive production tehcniques are employed.