Monday, February 3, 2014
You Are What What You Eat Eats Too
While it may be true that the vegan has the blood of mice on his or her bread, it doesn't gain us any ethical ground to retire the endeavor of conscientious eating altogether and go ahead and just eat the cow, chicken, or pig. In many cases, doing just that would lead to deaths of both cow and numerous field mice, if it is mice we are concerned with.
It's easy to forget that we don't just consume an animal, we also consume all the resources that were required to bring the animal into being and render it a food product. The range of these estimates vary wildly, but even taken from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, it requires 435 gallons of water and 3lbs of grain to produce one pound of beef (they don't say anything about how many mice must die, but I'm sure some do when harvesting the cattle-feed). The more common estimate is 2,500 gallons of water and 13 lbs of grain.
This is not a very efficient way to get food calories, or to use a limited fresh water supply.
"36 percent of the calories produced by the world’s crops are being used for animal feed … and only 12 percent of those calories ultimately contribute to the human diet"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Steven L. Davis (Professor of animal science). wrote the argument Matt referred to in class. His argument rests on what Tom Regan calls the 'least harm principle'. Davis brings up a valid point, that some production of field grains etc. cause many animal deaths. However, he assumes from this position that we need to consume more grass fed cattle and that a vegan diet is immoral. It is no surprise that Davies does not consider intrinsic value in his calculations, i.e., the issue of killing animals for food, directly or indirectly. There are many difficulties with his argument here, for example he rests a portion of his claims on a false dichotomy: that we have to eat the mouse or the cow, chicken, or pig. He also fails to consider the power of individual examination and choice. He envisions a world where half of the land is used to raise and slaughter cattle. I have responded to Davies directly on several occasions with no reply. For anyone interested, I think a thorough examination of his arguments will prove fruitful. You're absolutely right in that it does not follow from his argument that we give up conscientious eating altogether. What follows is that our conscientious eating habits may require that we provide an alternative to the current production of grains, etc. to minimize or eradicate animal killing and environmental damage.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important to remember that when you consume an animal, you are not consuming just that animal but everything that brought the animal meat in front of you. It's also something that I rarely think about. It's crazy to see the numbers of grain and water that are needed to make a pound of beef, and somewhat ridiculous. Being that getting beef causes a huge depletion in resources, how do you think we could reduce the wasting of resources, while allowing animals to remain healthy?
ReplyDelete