So, I'm well into month three of being vegetarian and I'm looking forward to Nov 24, when I can eat meat again. I have developed a stance on being vegetarian:

Let me start off by saying that I have developed an immense respect for the inconvenience of being vegetarian. I dislike it mainly because so few things are vegetarian when one goes out.
To me, die hard vegetarians appear to be some of the most disciplined people around, presuming that they refuse any and all meat.
Now, as for whether I agree with being vegetarian; I don't see a problem with other people being vegetarian and I can respect their decision. On the other hand, I can see no moral or philosophical grounds to back it up.
Animals are raised so that we can eat them. We protect them, we care for them, we give them great lives (compared to the wild) and as a result of our symbiosis, our food-animals are extremely successful species. if we stop eating them there will be no reason to raise them and they'll be extirpated or worse, extinct. So removing the demand for the existence of something whose existence is dependent on demand seems counter productive. Of course, if someone doesn't feel right having one cow die to feed several people but is fine with several shrimp or vegetables dieing to feed one person, I'm not going to argue.

The argument about land to food ratios on the other hand, irks me. Everyone always says it takes less land to raise crops than animals. Yes, it is true, but they're leaving a lot out. First of all, not all land is suitable for agriculture, but almost all land is suitable for grazing, so pasture land isn't the reason for food shortage. Also, grazing is rather unobtrusive to the environment whereas agriculture requires the wholesale obliteration of everything which used to live there. Rabbits can live next to cows, but not next to crops. Also, agriculture leads to soil erosion, sometimes on massive scales, to unbalanced ecosystems, and often requires irrigation. I'm not trying to say that raising meat is great and agriculture is wrong, I'm trying to say that I don't see any valid reason to be vegetarian nor any valid reason to be morally/ethically/philosophically in favour of either method of food production except for this one: "Because I want to."
If someone says they are vegetarian because they just want to be, I'm totally down with that. I'm always in favour of people following their inclinations. If you want to wear pink, wear pink, if you feel like not eating meat, then don't eat meat. You're not hurting anyone. I just don't like it when people tell me that eating meat is wrong without being able to address those points I've raised.

In conclusion:
I respect vegetarians; however, I personally disagree with their philosophy. If you can find flaw in my views, then please bring them up, I'd hate to be evil while trying to be good.
I recommend that everyone go vegetarian (with no meat, not even shrimp) for at least 3 months and try to live like usual, going out a lot and such if that's how you roll.

Most importantly, follow your inclinations. If being vegetarian does it for you, then I wish you all the best, but it isn't for me.

Ben Davies
Silent River Kung Fu
www.silentriverkungfu.com
Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
pseudospectacular.blogspot.com

Comments

[Jeff Brinker]

There are several flaws in you philosophy concerning vegetarianism. Number one, animals do not have a good life being raised for meat. I understand where you are coming from concerning that but you have to acknowledge that 90% of our meat is corporately mass produced. The horrible life and absolute cruelty animals endure to feed our lifestyles is obscene. You may be consuming organically raised beef that you nurture at home, but when you eat out at a restaurant or purchase your food at a grocery store, you are eating an animal that was force fed growth hormones, and absolutely abused and used throughout a big portion of its life. They do not have a good life.

The amount of food energy expended to feed an animal that produces substantially less food energy than it consumes while the world consistently is unable to produce enough food to feed its population is a reflection of our values. We will justify almost anything while ignoring what is happening around us just to maintain our comfortable, unsustainable lifestyle. We're not starving here so what's the big deal?

Your argument that some animal species will become extinct if we did not need them for food is basically saying that everything in this world needs to serve mankind or it will not have a reason to exist. Ever wonder why our world is in this mess? We see everything as serving us and therefore it is our right to exploit and consume. This flawed logic is killing the planet and will ultimately kill us. Our planet can not sustain our species at the consumption rate we justify and we are meant to live in balance with nature, not wipe out anything we don't see as useful and can't exploit.

Your argument about agriculture causing soil erosion and being obtrusive to the environment is really a statement about our agriculture practices, not agriculture in general. Our soil erosion is being caused by our need to overwork the soil and the fact that we fill it with chemicals to give us higher yields. Yes we produce more food (but it's really about money, isn't it?) over the short term but we are destroying the land's ability to sustain our needs over the long term. No worries though, we can just convert the land to grazing land and let a few more thousand starve. My point is that the earth can sustain our species and all the other species if we make our values revolve around our needs, not our wants.

The next big, I mean big, war will be fought over water. There is not enough to feed our needs as it is in North America while a big chunk of Africa and Australia are suffering massive, devastating droughts. The amount of water that goes into producing one pound of beef is absolutely massive. Again, it is unsustainable.

Vegetarianism is not for everybody. However it is not a choice for many. There is no meat left for them to consume because the land can no longer support animal life. Wildlife in many countries in Africa is totally non existent. Our population continues to grow while we continue to destroy farmland for industry. The city of Edmonton, as of 2009, has approved the development project that has tipped the balance for the city. There will no longer be enough producing cropland in the region to feed the city. The city will be required to import its food from this point on. We all justify destroying cropland because there is still grazing land available and we can always slap some cattle there. Problem is that cattle produce very food energy compared to crops and therefore less people get fed from the same amount of land. But beef sure tastes good, doesn't it?

At the end of the day, you are absolutely correct. People have the right to choose. My concern is that people in the west, where food is as bountiful as iPods, live our lifestyles as if there are no consequences to people in less fortunate situations. Sure we can argue that avoiding this Big Mac today will have zero effect on the world's food supply, however if 30 million of us in Canada avoided meat in general, things would change for billions of people across the world. It all comes down to money talks.