From a report on behalf of the United Nations published at the beginning of the year, terrifying data emerges regarding the consumption of natural resources, the acceleration of global warming and the extinction of species. The finger of blame is directed mainly at the animal industry
Although not a major player economically, the livestock market is politically and socially valuable. The demands of the global animal market products are constantly increasing with the removal of political and geographic trade barriers following the processes of globalization. Global meat demand is expected to double by the year 2050 to approximately 465 million tons per year, and the expected demand for milk for that year is 1,043 million tons. A report on behalf of the United Nations on the subject of the animal market blames the market for unprecedented air pollution, pollution and depletion of global water reserves, extinction of forests, extinction of species and suggests possible ways of coping.
Air Pollution
According to the report, the consequences of the livestock industry on the climate are major. The livestock industry "contributes" a considerable amount of 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions, an amount that exceeds the pollution of all means of transportation on the planet, which is 13.5%. The main gases are carbon, methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia. Carbon emissions in livestock are mainly caused by deforestation and the use of fossil fuels. Methane emissions from the animal industry, which is caused by intestinal activity in animals and is considered a more deadly gas than carbon, constitutes 40% of all global emissions. Nitrogen oxide, the most dangerous of the three main greenhouse gases, as a result of the livestock industry, reaches two thirds of the global amount. The amount of ammonia, a less lethal gas for ozone but considered a severe regional pollutant that causes acid rain, emitted annually reaches 47 million tons. 94% of them are emitted from agriculture and of them 64% from livestock.
Water Pollution
Livestock is probably the largest industrial source of water pollution. The various processes in the production chain in the livestock market have an impact on the global amount of water, the quality of water suitable for drinking and ecosystems. Beyond the direct use and consumption of large amounts of water, livestock products contaminate the water that is suitable for drinking. Animal excrement as well as pesticide poison from fertilizers for their growth, antibiotics and hormones added to their food and chemicals such as nitrogen, phosphorus and heavy metals which are by-products from factories for slaughtering and processing hides, seep into the groundwater or are emitted into the nearby water sources. Water pollution has many consequences for our environment - the pollution creates death zones along the coastlines, causes thinning of reefs, human health problems, the formation of bacteria resistant to antibiotics, the destruction of many marine ecosystems and more.
Land utilization
Another problem that emerges from the report is that the livestock industry is the largest sector for inappropriate use of land. The total area used for this industry constitutes 30% of the land on Earth and 70% of the area used for agriculture of any kind. Since forest lands are fertile, relatively cheap and uninhabited, industry settles mainly in them. For example, 70% of the rainforests in the Amazon basin in South America have been cut down and converted to pastures. Forests are nature's natural way to eliminate toxins and restore air quality - in the forest they are legally responsible for destroying the lungs of the earth. In addition to this, inappropriate utilization of land affects the delicate natural balance of nature and disrupts, and may even destroy, entire ecological systems in which each species depends on its own balance and on other species.
What are the proposed solutions?
Encouraging the use of organic fuels such as biogas as a substitute for fossil fuels, investing in the research of "green" technologies, streamlining irrigation systems, collecting the full price from farmers for the use of water, issuing laws limiting the use of water in agriculture and laws limiting greenhouse gas emissions such as the Kyoto Agreement, a penalty system and deterrence, limiting the burning of forests, effective land management, overcoming obstacles in the field of mobility in industry, increasing general awareness of environmental severity, taxation, protection of endangered species and ecosystems around factories, and more. According to the UN report, an organization that will be responsible for overseeing the animal industry must be urgently established. A slightly different opinion that was raised mainly among animal rights activists in response to the report is that the most effective solution would be to cut down on the huge amounts of animal products that we consume and switch to a plant-based diet.
Livestock makes extensive use of natural resources and affects the ecosystem in which we live, therefore the degree of use, the manner of use and the consequences of the sector on the environment must be monitored and monitored. We are currently facing a critical crossroads in human history. Among all the opinions raised, one thing is agreed upon by all - we must not return to "business as usual" and suppress the urgency for change. We must reduce as much as we can the damage of the products of the animal industry to our health and our environment and start living in peace with Mother Nature.
Sources
For the Long Shadow of Farm Animals report (PDF)
Wikipedia The greenhouse effect
Wikipedia air pollution
Shabi organization - an Israeli non-profit organization that calls for switching to vegetarianism
41 תגובות
A site provides a lot of material for my research work
Thank you very much Mashron
1. I notice that the green organizations are successful in posting videos of animals being beaten and tortured online. It is equally possible to publish more practical videos that explain to the public in a calm and considered way the benefits of eating different foods. I am sure that with the help of donations that part of the public (including me) donates to various green organizations, it is also possible to finance similar advertisements on radio and television.
2. Members of the Knesset, as politicians, try to satisfy the will of the people, while striking a balance with what is good for the public. The proposal that Michael put forward, for example, can be accepted under the framework of reducing pollution, but its side effect is the increase in meat prices, thus encouraging vegetarianism. Similar proposals can be submitted, which will also be supported by public opinion which should strengthen following proposal number 1.
I will leave the discussion now. But as a final word, I would like to quote an interesting quote from Wikipedia about the conflict between the strict Beit Shamai and the friendly Beit Hillel. I believe that this quote sums up in its own way a large part of the discussion that took place here.
"The dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel was actually about the strategy: whether to establish the high ideal, the uncompromising truth as a model for the people to follow or to be attentive to the people, and to establish laws that the public can abide by. Some say that even though the law was established according to Beit Hillel, for the future to come The Halacha will be determined according to the opinion of Beit Shamai."
Nice weekend,
Roy.
are not applicable in reality
1. "A practical advertising campaign within Western society" - the idea could be practical if you had a budget of at least half a million dollars (and that's only if it's an advertising campaign within the borders of the State of Israel). Unfortunately, Gaidamak and Wertheimer are not yet vegan, so the chance that human rights activists will raise such amounts is not so practical.
2. "Increasing the prices of meat, compared to lowering the prices of plant-based nutrition... legislation.. land tax.. etc." - like the previous section. A significant percentage of Knesset members are not vegan, therefore one should not expect such laws to be promoted there with a broad smile.
Despite this, one should expect a considerable increase in the prices of meat, milk and eggs and a decrease in their production. why? An interesting phenomenon in economics called the "scarcity phenomenon" speaks of the fact that all material resources are finite and that all the products that can be produced from the resources are limited and finite. In other words, one day the growing demand for livestock market products will increase and on the other hand the raw materials (the land and water) will run out and then the production and operation of the livestock farms will no longer be economically efficient. Another thing that will happen is that the demand will increase with the reduction of the percentage of general food from animals, and the supply as mentioned will decrease, this will lead to a sweeping increase in prices and will leave the animal products within the reach of only the highest deciles.
In any case, if you believed in the ideology of vegetarianism/veganism, I would suggest that you take action to promote your ideas - become a lobbyist, speaker, campaigner, presenter. But since you are "taunted by a oozing and juicy steak tartare" and prefer it to a clean conscience, there is no point in offering.
I am copying my suggestions from the previous posts.
------
1. A practical advertising campaign within Western society, emphasizing the advantage of a predominantly plant-based diet over a predominantly meat-based diet. This can bring about a slow change in people's way of thinking and in their ways of consumption. Surely this will bring about a better change than insulting and reviling people who eat meat, and telling them that 'meat is poison', which is completely contrary to human intuition.
2. Following the increase in meat prices, compared to lowering the prices of complementary plant-based nutrition, such as tofu. This can be done by legislating additional taxes for farmers/growers, or simply by legislating and enforcing better conditions for stockbrokers, which will make their holding cost more expensive. It is possible to impose less land tax on farmers who grow crops important to a vegetarian diet, or charge them less money for each liter of water for irrigation, and so on.
-----
Michael also made a suggestion, and I quote:
"Extending the trend of allocating rights to emit pollutants for a fee - a trend that already exists in the industry - also to the field of farm animals."
Ok
What is your idea of possible practical steps in the direction?
splendor,
Thank you for the information. It would be interesting to check these companies and understand their sociology.
Yael,
The article was indeed interesting, and I have no objection to the point of view presented in it. My objection is aimed at the blanket statements that came up in the discussion of the article. I greatly appreciate the self-morality of the debaters here, but I do not find that these statements contribute anything to changing reality.
Contrary to your accusation, I am not looking for a magic formula or ultimate solution. What I do, and repeat and emphasize in the current discussion, is that there is no ultimate solution but only a series of gradual steps in the direction that we both agree is the right one - to stop exploiting animals.
I would be happy if instead of blaming each other, we could debate here and come up with ideas about possible practical steps in this direction.
Dear Roy Cezana (addressed to the other disputants as well),
I suggest you go through the text here again from beginning to end. The article itself was written from a scientific point of view and reflected a claim by a committee on behalf of the United Nations regarding the livestock sector being the number one polluting factor.
In a mysterious and unclear manner, most, if not all, of the comments here regarding the article dealt in a petty and justified manner with a topic that was not raised at all in the article regarding "vegetarianism - for or against".
So pay attention to what happened - first you drag the conversation to places that are not at all related to the article, when you are answered about the claims you raised, you justify yourself and bring pseudo-scientific counter-claims, after that, you repeatedly ask if there is some kind of magic formula (as you say, a "solution", "Practical steps", etc.), and finally accuses the respondents that their answers are provocative and irrelevant? As I said, it seems to me that you are having this discussion with yourself. A discussion should be relevant, consistent and systematic and not messy, lacking a guideline and associative.
And to your big question regarding the "magic formula and ultimate solution" I am still not the chairman of the Anonymous board nor the VP of PETA and I have no idea what steps are being taken, the marketing campaigns and the global road maps.
But it seems that the topic and the ways of dealing with it are of interest to you, so I can direct you to the appropriate parties that will answer your questions.
You ask about "steps that will advance the goal". Whose goal? My? of the United Nations? of Tnuva? There is no good wing and bad wing here. We are all in the same boat, we live in this world, breathe the same air, are exposed to the same radiation, eat the same food and use the same water.
And again, there is no "magic equation" that will solve all the world's problems overnight, it is clear that any solution that is put forward will have a hundred counterclaims. It's all a matter of finding the balance.
This is not completely true because there are many areas where plants are grown that are solely intended for raising animals. It is true that leftovers from human food are also used, but the rabbi does not come from there, and in any case you will agree with me that in the end there will be much less agricultural land in a vegan society. I admit I don't have the sources
The solution of a worldwide transition to veganism is also relevant today. It is indeed correct to ask even today why kill when it is possible not to (although it is not entirely relevant to the discussion here because the discussion here is about ecology, not about morality).
The Hebrew Negroes from Dimona are complete vegans. Also, in the Far East there are many vegans, and I admit that I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to tell you which populations in the Far East... I can tell you but about the Jains, and various currents in Buddhism....
The solution of worldwide veganism in the ecological context is super topical for today. It is possible to live much more cheaply, and with much less global resources, than complete starvation. The day they stop raising animals for us to eat, vegan food will be much cheaper, the agricultural areas will decrease (in relation to the area they occupy today when they also have to feed the pastures of the 90 billion animals that provide us with milk, eggs and meat. And yes... a cow eats much more than a human, especially after weaning , and a rooster will eat more than they will eat him), and there will be more food for the third world as well. It sounds like a fairy tale, but it is so easy to do…
Dear Yael Petar,
Please re-read my posts carefully. I do not support animal abuse or the unnecessary killing of animals. The video, along with the provocative question you posted here, do not belong at all to the purpose of the current discussion, or answer the questions I raise.
Nevertheless, I will refer to the video, because it seems to be important to you.
The purpose of the video is to show shocking scenes to convey a certain message to the viewer.
Did he shock me?
Yes, absolutely. I stopped it after 50 seconds, because I don't like to see creatures suffer. If you showed it on TV, I would just change the channel.
Did the message get through?
No. I stopped it after 50 seconds. In terms of advertisers, you just missed most of your target audience here.
So apparently this type of advertising is not as effective as we would like, and it is probably also not that practical as a means of persuasion, for most people in the western world who want their liter of meat and not think much beyond that.
If you want to continue the discussion in a serious way, I'm here. If you want to demonize me in the spirit of "I'm right, and everyone else is stupid/evil because they don't get it and act accordingly"…
Well, to be honest, I'll be here even then. But that's not what will further the cause, is it?
Still waiting for practical suggestion number 2,
Roy.
just a question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uN5fC-kdUQ
When you watch this video, does it even do anything for you?
Dear Dan and Ziv,
Thanks for your responses. You both point out that a vegetarian diet should be cheaper than a meat diet, but it isn't. The reason, as Ziv writes, is supply and demand. There is not enough demand for plant-based food that will be a substitute for meat, so its price is high.
As an answer to this, supply and demand can be manipulated in different ways (two of which I have already described in my proposals) - and influence the consumption habits of many people. Do you have additional ideas on how to influence supply and demand?
Ziv –
The vast majority of the plants used to feed the animals are parts of plants that would not be useful to humans. In this respect, the animal complements the output of the farmers. Man eats the wheat kernels, and the animal eats all the rest - then we eat the animal. Maximum yield from each acre.
Regarding the many vegetarian and vegan companies you describe, I would love to know which ones you are referring to. I've already read about quite a few companies around the world, but it's hard for me to recall companies that were distinctly vegetarian/vegan. The 'meat-abstaining' companies I know are based on plants, but also on insects and fish, as much as they can. It is likely that if people in those societies were given the option to eat meat every day, they would happily do so - and be healthier as a result (or more precisely, less malnourished).
But I see that Michael hits the mark here. My problem is not with vegetarianism or with 'meat'. My problem is with green organizations that make more noise than anything else, due to a complete lack of real road maps or ideas for steps that will successfully advance the cause. In many cases the green organizations are busy setting lofty goals that ignore the existing reality.
Big steps can only be reached from a series of many small steps that follow each other. It is not possible to reach the really big step - "I suggest that humanity simply stop consuming animals and their products" - without preparing the ground for change in a series of small steps that may last for decades. Until then, every quote is verbatim
"is not that a loss? Why kill when you can do without?"
או
"Any taking of life, including taking the life of animals for unnecessary food. "
It only alienates more people than brings it closer to the organization's goal. Such sayings belong to much more advanced steps, which we have not yet reached. Maybe another 20 years. Maybe.
This is why I ask: what are your practical suggestions for the small steps that will advance the goal? What is your road map?
splendor:
You are not aiming at the right target.
The number of animals that will be slaughtered will not decrease if you convince Roy.
The change will not be felt even if you convince all the science readers.
It should not be ignored that the most effective way to influence today's society is through the pocket and this is what Roy again proposes to do.
It is better, therefore, that instead of fighting for Roy's vegetarianism, you apply his advice and look for ways to make a real and big impact.
To Roy…
I'm only writing in reference to what you wrote to me, I haven't read everything else.
Regarding the third world, and regarding Israel.
Brown sugar costs more than white sugar today. How can it be? After all, white sugar is processed brown sugar... supply and demand.
Precisely in third world countries, it is much easier to get everyone to eat vegan and nutritious food, and many societies in the world where they only eat vegan food. There are even more vegetarian companies. The Hebrew negroes (who are here) for example, also live on very cheap, completely vegan food. They have one of the highest life expectancies in the world, by the way.
Today, to produce one ton of meat, you use 10 times more plants than a human being could consume directly.
The meat substitutes are not really more expensive to produce. They just have much less demand. much, much less…
About 300 million animals die in Israel each year, so that humans can eat them. All of these can be replaced with a plant-based diet. is not that a loss? Why kill when you can do without?
Dear Roy,
Any taking of life including taking the life of animals for unnecessary food. Moreover, the great suffering caused to the farm animals in the milk and egg farms is also unnecessary.
All this from a moral point of view only, all the more so when livestock farms cause serious ecological problems as shown by the UN report and a series of other studies.
I myself switched from a vegetarian diet to a vegan one, when I realized that I was only halfway there, in terms of rights in the private sector.
My food, for example, is no more expensive than the food of meat eaters, as claimed,
In fact, it is much cheaper because I mainly consume basic and unprocessed food (and not soy...).
The food I consume is much healthier for the ecology as well.
Another ecological advantage is the significantly lower amount of garbage
that I produce
To your question, I suggest that humanity simply stop consuming animals and their products.
Arguments such as: it's tastier, I feel I need it, etc. are irrelevant from my point of view (and also from the ecology's point of view).
I don't have practical interviews for implementation, but I know that public awareness can advance the goal, since as I have changed
My way because I could not ignore information that was brought to me,
There will also be others who behave this way.
Thanks, Michael, for practical suggestion number 1.
If such a bill is accepted (if it does not already exist) then it will also limit the emission of pollutants, reduce the size of the livestock market and raise the price of meat - and thus push people to a more vegetarian diet.
In one bill, we manage to reduce the number of animals raised for food, to reduce the pollution emitted by them, and to push more people to become vegetarians.
Who wants to get up with practical proposal number 2?
Since the issue of environmental quality today (and rightfully so) receives a lot of sympathy, one of the solutions that can help (and I don't know - maybe I'm breaking into an open door and maybe it's already implemented in some places - I'd be happy if someone knows and answers this) is the expansion of the trend of allocating rights to emit pollutants for a fee - a trend that already exists in the industry - also in the field of farm animals.
As a principle, this seems to me to be a correct trend because the environmental resources consumed by "producers" of various kinds are in fact the public domain and their prohibition should be such that it would not be economically viable to consume them at a rate that exceeds the rate of their renewal.
Roy,
It's a shame to try, Roy. You clarified your view well - and I think you are right, but the greens have an agenda and no real evidence about the nature of things, and certainly not about the spirit of things: the human soul.
After all, most of the inhabitants of the world will wave the screamers at the gate to the cesspool without batting an eyelid - provided that their chewing is not disturbed!
And the screamers will continue to scream and with their eyes closed will even believe that they are saving the world.
And don't bother them with facts - because they have beliefs beyond any doubt. "The poisonous meat". hahaha...
By the way - and alternatively: show me any adult prey animal that would refuse to lick milk - even though it was allegedly "issued" only to puppies and despite the prey animals' short intestines...
Have we already talked about the sea fish? Here too, the measure of mercy??
In appetite, Mrs. Peter with the agenda. And what do you think about the continued construction of road 6?
No, you don't have to answer. I know !!!
Novice in facts.
Dear Dan Solo,
There is no justification for taking a life unnecessarily (emphasis on unnecessary) and I did not say so in my response. The point I am trying to convey in the current discussion is simply that sharp changes in global consumption cannot occur in reality as the green organizations expect them to.
I notice that you also did not try to answer my request for practical suggestions. So I repeat and ask: What solution would you propose, which would also be practical and suitable for the absolute majority of the world's population under the current conditions?
I would love to hear your suggestions,
Roy.
collect,
Rain forests are indeed disappearing because of soy cultivation in Brazil.
But, it is worth noting that 70% of the soybean crop is intended for a mixture for farm animals.
And besides, soy is not a depleting food for people who don't eat meat, it's a myth!
And Roy,
Sorry to tell you, but I am right and everyone else is deluding themselves, hypocrites or just plain evil, because there is no justification for taking a life unnecessarily.
I think you fall into the first group, judging by the fervor with which you defend your fallacious arguments.
Dear Yael,
As you said, I ask and even answer, but I also wait for your answers - and in vain. Do you think it is better to decide on a course of action, without thinking about it in depth first?
I make practical suggestions (in my opinion) for a gradual solution to the problem. I notice that you are not responding to my suggestions, or making practical suggestions of your own. That's your right, but it only emphasizes my thought that many of the green organizations in the world today are not much more than the whims of Western citizens in an average economic situation or above, who do not see the rest of the world in a controlled manner. The real practical decisions are now made between politicians, and for good reason. Their horizons are less fixed and they are able to see the bigger picture.
In my humble opinion, the organizations need to get out of the mindset, common to many extremist groups such as some of the clergy and scientists, of "I'm right, and everyone else is stupid/evil because they don't perceive it and act accordingly" (which connects nicely with the quote "At least I don't smear the the facts, makes excuses and blames the rest of the world"). Maybe then they will realize that there are many people in the world for whom it is simply not a practical possibility, under the current conditions, to switch to a vegetarian diet. Other demands of the greens, such as a complete cessation of experiments on laboratory animals, also ignore the current conditions of reality. Until the organizations reach a more controlled point of view of reality and act from it, there will be no real acceptance of these organizations in the more controlled general public, who need to deal with reality more than empty slogans (and as evidence, how many votes did the 'Greens' receive in the last Knesset elections, after a strategy The 'shock to break through the barriers of people's self-repression'?).
I believe that the green organizations can reach a more controlled and less fanatical view of reality, which is why I also invest my time and try to debate with you here on the subject. If you have your own practical suggestions for solving the livestock problem, or criticism of my suggestions, I would love to hear them.
Good day to you and all of us,
Roy.
Sorry
Second paragraph in the previous message
Correction- 5 billion not 6
Roy,
Do you ask and answer? An interesting discussion you have there with yourself, let me know when you come to conclusions.
And now seriously - yes, you have to shock the people in order to overcome the barriers of their self-repression. It's really non-trivial to expect people to understand the gravity of their actions and accept the facts that are under their noses (as you mentioned).
The statement "Stop slaughtering KDA or you will die" was not just a provocative saying on a sign. Today, at the speed at which the developing countries are trying to catch up with the Western countries in their journey to globalization, it will only be a matter of time until the total demand for products rises above and beyond what KDA is capable of to provide.
If until today 300 million US citizens have managed to consume 70% of the rainforests, what will happen when 6 billion people of the third world join in and claim 3 McBurgers a day for themselves. So there is a reasonable chance that we will see extreme consequences of the greenhouse effect in our lifetime.
I'm not perfect either, but at least I don't whitewash the facts, make excuses and blame the rest of the world.
Asaf,
The math is simple, a hectare of land of plant crops intended directly for human consumption will yield you more produce than a hectare of land of livestock and fodder.
A point to think about, tofu is made from soy,
The largest supplier of soybeans is Brazil,
in which the soybean cultivation areas are compared to the grazing areas,
Soy growers "compete" with herders who will destroy more forest,
For soy!
Yael,
In fact, people also tease a juicy steak tartare. But really this point is not critical. The simple truth is that humans love to eat meat in all its forms, because evolution directed us to protein-rich foods.
You say that - 'meat is poison'. There is nothing to argue about here at all, because this is not a serious statement. This is just an address on protest signs.
The truth is simple. Meat is not 'poison'. He doesn't kill us. He doesn't poison us. Meat is like any kind of food. It has its advantages and its disadvantages. In the same way, I can name you plants that contain heavy metals, fruits and vegetables that are contaminated with insecticides or toxins that the plant itself secretes, and almost all of them are devoid of the high nutritional value that meat has.
Like everything, everything should be taken in moderation. A diet based exclusively on meat is not a good thing, nor is a diet based exclusively on one type of plant. When you combine the years together, none of them can be said to be 'poison'. The two types of food simply support and complement each other.
Regarding your proposal, ("stop slaughtering the planet, or you will die") it is not realistic, and unfortunately it reflects the 'green' view prevalent today. A blanket reliance on loud and inclusive statements will not bring about the change. After all, I already explained that there are billions of people who do not have the ability to change their food in a sweeping way, for example. What will you do with them? Will they die anyway?
You cannot convince people by shouting, and this is the main problem of the green organizations.
More practical suggestions for example:
1. A practical advertising campaign within Western society, emphasizing the advantage of a predominantly plant-based diet over a predominantly meat-based diet. This can bring about a slow change in people's way of thinking and in their ways of consumption. Surely this will bring about a better change than insulting and reviling people who eat meat, and telling them that 'meat is poison', which is completely contrary to human intuition.
2. Following the increase in meat prices, compared to lowering the prices of complementary plant-based nutrition, such as tofu. This can be done by legislating additional taxes for farmers/growers, or simply by legislating and enforcing better conditions for stockbrokers, which will make their holding cost more expensive. It is possible to impose less land tax on farmers who grow crops important to a vegetarian diet, or charge them less money for each liter of water for irrigation, and so on.
These are only two proposals, but they are practical proposals that are based on market forces, as opposed to eager demonstration slogans that do not really catch on with the public. I would be happy to see the green organizations try to follow this path to achieve their goals, instead of relying on slogans, demonstrations and shocking images that do not serve their purpose with the majority of the public.
And finally - yes, it really is "a shame that there are people who prefer the momentary pleasure and do not think ahead about the bleak future that awaits." But such are human beings.
Disappointing them won't help.
Operation of market forces and advertising to make them make the right decision - yes it will help.
Good Day,
Roy.
Roy,
You are teased by the sight of carrion, after it has undergone cooking, frying, seasoning, soaking, salting and basically any possible action that will remove the taste and smell of carrion.
For your statement "meat is not poison, it is an important addition to food" I have not seen a single convincing justification in this entire comment session.
And about the statement "I do not support the deforestation of the rainforests, but I would be happy to hear a realistic proposal from you..." - so I have a realistic proposal - stop slaughtering the planet, or you will die.
It's a shame that there are people who prefer the momentary pleasure and don't think ahead about the bleak future that awaits.
There is no doubt that we were not "destined" to be vegetarians, just as we were not "destined" to live beyond the age of 50.
All human existence is full of actions that are more a confrontation with nature than an agreement with it.
Personally, I came to the decision that even though I don't chew the cud and even though my teeth don't grow continuously and even though my eyes are located at the front of the head as is common for carnivores, I won't feel comfortable until I stop eating others.
Anyone who has seen what animals are capable of knows that these are "others" and not objects or "products".
It is hard for me to believe that there are those who think otherwise and it is quite clear to me that people's ability to eat animals is based on repression.
Since I decided to become a vegetarian I have been doing so and I am no less healthy.
My food is also not more expensive than the rest of my household (who are not vegetarians).
It's true that I enjoy the introduction and if the market wasn't the way it is I wouldn't be able to do that.
More than that - since I served about twenty years in the army, at a time when (unlike nowadays) special food was not served to vegetarians, I continued to eat meat for a certain period after I decided that I wanted to be a vegetarian - simply because I had no other option. It wasn't until the base where I served opened a special dining room for senior officers - a dining room where there was self-service and I could fill up on salads, hummus and tahini, that I decided there were no more excuses.
In other words - I understand what pragmatism is.
On the other hand, I don't find anything wrong with relying on precedent when it exists, and as far as I know, a really significant part of the meat "produced" for food is actually consumed in advanced societies.
In short, I think there is a lot that can and should be done, but I live within my own people (and the fact is that even my family members did not become vegetarians after me)
Dan,
Even if we ignore the price problem, such a combination of food almost always requires free trade and industry, something that does not exist in developing countries.
The food provided by welfare organizations is not enough to feed the entire population in those areas, and certainly not on a regular basis.
And as always, the price is the main problem. If a green diet was as healthy and filling as a diet based mostly on meat, and the price was cheaper, then you would see many families switching to vegetarianism as a way of life.
As long as the market forces do not support a vegetarian diet, I do not see it happening in the western countries and certainly not in the developing countries.
Roy,
It is clear that families in the third world cannot go to the supermarket to buy a spare schnitzel.
The protein needed by a person can be provided in simpler (and healthier) ways: a combination of grain and chickpea will give a 'complete' protein that is far superior in quality to animal proteins.
Examples of the combination of grains and legumes can be found in many foods such as rice and lentils, pasta with green beans and.. pita with hummus.
If we return to the problem of the third world, the food provided by welfare organizations to disaster-stricken areas are mixed bags
of grains and cereals that can be used to make a nutritious gruel that provides protein and carbohydrates.
By the way, the aid comes as a pre-prepared mixture after learning the lesson of aid coming as basic food components and being looted or traded.
Yael,
Thanks for the interesting article.
Several comments on your response:
The monkeys are not vegetarians but omnivores, and almost always prefer to eat living creatures (which are rich in proteins) than plants. If you give a monkey in the wild an apple, he will first look for the worms inside to eat them, and only at the end will he eat the apple.
You say that we are not provoked by the sight of corpses, but I personally find that a 300 gram hamburger in a Cinta Bar is an extremely stimulating and appetizing sight. And what is it if not a chopped up corpse?
So meat is not poison. Meat in the right amount is an important addition to food throughout the life of mankind. If McDonald's sells meat in a bun, they are not selling poison, but food (the fact that McDonald's prepares it in a bad way is another problem).
Like Assaf, I do not support the deforestation of the rainforests, but I would be happy to hear from you a realistic proposal to improve the situation, which would take into account the needs of the billions of people on the planet.
splendor,
It seems to me that you are only referring to people in the developed western countries, who do have the choice to be vegan, vegetarian or 'meaty'. But what about billions of people who exist in developing countries like China, India, South America and others? These people sometimes eat a pot of rice a day, and once a week they slaughter a chicken or a pig for the whole village. Or they live on the purity of the flesh, in other cases. In any case, they don't have the option of the huge selection that Westerners have, or the money to support this selection (because you have to remember that a vegetarian diet today costs no less than a meat diet, and in many cases more to support the vitamin/mineral deficiencies that are created).
Knows what? Leave China and India. What about Israel? How will you feed hundreds of thousands of families who are already below the poverty line, with expensive meat substitutes? Washed chicken comes cheap and feeds the whole family for two days. A package of Tivoul Schnitzel is barely enough for one meal for a family, and still does not meet all the nutritional needs.
So again, I would be happy to see realistic solutions, which also take into account the masses of people who cannot figure out their diet like we do.
only a little.
Indeed, there is no less infectious alternative for the private equity industry, if it is chosen to exist.
Today it is possible to live completely without this industry.
There are endless debates about whether our ancestors, or their ancestors, were omnivorous vegetarians. They don't change at all.
Today, everything is plant-based, and you can live a full vegan life, and no one would disagree with that.
Including B12 by the way...
proof?
You will not see a vegan who does not take care of himself, whose health is worse than before he became a vegan, in the context of veganism of course. By the way, vegans become healthier.
In the context of moral tastes stemming from emotion when they relate to the stock market: for me it's really not like that. I'm not sad at the sight of a juicy steak in front of me. I know they suffered for it. There is no dispute that the animal suffers. It seems to me morally wrong to produce an animal (after all, they produce it), Enslave her, make her live in the most horrible conditions possible, and kill her.
Don't dare say that my motive is emotional.
Today, everyone who eats meat, eggs or milk eats them because it tastes good, and not for any other reason.
Asaf,
First, I'm sorry to tell you but your ancestors were vegetarians. We have common ancestors with the monkeys, especially the chimpanzees, and almost all monkeys are vegetarians, as well as our common ancestors.
In terms of the anatomy of the body, a person does not have the structure of a predator:
The meat is digested in your body for 5-6 hours, while in a carnivorous animal, due to a digestive system adapted to digesting meat, digestion lasts only two hours.
Predators have a system of teeth that is adapted to catch prey, while humans do not.
Predators are provoked by the sight of carrion, carcasses and body parts - not humans!
Second, agriculture by private farmers is a small part of the livestock industry. This is about all the heavy super companies (McDonald's and Co.) that come to third world countries and destroy 70% of the rainforests to sell you more poison in a bun.
And that's fine, they are allowed to sell people poison in a bun, but why destroy the planet along the way and exploit the developing countries? It's beyond "immoral", it's simply wrong because everyone will screw up ecologically in the end.
As an addition to the RM and as clarifications to things:
For better or worse, our ancestors for about two million years also ate animal products, and so have we for the last 150 thousand years,
It may not be "healthy" but animal food has a high energy value and therefore
Our ancestors and we got used to eating from it.
The simple calculation that vegetable agriculture requires less land than pasture does not take into account the millions of square kilometers in which nomadic shepherds live, land that is not suitable for growing fruits, vegetables, etc.
Who thinks that the Lapps will abandon the reindeer and start growing... apples? wrong !
Those who expect that the Mongols will switch to growing...peanuts are mistaken! Those who dream that the Bedouins will pass through goats
for field crops... indeed dreaming,
Who wants African shepherds (in the north, east and south) to leave their herds and start growing... bananas? Wrong!
Therefore, the solution is not to "eliminate the livestock" but to limit and control the herds in the "modern" farms mainly in the western world.
How exactly did you struggle Michael? Did you go out on the street wearing a toga? Or with a cart full of rotten vegetables that you scattered on the road and threw eggs at the police!
Or maybe your whole struggle started and ended with talkbacks in which you are more specialized than an innocent like me thought just a week ago!
Another thing, carbon is not a gas nor is it a known pollutant. The pollutants are carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide
Ammonia causes acid rain?????
A bit of precision, ammonia is a basic substance and at most will cause basic rain and if there is acid rain in a certain place, it will neutralize it!!!
Raising animals is not economically efficient - let's say that if we took all the pastures in the world and turned them over to plant growing areas, it would be possible to feed all the people on earth about 9 times what they need.
Eating animal products is not even healthy - most modern illnesses are caused by overeating these products. Meat causes high cholesterol, triglycerides, cardiac arrest, stroke, artery blockages and more. Dairy products accelerate asthma and allergic reactions in the body. This is not surprising since the milk is intended for the stomachs of puppies and not for adult humans whose stomachs do not digest lactose well. A third of the population is allergic to one degree or another to lactose (a substance found in milk products).
Apart from that, animal products in the modern world contain high amounts of antibiotics, hormones and toxins such as heavy metals, so they are not healthy!
Even the few vitamins we are supposed to get from animal products are offset by the toxins we get from there.
I believe it will take some time, but eventually when humanity passes the critical point it will receive enlightenment.
To Dr. Assaf Rosenthal:
You are wrong, from the data that I have the resources needed to create animal products are 50% greater than the resources needed to create food from plants for the same value.
To Dr. Assaf Rosenthal:
I am not claiming that calling for vegetarianism is a practical thing.
Although I am a vegetarian and live a completely practical life, most people probably do not see any problem in treating animals as a means of production and slaughtering them for food.
I would have been happy if they had done it differently, but there are probably things that I will not get to witness in my lifetime.
Therefore, although morally I disagree with your approach, I will not try to deal with you.
Since this is a fight that I have decided to abandon, I will also not try to deal with the claim that growing plants for human consumption would have required more land. It seems a little strange to me from considerations of conservation of mass and energy, but maybe the matter is more complex.
Do you have research data to support this claim? I'm not arguing. I am just asking.
we can stop driving
we can stop using the spray,
We can change all the light bulbs in the house to fluorescent,
But as Assaf says, we can't stop eating...
That's why it's hard for me to think of a solution to the animals' wandering...
It is important to distinguish between preserving the environment and nature
and "animal rights",
When it comes to the branches of the agricultural economy, animals long ago lost their natural identity and became "means of production". The sweeping movement of "animal rights" does not always have a logical/rational basis, in most cases the basis is emotional. The emotion is important but we have already learned that the winning factor is... the economy, therefore the activity against the harm must be based on economic viability.
I did not see in the article any actual proposals that refer exclusively to animal husbandry: fencing and limiting access to water sources, limiting the use of food supplements (medicines, vitamins, etc.), are only some of the options to prevent damage to the environment, but again, we are omnivores, and therefore a call to switch to vegetarianism …
It is not practical, what is more, to satisfy the needs of the world population with plant food (only) will require more agricultural land, which means that the damage to the environment will increase and increase several times.
Exploiting and killing animals is ecologically and morally wrong.
Animals should be removed from our menu and clothing!
Thanks for the article.