Trying to understand
I have said it before. One of my favorite radio programs is Justice Talking. I love it because it gives me a chance to at least try to understand how people, who's views disagree with my own, see the world, and the logic they use to justify those views.
I really wish they would have a program debating the feasibility of factory farming and our hunger for meat. This is one issue that I have never really seen any arguments from "the other side" beyond the dismissive "People have always eaten meat." or "God put animals here for us to eat."
Don't get me wrong. I understand that people's bodies are different, and some people may need more meat protein than I do. I also have no problem with people who want to eat meat sometimes simply because they enjoy it. But c'mon. There has to be a point where "Because I enjoy the flavor" gives way to responsible use of the earth's resources. Simply put, my argument against a heavily meat based diet is that no matter your ethics regarding the treatment of the animals, producing the volume of meat that we consume is, assuming we feel some responsibility to current and future generations, simply not feasible given the very real physical constraints thermodynamics places on our ecosystem.
Joel Makower has reviewed a new WorldWatch report about factory farming and industrial production of meat, highlighting how "As environmental and labor regulations in the European Union and the United States become stronger and more prohibitive, large agribusinesses are moving their animal production operations overseas, primarily to countries with less stringent enforcement." If anyone knows the point of view of "the other side" regarding the points rasied below, and the logic behind those views, I am sincerely interested in hearing them.
- Crowded, inhumane, and unhygienic conditions on factory farms can sicken farm animals and create the perfect environment for the spread of diseases, including avian flu, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease), and foot-and-mouth disease.
- Factory-farmed meat and fish contain an arsenal of unnatural ingredients, among them persistent organic pollutants (POPs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), arsenic, hormones, and other chemicals. Overuse of antibiotics and other antimicrobials in livestock and poultry operations, meanwhile, is undermining the toolbox of effective medicines for human use.
- Factory farming is resource intensive: producing just one calorie of beef takes 33% more fossil-fuel energy than producing a calorie of potatoes. Eight ounces of beef can require up to 25,000 liters of water, while enough flour for a loaf of bread in developing countries requires only 550 liters.
- Despite the fact that fisheries worldwide are being fished out, about a third of the total marine fish catch is utilized for fish meal, two-thirds of which is used to fatten chickens, pigs, and other animals.
- Only about half of all livestock waste is effectively fed into the crop cycle; much of the remainder ends up polluting the air, water, and soil.
As an exercise in empathy and understanding, I have tried to imagine the views of someone who disagrees with my point of view. I suppose one might say (please correct me if I am wrong):
- Industrial methods have allowed us to produce more meat at lower costs than can be produced in the fields of smaller local family farms (the costs to the environment should not be factored in because future generations will develop technologies to fix any problems that may arise).
- The ability to eat more meat is an indicator of a raised standard of living. This is a good thing. Health issues and health care costs from higher consumption of saturated fats should not be taken into account because economic growth will allow future generations to develop new medicines that solve these issues.
- As for the POPs, PCBs, and other chemicals, the industry has commissioned studies which indicate that there is either no link between these chemicals and negative effects to people or, at worst, these links have not been proven conclusively. It would be foolish to risk economic progress without being certain. Overuse of antibiotics is not an issue because the economic growth and raised standard of living will lead to new technologies in the future that will solve this issue before it becomes a problem.
- The amount of energy used to produce the meat is a non-issue. Our current energy demands will not out-grow supply. (Before that happens, the free market will intervene forcing current oil subsidies to be shifted to renewable energy research). As for the amount of water needed to produce a loaf of bread compared to an eight ounce steak, people in developing countries will benefit from the jobs brought by foreign agribusiness. The short term economic benefits will allow them to invest in technologies that will solve any issues arising from decreased local grain production, depleted fresh water stocks, and environmental pollution.
- The earth is resilient. Fish stocks can be replenished and those species that can't are probably not even that important anyway since the market will simply find a new favorite sea-food. Likewise, if too many species are lost, the market will step in to find some other solution. Besides, the economic benefit from investing the profits gained by using up as many of these fish stocks as soon as possible will allow future generations to develop technologies that resolve any issues that may arise.
- Look out the window. The air, water, and soil look cleaner than they were fifty years ago. Besides, reusing livestock waste in not currently economically feasible. Introducing regulations now would hurt industry profits, having an overall negative effect on the global economy. Before any real environmental issues develop, the free market will cause the people of developing nations (using their new economic might) to demand foreign industries to act more responsibly. By that time, the global standard of living and economy will have grown to a level where we can afford to the new technologies that make such re-use of waste unnecessary, and future generations will solve any problems that may arise on their own.
Comments
Ah, how economics guide our societies. Actually, it is quite the other way around -- societies guiding economics -- though this fact may not, at first, seem evident.
The topic of industrial farming is but one example of society (namely American industry, polity, and *consumers*) using economic policies and instruments (i.e. oil and crop subsidies and corporate tax insentives) to bring about the desired result -- economic growth.
As I see it, there are three problems revieled by you exploration here:
(1) The economic growth myth -- complete detachment of economics from physical principles and laws (i.e. thermodynamics, photosynthesis, and carrying capacity)
(2) The belief that economic markets operate free from human manipulation (i.e. ethical or moral considerations of value).
(3) That this economic growth will lead to the development of future technologies that will solve socio-ecological problems.
From this perspective, the point you make about how much meat people should be eating seems to me more about population growth than about industrial farming (and fishing) as such. In actuality, the composition of diet becomes far more significant as ever greater numbers of people vie for deminishing amounts of land/sea resources.
If we think about it, the 9 billion people that are projected to inhabit the planet within the next few decades could theoretically eat only grains, legumes, and other plant matter. However, the issue of quality of life does require considering. Can these people consume protien from insects or animal blood (as many peoples have in the past and some still do)? Can they consume any dairy products? Where is the line, and between whom is it drawn?
The issue is changed considerably if we ask what population is compatible with the choise to eat meat and dairy.
Obviously, this reckoning is difficult because, like the economic growth myth, societies do not realize that population growth is not an inevitability, but a likely outcome of value judgements and social norms based on the desires of economic growth.
So, what am I talking about? My point is that first we much realine economics with physics so that we cab then ask ourselves both questions:
(1) should humans give up eating meat and other animal products so that more people can have a better life?
and
(2) what population number will prevent the coice of eating meat from impinging upon the quality of life of all people?
Once we've answered these questions, then we could figure out the economics of making the change to a steady state (at either level of population:consumption).
What do you think?
Posted by: mandy | September 30, 2005 07:25 AM
No argument there. -except that it is both. Which is why I advocate for people to think about their "need" for so much of something that we can not (at least now) responsibly produce on a scale that meets the demand. (that is society guiding economics). AND we can't continue to use the prospect of economic growth (economics guiding society) as a cure-all for any problems we cause now with our unsustainable consumption.
I am not sure that the desire is economic growth. I don't know anyone who grudgingly eats so much meat because they want the economy to grow. They eat it because they like it -and they are not thinking about the consequences of the way that it is produced.
Of course, to be clear, I was just speculating on how someone, who thinks that it is fine to consume meat on such high levels, might justify that consumption faced with the points brought forward by the World Watch paper. I can't say for sure that people really believe that economic growth is a cure-all, but I just get a real strong suspicion.
It is totally about population. People may argue "we have always eaten meat". Sure, I can buy that -although we don't know for sure, but those were simpler times when eating so much meat (if people really were able to eat as much as we do now) did not have such terrible effects on the natural environment (and now on social aspects of developing countries)
I am not interested in dictating what people can and can't eat. I am only interested in understanding why people can, with a clear conscience, eat so much more meat than is needed given the problems it's production causes. In the end, the best thing is obviously to have less people, but it's much easier to choose to eat vegetarian three days a week than it is to choose not to have kids. I think that changing our diets to reflect the current realities and limits of the earth is a better short-term solution.
Then there is the argument I heard somewhere (though not sure what I think of it) that population growth is a result of producing more food. -That in experiments with rats, when the food supply is enough for, say tone-hundred rats, they self regulate their population so that there are around one-hundred rats. If the food supply is increased to two-hundred rat's worth, the population grows to around two-hundred, and vice versa. From this standpoint, freeing up all the resources used in the production of meat in order to feed more people would cause population to grow to fit the food supply. After all, the argument goes, people are made of food.
I am not asking people to give it up entirely, but I am more wondering what they tell themselves to justify eating so much given the current inefficient and destructive methods used to produce it. I wonder why people would not reduce their consumption.
As for "should they?" That is a values question. I'm sure the answer is different for different people. Some people may need more saturated fats in their diet than I do. They probably should not give it up. Some people get way to many saturated fats. They probably should give it up (at least some). Some people don't give a damn about other people or the effects of their actions. I guess they should not give it up. Some people do care about other people and don't want to contribute to degradation of the earth. They should consider their habits, consider if they actually need the meat, consider the effects, and then make a choice that fits their conclusions.
We're obviously already there. If people thought long and hard, and everyone decided that they absolutely could not give up eating as much meat as Americans do now, the number would obviously be lower than if people thought about it and decided that they can also live well (and most likely healthier and longer) with a more varied diet, getting proteins from other sources as well, and that most of the meat eating we do now is based on mythical assumptions of how carnivorous humans have been through history.
I was really just trying to understand their point of view before I think about trying to change it. Hence, I wish there was a debate about it on Justice Talking so I could hear the "other side".
Posted by: kevin | September 30, 2005 05:41 PM
I hope my comment didn't seem to be an unfair criticism of your inquiry. I merely felt the need to add a perspective which I think explains the *other side's* rationale for consumption (of any kind including meat).
Posted by: Mandy | October 4, 2005 11:51 AM