Okay, as you can probably guess from the title, I'm a vegetarian that's recently started thinking maybe it's not the best way of looking out for the animals. I've been seriously considering quitting for weeks, but before I actually do, I want to see if anyone can poke a hole in my reasoning. I'm also going to post the same thing on the vegetarian society's forum as that's the obvious place to discuss it, but I'm worried they might mistake it for a troll and I also want to get all sides of the argument, so I'll post it here as well since I'm sure there are people with opinions.

Basically, I've come up with two reasons why vegetarianism is counter productive in terms of preserving life, and though my emotional reaction is still that it's wrong (very, very wrong), I really can't think of a counter argument.

The first is that if people stop buying meat then the farmers who own all the livestock aren't going to just let the animals live out the rest of their lives. They're going to kill them all and use the land to grow vegetables instead. I used to think of vegetarianism as a refusal to pay someone to kill for you, but now it just seems like a way of burying your head in the sand and pretending it's nothing to do with you.

The second thing I thought of is about optimising how much life an ecosystem can support. If a predator switches to eating the same food as it's prey then the decreased food supply will still result in the prey dying, just from different causes. Obviously it depends on the specific situation as there might be an abundance of food because the populations of the animals that eat it are kept low by their predators, but if we imagine simple food chain, like:

Plant --> Insect --> Rodent --> Bird --> Fox

If the foxes switched to just eating plants then their might be enough to go around, but if there isn't, the insects, rodents and birds would be cut out of the food chain and instead of just killing birds the foxes would be killing all of them. If there are enough plants to go around then obviously it's fine to eat the plants, but I think this pretty clearly shows that blindly deciding to only eat plants because you don't want to kill the other animals is a false kindness.

I started thinking like this as a result of the environmental pro vegetarianism/veganism movement, which I was initially very pleased about, since it meant more people becoming vegetarians, but when I thought about why they were arguing against eating meat I realised it might not be such a good thing. They seem to be trying to cut other animals out of the food chain in order maximise the number of humans who can live off the Earth's limited resources. In other words, their end goal is the exact opposite of anyone who became a vegetarian to preserve the lives of animals, but our methods are exactly the same. We can't both be going about it the right way, so which of us is wrong?

Please don't try and turn this in to a thread about whether it's worth preserving the lives of animals, as that's a completely separate discussion. If someone does post anything along those lines please either ignore it or make a separate thread about it.

Your first point is that farmers will have to kill off their remaining stock to start growing vegetables. If the farmers were not going change their business, then they still would have killed their stock, and many generations to follow. It's killing one generation of animals vs several generations.

The other point is that us switching to vegetarianism would ***** up the food chain, but we don't generally eat wild plants or animals.

Splatted Wrote:The first is that if people stop buying meat then the farmers who own all the livestock aren't going to just let the animals live out the rest of their lives. They're going to kill them all and use the land to grow vegetables instead. I used to think of vegetarianism as a refusal to pay someone to kill for you, but now it just seems like a way of burying your head in the sand and pretending it's nothing to do with you.

The logic in this is wrong.

The farmers are probably going to kill the animals they have anyway (that was the plan all along) whether you eat meat or not. If farmers do switch to crops (because enough people stopped eating the amounts of meat they are eating now and meat demand goes down) you will prevent MORE animals from the fate you wish to deter. Therefore if you eat meat you will not be part of the change in the decrease of meat demand and therefore the farmer will be less likely to switch to crops. Therefore, you should continue being vegetarian if you want to keep the demand for meat lower than it would be if you ate meat.

I am a vegetarian for mostly environmental reasons, so I hope I'm not coming at this from the wrong angle here.

What is your ideal end game here? That we continue raising cattle -- which requires devoting tons of farmland to growing corn and soybeans -- but keep them as pets? Or let them roam free as wild animals? Cows are far too big and too hungry for people to keep them as pets, outside of a few rich fringe animal-rights people, and they're too slow and dumb to survive as wild animals. Cows are not natural animals -- they're a human creation and they wouldn't exist at all if not for people domesticating them for meat and milk. So either people will raise them in order to be slaughtered for food, or people won't raise them. The cows that are currently being raised for food are going to be killed, for sure, one way or another. But what about their potential calves and grandcalves and great-grand-calves?

So, I guess the question you're left with is: Is it better for a cow to live for two years just to get slaughtered, or is it better for that cow never to be born at all?

(I'm picking on cows just as one example.)

(By the way, I'm far more concerned with the suffering of the animal during its life than the suffering of the animal when it dies. I'm pretty much okay with humane, free-range animal farming, though I don't myself partake of free-range meat.)

Splatted Wrote:Basically, I've come up with two reasons why vegetarianism is counter productive in terms of preserving life,

ok, this is the 1st thing to discuss. Is preserving life the most important thing about being a vegetarian to you?

Anyway, i'll go on to the other arguments, and you can answer that later...

Splatted Wrote:The first is that if people stop buying meat then the farmers who own all the livestock aren't going to just let the animals live out the rest of their lives. They're going to kill them all and use the land to grow vegetables instead. I used to think of vegetarianism as a refusal to pay someone to kill for you, but now it just seems like a way of burying your head in the sand and pretending it's nothing to do with you.

In the short term, that's not how it'll work. In the short term, farmers overall will sell less meat (more will go to waste) and then will breed less cattle / pigs whatever the next year. Raising more animals than there's demand for is counterintuitive, because they cost to keep. It's highly unlikely that there would be a sudden mass slaughter of the animals, since it's highly unlikely that every single person is suddenly going to become a vegetarian.

So, in the long term, being a vegetarian doesn't mean that more animals are slaughtered, though it does mean that less are born. How you feel about that is down to a range of other ethical points, i guess.

Splatted Wrote:The second thing I thought of is about optimising how much life an ecosystem can support. If a predator switches to eating the same food as it's prey then the decreased food supply will still result in the prey dying, just from different causes. Obviously it depends on the specific situation as there might be an abundance of food because the populations of the animals that eat it are kept low by their predators, but if we imagine simple food chain, like:

Plant --> Insect --> Rodent --> Bird --> Fox

If the foxes switched to just eating plants then their might be enough to go around, but if there isn't, the insects, rodents and birds would be cut out of the food chain and instead of just killing birds the foxes would be killing all of them. If there are enough plants to go around then obviously it's fine to eat the plants, but I think this pretty clearly shows that blindly deciding to only eat plants because you don't want to kill the other animals is a false kindness.

The major problem with this argument is that farm animals aren't part of the ecosystem in the same way that wild animals are.

Suppose foxes did suddenly start eating plants. Then the bird population would rise, the rodent population would fall, and the insect population would rise. (e.g. from your example). In real life it's much more complicated than this, but, yknow...

Anyway, so, that's all well and good, but humans have set themselves outside the natural ecosystems by farming in the first place. The number of cattle we keep is huge, for example, much more than there would be in the wild. So, by changing the number of cattle we have, we effectively don't change a lot about the ecosystem. Of course, there will be an effect, but whatever it concerns will have had an expanded population due to human activity in the first place. (for instance, in a place where chickens are kept but not protected well, you'd expect to find more foxes. If you take the chickens away, there will be less foxes, yes, but that population wouldn't be as strong if humans hadn't been mass farming them in the 1st place).

The only place that switching to vegetarianism is going to have any large effect is where extra land has to be set aside for the farming of plants. I know that plants are more energy efficient than animals, but i don't know anything about the space requirements.

In any case, ecosystems are at threat all over the place due to the human population problem. I don't think that problem is down to vegetarianism...

Splatted Wrote:I started thinking like this as a result of the environmental pro vegetarianism/veganism movement, which I was initially very pleased about, since it meant more people becoming vegetarians, but when I thought about why they were arguing against eating meat I realised it might not be such a good thing. They seem to be trying to cut other animals out of the food chain in order maximise the number of humans who can live off the Earth's limited resources. In other words, their end goal is the exact opposite of anyone who became a vegetarian to preserve the lives of animals, but our methods are exactly the same. We can't both be going about it the right way, so which of us is wrong?

There are predictions about the human population, and eventually it should become stable and go into decline. A variety of methods are being used in developing countries to try to stem the problem... voluntary sterilisation in India, China's 1 child policy, and, the most important and efficient: education levels. The main reason the population level is growing so fast is that in developing countries, the child survival rate goes up a few decades before the birthrate goes down. A sharp rise in the age at death can cause the same problem.

So, it's not a hopeless situation, but it is critical. It's not that people (environmentalists) want to maximise the number of people who can live off the earth's resources, it's that the human population is going to continue to rise before it falls whether we like it or not, and if we don't want to see millions die of starvation, there has to be some compromise. And yeah, that "compromise" will benefit the human population at the expense of animal populations.

Like i said above, yes, the biggest threat to biodiversity is the rise in population levels. But this threat doesn't come so much from whether we farm meat or animals... increasing farmland always destroys natural habitats. But there's also the cities that can't take large animal populations eating into the greenbelt, and the way we pollute that is destroying biodiversity. In other countries, it's economics.

I don't like it any more than you do, but i don't think that being a vegetarian is the cause of any particular problem either. So, to answer your question, it's not like either of you actually has to be wrong, since their aim isn't to overun the earth with humans any more than it is yours. It's just that they don't want to see already born humans starve to death rather than having less farm animals in the 1st place...

I hope this helps! If i've missed any points, please argue back at me until you're satisfied!! yknow i like a good fight to the death...

I like vegetarians. That leaves more meat for me.

...to each his own...

It's pretty hard to call vegetarianism or carnivorism evil. It's just that one is demonstrably more efficient and demonstrably better for your health. If you eat meat you still have to grow plants anyway in order to feed your livestock. Higher meat and milk consumption is associated with higher rates of disease, with the core reason being that humans are a species that has likely been 95% vegetarian (like chimpanzees) over the course of it's evolution.

Icecream are you applauding China's one child policy?

I feel like the higher disease rate with meat eaters has more to do with the fact that a larger percent of vegetarians are more health conscious than meat eaters.

[Zgarbas]

Look, if you don't want to personally feel responsible for the extra energy needed for meat, dying animals and what not, you keep being a vegetarian. You're an individual, not the world. Just stop trying to convert your friends and the worldwide vegetarian crisis will be averted, and you can still keep to your individual preferences .

blackbrich Wrote:I feel like the higher disease rate with meat eaters has more to do with the fact that a larger percent of vegetarians are more health conscious than meat eaters.

yes, they are more health conscious so they decide to stop eating meat, because it is unhealthy.

foods that kill

[Zgarbas]

You can't just classify all meat as being unhealthy, silly. There's good meat, there's bad meat, there's meat that's worth nothing if cooked in a certain way. If all meat was bad then everyone in Eastern Europe and Germany would be dying an early death. Also Japan, since fish is kind of a main ingredient in their diets.

There's good food and bad food, but it's not in an extreme meat/non-meat classification. A nice chicken salad will be heathier than some Mcfries. I guess the average vegetarian tends to avoid fast food joints (since most of their food is meat-based) and thus get a quick healthylife-boost from the get-go, but it's not like you can't avoid them as a meat eater. No nutritionist in their right mind will recommend a non-meat diet, they'd just recommend a healthier way of cooking and make a list of things to avoid.

nadiatims Wrote:

blackbrich Wrote:I feel like the higher disease rate with meat eaters has more to do with the fact that a larger percent of vegetarians are more health conscious than meat eaters.

yes, they are more health conscious so they decide to stop eating meat, because it is unhealthy.

foods that kill

One hand you have a smoking, grease slathering(loves french fries), no exercise getting vegetarian.

One another you have a meat eater that eats lean meat, doesn't smoke, and exercises.

I believe the latter would be more healthy and have less chance of disease.

I was trying to say a larger percentage of vegetarians make better lifestyle choices(not smoking, not ruining your kidneys with liquor, exercise) than meat eaters.

If meat eaters have 50% good lifestyle choices vs 75% for vegetarians. The meat eaters have higher disease rate. Who knows what the cause is?

nadiatims Wrote:

blackbrich Wrote:I feel like the higher disease rate with meat eaters has more to do with the fact that a larger percent of vegetarians are more health conscious than meat eaters.

yes, they are more health conscious so they decide to stop eating meat, because it is unhealthy.

What's this based on? Somebody regularly eating meat with harmful preservatives like bacon and sausage that are also harder to digest can't be compared to somebody who only eats organic poultry and wild fish. I hardly think meat choice is a defining factor in health anyway, given most Westerners' reliance on simple starches and sugars, refined oils and other processed foods. Being a vegetarian doesn't mean skipping dessert. There's plenty of evidence to show how sugar and other junky foods can damage your health, but what evidence can you give me not to eat chicken and salmon a few times a week?

nadiatims Wrote:Icecream are you applauding China's one child policy?

hmmm. i don't know if i'd call it applauding it, it's certainly not my favourite policy in the world, and it's certainly not the method i'd choose to use to lower birthrate. Brazil, for example, lowered their birthrate just by having dramas on TV that depicted women working in what are perceived to be good jobs rather than in the home bringing up children.

But the human population is critical enough that a 1 child policy doesn't cross the line for me the way that forced sterilisation or killing babies after they're born would. Due to culture, it does lead to other social problems, which aren't good though. But, in general, it's not going to kill anyone to have only 1 child either, is it...

Regarding the human population and children:

Any thoughts about the effect of culture on raising children and population? Even in the most liberal of Western nations, the standard reaction to a married couple who don't want children is utter disbelief. Some people even react so strongly as to accuse such couples of being "unnatural", as if they're somehow lesser humans for not wanting children. Let's not even mention Asian cultures, where some couples have children just to avoid the embarrassment and harassment that accompanies childlessness. Why is such thinking so common in our cultures? Why do so many people think that raising children is an essential part of being human?

Returning to the OP and other posts: most of this has already been discussed in this thread.

Meat is pretty good so I don't understand anybody who's a vegetarian.

IceCream Wrote:

nadiatims Wrote:Icecream are you applauding China's one child policy?

Due to culture, it does lead to other social problems, which aren't good though. But, in general, it's not going to kill anyone to have only 1 child either, is it...

Or will it?
http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/category/...d-abortion

JimmySeal Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:

nadiatims Wrote:Icecream are you applauding China's one child policy?

Due to culture, it does lead to other social problems, which aren't good though. But, in general, it's not going to kill anyone to have only 1 child either, is it...

Or will it?
http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/category/...d-abortion

right, but all of the things mentioned there are specific problems with the way the policy is enforced, not the policy itself. Of course full term pregnancies shouldn't be terminated. But there's absolutely no reason for the abortion rate to be that high either unless people aren't being educated on alternative contraception methods. They should also be doing a lot more to make it equally worthwhile for people to have girls as boys. This on it's own would bring the birthrate down.

It's all very well talking about "rights" but thats an exceptionally short term way of thinking about rights. What happens after another few generations of all women enjoying their freedom to breed as much as possible when their children's children die a horribly painful death from starvation? What about their rights? Which is worse, really?

Like i said, not my favourite policy in the world, but still...

re: vileru's point, i assume it's because people think the only way to transfer anything of worth is through a genetic code that we have no control over, rather than through culture and ideas, which we do. Who knows, there's probably some trickery going on in our genetic code which makes us want to replicate at some point, and makes us feel like it's meaningful that we do, and most people don't bother thinking any further than that, so think everyone should feel the same. As education levels rise, less people tend to think that way though, so it can be over-ridden through culture.

p.s. just to put this in context a bit:
also note that we reached 7 billion in late 2011 rather than 2015 like this graph projects...

vileru Wrote:Regarding the human population and children:

Any thoughts about the effect of culture on raising children and population? Even in the most liberal of Western nations, the standard reaction to a married couple who don't want children is utter disbelief. Some people even react so strongly as to accuse such couples of being "unnatural", as if they're somehow lesser humans for not wanting children. Let's not even mention Asian cultures, where some couples have children just to avoid the embarrassment and harassment that accompanies childlessness. Why is such thinking so common in our cultures? Why do so many people think that raising children is an essential part of being human?

It's quite natural to feel an instinctual urge to have children, it's a necessary part of survival. Many people's lives revolve around providing and caring for their children, it gives them a reason to live. Someone who lives for their children may find it odd that others can find something else to live for, or not even have the urge to procreate. Reproduction is essential to any budding civilization, and cultural views will reflect this even when the population has gotten too high.

Thanks for the replies everyone. I want to take the time to think it through and reply properly so I'll probably leave that till tomorrow, but I have read it all and there's definitely some useful stuff in there.

Splatted Wrote:Thanks for the replies everyone. I want to take the time to think it through and reply properly so I'll probably leave that till tomorrow, but I have read it all and there's definitely some useful stuff in there.

Eat a nice juicy steak.

blackbrich Wrote:One hand you have a smoking, grease slathering(loves french fries), no exercise getting vegetarian.

One another you have a meat eater that eats lean meat, doesn't smoke, and exercises.

not smoking and exercise are important of course. Fat is not really the core issue, so lean meat doesn't make much of a difference. The problem is the animal protein, which correlates with cancer, and cholesterol which correlates with heart disease.

I'm sure eating animal protein also correlates with lack of exercise and eating mostly trash.

Could animal protein cause cancer? Sure. Could it be the lack of exercise and taking the meat and eating it in Big Mac form? Sure. Could it be that meat eaters apart from meat don't take as good as care of their health as vegetarians? Could be.

I'm just saying there are too many variables to point to one and say that's it. All things being equal(which it will never be) except meat consumption I'm not sure meat would matter either way for health. But no one can be sure.

correlation =/= causation

sure correlation doesn't equal cause, however it is often the simplest explanation. Studies have been done comparing levels of meat consumption in different countries or different geographic areas within one country. Not every vegetarian is particularly health conscious. Not every meat eater is a slob. Of course what we eat is going to have an effect on our health, and meat and plants have very different characteristics.

@OP: I'm not a vegetarian so I think I fit into you target group. Your reasons for not eating meat are pefectly valid. You don't have to worry about the reasons other have that you find unacceptable. You have no control over that and in the end everybody is responsible for his own actions. And don't bother too much with the "what if" type of questions. As other mentioned ecosystems are compex things. E.g. it's known that in animal kingdom reproduction is triggered by the abundance of food, so you would not kill any, they will probably not breed so many offsprings.
Just look at it in this way. If your own actions just don't add more bad or evil to the existing levels than this is already a good thing.