[Gabo]

Originally Posted by Nex

I just don't get why most articles in SteverPavlina.com have to inevitable end into vegan/vegetarian propaganda. Well, I remain quite skeptical about the true ecological effects of eating meat. It is most likely that we consume a lot more meat than it is sustainable. This over consumption is unlikely to change just if we stop eating meat. It is very hard to quantify the real impact the vegetarian life if everybody went vegetarian. There are studies out there that show that still eating meat but in a more balanced way with vegetables could actually be better in regards to carbon production than going 100% vegetables.

Steve supports vegan/vegetarian because it is the single biggest impact on our environment as individuals. I recommend re-reading the "What can you do to help mitigate the effects of climate change?" subheading on Steve's Climate Change article, because it points out very clearly why eating meat is much worse for the environment than eating vegetarian/vegan.

The simple facts of the matter are:
1) Producing meat consumes FAR more resources than producing crops.
2) Producing meat creates FAR more waste than producing crops.
3) Producing meat takes up FAR more space than producing crops.

If you want specific statistics, check out Steve's post, or read Save The Environment: How What You Eat Changes The World.

It is always the same tale, that going vegetarian will fix the problem magically. Now, imagine if everybody went vegetarian, we would need a much larger production of crops.

We would need a much LOWER production of crops if everyone went vegetarian, because we would free up the 80% of our crops that livestock currently consume.

Even in places where human-nutritive crops don't grow up right now (ie grass places in which we use cows to allow them to become into crops). Question is, what exactly happens to the animals that were supposed to be living in our crops.

No real situation would turn the entire population vegetarian overnight. As more and more people turn vegetarian, less and less animals would be raised. Eventually, demand for animals would approach zero, and the last of them would be eaten. As far as places that cows currently graze on, they could be turned into orchards or simply left as grass fields.

Everybody needs to understand, that eating meat happens to be part of our biology. Nobody goes out criticizing lions for eating antilopes...

Lion are carnivores, and must feed off of meat. If you look at other omnivores, most of them don't have the luxury of choosing what food they eat. They will eat what is available. We certainly are capable of eating meat, but we are also capable of eating fruits and vegetables. Given our personal ease of eating either, we have a choice about what we eat. No biological rules force us to eat meat.

The real ecological problem, is and has always been over consumption and the industrizalitation. If you want the harm to the environment to reduce. Just not eating meat or animal-related products is not going to change squat. I am so tired of people thinking that just an 'organic' tag in their food bags actually makes a change.

Eating organic and eating vegetarian are two different things.

The primary reason to eat organic foods is that they aren't grown using pesticides that remain on the product and are detrimental to one's health.

Eating vegetarian, on the other hand, has a huge impact on the environment. If we all ate vegetarian, we would free up 80% extra cropland to use as food, eliminate huge amounts of waste that pollutes our air and water, and save tons of water wasted on raising livestock.

Want to fix this thing? Have your own crops in your garden. The real problem with meat is not the carbon generated by the cows in farms (the carbon ourselves generate would be a bigger problem if that was the case...) It is the ecological cost in transporting the food. If you don't have your own crops, even your vegetables are contributing to the problem, sorry.

Transportation costs are a factor whether you eat animal products or not, as you have pointed out yourself. It certainly is better for the environment to eat locally grown food, but that is irrelevant to the argument about eating vegetarian.

If you eat meat that's grown 1,000 miles away, you are polluting much more than if you eat veggies grown 1,000 miles away.
If you eat meat that's grown in a local farm, you are polluting much more than if you eat veggies grown in a local farm.

Given constant transportation costs on either diet, vegetarian is still better.

Some people mantain double standards, factory slaughter houses are terrible for the environment while the ecological impact of factory crops is completely disregarded. Eating dead animals is bad, while eating dead plants isn't. Etc, etc.

Some people certainly do maintain double standards, like calling for the end to industrial water pollution while ignoring the biggest water polluter on earth: livestock. The bottom line is that eating dead plants is much better than eating dead animals.

Many people do realize that factory crops are bad as well. Ultimately, the best diet for the environment is a raw food diet, which can actually have a net benefit to the environment. Orchards provide the highest yield of any food, and also help regenerate topsoil and provide an ecosystem for life.

Does this whole tale of having your own farm sound too crazy? It is not more far-fetched than Steve's tip of you going to hunt animals yourself.

Having your own farm would certainly be good for the environment, but it is an option not possible for many people that live in cities. An option that everyone has, however, is what they choose to consume for their diet. The closer to a raw vegan diet you have, the better for the environment. Granted, nobody is perfect. But when you start calling for government action to make other people decrease their environmental impact, please think about your own impact first.