Another Criticism of Vegetarianism
 

Ordering the vegetarian meal? There's more animal blood on your hands

The introduction:

"The ethics of eating red meat have been grilled recently by critics who question its consequences for environmental health and animal welfare. But if you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do."

What do you think about the article?

http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/h...ml#post1044442

no one cared when I posted it.

Very interesting article. I agree that when cows are raised in a humane way on a pasture, that they are a more environmentally friendly source of food than grains and wheat. However, in the US at least, 50% of all our grains go to feed farm animals. Which means that this massive environmental impact of growing those grains is used in large part to feed the meat we eat.

What I find interesting, though, is that the article assumes that grains are the primary source of a vegetarian diet. As a vegetarian, I try to avoid grains in general, preferring fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and legumes, all of which (especially fruit) are better for the environment than grains.

Environmentally, fruit is by far the best food you can eat. Because fruit comes from plants that are not destroyed when harvested, growing and eating it is actually better for the environment than not having planted it at all. And I'm pretty sure all of us, vegetarians and meat eaters alike, could use more fruit in our diets! :)

Yes, this is what gets me too... the assumption that as a vegetarian you must be eating more grains. I would eat less wheat than the average meat eater!

Now, I'm not going to disagree with the premise of the article (that harvesting grains kills more animals than raising meat for food), but it always strikes me as stupid when one brings up the argument, as very few meat eaters I know actually abstain from grains. Especially as the so-called healthy diet pyramid has grains and cereals as the most important part of the diet :rolleyes:.

And yes, I eat oats and rice on occasion, but so do many meat eaters.

Still, I will say that I have done a lot of thinking/research etc. and am beginning to question my vegetarian stance. But even so, I still think that it's ridiculous to assume that overall a vegetarian diet kills more animals than does a meat eating diet, as it's making a huge assumption that meat eaters eat less grains than do vegetarians and overall, I have seen little to no evidence of this.

Not gonna lie, this article is pretty stupid.

As others echoed, I rarely ever eat grains, and when I do, in very small amounts.

Furthermore, the author's assumption that arable land would have to be more intensely farmed, increasing use of fertilizers, pesticides, chemicals, etc - is somewhat false. I guess if you are into chemically intensive agriculture, yes, but I'm certainly not. Even today, we are uncovering more and more gardening methods that are less intensive - both chemically and in terms of physical labor.
Pre-WWII, Americans grew 50% of their own vegetables. If everyone had a kitchen garden (and maybe some hens and a couple of dairy/meat goats) then chemically-intensive agriculture would decrease by a significant amount. Organic and sustainable farming can indeed feed the world, as a UN report concluded.