Rhythm has raised (here and in another thread) a very interesting point against veganism, or at least for the idea that it doesn't really matter what we eat. As I understand it:
This is an intriguing argument but for the third point: I don't think you have at all shown that it is indeed not possible to grow human-digestible plants in the areas (e.g. of South America) where right now massive mono-cultures of soy are grown for live-stock feed. There have been farmers living in these areas who were pushed out of their land by major corporations which are now growing the soy there, and these farmers must've used the land to grow plants since their traditional diet is far from meat-centric. It might require more thought than just planting the same crop everywhere and then spraying it with tons of fertilizer and pestizides, but there is no evidence that it is not possible. All the while we would reduce the stress we're putting on the planet, e.g. by reducing methane emissions from animal agriculture.
Another argument that was raised is that animals also get harmed in the process of producing plants for a vegetarian (human) diet. However: It is one thing to defend ones own crop production against pests while trying to minimize the animals that are getting hurt in the process and it is something completely different to try to maximize the number of raised and killed animals with little concern for their suffering, which is precisely the goal of todays mass meat production. This also ignores that the animals getting killed in the fields to produce the vegan dinner would also get killed in the fields to produce the dinner for the cow that the meat eater has for dinner.
- Right now we're producing massive amounts of meat and our food system relies on it.
- This works because we can grow massive amounts of relatively robust strains of plants such as soy or corn which aren't "bio-available" to human digestion but are okay to feed animals
- Human-digestible crops won't grow in sufficient quantity where these robust non-human-digestible crops grow
- Therefore it is a necessity that we eat meat since we couldn't hope to grow enough plants to feed everyone
This is an intriguing argument but for the third point: I don't think you have at all shown that it is indeed not possible to grow human-digestible plants in the areas (e.g. of South America) where right now massive mono-cultures of soy are grown for live-stock feed. There have been farmers living in these areas who were pushed out of their land by major corporations which are now growing the soy there, and these farmers must've used the land to grow plants since their traditional diet is far from meat-centric. It might require more thought than just planting the same crop everywhere and then spraying it with tons of fertilizer and pestizides, but there is no evidence that it is not possible. All the while we would reduce the stress we're putting on the planet, e.g. by reducing methane emissions from animal agriculture.
Another argument that was raised is that animals also get harmed in the process of producing plants for a vegetarian (human) diet. However: It is one thing to defend ones own crop production against pests while trying to minimize the animals that are getting hurt in the process and it is something completely different to try to maximize the number of raised and killed animals with little concern for their suffering, which is precisely the goal of todays mass meat production. This also ignores that the animals getting killed in the fields to produce the vegan dinner would also get killed in the fields to produce the dinner for the cow that the meat eater has for dinner.
"Men see clearly enough the barbarity of all ages — except their own!" — Ernest Crosby.
