RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
April 21, 2012 at 11:53 am
(This post was last modified: April 21, 2012 at 12:10 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Mogul, no worries bro, I wouldn't lump you in with them as far as religious beliefs go, only insomuch as deitary considerations go (and only so far as that goes). Their ethical reasons and their spiritual explanations are intertwined. You are obviously in no such position. Clearly though you've reached similar conclusions by different means.
The issue here, is not whether vegetarianism would be sustainable. To make a case for ethical vergetarianism over any other dietary choice wouldn't you have to show that no other dietary option is ethical (or even sustainable, since we're on the subject). I can tell you right now that vegetable production without livestock production is unsustainable in the long run. It's an issue of fertility. At some point oil will be too expensive a commodity to turn into food (and for the huddled starving masses it already is and always has been), and we'll have to go back to the way we used to do it, with massive piles a steaming shit (unless we're willing to invoke some as yet undiscovered solution to this problem, and then I would ask you -what are we to do until then?-). Is the suffering caused by oil-as-food (both in environmental and human terms) necessary? Would you prefer that we go this route over the route of livestock? Have you assigned a value to all of those sentient creatures that are harmed by this? How have you determined that this suffering is lesser, or more "necessary" than that of the pig, cow, or chicken?
Personally, I'm a fan of sustainable integrated ag. A mixture of oil-as-food and livestock-for-fertility as appropriate, along the lines of efficiency and resource conservation. That's what I used to explore as a member of the Florida West Coast RC & D (resource conservation and development council). I'm not trying to argue against a more ethical or humane (or sustainable) system of food production. I'm just trying as hard as I can here to explain that there are often unconsidered effects of whatever dietary choice we make. That these sorts of arguments are often made with blinders on. That makes shaky ground for statements of moral or ethical justifications don't you think? Moral or ethical relativism is one thing, and even though your argument could be approached from this angle I don't think it's necessary to do so. I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist when it comes to our food.
Food production isn't a thought experiment.
The issue here, is not whether vegetarianism would be sustainable. To make a case for ethical vergetarianism over any other dietary choice wouldn't you have to show that no other dietary option is ethical (or even sustainable, since we're on the subject). I can tell you right now that vegetable production without livestock production is unsustainable in the long run. It's an issue of fertility. At some point oil will be too expensive a commodity to turn into food (and for the huddled starving masses it already is and always has been), and we'll have to go back to the way we used to do it, with massive piles a steaming shit (unless we're willing to invoke some as yet undiscovered solution to this problem, and then I would ask you -what are we to do until then?-). Is the suffering caused by oil-as-food (both in environmental and human terms) necessary? Would you prefer that we go this route over the route of livestock? Have you assigned a value to all of those sentient creatures that are harmed by this? How have you determined that this suffering is lesser, or more "necessary" than that of the pig, cow, or chicken?
Personally, I'm a fan of sustainable integrated ag. A mixture of oil-as-food and livestock-for-fertility as appropriate, along the lines of efficiency and resource conservation. That's what I used to explore as a member of the Florida West Coast RC & D (resource conservation and development council). I'm not trying to argue against a more ethical or humane (or sustainable) system of food production. I'm just trying as hard as I can here to explain that there are often unconsidered effects of whatever dietary choice we make. That these sorts of arguments are often made with blinders on. That makes shaky ground for statements of moral or ethical justifications don't you think? Moral or ethical relativism is one thing, and even though your argument could be approached from this angle I don't think it's necessary to do so. I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist when it comes to our food.
Food production isn't a thought experiment.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
