(May 16, 2013 at 9:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: No, it isn't. But we could explore the issue. Perhaps if those crops were fit for human consumption - [...] They aren't. Meanwhile, what livestock does represent is the act of taking resources that do not yield a crop that is available to us and turning it into one that is.This is just an assertion without evidence. I don't have a reason to assume that where soy grows other things like corn would not grow as well, plus soy itself is already perfectly suitable for human consumption.
(May 16, 2013 at 9:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'd argue against a vast majority of our current food production methods myself, but how that makes a case for vegetarianism, or against an omnivorous diet, well- help me out?Our food production methods are a function of our food consumption behaviour, wouldn't you agree? But I admit you're right that eating significantly less meat would already put significantly less pressure on this system. The problem is that it is quite subjective and can't be quantified what "less" means, for some people that might mean having a "meatless monday", which would have close to no effect except on their conscience. With vegetarianism there's a clear line.
"Men see clearly enough the barbarity of all ages — except their own!" — Ernest Crosby.
