Forced to face the big questions

For the longest time, for me, it was easy to live by default. To go along living like everyone else. Not to question.

But the reason I started the No Impact project was because the crisis in human safety, security and health as it relates to the grave problems of our planetary habitat forced me to begin to face the big questions.

For me the big questions are:

How shall I live? What is the truth of my relationship to you and our community? What should I do? In short, what is this short life of mine really for?

This humane society video of the treatment of beef cattle at a California slaughterhouse is like that, too. It forces me to ask the big questions. How shall I live? What should I do?

More pointedly, taking this video alongside all the environmental impacts of raising beef, how should I eat?

Don't watch it if you are queasy. If you can't see it in your email or your news reader, go here.

Comments

[SuperWife]

i couldn't agree more. it's hard not to be a preachy vegan when i see someone who is passionate about the environment still eat factory farmed meat (or any meat, but i'll step aside for a moment).

one of my big eye openers was this article by rolling stone on the impact that smithfield farms, one of the country's largest pork producers, has on the environment... and not just in a grand scheme type way- they've killed people with their footprint. it doesn't get much more immediate than that! anyhow, i truly appreciate that you're brining this topic to light.

[erin :: the olive notes]

yes, thanks once again for bringing up such great questions that we all need to ask. I also stopped eating meat and wearing leather, etc after learning more of the animal treatment, company worker treatment, ecological and socio-economic impact that this has worldwide!

[Green Me]

I am skeptical that a 100% vegan or vegetarian diet ALL the time for everyone is really the best idea. I think most of us agree that eating locally is ideal, but it is difficult in many areas to get all the variety a healthy vegan diet requires by eating locally. For example, nuts are often a vegan staple, but I am not aware of any nut crops being grown in Colorado. Historically, many communities ate vegetarian most of the time, with meat supplemental to their diet. I would propose that occasional consumption of locally produced meat, dairy and eggs, as well as, locally grown plant foods would have the least environmental impact over all (this assumes that the animal products are free range, small family run operations), while providing a nutritiously complete diet.

[Margaret]

There's so much we all can do without going vegetarian, much less vegan. Eat less meat; fight the large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)in your state; make sure that the ag. areas feeding your community aren't zoned out of existence by new subdivisions that can't stand the sound of cows or roosters, so that those small family farms can continue; lobby your favorite restaurants and markets to carry organic, free range, grass-fed, etc. meat; read the article in the March "Discover" magazine about how CAFOs may be encouraging the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the soil and then re-double all the above efforts; subscribe to the Organic Consumers Association's e-newsletter and get the latest on political avenues for fighting for all of the above...I personally think vegan diets are silly but the world will be a better place if all of us at least take a few giant steps towards the vegetarian direction. I'm a certified organic farmer who sells eggs and eats my neighbors' pork and beef with gusto, but I eat a lot less than I did a few years ago.

[Farmwife]

Here's a thought....support your LOCAL SMALL farmer for a change.

There are tons of us you know....but hey, you might actually have to do some research to find us. :)

There are plenty of us who raise just a few beef a year to butcher -- and do it humanely.

[Taffy]

Colin-

THANK YOU for posting that heart-rending video. If it turns the stomach of one person and therefore changes the mind of ONE person against eating meat produced like that- then it was worth the posting.

[Diane Gandee Sorbi]

I think Margaret makes some good points. I eat very little meat, but when I do I make sure it is from small farms where the animals were free range or grass-fed, antibiotic-free, and humanely raised. It disgusts me to even think of eating factory-farmed beef, or anything from a CAFO. That said, I have the greatest respect for vegetarians, as I really don't think even the healthiest, happiest animal would choose to be someone's dinner if given the choice.

[Mike]

Because I have no experience in this area, I would appreciate knowing from an insider's perspective what is humane slaughter. It seems an oxymoron. Would someone who has firsthand understanding of this issue help me to understand this?
I am not vegetarian, but have significantly reduced my meat consumption in the last year (I'm down to having meat - usually chicken or fish - during two meals a week typically).

[Sara]

Everyone who buys conventional meat or dairy products (because remember, these cows spent their lives giving milk so Americans can have milk and cheese) should be forced to watch this every time they check out at the grocery store.

Go vegan.

[Jen]

Colin, thanks for posting this. I used to live by default to. In just the last year I've switched to buying no antibiotics/no hormones meat. Lately have started to significantly reduce meat consumption to one to two meals a week. This was after learning that people actually consume too much protein and that it will have a negative long term impact. Some of my friends who aren't a "believer," have made comments that they're afraid I would be less healthy and wouldn't get enough protein by not eating meat. Which is ironic considering this last year has been my healthiest years.

[Labrat]

This video is a testament to what goes on all day, every day, to animals the world over.

Colin, I like your algorithm for keeping the pot stirred; one week a stranded polar bear, the next a dying cow. One week bad air, the next a sewage spill.

Completely and totally depressing; how do you keep getting out of bed, man?

[Farmwife]

Mike asks what humane slaughter is --

Simple. There is no stress placed on the animal. We use a mobile butcher that comes to the farm. The last thing our food animals know is a scratch on the neck and a big bucket of food. There is no transport stress, and no adrenaline from seeing/smelling/hearing other animals being killed. The entire event is over in the matter of a few seconds.
No fear and no stress.

[MuddilyWuddily]

Hi!

I would just like to say that I think it's great that you post videos like this, so people can come to reconsider their daily consumption of meat. Me myself am too sensitive to see this movie and others like it, and need no convincing concerning animal rights and eating less meat, but for you out there that are interested, a man named Nikolaus Geyrhalter has made a documentary about the industrial food production, you can check out the website at:

http://www.ourdailybread.at/jart/projects/utb/website.jart?

This documentary has been shown in movietheaters all over Europe as well as in the States in 2006-07, and received very good reviews.

[Mike]

Thanks, Farmwife. You've allayed my fears about the animal's last moments.

How do you think anyone ever developed the lack of conscience to handle animals any other way? I presume that your method is the basic method that was used in the old days before the factory farm idea ever existed.

[Eric Prescott]

Colin,

Thanks for raising the question of how we should eat. I've been vegan for 6 years myself, and I'm loving it. One of the best decisions I've ever made. Environmental aspects played one factor in my decision, but so did videos like the one you've linked here.

Ultimately, though, I've come to find that I stay with my vegan lifestyle not because of my health or the environment (despite the significant benefits there), but because, as long as it is not necessary to consume animal-derived products for me to be as healthy as I am, I can't possibly fathom how I would ever consider it ethical to return to contributing to the unnecessary exploitation of sentient beings, animals who feel pain and suffer, just as we do, not to mention the desire for pleasure.

Killing animals when it is expedient (profitable) to do so, even if they don't feel the slightest pain (which in all honesty is the tiniest percentage of animals slaughtered for human consumption), is an awkward form of barbaric civility when we can do without killing at all. On this planet ever year, we kill 55 billion non-marine animals. Due to the Westernization of India and China, this number is growing rapidly. In light of this information, it hardly seems extreme to consider veganism a reasonable response to such wanton exploitation.

[Mike]

Thank you. The video you posted does an excellent job of showing us the horrors of the beef and dairy cattle industry. Check out "Earthlings" (DVD or via YouTube) if you're interested in the rotten state of the rest of the factory farm industries.

[Joe]

@Colin and the ethics of animal slaughter:

There is no more noble way to act out ones ethics than how one eats. Kudos to you. I say this in all sincerity. Veganism is a great way to eat and live if you're body can handle it (mine can't)and you can manage to get all your food locally and live sans vitamin supplements.

I'll insert my standard disclaimers that I'm mostly vegetarian, 90% local diet (easy here in Western Mass.), local meat / dairy / animal porducts. In many cases I've met and helped care the animal that I've eaten later on. My own morals aren't compromised at all in knowing that they are dying to feed me.

I do object to the implication by many vegans that meat eaters (myself being part of that group), even ones who search out local, grass-fed, "humanely raised and killed" meat are somehow immoral, unethical, or barbaric. Regarding the idea that slaughtering animals for food is more unethical than a vegan diet, I'll play devil's advocate and offer the following for argument:

1.) Why do you assume that plants have any less sentience or value as living beings than animals? In my own and many people's worldview, all living things have equal conciousness, sentience, divinity, whether we as humans can identify with it or not, and thus require the same acknowledgement and respect. We do, as a species, tend to anthropomorphise animals-- they remind us of us. However, clearing and maintaining an acre for vegetable crops is still a considerably violent act and carries its own ethical dilemmas-- one is destroying the ecosystem that existed on that acre beforehand, and in clearing it kills plants destroys the home and food sources of several animal species that lived there. In maintaining that land one is forcing an artificially created and drastically less biodiverse ecosystem to grow the preferred food for one species (us) and not any others. Hmmm.

2.) Many vegans I know, especially in the winter months here in New England, in order to get their nutritional needs met, eat food grown far away, out of season, and transported to them at considerable expense. They also consume various vitamins and supplements, which doubtless carry their own carbon footprints. This adds up to a BIG carbon footprint, at least hear in New England. Is this the reality for the rest of you vegans out there, or do I just know some lazy and thoughtless vegans? Also, I have heard it said (but yet to be verified) that it generally takes more arable land to feed a vegan than to feed an omnivore, as they have to eat a greater quantity of food to get nutritional needs met. Vegans and farmers: True or not?

3.) There's substantial science and myriad cultural traditions (not American) that do not espouse a vegan diet for health reasons. Not to say that eating a burger a day and no veggies is healthy, either. Traditional Chinese Medicine upholds the view that people should eat meat... that not eating any meat or animal-derived foods can lead to longterm health issues, especially if one is living anything more active or stressful than a spiritually aesthetic lifestyle. To quote an over-used phrase, the human mouth does have incisors for a reason. In many other countries and foreign cultures (especially "poorer" ones) that my friends have visited and lived in, the concept of veganism is thought of as just plain nuts-- meat is so rare that passing up any opportunity to eat it would be risking one's health. I wonder if veganism is a side-effect of our living in a country of such opulent (and unhealthy) abundance when it comes to food?

4.) (Just have to throw this into the mix) If animals are sentient creatures that do not deserve the cruelty of being slaughtered for food, then is it immoral for one animal (i.e., a lion) to hunt and slaughter another (gazelle) for its food? Are animals of a same moral class and sentience as humans? Should they be? Who's the ultimate judge of the matter if both animals and humans are sentient, thinking, feeling creatures? From our own perspective it tends to be us... but what of the lions or gazelles perspective? Do animals and plants perceive the world as we do? Do we have any way of really knowing?

The unfortunate fact is that, as mammals, we humans have to kill other things in order to feed ourselves, be they plants or animals. Their relative value as living beings is something that we humans assign to them. We don't know if the lion honors the gazelles sentience or if it just sees the gazelle as a "food object". Some people don't see animals as food, some do... but both sets of people are assigning their own moral value s to something else-- both sets of people still set humanity apart from and above the natural world ("we are people, therefore we know what's best...") and impose their moral judgements and values upon it. All this discussion still assumes that humans are at the top and can call the shots-- In that sense, we have a lot in common with the factory feedlot hog farmer.

Food for thought.

[Jen]

Great post Joe. This is definitely food for thought for me.

[Sarah]

Joe - thanks for the great post.

When we consider that humans never would have evolved as we did (and therefore wouldn't be who we are as a species, whatever you may consider the potential for ethical consideration in other species)without our greater consumption of meat than other apes with whom we evolved, it feels as though we're separating ourselves more and more from our biological roots (and therefore from nature?) by removing ourselves from the natural eating habits of omnivores.

Not to imply that factory farming is natural, it's just a thought.

[Eric Prescott]

Oh, man, I'm so chagrined to find so many people finding Joe's post valuable. There is so much wrong with it. I don't have a lot of time, but it appears at least a brief reply is necessary. It's kind of crazy that people are taking the post seriously, but I guess I need to demonstrate why, so here we go:

1) Joe, you cannot believe, even as a devil's advocate, that plants are sentient. Sentience relies upon a nervous system. Show me the plant that has a nervous system, and we can start talking about sentience. Animals have developed sentience evolutionarily (this has nothing to do with metaphysics or religion), and we are a part of that evolutionary continuum. We are different from other animals only by degrees, not by kind.

Also, it takes more plants to feed animals that we then feed to ourselves than it does to eat an entirely plant-based diet, so that addresses the other part of your comments, if you are so inclined to be believe that a reduction is valuable. Further, monocropping is not the endgame. We must work with the environment to produce healthier land and healthier crops. Veganic farming is an exciting development in this area.

2) I know that I eat food shipped from elsewhere. I don't rely on exotic foods, and certainly do not consume much in the way of vitamins and supplements (most vegans do not need any of these things, unless they do not get B12 from fortified foods). I haven't measured the carbon footprint, but the research points to a vegan diet being less environmentally intensive than a meat-based diet in general. Once again, it takes more plant foods to feed animals that we then eat than to eat plants directly. Animal agriculture is highly inefficient when it comes to both plant agriculture and water. Water use is a big issue that will only get bigger, and the amount of water used to produce meat is irresponsible.

3) There's substantial science that does espouse a plant-based or even a vegan diet. I recommend The China Study, by T. Colin Campbell. But the American Dietetic Association and others have recognized for at least 15 years that vegan diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, and that is all that really matters here, since we are talking about the morality of eating sentient beings when it isn't at all necessary for proper health. All that said, this obviously does not apply to the 1.2 billion people on the planet who are lucky to even eat. However, none of reading these comments fall into that category. For us, veganism is perfectly plausible, not at all ridiculous, and must be seriously considered if we say we care about animals.

4) I'm amazed at the faulty reasoning that continues to be perpetrated by this question. I see it everywhere, but it doesn't make any sense at all.

*If* we were actual carnivores and *if* we were not rational beings with a developed sense of morality, then we would be very much more like other animals, and it would make sense to act like carnivores. However, we are not. We don't take any other moral cues from the animal kingdom (e.g., we don't consider it acceptable to rape each other, yet animals do it all the time), so how is it valid for us to take moral cues on diet from the animal kingdom?

Let's not also forget that there are many herbivorous species out there as well. Why are we not taking our cues from them? The answer is that we don't take any of our moral cues from other animals, so your entire question is moot.

But this is not about whether it is *possible* for us to eat animal products, it's about whether it is moral, particularly when it comes to treating animals as property, in which situations it is impossible for such animals to lead the natural lives of their cousins in the wild. The fact is, we have a choice. Within that choice lies responsibility. If we know that animals are harmed in the process of becoming our food directly, and that fewer are harmed in the process of producing plant-based food, then as a morally aware species, we must take the least harm approach.

Need more? To take your question to its logical extreme, if it's okay for animals to eat other animals for food, why isn't it okay for us to eat each other for food? The answer is, of course, that it is not.

Now there's some food for thought.

[Taffy]

I agree completely, Eric. Good post and great rebuttal!

[Joe]

@Eric

Thanks for the reply-- many good points and I agree with you on many of them.

What I intended to get at in my original is that "right" "wrong", "moral" and "sentient" are all in the eye of the beholder. For instance, in your post, you state that "sentience requires a central nervous system". Who came up with that rule? We (humans) did. It's a rather subjective and biased judgement, don'tcha think, since it favors human characteristics for sentience?

I was hinting at the point that I think it's kind of funny that there are folks on our side (and we are on the same side) that are making, at the core, the same arguments on grounds of morality that I imagine CAFO proponents would make-- an argument that could be made on their behalf is that since animals don't have speech similar to humans and let us slaughter them, they obviously aren't sentient, and therefore it's perfectly fine to eat them. Or that we have the god-given right to have dominion over animals and eat them-- i.e., the world exists for the benefit of humans only and humans know best. My point is that I find it funny that almost all of the arguments I've seen on basing diet on morality, be it pro-vegan or pro-omnivore/carnivore, all seem to stem from that same assumption... that somehow the world that the human perception of the world is the right one.

Kind of heady, I know, but I think this assumption is at the heart of many of the issues discussed on this blog... a sense of entitlement vs. a sense of being an equal part of the whole when it comes to living on this planet. From my observation, people's justification for their choice of diet, be it vegan or meater, is almost always based on the former when you get to the core of their beliefs.

And yes, I do believe plants are sentient and divine. I even think rocks are too, in their own way. It's part of my religious beliefs and spiritual practice, which guides my way of life. More power to you if you think I'm nuts.

[Joe]

@ Eric again,

Oops... forgot one thing-- I know quite a few small organic farmers who would take issue with the "fact" that raising and feeding an animal for food requires more resources than raising vegetables across the board. I know one (formerly vegan) farmer in particular who has put a lot of time, thought, and effort into calculating the most nutritional value he could get out of his land (rocky New England uplands with a short growing season) while using the least amount of resources (mainly petroleum, water, and human-labor). He concluded that for his plot of land, he could get the most nutrition out of it by raising dairy cattle and sheep (to be used for meat while using far less resources than growing a variety of crops on it that are relatively labor and resource intensive to process (ever pick and process a 1/2 acre of chickpeas or red wheat? Very hard work even with a bio-diesel tractor and several people to help.... and that's just picking the crop, not even processing for storage or consumption. Expand that out to an acre a year to feed one person [his calculation of vegetable needs for an omnivore diet], including other crops, and you get the picture of the resources involved).

Other farmers here... what's your thoughts?

[Jess]

Hi, this is @Eric's post. I'm not even going to get into the vegan/omnivore debate. There are good points on both sides and I feel that this is a decision that people need to make for themselves.

This is about the provocative comment about whether we should allow rape because it is part of the "natural" world. I am not an expert but I believe that the human "animal" is unique in having the ability to forcibly rape another. All throughout the animal world, it is the female who chooses who will father the offspring. They have the option to walk away at any time.

I believe a great deal of our environmental problems stem from humanity's belief that they are not part of the animal kingdom and have been breaking all the "rules" for thousands of years.

[Eric Prescott]

JOE: in your post, you state that "sentience requires a central nervous system". Who came up with that rule? We (humans) did. It's a rather subjective and biased judgement, don'tcha think, since it favors human characteristics for sentience?

ERIC: Sentience is just a term we invented to describe a biological state. We did not invent the state that we call sentience. We could call it anything else, and those beings would still be capable of perception, regardless of the term we used.

JOE: I was hinting at the point that I think it's kind of funny that there are folks on our side (and we are on the same side)

ERIC: I am not sure how we are on the same "side", assuming you think it is acceptable to exploit and consume other beings. I think it violates the right of sentient individuals to enslave and exploit them, much less eat and wear them. We extend equal consideration to other human beings because we recognize that the only morally relevant criterion for protecting their interests is sentience. Sentience can be scientifically determined. It is not an opinion or based on faith, nor does it rely heavily on human interpretation, though clearly we can only know what we ourselves perceive to be fact.

JOE: kind of funny that there are folks on our side (and we are on the same side) that are making, at the core, the same arguments on grounds of morality that I imagine CAFO proponents would make--

ERIC: Yup, we definitely do not agree. Maybe welfare advocates would agree with CAFO proponents (though they would be seriously confused about what goes on in CAFOs), but rights advocates believe it is morally wrong to keep animals as property in this fashion or any other.

JOE: an argument that could be made on their behalf is that since animals don't have speech similar to humans and let us slaughter them, they obviously aren't sentient, and therefore it's perfectly fine to eat them.

ERIC: Joe, this makes no sense. Sentience is not related to the ability to speak. It is not sapience, or intelligence. Sentience is the ability to perceive things, self awareness of pain, pleasure and so on. It is something all animals share in common out of biological evolution of a central nervous system, and out of necessity to survive. (plants on the other hand are not sentient as they do not have a nervous system, which is a prerequisite for self awareness and perception, all due respect to your religious beliefs to the contrary)

JOE: Or that we have the god-given right to have dominion over animals and eat them-- i.e., the world exists for the benefit of humans only and humans know best.

ERIC: This is a religious argument, to be sure, one to which I strenuously object. The bible depicts and favors many scenarios which modern society rejects just as strenuously today, so I don't see how this can hold any relevance to whether it is morally acceptable to use animals for our benefit.

JOE: My point is that I find it funny that almost all of the arguments I've seen on basing diet on morality, be it pro-vegan or pro-omnivore/carnivore, all seem to stem from that same assumption... that somehow the world that the human perception of the world is the right one.

ERIC: I would suggest that many of us believe that veganism and animal rights stem from a more biocentric view of things, rather than an anthropocentric view. By valuing other beings as individuals, with their own intrinsic value, we are inherently breaking free of a paradigm that assumes our perception of the world is the right one. We recognize that we ought to respect and value other beings for their own interests instead of ours.

JOE: Kind of heady, I know, but I think this assumption is at the heart of many of the issues discussed on this blog... a sense of entitlement vs. a sense of being an equal part of the whole when it comes to living on this planet. From my observation, people's justification for their choice of diet, be it vegan or meater, is almost always based on the former when you get to the core of their beliefs.

ERIC: I certainly do agree that the human sense of entitlement is a massive part of the problem. Entitlement leads to oppression, and this is the yoke we need to break if we are to see equality for all animals.

JOE: And yes, I do believe plants are sentient and divine. I even think rocks are too, in their own way. It's part of my religious beliefs and spiritual practice, which guides my way of life. More power to you if you think I'm nuts.

ERIC: I hope that my opinion on this is more or less clear. I will let others decide for themselves whose position makes more sense.

JOE: I know quite a few small organic farmers who would take issue with the "fact" that raising and feeding an animal for food requires more resources than raising vegetables across the board.

ERIC: Joe, your illustration is a marginal case. If you look at the big picture, your friend's situation is not scalable. What's more, if we look at the local level, which seems appropriate here, I know a veganic farmer not far from Boston who has done the actual work of both organic and veganic farming and has come down in favor veganic farming, only it is too expensive at this time without the support of a CSA structure to encourage it.

But, just to wrap this up, if exploiting humans were more environmentally sustainable (and it may well be), I don't see how that would justify doing so. What makes it wrong to exploit humans for ecological sound farming makes it wrong to exploit nonhumans, who have the same morally relevant interests in not being the property of other beings.

JESS: This is about the provocative comment about whether we should allow rape because it is part of the "natural" world. I am not an expert but I believe that the human "animal" is unique in having the ability to forcibly rape another. All throughout the animal world, it is the female who chooses who will father the offspring. They have the option to walk away at any time.

ERIC: It is true that, in many cases, females do choose their mates, but there are plenty of scientifically observed situations in which rape does occur in the wild. I didn't just make that up. The point of my illustration (and there are others, like defecating and having sex in the open, etc., that we would not use as examples for our own behavior), is that we do not take our morality from examples in the wild, so it makes no sense that we ought to justify eating meat just because certain obligate carnivores and some omnivores do so simply to survive, not simply because they have grown accustomed to the taste of hamburgers and pizza.

JESS: I believe a great deal of our environmental problems stem from humanity's belief that they are not part of the animal kingdom and have been breaking all the "rules" for thousands of years.

ERIC: I agree. We need to get over ourselves and work better with nature in a way that makes sense for a population of over 6 billion people. We are not above or apart from nature. Everything we do impacts it, and we need to be respectful of all the individuals within it, not just the humans.
That reminds me of a blog I wrote for PBS's Remotely Connected:

http://www.pbs.org/nights/blog/2007/10/nature_cheetah_orphans.html

Now, I am getting tied up in other discussions, work and other matters, so I am having a harder time remembering this line of discussion is happening over here. If I fail to respond to future comments, please do not take that as a lack of interest, enthusiasm or concern about the subject, much less any dismissal. In our wired world, it is impossible to keep up with everything.