How does being a vegetarian save animals if they are continuously killed anyway?!


Question: Supply and demand. Say there was a country with 1,000 citizens and one meat producer. If 100 people decided to stop eating meat, the meat producer could either slaughter the same number of animals and have 10% that he couldn't sell, which wouldn't make good business sense, OR he could slaughter 10% fewer animals. Every one of us who doesn't demand the product has an effect on the supply.


Answers: Supply and demand. Say there was a country with 1,000 citizens and one meat producer. If 100 people decided to stop eating meat, the meat producer could either slaughter the same number of animals and have 10% that he couldn't sell, which wouldn't make good business sense, OR he could slaughter 10% fewer animals. Every one of us who doesn't demand the product has an effect on the supply.

geee hmm i wonder why maybe if 1 person does it it makes a difference

Who said that I was trying to "save" animals"?

My choice is to not use my money to contribute to the suffering of animals and encourage the people that cause it.

People are fools, they eat meat because it's already dead and they vote for Democrats only because they are better than the Republicans. They always have a lame cop-out for everything.

They always look to what everyone else is doing to find excuses to not do the right thing.

The more people there are that stop eating meat for various reasons, less animals are bred to be killed in the first place.
If this answer doesn't make any sense, give up trying to understand because you'll need to learn right from wrong first.

Vegetarianism is an important life choice for many people, and is made for many different reasons. But, in fact, it does not spare the lives of many animals. Consider this: as the economies of many developing countries expand, their citizens realize increased wealth (witness China) and the demand for animal protein increases significantly. This requires that more animals be produced as sources of food. This increased production probably vastly outstrips any sparing effect of vegetarianism.

Also, animals are a very efficient source of proteins for human nutrition, compared to non-animal sources. We did, after all, evolve as omnivores, adapted to a very broad diet that includes both vegetable and animal matter.

CORRECTION: Earlier I should have written above, at the end of my first paragraph: "This increased production probably vastly outstrips any sparing effect of vegetarianism except for the 96 animals Jessica doesn't eat."

I have to agree with Carlo. Their has never been a noticeable decrease of animal slaughtered. The same number of animals are going to get killed. The demand overseas will chew up any surplus.

check out the links below...they will explain everything!

mockingbird is logical and correct. And the person who gave a thumbs down, and the people that stated the opposite, show that their's something wrong with the brains of many meat-eaters - at least when defending their diet. All logic gets put on the "back burner" since the front burners are occupied.





The consumer Foods information on foodaq.com is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions.
The answer content post by the user, if contains the copyright content please contact us, we will immediately remove it.
Copyright © 2007 FoodAQ - Terms of Use - Contact us - Privacy Policy

Food's Q&A Resources