If it could be shown that vegetarian diets are ecologically preferable to meat-based diets or demonstrated...?!
Answers: If it could be shown that vegetarian diets are ecologically preferable to meat-based diets or demonstrated that meat-based diets contributed to American Dependency on foreign oil products or contributed to global famine, would that mean that a vegetarian diet is necessarily morally preferable?
The Environment
Conservation of Fossil fuel. It takes 78 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of beef protein; 35 calories for 1 calorie of pork; 22 calories for 1 of poultry; but just 1 calorie of fossil fuel for 1 calorie of soybeans. By eating plant foods instead of animal foods, I help conserve our non-renewable sources of energy.
Water Conservation. It takes 3 to 15 times as much water to produce animal protein as it does plant protein. As a vegetarian I contribute to water conservation.
Efficient use of grains. It takes up to 16 pounds of soybeans and grains to produce 1 lb. of beef and 3 to 6 lbs. to produce 1 lb of turkey & egg. By eating grain foods directly, I make the food supply more efficient & that contributes to the environment.
Soil conservation. When grains & legumes are used more efficiently, our precious topsoil is automatically made more efficient in its use. We use less agricultural resources to provide for the same number of people.
Saving our forests. Tropical forests in Brazil and other tropic regions are destroyed daily, in part, to create more acreage to raise livestock. By not supporting the meat industry, I directly reduce the demand to pillage these irreplaceable treasures of nature. Since the forest land "filters" our air supply and contains botanical sources for new medicines, this destruction is irreversable.
Asthetics. Decaying animal parts, whether in a freezer case or served in restaurants, can never be as asthetically pleasing to the senses as the same foods made from wholesome vegetable sources. Only habit can allow one not to perceive this: a change in diet makes this self evident.
hi, just a small extract why veggie is better on the enviroment, also in the section efficient use of grains, obviously the grains go further eating them directly rather than feeding to animals for the meat industry, therefore the grains would feed more people! you can either have 16 pounds of soya beans(which are extremely good for you!!) or 1 pound of meat, easy sums!!
i personally think that a veggie diet is morally preferable on the above grounds and also on the grounds that animals suffer so that people can have meat on their plate!
hope this helps! :)
That's one of many reasons it is...but since when does that matter?
How the heck do morals get into bbq chicken?
No to does not. Many things contribute to your quoted problems. To single out meat is not a viable option in my eyes.
Vegetarian diets are more ecologically sound because they are kinder to the earth. Many forests and jungle forests are cut down to make pastures for cows to graze on, not to mention the amount of methane cows produce is massive! I just saw Jean-Michele Cousteau (Jacques Cousteau's son) speak and he spoke about what excessive meat consumption is doing to the earth. I'm not sure about global famine and meat consumption... I do know that every american, from baby to elderly, is allotted 4000 calories a day...we clearly do not need 4000 cals a day and it makes no sense why some countries are starving.
to single out meat is absurd....yes not eating meat might help the planet...but so would not using cars, planes, electrical devices and so on...i can garuntee every single vegetarian uses cars or planes at some point so to single out meat is offensive to me...i could say that tractors punk out CO2 when harvesting crops..so stop eating so many of them...but thats not the big picture.
It's a biological, ecological truth.
I don't think that meat has to be totally eliminated, but the amount of meat/dairy production does contribute to global hunger. The land is not used efficiently, nor is the grain or water the animals need. Then there's pollution due to runoff as well as pollution due to growth hormones and antibiotics.
Meat and dairy en masse kills this planet, from our arteries to earth's reservoirs.
Not only are natural resources used inefficiently, but funds are used inefficiently as well. For all the money "saved" by cruel factory farmers who economize in ways that spell cruelty to animals (like refusal to anesthetize), the government still hands huge subsidies over to them. Why do we subsidize meat?! If we did not, the prices on meat would instantly soar to unbelievable numbers, and no one would be able to afford it--meaning we would all see how foolishly expensive and frivolous it is to eat as much as we do.
Whadday mean "if"? It *has* been shown that meat production does incredible damage to the planet; the U.N. released a study showing that it contributes more to global warming than all other forms of transportation, and the U.S. EPA determined that runoff from factory farms causes more water pollution than all other industrial sources combined. It takes 10 times the fossil fuels to produce a calorie of meat than it does a calorie of plant food. Soy is even more efficient, using 1/40 the fossil fuel of meat.
And while it does take 5 to 15 pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat (depending on the size of the animal), I won't pretend that everyone going vegetarian or at least drastically reducing their meat consumption would end world hunger, as that is a problem of distribution. Still, this would lead to more land to feed people instead of animals who are fed to people.
I don't know if I would use the word "morally"--it sure does get bandied about a lot--but a vegetarian or vegan diet is certainly ecologically preferable.
If it could, I suppose yes. But in reality, it can't so the supposition is pointless. If the earth had uniform topography, weather conditions,economic standards, affluence etc, then you can propose one uniform system for all. But since conditions vary, (for example, you cannot plant in a desert or arctic environment), then no uniform standard can be.
It has, and it is.