Secular Humanists Should Be Vegetarians
Dec 1st, 2008 | By Guest Contributor | Category: Feature, FeaturedContributed by John Xu
One thing we atheists seem to pride ourselves more and more these days over religious folks is our sense of morality – if we do good without the need for a supreme supernatural overseer to tell us to, then we must be morally superior. Is this really so I wonder? For starters, do atheists donate more to charity than the religious? Do we offer up our seats to the elderly more often? Do we treat our neighbours better, or contribute more to our communities? More often than not, I think, we would find that the answers to those questions would be a no. Of course, I am not in any way insinuating that atheism leads to immorality. Instead, I am trying to point out that if we want to claim to be morally superior, we have to put our money where our mouths are. Since this website is supposedly also advocating secular humanism, I should think these ideas aren’t very contentious. But what does vegetarianism have to do with anything? Well, here are some facts about the meat we eat everyday:
The Waste of Meat-Eating
Most of the meat we eat in North America come from factory farms, which are inherently extremely wasteful and inefficient. Consider that when we grow grains to feed the animals that in turn feed us, most of the energy in those grains go towards growing bones, skins, and self-repair mechanisms of the animals. In fact, it takes over 10kg of grain to raise 1kg of beef. How does it look like for other animals? Well…
Producing livestock requires a large amount of resources in terms of water and land on which to build farms and facilities. It also necessitates the use of even more land in order to grow the food to with the animals with. To put it into perspective, 1 hectare of land can feed 1 person per year if it produced beef, while it can feed 22 if it grew potatoes. The land used to produce meat would be several times more efficiently employed if used to grow soybeans, rice, corn, or wheat, both in terms of calories and proteins.
Growing meat, as it happens, also takes a huge amount of fresh water – a commodity the world is starting to seriously lack these days. Here is a chart showing exactly how much water that steaming juicy steak on your plate last night costs:
The world, as a whole, cannot sustain such a great strain on freshwater. This is especially true when the freshwater used for irrigation depletes rivers or underground aquifers faster than they are being replenished, as is happening in many parts of the world.
Really, eating meat is like driving a car to your next door neighbour’s for dinner – it makes no sense.
The Environmental Costs of Eating Meat
Cow vs Car
When asked about what the main contributors to global warming are, an average person would probably never pause to think about meat-eating. It would be pretty shocking then to find out that growing meat is actually one of the greatest producers of green house gases. This is because CO2 is produced when fossil fuels are burnt to produce fertilizers used to produce feed; methane is released from the breakdown of fertilizers and manure; fossil fuels are used during feed and animal production, and the transport of processed and refrigerated animal products.
A study in the New Scientist found that if an average American changed from eating meat to being vegan, he/she would manage to produce 1.5 tons less of CO2 per year, while changing to a hybrid fuel-efficient car would only save 1 ton per year.
Farm animals also produce methane and nitrous oxide, which, respectively, have 23 and 296 times the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide. The decomposition of fertilizers and manure is responsible for 80 percent of agricultural methane emissions and about 35-40 percent of total anthropogenic methane emissions; and as for nitrous oxide, livestock produces 65 percent of the total anthropogenic emissions. Animal farming is thus one of the greatest contributors of global warming.
The Threat of Meat to Rainforests
Thanks to globalization and the reduction of trade barriers, the world is increasingly becoming a single market. This means that a global increase in meat consumption causes forests in other countries to be cut down to grow food for feeding animals. In Brazil, for example, vast areas of forest are being destroyed each year in order to grow soybeans that are exported to the US and Europe for feeding livestock. In 2002, 25,500 km of rainforest – an area the size of Belgium – was cleared, with the main reason being soyabean cultivation. All of this forest clearing then releases tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while decreasing the amount of trees that soak up carbon dioxide.
The Ethical Dimensions
What Happens in Factory Farms
The chickens you buy in supermarkets are raised in very large sheds that hold tens of thousands of chickens, with each chicken given about an average of 96 square inches of room – the size of a standard 8.5 inch x 11 inch page of printing paper. In these sheds, chickens are unable to move without pushing through each other, unable to stretch their wings at will, or to flee aggressive birds.
These chickens suffer from a large variety of problems ranging from blindness, respiratory diseases, sores, and severe tearing caused by a build-up of feces, to chronic bone pain caused by having a growth rate many times the speed of normal chickens from selective breeding. As a side-effect of the selective breeding, these chickens have an enormous appetite, which if satisfied, will cause them to grow grotesquely large and die before reaching sexual maturity, and as a result, are consistently fed 60-80 percent less than their appetites desire.
Cattles, on the other hand, in order to be fattened as quickly and efficiently as possible, are kept on a diet of high-energy grains and corn instead of the roughage they eat normally. However, cattle’s digestive system evolved to break down grass, and when they do not eat it, a great amount of lactic acid accumulates in their rumens, causing gas problems so severe that cattle could suffocate from it. Liver abscesses are also another consequence of this. Giving cattle only corn to eat is equivalent to feeding humans with candy bars; and to prevent them from getting sick and dying before they can be slaughtered, they are injected with huge amounts of antibiotics.
So What?
As secular humanists, we should be cognizant of the ethical implications of our actions. It isn’t good enough to point out the moral sinkholes of bronze-age superstitions – we have to show the world that we can do better. It is frighteningly obvious that eating meat is a luxury for us living in the developed world, contributes to climate change, and is on highly shaky ethical grounds. So why wait? Do the right thing.
Sources and Further Reading
John Robbins, The Food Revolution, Conari Press, 2001
CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology), 1999. Contribution of Animal Agriculture to Meeting Global Human Food Demand.
Livestock Revolution. Implications for Rural Poverty, the Environment, and Global Food Security, World Bank Report 23241, November 2001
D.Pimentel et al, “Water resources: agriculture, the environment, and Society,” BioScience, vol. 47 (1997), pp. 97-106.
J.L.Beckett and J.W.Oltjen, “Estimation of the Water Requirements for Beef Production in the United States,” Journal of Animal Science, vol.71 (1993) pp.818-826
D.Pimentel et al, “Water resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues” BioScience, vol. 54 (2004), pp. 909-918.
Eshel, Gidon and Pamela Martin, “Diet, Energy and Global Warming,” Earth Interactions, May 2005
“Challenge to Fishing: Keep Unwanted Species Out of Its Huge Nets,” Otto Pohl, The New York Times, July 29, 2003
Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, 2nd edition, New York: Avon Books, 1990
J. Mason and P. Singer, The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter, Rodale
Last 5 posts by Guest Contributor
- Winning the Battle for Gay Rights - November 16th, 2008
Loading ...
Very strange reasoning about atheism and ethical thinking. Too bad this site is polluted with pieces like this. Apart from what one might think about being a vegitarian, you’re using lots of rethoric and arguments you put next to statements that have little or nothing to do with anything. I’m talking about the “factory farms, which are inherently extremely wasteful and inefficient.” but you go on explaining something else right next. Looks like they are connected, and i’m sure you could in a reaction, but that doesn’t change the fact that the piece isn’t really all that nice/structured/”true” whatever.
You mix “ethical” (animal friendly and all), environmental and some sort of weird link to atheism to one big pot of.. well.. fearmongering? Picking some obviously bad things (cutting down rainforrests, chickens having bad lives, meat consumtion-related problems), imply that they’re all connected, that there is no other sollution then to stop eating meat and wrap it all up in a “you should do this” tone that makes people think atheists are all left-wing nutjobs, make people want to eat more meat just to annoy you and it generally makes this site a great deal less then it was.
Too bad
[Reply]
But meat tastes good.
[Reply]
I think the biggest problem is not meat-eating, but overconsumption. All the problems you described become catastrophic only at the scale at which they are implemented.
This situation is almost exactly like the problem with bushmeat hunting in forested areas. The locals have been doing it for millenia and living in a sustainable way with their enviornment, but when large RICH populations are offered more than they need and they actually give in, a whole network of hunting/poaching, meat processing, transportation, retailing and eventually obesity arise.
After all, as humans, we consider meat to be a big part of our diet. In today’s world it is no longer necessary to eat meat to survive, but still a favourite for most people’s palates. I for one am a veggie atheist, but I can’t force others to switch over on an emotional basis alone.
[Reply]
Joe Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
As a meat eating atheist, I agree here with Abhishek, there is a historical reason why meat eating is important to survival. When food is scarce, meat gives people a concentrated source of most of the things their bodies need to survive with relatively low investment. Hunting game is different from animal farming. In lean times it was often the difference between life and death for whole communities, and while it may use more land, that’s only a real problem if you have overpopulation, in the first place.
The real problems, in my view are, we eat too much meat, when we don’t need to, and we don’t properly control our population. Which is not just a ‘rich nation’ problem.
[Reply]
Brian Carne Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
You’ll also note that meat production in general promotes excess grain production which can, in emergency food situations, be diverted to other uses. So meat production can act as a buffer against starvation.
[Reply]
Joe Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 am
I think if we are to be rational about it, we can and really have to look critically at our diet.
All medical evidence I’ve seen, seems to support the idea that westerners eat too much red meat…
i.e. an unhealthy amount.
Environment or no environment, this seems to be recognized medical fact.
This excessive amount also has other negative effects, like on the enviroment. I’m not expert enough to balance the good against the bad. But one doesn’t have to be a lefty to see the negative exists.
That said, as an avowed centrist, I agree that leftists often try and reserve the word humanism for themselves and their own brand of ideology.
[Reply]
Brian Carnell Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 am
“think if we are to be rational about it, we can and really have to look critically at our diet.
All medical evidence I’ve seen, seems to support the idea that westerners eat too much red meat…
i.e. an unhealthy amount.
Environment or no environment, this seems to be recognized medical fact.”
We’re all going to die of something until the Singularity hits. Westerners appear to eat too much in general and simultaneously do not exercise enough. Not sure how anyone addresses that without a nanny state.
I don’t eat much red meat, but if others want to, more power to them.
After all, part of the issue is that developing nations want to be more like us — the developing world already consumes a slim majority of all meat worldwide, and by 2020 developing nations will consume 63% of meat worldwide according to the International Food Policy Research Institute.
[Reply]
Joe Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:01 am
Singularity sounds suspiciously like rapture to me.
Good luck with that.
I’m not one of the faithful. I believe in human beings taking charge of their lives.
I support encouraging people to be more healthy, and keep their environment healthy, rather than waiting for some magic to save us.
[Reply]
Katie Kish Reply:
December 1st, 2008 at 5:38 pm
…I too need to agree. I don’t think the only solution to these issues is to stop eating meat.
I agree too. People but too much in general, not just meat. As joe mentioned its not just a “rich nation” problem as we see overconsumption in developing countries all over the world. Mostly in the form of things like over fishing and deforestation.
…In regards to the actual post…
If chickens are being treated badly, then put them on free ranch farms.
If we’re entering into an environmental disaster with factory farms then why not advocate for closing them down?
Why is the only solution to become a vegetarian?
I think the real parallel that can be drawn between secular humanism and not eating meat is the minimization of suffering in animals. I’ve seen John write before on the philosophy of how animals feel pain and suffer - and from there say that as secular humanists we shouldn’t limit our want for suffering to end to simply humans - but that it needs to be extended to animals.
But again, this pretty much is solved with free range farming and proper methods of killing.
[Reply]
“Most of the meat we eat in North America come from factory farms, which are inherently extremely wasteful and inefficient.”
Huh? You make this claim but don’t cite any evidence at all that *factory* farming is inefficient as compared to non-factory farming. In fact, factory farming is more efficient than non-factory farming which is why it is so popular in the West and outcompetes non-factory methods (just look at the prices of free range vs. factory meat at your supermarket for goodness sake). The counter-argument to factory farming is not that it is inefficient but that the corners factory farms cut to reach that level of efficience are cruel/pass on negative environmental externalities/etc.
And while it is an interesting debate, I’m not sure what it has to do with atheism at all. Part of this, I think, is from the confused view expressed in the opening paragraph,
“One thing we atheists seem to pride ourselves more and more these days over religious folks is our sense of morality – if we do good without the need for a supreme supernatural overseer to tell us to, then we must be morally superior. Is this really so I wonder? For starters, do atheists donate more to charity than the religious? Do we offer up our seats to the elderly more often? Do we treat our neighbours better, or contribute more to our communities?”
As an atheist, I’ve never thought “hey, i’m better than those religious wackos because I don’t need a supreme supernatural overseer to tell me what to do.”
Do atheists donate more to charity? Do atheists give up seats for the elderly or treat their neighbors better? Who cares?
This is the problem with conflating atheism with secular humanism. One is simply a position on the god hypothesis. The other is fullblown ideology, but plenty of us are atheists without being secular humanists (as far as “secular humanists” seem to use that phrase to describe what might otherwise better be characterized as “left-wing atheism.”)
[Reply]
Brian Carnell Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 am
“think if we are to be rational about it, we can and really have to look critically at our diet.
All medical evidence I’ve seen, seems to support the idea that westerners eat too much red meat…
i.e. an unhealthy amount.
Environment or no environment, this seems to be recognized medical fact.”
We’re all going to die of something until the Singularity hits. Westerners appear to eat too much in general and simultaneously do not exercise enough. Not sure how anyone addresses that without a nanny state.
I don’t eat much red meat, but if others want to, more power to them.
After all, part of the issue is that developing nations want to be more like us — the developing world already consumes a slim majority of all meat worldwide, and by 2020 developing nations will consume 63% of meat worldwide according to the International Food Policy Research Institute.
[Reply]
I’ve been wondering why, if vegetarianism is so much more resource-efficient than meat, vegetarian food is so much more expensive. Tell me, why?
[Reply]
Abhishek Bhatnagar Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:20 am
haha…travel to vegetarian dominant countries. You will find quit the opposite.
[Reply]
Bhan Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
miller, where do you live? And what kind of vegetarian food are you talking about? Here in Brazil,
vegetables are a lot cheaper than meat here. In fact, poor people here consider eating a luxury!
Of course, some industrial products, like fancy soy milk from famous brands, are quite expensive; but rice, beans, potatoes, corn, wheat, some soy derivatives, and most leafy vegetables are pretty much affordable. At least, in comparison with meat and dairy food. And Brazil is far from becoming a vegetarian dominant country: unfortunately we have the biggest commercial bovine herd in the world. And even so, I’m sure that in average vegetables are much less expensive.
Thumbs up for Jphn Xu, by the way! It’s always great to see this subject be discussed by atheists, skeptics, etc. , as the main vegetarian community is too much woo woo and for my taste…
[Reply]
miller Reply:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I’m in California. I couldn’t say for sure that vegetarian food is more expensive, but it’s the overall impression I get. Food that is explicitly labeled as vegetarian tends to be smaller and more expensive. And being vegetarian would severely limit one’s choices in any typical restaurant. I think being vegetarian would simply be too much work.
[Reply]
The pragmatic arguments are the ones that’d sway me the most. I’m pretty apathetic about animals.
[Reply]
This wreaks of the latest PETA propaganda that no longer seems to emphasize “cruelty” to animals that hardly have any feeling at all but instead deceptively makes almost exclusively out of context and quote-mined environmental and health claims. In fact, PETA now proclaims themselves as among the most effective environmental organizations around and has the audacity to state that meat-eaters CAN’T be environmentists. . .you know, without PETA actually having to do any actual science or produce any academic, peer-reviewed papers, or even present a feasible means of achieving their pie-in-the-sky solutions for saving the environment.
And as for their health claims, it pretty much all boils down to denial of benefits from dairy as they’ve tried in vain to vilify dairy products. . .I guess because maybe they can’t quite find good alternative sources of the nutrients in dairy like they have with meat products. This BS really makes me sick. I’m surprised you guys even published this trite. I think I’m going to enjoy some extra meat in response.
[Reply]
Just be glad you live in a time and place where you have the luxury of not eating meat.
[Reply]
“Farm animals also produce methane and nitrous oxide, which, respectively, have 23 and 296 times the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide. The decomposition of fertilizers and manure is responsible for 80 percent of agricultural methane emissions and about 35-40 percent of total anthropogenic methane emissions; and as for nitrous oxide, livestock produces 65 percent of the total anthropogenic emissions. Animal farming is thus one of the greatest contributors of global warming.”
That’s a base rate fallacy. How can a claim about relative contribution to global warming be made without finding the conspicuously absent quantity of gases released, plugging that into the appropriate equation, and comparing the climate forcing? With no quantity, we could be dealing with micrograms or Teratonnes. It looks like we’re supposed to be afraid because 65% is a big chunk, but the expression 0.65x is meaningless without a value for x. 0.65 * 0.000001 g is hardly intimidating.
Then there’s the issue that the provided figures clearly show the vast majority of methane from agriculture is from fertilizer and manure–a plant-growth booster that has no direct application for animals–and NOT from the animals themselves (20% is the ceiling for that). IE. All the wonderful plant farms are going to be dripping with methane-producing fertilizer. Unless the synthetic stuff is the majority of that 80%, organic plant farms aren’t any better (especially for wet crops, like rice, bean sprouts, and alfalfa).
And what of the fact that only around two-fifths of total anthropogenic methane emissions are in fact from agriculture? Wouldn’t that mean at most 8% of atmospheric methane can be considered, since farm animals produce no more than 20% of up to 40% of the total human contribution to atmospheric concentrations?
[Reply]