I read with disdain a Thought Leader blog that called the farming of meat “evil”. I have just returned to Canada and I visiting my parents on the farm and it is killing time. I say this to be provocative and honest about what we do. The chickens and turkeys are fully grown and we have started to process them. The lambs have been sent to the processing plant last week and we have freezers full of meat.
We have currently 150 breeding ewes, 18 horses, 50 chickens for meat, 12 for eggs, 25 turkeys, six dogs and some rescues (random barn cats, two ducks and a goat). We proudly raise and sell our animals for meat and we do so in as ethically and humanely manner as possible.
And yes, we kill them and eat them.
I get annoyed by animal rights activists who denounce the entire industry as “evil” or some other hyperbolic expression. I find they lack real information (a crude YouTube video is not evidence) and are dishonest in their portrayal of what farmers actually do.
What I also find annoying is that far too often people that denounce all animal use or consumption will still wear polyester based clothing. Sir Paul McCartney is a vocal advocate against the meat industry and he can be seen on the ice flows of the Canadian Arctic denouncing the seal hunt. He is easy to spot due to his bright red snow-suit made of a plastic by-product of the petrochemical industry; a far worse industry than meat producers in terms of global impact and environmental impact. I will return to the seal hunt below.
Our farm has been growing its sheep herd. Two years ago we only had 80 breeding ewes and grew all our own hay and barley to feed our animals. We were not officially organic as my parents could not be bothered to fight to obtain the certificate, which is not all that easy to get. We now raise too many sheep to grow our own barley although we usually produce enough hay annually to meet our needs. The cost to get certified organic feed for the sheep is too prohibitive in cost for us to source. I am not convinced that certified organic is necessarily better. I would prefer to source meat for local farmers whether or not they are organic. I support farm fresh free-range chickens and one must be conscious that it is possible to raise organic chickens under battery conditions. So be conscious of organic labeling — it can be misleading in terms of ethics.
Despite the annual killing of our animals we love them dearly, raise them with pride and feel much more compassion than the anti-meat lobby would have you know. Most farmers do care deeply for their animals and their way of life; to depict them as savage, uncaring, brutes shows ignorance and a willful ignorance. Animals raised in cruel conditions do not grow as well, suffer more injuries and are difficult to handle. Battery farms of chickens are another story that overcome this through sheer size and are not what I am discussing here.
My mother feeds her chickens and turkeys daily any vegetable scraps and certain weeds from the garden alongside their normal chicken feed (a premix of different grains and minerals). When it comes time to kill them she allows dad to step in as the axe murderer. He calmly and slowly kills each chicken far away from the rest and their death is over in a few seconds from being grabbed to the final curtain.
Our sheep are taken to a slaughterhouse where they are dropped off and dispatched within a day. We do not sell any live lambs at market as we do not wish for them to be transported long-distances across Canada or into the USA in crowded conditions. None of our lambs live in a feed-lot at any time.
For many in the anti-meat lobby they see nothing but contradictions in our stance of caring and loving our animals to killing them. I think that as farmers, we accept that death is part of life and that nobody gets out of here alive. Ensuring the animals we raise suffer as little as possible does not make us hypocrites, but simply human.
For those about to attack me here, I ask you to look at your wardrobe. Do you have any nylon or products from the petrochemical industry lurking in your closet? Is that not a worse industry than the meat industry? Does it not contribute to the destruction of the environment and therefore the reduction of natural habitat? I am not even advocating all natural fibre for all our clothing needs as cotton also contributes terribly to devastation of crop lands and massive water consumption.
I am asking for balance in our views and beliefs.
I think that the anti-meat lobby should be more honest and upfront with their ideological beliefs. Their beliefs are at best beliefs in the sanctity of all life and their depiction of the meat industry is dishonest. Their claim to lesser environmental impact is erroneous as it posits all land as being of equal quality to produce their beans and vegetable crops. Meat is simply the best and most compact form of nutrition available to people in arable lands. The various peoples of the Kalahari I work with cannot live on beans trucked in from abroad.
And as for the meat eaters; I think they should know more about where their meat comes from and how it gets to their table. We should avoid buying meat wrapped in plastic and set out on Styrofoam trays. I would like everyone to speak to the manager of their local supermarket and request the removal of the Styrofoam trays and extra packaging. Even better would be to find a local farmer that you can buy direct from or use the local butcher.
And I said I would return to the seal hunt. I do support the Canadian seal hunt. And again this is not out of hatred for fluffy animals with big brown eyes, but is support for aboriginal communities that rely on this for their sole source of income and for the bio-degradable products created form this industry. As long as it stays carefully monitored and regulated, Paul McCartney can stay off the ice flows. And the little baby white coats that appear on youtube being clubbed to death are no longer hunted. The most horrific claims have been refute. Seals are not skinned alive as often claimed.
Enough on this topic for now. I await the comments that follow.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, November 8th, 2009 at 3:13 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
128 Responses to “Farming meat is not evil, and I support the seal hunt”
A farm in Canada, sounds splendid, definately not evil. Concerning mass meat production though, I should but would rather not like to know,(enjoy my chicken too much) because it probably would be too off puting. Besides the animal cruelty that comes out of the industry, meat production is very, i think the most energy intensive, particularly compared to the production of other foods, requiring huge amounts of resources (grain , water etc). Its not the meat farming thats evil, its possibly the unsustainable production and consumption of it.
Great article! I’m writing a paper on supporting the seal hunt for my biophysical science class at the University of Toronto. I totally agree with your thoughts and opinions and think a lot of people don’t question everything they see and hear. Anyways, I hope your article reached others and maybe opened their eyes too.
Animals are there for FOOD. They’re here so we can eat them. Or, if they’re just a blinking nuisance like fleas, flies, ticks, spiders, moths, jackals, rats and seals, for us to wipe them out as efficiently as we know how.
Give me biltong and dry wors, fillet steak, even rump. It certainly fills a dietary need in humans, plus the taste is unmatched!
Not sure if you are religious or not, but God did tell us after the flood (which wiped out much vegetation) that we could eat any animal on earth. He must have figured that when the flood wiped out a lot of vegetation that we could only find suitable replacements from eating flesh. That is my theory anyway.
As long as the killing is done as humanely as possible. “Killing” and “humanely” don’t seem to go too well in the same sentence, but I’m sure most people know what I mean…
“Meat is simply the best and most compact form of nutrition available to people in arable lands” - Talk about bullshit propaganda.
There are many plant based forms of nutrition that are far better than meat. Contrary to the propaganda, we can live extremely well without meat. And yes, there are ethical farmers, but they are in the minority.
If you think that there is no guilt about farming methods, simply look at the disconnect between what children are generally taught about meat and what actually happens.
If you want us to believe your blog, then you are also asking us to believe that the majority of meat is organic, contains no growth hormones, and that the animals were raised and killed in an ethical manner.
Small scale farms and subsistence farmers are not the problem. Large scale factory farms are the problem. Consumption in the US, Europe and perhaps Canada do not allow for farms like the one your folks own to supply enough meat for the demand.
The meat industry is responsible for about 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than that emitted from transportation.
Meat consumed in the volumes seen in the developed world has been directly linked to heart disease and cancer. So while the meat industry is not evil it is greedy.
So while you parents’ farm sounds nice, it’s not the norm and it would be disingenuous to argue that it could be the norm or even that a meaningful percentage of farming in the developed world follows their ethics. They can’t, demand won’t allow it.
Maybe we should all at least try cut down on meat consumption by only eating meat three days a week and when we do eat meat, eat less. Who knows, maybe we can cut global emissions by 10% and make the idyllic farms you talk about viable.
Great article. Thought provoking and requiring introspection and some honesty from the reader. I agree that people who eat meat should know a lot more about where that meat comes from and how the lives of the animals we eat are taken . It’s the least we can do. Wonder if Sir Paul wears leather shoes or if he struts around in plastic?
Read a book called ‘Animal Liberation’ by Princeton Philosopher Peter Singer.
As for eating meat, yes animals suffer. If you’re okay with that, then you live with it. Furthermore, the world produces, or is able to produce, enough food to feed everyone. The problem is that most of that food is fed to animals in order to produce meat for a lucky few. If you’re okay with that, you live with it.
Furthermore, animales emit methane gas (fart) - 200l per day for the average cow. There are around 100 million cows in America alone, and in terms of global warming methane is around 20-30 worse than carbon dioxide.
Furthermore, animals need grazing land. Ever wonder why the rainforest is being cleared at a such a rate. Just look at Brasil’s meat industry.
Raising animals caringly before you slaughter them might ease your conscience, but theres far more to it.
To not advocate all natural fiber use due to (correctly) pointing out ‘devastation’ and massive water consumption for cotton production, and point out the ‘negative environmental impact’ of synthetic fiber use due to petrochemical feed stocks?
Must the masses run around butt naked, or will our environmental activists and their ‘mandated’ politician opportunists spirit into existence, ‘alternatives’ for everything from base load energy to the humble (and ubiquitous) food packaging including the (petrochemical) Styrofoam tray with specialized insert and cling wrap which performs a modern miracle in preserving one’s meat purchases in the best possible condition under modern mass urban living conditions?
We are no longer ‘The Waltons’ shopping at the local village store, but a highly urbanized (and urbanizing) industrial civilization expected to reach over 11 billion.
Must we revert to wooden kipper boxes, burlap sacks, paper packets and glass bottles, pretending these things don’t ‘impact the environment’ and would indeed be cheaper were it not for the production of our modern industrial civilization being managed by idiots and exploitative profiteers who do not share the environmentalists visionary ‘concerns’
All life itself ‘impacts the environment’.
Cows, manure and landfills all produce methane.
’Organic’ and industrial farming BOTH depend upon fossil inputs for viable output.
While a vegetarian diet may have a lower ‘carbon footprint’ I’m not one for that reason.
Slaughter of sentient beings is repulsive to me, but that is a personal prejudice, not a basis for judgement upon others.
Perry Curling-Hope on November 9th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Your blog makes it sound like you eat your dogs too. Unfortunately rather badly written and it reads like a primary school essay. Unfortunately science does not agree with your views. A vegetable based diet is less harmful to the environment than a meat based diet. All (99.999 %) of our energy comes from the sun. The laws of thermodynamics state that energy is conserved, i.e. it passes from one form to another, however, with each transition, some energy is lost to unusable forms (for us) such as heat. Plants directly utilize the sun, therefore eating plants directly allows herbivores to utilize the sun’s energy more efficiently than would carnivores. Carnivores are further up the food chain and can utilize only a fraction of the energy the plants originally utilized. A plant based diet also uses less water, a very important commodity in Southern Africa. Pointing out that many people wear synthetics made by the petrochemical industry is irrelevant to the topic and needs to be dealt with separately. The environmental and ethical problems with the meat industry are overwhelming and should be addressed.
I think you have missed the boat on this one, except for dismissing the ‘meat eating is evil’ taught, that was a very stupid title for an article.
Are you certain Paul McCarney’s snow suit was made from petrochemical byproducts and not some organically produced natural product.
Organic certification might be expensive, but that is a marketing fad. When people become familiar with the real issues at stake they talk agro-ecological farming (your folks have a way to go)- The Science of Sustainable Agriculture Is Agroecology - Interview with Miguel Angel Nuñez http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/man_int07.html#Anchor-The-6296
In principle that Sir Paul McCartney advocates is correct, converting to vegetarianism will help combat climate change, the biggest threat facing humanity right now. Farm animals produce more greenhouse gas than all the vehicles on the road, I hardly think my nylon shoe laces contibute much to climate change.
But for the sake of those not familiar with agro-ecological agriculture let stick to the lesser wholistic concept of organic farming. If we converted the worlds 3.5 billion tillable acres to organic farming we would sequester or take out about 40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. A good thing if you understand the ramifications of climate change.
Maybe you don’t beleive organic farming is healthier, I tend to look at the scientific study’s of deformed human and animal feotuses linked to harmful pesticide and herbicide residues in our food.
Mr Veggie Burger on November 9th, 2009 at 11:05 am
I don’t think a small scale farming operation like the one you describe is the problem…
But large scale agribusiness is certainly an industry that rivals the petrochemical industry in terms of its negative effect on the world and its environment… 70% of the world’s arable land is used for meat production… much of the deforestation we face is to provide more land for farming cattle… every year we produce more than enough grain to feed everyone in the world, but then much of it is fed to animals to produce meat which only the elite can enjoy… these are bad things
The basic essence of farming is fine… raising and living off animals… its cool… its the distorted perversion that large scale industrialised agriculture makes of it that sucks
I’m amazed at some of the fallacious, wholly unsubstantiated claims you make. Your entire case against the ‘anti-meat’ lobby rests on shaky anecdotal ground (’my little family farm’), as distinct from the reams of independent, well-researched data that support claims like those in the article you are responding to.
1) The idyllic family farm scene you paint can only ever service a tiny minority given the massive inputs (land, water, food, etc.) required for it to meaningfully replace the current factory farm system. Research available upon request.
2) The livestock industry is responsible for between 18-51% of climate change, 70% of human water use, the majority of soil loss, the majority of deforestation…To point to the petrochemical industry as somehow worse is firstly ignorant of facts (research available upon request) and secondly a dishonest form of argumentation: the majority of those who abstain from animal products are also environmentally conscious. Most vegans I know (in my role as director of the SA Vegan Society, so this is not just anecdotal) are all too aware of other ways in which our habits impact upon the natural world.
I do hope you don’t love your children like you love your animals: saying you love animals even though you kill them is like a religious zealot saying they love their children even as they encourage them to blow themselves up in support of some fundamentalist ideology.
What makes you so sure organic food is not healthier? Do you support genetically modified (GM) grains as part of animals feed or GM maize, soya and canola oil for human consuption?
I eat organic whenever I can, because it disallows harmful GM foods, limits anti-biotic use in animals, prohibits harmful synthetic hormone use on animals that harm humans who drink milk and eat meat, prohibits petrochemical fertilizers that worsen climate change and harm our health.
View the studies on the effects of GM food on animals, what is it doing to humans who stuff this rubbish down their gullets:
Good article, Michael. The title and the opening had me all set to bring you down as hard as possible, but you’ve written honestly, even persuasively.
That said, I don’t think that the “wardrobe argument” is a defence. At best, it points to a moral inconsistency in your opponents. But that doesn’t rebut their arguments against you. And it’s not as though you possess the moral consistency they lack, viz.: “Despite the annual killing of our animals we love them dearly…”
You’re also correct in saying that there are ethical gradations in the meat industry and your farm is one of the better ones around — that should definitely be applauded.
However, that your farm is one of the less evil ones doesn’t mean it can be condoned. The fact remains that you kill and eat animals although you could survive perfectly well without doing so. You may kill and eat them more humanely than others, but the act itself is immoral no matter which way you look at it.
3) Saying you accept death (or sex) as part of life is an ethically meaningless statement: while everyone accepts that sex and death are core aspects of human life, so to do almost all cultures evolve proscriptive ethics in response to some of the unnecessary or problematic ways in which these ‘facts’ emerge; rape and murder, for instance.
4) Depictions of the animal exploitation industry by vegans / animal rights / welfare activists have been verified as true every time their claims are legally contested by the industry (which, as you might imagine, happens quite often) - your charge of dishonesty is thus at odds with reality.
5) You’re confused about the meaning of the word ‘arable’ - the Kalahari is certainly not arable land. Making an argument for consumption of meat based on marginal cases like the Inuit or desert dwellers only, in fact, underscores the basic ethical position of the anti-meat lobby, i.e. that something is unethical when it is both cruel *and unnecessary*.
PS: Don’t buy into the Canadian PR that sealing supports poor people - several workable tourism models could more than replace the meager income of the couple of casual workers who currently risk their lives out on the ice. Besides, the industry is largely subsidised, meaning Canada could just as easily simply pay the casual workers some sort of benefit in lieu of work. Oh, and, dated photos available on request if you need proof of ongoing live skinning and slaughter of baby seals
I love my family dearly. Maybe I should consider killing them for eating.
I mean honestly - what kind of argument is this? You love your animals dearly but you kill them to eat them?! You have a warped sense of love dear. I don’t know what your parents did to you.
Killing a being which is capable of experiencing fear and pain, for profit? Go forth killer. I am so glad I am not the one who is pissing God off.
I think farm holidays should be compulsory for kids. Sure beats some of the wackier ideas about locking unmarried mothers up in hostels and removing their children.
One of the delights of my childhood was in fact not roast chicken, but I was not put off it by living on a smallholding where we farmed hundreds of chickens and ate one every fortnight or so ourselves. Picking out which one to eat was a ritual I preferred to miss usually but took a perverse enjoyment from taking young acquaintances (I was about eight years old) to see where supper was being slaughtered. I have vivid memories of perching up in the back of a tiny bakkie, cackling at their discomfort while the (now headless) chicken ran around. They invariably were completely put off the soon-to-be-prepared roast chicken dinner but went home to eat bacon and chicken burgers from packets. The irony was not lost even on my young self.
The problem is not that we eat meat (after a long fling with vegetarianism I can say that chicken still beats everything else hands down, I’m still a little queasy about eating things larger than a rabbit but do now and again). We’re probably just omnivorous monkeys. The problem is that we eat too much of it, too frequently and it’s frankly unsustainable. People need to think about where it comes from and how before they fatten themselves up for the coronary or E coli.
First off, I would like to tell you that you are inhumane. For someone to tell you that you and your family are saints are just as twisted too. Perhaps you should do some research into what you do so proudly before posting embarrassing comments like this. Animals are sentient, the mere fact that they cannot tell you how it hurts to be abused, shot and skinned for “mans selfish gain” does not mean they do not feel what we do. I wish there were more like 20000 words for me to enlighten you about what it is you take pride in doing but there is just as much words here on this topic as there is hope, for someone of your kind. I would not even suggest to you, to go and watch a documentary at the following site : www.earthlings.com because you have made it evident that you take pride in an animal’s suffering. That only makes you heartless, cruel, and ignorant. Nothing more. Animals cannot speak for themselves, does this mean they not deserve rights? If a higher being came onto the planet and suddenly you were not on top of the food chain and they started to slaughter you and your family as entertainment or because they thought of you as a pest, would you accept your fate? Would it be fair to have your “rights” taken away from you? I am embarrassed to be associated with the human race when I hear statements made
So maybe the problem is not us being omnivorous. We have canine teeth; they’re probably meant for the occasional bit of biltong. The problem is that we eat a unbelievable amount of meat (use the term loosely if you look at what’s in some hamburger mix for example) and some greedy farmers (more like just industrialists) feed our greed.
It is clear that you are well educated, articulate and pursuasive, and therein lies the problem. You are using your intellect and not your heart (compassion) to put forward your pro-meat argument.From the lofty climes of intellectualisation everything can be rationalised but I’ll bet that not one of your pro-meat “activists”, including yourself, have EVER seen the interior of a slaughter house for any meaningful length of time, have EVER watched a cow shivering in terror as she is prodded and pushed towards her execution, have EVER watched pigs, skinned alive (who are as intelligent, if not more so, than dogs)and yet frantically trying to escape,Have EVER seen veal calves lying in their own shit, their hind legs to weak to hold them up in stalls too small to turn around in…the list is endless. Rationalize all you like, it won’t change the truth.What is heartening is that there is a mass consciousness of COMPASSION rising on Earth where people are coming to the realisation, very quickly,that it is unecessary to kill animals for survival. You and your ilk are mercifully, a dying breed.
I see it as having respect for life of all forms. No one is completely free from animal consumerism because it is virtually impossible in this day and age as we depend on animals for everything in order to survive. I blame greed, tradition and religion for the cruel ways of man where animals are concerned. The claims made by meat eaters in order to justify their actions of today are inadequate, and more suited to that of the past. Its time to wake up and progress…or stagnate but enjoy it while you can though, because surely you understand that your selfish lifestyles cannot be supported by the planet forever.
PROUD VEG!!!
I think the problem comes in that modern society has removed people from the natural way of life.
There is thus a fundamental disconnect between man and nature and people cannot comprehend that to live you must kill, either another animal or plant life. Sitting around waiting for the fruit to drop is only going to lead to your own demise!
Thanks for your column. I stated on a related blog on diet that balance is the key between meat and veg.
I spent a lot of my life on a farm so I know things must die for me to feed on and live a healthy life.
That’s nature and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Those who think bitong, dry wors and steak are tasty probably live in a narrow little world that excludes vegetarian cuisine from India, Thailand, China, Italy and Greece. Vegetarian cuisine is so yummy I could kill a bamboo shoot or baby marrow for it.
@Michael Francis
What the average meat eater forgets is that if Americans in the USA reduced the amount of meat they consume by 10% those resources would feed 100 million starving people. Exrapolate that to the all meateaters around the world and you can feed many starving people. Remember that 20 million people will die from malnutrition this year when you tuck into your next Canadian Thanksgiving turkey.
The grain, water and resources that go into a steak can give forty people a meal, imagine those forty starving people standing around you next time you tuck into a juicy steak.
I never understand why middle class South Africans have this gung-ho, don’t bring your environmental activism here, we’re a straight forward meat-eating, pragmatic, god-fearing people…If you want to behave like that, go and live in rurual America. In short, a bunch of simpletons.
There are real problems with the environment, with the way we treat the weak in our society (yes, including animals) and with our capacity to produce enough food for everyone. And contrary to the meat industry’s propaganda, a plant-based diet is FAR more healthy and meat is incredibly UNhealthy. Just look at the rate of cancer in meat-eater and compare it to non-meat eaters.
Remember when doctors were used to advertise cigarettes? It wasn’t because of any medical reason, it was the powerful cigarette industry rescuing their cancer-causing profits. The meat industry is next…
Woody Woodpecker on November 9th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Dude you have rose tinted spectacles on. And seal clubbing is disgusting; i don’t care how sweetly you word the murdering. as my son would say “And WE are the 3rd world country?” (Being that we live in Suth Africa) I will never go to Canada and i’m sure you are happy to hear that. You make it sound like you live in Noddy world it is all so perfect - still not so much for the much loved but still slaughtered lambs etc.
You want to sequester 40% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
Are you mad?
We’ll freeze to death!
CO2 levels have been dropping for the last 30 million years and the earth’s getting colder. We’re only just out of an ice age remember.
One of the theories is that grasses (grains) sequester the carbon in the soil where is cannot be efficiently recycled by bacterial action and it gets locked up.
We need that carbon dude, otherwise life on earth as we know it is gone.
You present a number of flawed arguments but instead of writing a whole book to rebut them all I will stick to your statement “’Organic’ and industrial farming BOTH depend upon fossil inputs for viable output.”
Wrong.
Organic farming using renewable energy for engines and power generation, and natural methods of increasing soil fertility does not need any fossil fuel inputs.
In resource poor countries from the third world modern scientific organic methods are employed alongside traditional knowledge to reduce the high input costs and environmental destrution of modern high-tech farming while increacing yields from between 10 to 300%.
In industrialised countries, organic produce fetches higher prices from health conscious consumers, making organic farming a profitable venture.
Your info about the seal hunt is wrong. Your support is based on “support for aboriginal communities that rely on this for their sole source of income and for the bio-degradable products created form this industry.” Surely you know the aboriginal subsistence hunt is separate from the commercial seal hunt which is a large-scale industrialized slaughter of seals for fur conducted by white men from Atlantic Canada? The commercial seal slaughter is not “carefully monitored and regulated.” Seals as young as 12 days are killed, as it is legal to kill them the second they begin moulting that white coat. All too many are being skinned alive. How do I know? Because I’ve documented it for the past three years. Did you actually watch that youtube video? It shows more than just whitecoats.
It’s interesting you go into great detail about how your animals live, yet you do not go to any detail about how they *die*, saying simply they are dropped at the slaughterhouse and are dispatched within a day. Why the lack of detail for that aspect? Have you actually watched how your animals are killed? The fear they feel at the slaughterhouse, surrounded by the smells and sounds of death, waiting for their time? The desperate will to live? No matter how “well” an animal is treated on a farm, they all end up at the same place and suffer the same terrifying and painful death. You can’t ignore that fact.
Your farm sounds like one of the better ones, however I’m afraid it only represents a small minority of the non-intensive farming industry. People who support animal welfare/rights have taken the time to do undercover investigations in order to see what goes on in the large-scale intensive farming that feeds the majority of meat eaters, and footage shows that it’s not a pretty sight and IS completely unsustainable. I think you will find that intensive farming sees more destruction to the rainforests (the earth’s lungs, without which none of us will be here) than does the making of polyester suits. As for the seal hunt, well, we are all different and some of us are more sensitive to the pain of other creatures than others. The only thing that I can say is that it cannot be morally right to inflict such unnecessary pain and suffering onto another creature. I am agnostic, so I am not sure what I believe about reincarnation, pay back and all that stuff, but I hope that if such things exist, that you pro seal-hunt supporters don’t come back as a seal or an intensively farmed and slaughtered animal. Try imagining inflicting that sort of pain on yourselves and then see if you are still ok with it.
Our local Anglican church used this on my son’s confirmation certificate:
‘Live simply that others might simply live.’
I always wondered how my living simply would benefit others without a transfer of my savings to those others.
But at last I realise that in the greater scale, each of us that does live simply, without greed and an obsession with materialism, is actually making the lives of others less fortunate, more worthwhile.
While this may not have been the point you were aiming to make, it struck a chord with me.
Thanks.
“Seals are vermin of the oceans” so they should be clubbed to death or shot, skinned or bled until they die a painful and brutal death which will result in an “overwhelming” 2% increase in Canada’s annual fisheries”. You must really approve of Michael Francis article.
For those who think differently, sign this “Save Our Seals” petition to the Canadian government:
Michael, I find it sadly ironic to see you include “If I am not to be found in my office look high up in the mountains as I may be there seeking solace from the cruelty of the world.” in your profile alongside a blog entry which is promoting cruelty.
@Kit: Thanks for your great post and links. One observation though: having canines does not a carnivore make. Look at the teeth of mostly vegan primates and then compare them to our pathetic attempt at big scary meat-eating teeth
@The organic vs. non-organic people: organically grown *plant* food should not be confused with ‘organically’ produced *animal* products. It is true that organic plant food is healthier and has a much smaller environmental footprint; the same is not true of ‘happy meat’ though.
@Zoo Keeper: Yes, something has to die for you to live. That doesn’t mean we can’t make ethical distinctions about *what* and *how many* need to die though (otherwise we’d probably tuck into humans now and then). Your argument is basically that all life should be afforded equal consideration and rights, which is patently absurd - clearly a monkey is not a flea is not yeast is not a carrot.
LOL @ your anthropogenic climate change denialism - in other news, the earth is flat and we’re ruled over by the Illuminati
“Those who think bitong, dry wors and steak are tasty probably live in a narrow little world that excludes vegetarian cuisine from India, Thailand, China, Italy and Greece. Vegetarian cuisine is so yummy I could kill a bamboo shoot or baby marrow for it.”
Here is the problem, in a nutshell. These vegetarians are over-indulged from the cradle to the grave. This is the classic ‘let them eat cake’ reply. They honestly think if the poor of the world should stop eating meat and change over to vegetarian cuisine instead. Q.E.D. in their pointy little heads.
I do have a problem with clubbing seals. Every game animal I’ve shot over the last couple of years has been dead by the time I’ve got to it. That is the way I like it. Get as close as I can. Quick, clean kills with no suffering.
I guess we cannot all be laypeople well versed in climate science. Maybe I should have said 38% though, sorry.
The “normal” level of CO2 in the atmophere before the industrial age of burning fossil fuels was 280 parts per million(ppm). We are now at 390ppm and fast heading towards 450 ppm. Research shows that 20 million years ago when CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 450ppm global temeratures were 3-6 degrees C higher than now and sea levels 25 to 40 meteres higher. If we sequester 40% (oops 38%) of CO2 from 450ppm it takes you back to as close as dammit to 280 ppm where we were at about 200 years ago. No thats real cool hey.
If only religions would let others ’simply live’. Your local Anglican church is a hypocrite, given the violence and destruction religion causes for so many people.
But back to the point. I dare any meat eater go and watch cattle stand in a line, while they watch their fellow species get slaughtered until it’s there tuen, and to then go home and call it ‘humane.’
Animals feel fear, they feel pain, they suffer loss and they suffer frustration. The fact that they are animals and not humans doesn’t make these experiences any less real.
Good luck with the vegans and the veggies and the beetroot and the broccoli and and and……..
Anyways: The world is growing, consumer demand is increasing, and so the circle of life/food chain has to grow as well. I’ve got better things to do than worry about cow fart, I find that rather irrelevant if not hilarious. If they want to worry about Methane, they should go to Kamchatka,Russia. There are tons and tons of that stuff brewing under the ice there. Activists should rather spend their energy in trying to solve THAT one.
Hmmm, so civilised. If you extend it maybe we should be eating each other as mere parasites on the earth. I vote we eat Blip first - he sounds like a chubby redneck.
I think you need to brush up on your knowledge of organics.
“The heretofore unpublicized ‘good news’ on climate change, according to the Rodale Institute and other soil scientists, is that transitioning from chemical, water, and energy-intensive industrial agriculture practices to organic farming and ranching on the world’s 3.5 billion acres of farmland and 8.2 billion acres of pasture or rangeland can sequester 7,000 pounds per acre of climate-destabilizing CO2 every year, while nurturing healthy soils, plants, grasses, and trees that are resistant to drought, heavy rain, pests, and disease. And of course organic farms and ranches can provide us with food that is much more nutritious than industrial farms and ranches - food filled with vitamins, anti-oxidants, and essential trace minerals, free from Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), pesticides, antibiotics, and sewage sludge.”
I think the basic problem is that are simply too many people on the planet
We should have “non-breeding” years say every 5th year and let natural attrition take care of the population growth curve.
If there was only about a billion people on the planet small farms like the example could be viable, instead of the industrial-size processing plants which cause the outrage?
The worlds worst aquatic predators are the domestic pig and chicken. Whole populations of fish are being harvested to feed rendered down fish to pigs and chickens in factory farms, as well as caged salmon in salmon farms. The domestic cat also consumes millions of tons of sea fish globally each year.
To blame label seals as vermin of the oceans is a lie by the seal fur industry.
Eish! When I was backpacking through Ozzie, I worked in a hostel. One night a week, my duty was to braai for the whole place. First time in my life I saw vegetarians truly loving their food - the veggie burgers were spectacular, according to them and they came back time after time, literally mauling these damn veggie burgers - ravaging them like there was no tomorrow; none of the passive nibbling one expects of our vegetarian brethren. I of course as a committed meat-eater would not even touch the things. After several weeks of witnessing this rather unusual behaviour on braai night, I actually went with the owner to pick up supplies for the braai. We bought about 60 beef burgers and about 40 spicy chicken burgers. I had two questions - when did we start doing chicken burgers, and where did we get the veggie burgers? The owner just looked at me knowingly and handed me the burgers.
Anyway, I quit as a result, but certainly coloured my thinking about vegetarianism.
So when we talk about the food chain, we are quite happy with the idea of a lion eating a gazelle, but are appalled when it gets to us? As long as we refrain from wanton killing, its justified. Its better known as REAL LIFE.
And yes, it sucks to be the one at the edge of a butchers knife. Which is why I’m buying a shotgun so I won’t be that unlucky sod.
Really, Michael F, you can’t be so naive as to imagine that your mom and pop’s little farm is in any way like the factory farms which arouse the ire of activists?
@maggie: I’m afraid your ponderings about what your god wanted after the flood are a trifle unscientific. However, research into our immediat ancestors and work that indicates how we as hunter-gatherers would have eaten shows that we would NEVER have eaten meat at the rate we do today. Until about 50 years ago or less, meat was a treat, added to the diet when available. Geez, I can remember my own childhood, when one raost chicken was the Sunday treat, with scraps for dinner the next day and the carcass in the pot to make stock for soup the day after.
I’ve just been reading up on the history of food. My own forebears lived like the bulk of the world’s people always have: vegetables, bread, potatoes, beans, with bacon rind to give the stew flavour, and maybe what they called ‘butcher’s meat’ on a special occasion.
Eat meat if you so choose, but don’t kid yourselves that eating it at the rate most people do is healthy or nutritious. Or that most of our meat is produced ‘humanely. Animals, humans and planet would all be better off if we ate meat rarely - then sweet little postcard farms like Michael’s would be ample to provide our meat.
“These vegetarians are over-indulged from the cradle to the grave. This is the classic ‘let them eat cake’ reply.”
There is ample evidence to show that vegetarianism is healthier, more economical for a tight budget (poor people), more environmentally sustainable, and better for a planet under strain from overuse of resources.
Maybe you should look in a mirror if you want to see a pointy head.
Don't suffer fools easily on November 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
@Zoo Keeper
You excel at the most rediculous notions.
Its not overpopulation that is the problem, its overconsumption, but if you beleive its overpopulation, that can quite easily be solved by immediately steralising anyone who uses more than their equal and fair share of resourses, or adds more than their equal and fair share to pollution.
Do you drive a vehicle that uses fossil fuel or eat meat from animals that emit methane, please make an appointment to see me. :-0
Organically grown meat is less harmful to humans than industrially/factory farmed meat pumped full of anti-biotics and growth hormones, and organically produced animals do not emit nearly the same amount of methane that factory farmed animals do.
organics supporter on November 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
An important reality check for all of us.
From my experience, activism is based on misinformation carefully packaged to evoke an emotional response. We see it everywhere and it is exploited by the not-so-ethical to change what we think and do.
My suggestion: be alert and give our children the skills to think for themselves and to spot the charlatans.
To those commenting about my remarks concerning organic farming. Nowhere have I stated that I am against it. Being organic does not mean it is not grown under battery farm conditions. We would gladly be organic and would be if we could produce enough barley for our needs. Organic also does not mean that it was farmed using green technologies. They may go hand in hand, but it is not a necessary prerequisite to do so to be labeled as organic. We hope to be off the electric grid someday as well and go that much greener, but the cost is still too prohibitive.
@Bridget Curran - Yes I have seen the inside of a slaughterhouse and have butchered animals myself. My guess is that you have never been in one before. Most now use curved chutes that eliminate the site of fellow animals being killed. Most often the animal is brained with an air-driven spike (see no country for old men) and then their throat is slit. They are then hung up to bleed out. From there they are cut up and packaged as you see in the store.
@Robin Grant - I realise the typo in my text - I actually meant arid lands - places where no crops can be grown.
That-being said, not all arable land is equal.
Our farm cannot grow grain crops without massive amounts of chemical fertilizer. We tried but the barley was stunted and nit much per-acre. Our sandy soil is great pasture, but no beans either. We have improved some areas for vegetables using sheep and horse manure, but without that no veggies.
All of the claims being made about growth hormones in the meat are rubbish. That went out in the 1960s as it is not cost effective. I do not know a single cattle or any animal farmer that uses these ‘growth hormones’. This is repeated ad nauseum as if it is truthful.
@Cheryl - Your remarks about Canada are laughable in light of how people are treated in South Africa. And farms in South Africa have the same practices as we do - or didn’t you know that?
@Jean - You suggest I read a book called ‘Animal Liberation’ by Princeton Philosopher Peter Singer. He is now actually at Melbourne. Perhaps you should read your hero’s views on bestiality.
And I quote “”sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” and that “mutually satisfying activities of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals…”
@Aragorn Eloff - I’m amazed at some of the fallacious, wholly unsubstantiated claims you make. Your entire case against the ‘meat’ lobby rests on shaky anecdotal ground (’my vegan pals’), as distinct from the reams of independent, well-researched data that support claims like those in the article I wrote.
You claim animals use 70% of water. Its called the water cycle. This 70% would be a problem if water was destroyed when used. Our farm uses dug-outs and well water and does so at a rate that does not deplete the water table (unlike Arizona golf courses). The 70% is a meaningless quantifier as you use it.
And as for the impact of the oil industry versus animal husbandry (not to be confused with Singer’s views) oil has a massive environmental impact beyond its simple processing and use. Have you seen the Middle Eats lately? And to get our oil we have to deal with fascist states like Saudi Arabia or process tar sands and pollute the arctic.
This is a blatant example of specieism - discrimination based on species - which is the moral equivalent of racism. Just as discrimination based on skin pigmentation (an arbitrary trait) is wrong, so is discrimination based on different physiologies. But many animals feel pain, have awareness of the world, and have the right to live and freedom in the world as we do. We are animals too, of one species. What gives our species the right to do such harm to others, for our desires? Racists excuse slavery of other humans by saying they are inferior. Speciests excuse slavery of other species by saying they are inferior. Both appeal to a hierarchical version of natural law. Both are wrong. Please read the works of Peter Singer (Animal Liberation) and Tom Regan (A Case for Animal Rights) to explore this more thoroughly. Putting down animal rights activists is a convenient way of justifying oneself on this issue. It is a cop-out. Those who are open-minded: please see the film Earthlings, which is on google video.
Interesting that someone who suggests he “loves” these animals “dearly” refers to their murder as “processing” them. The terminology says it all. It is ridiculous to suggest that wearing polyester based clothing is more detrimental to the environment - it is UNDISPUTED that rearing livestock (I hate that word) is the biggest contributor to global warming than any other industry resulting in excess of 18% of all carbon emissions.
It also takes a minimum of 8kg of gran to produce (another word I hate using) 1kg of meat, and many thousands of litres of water. Environmentally friendly? I think not.
Another contradiction I found is where this pillock is describing how his father kills chickens: “He calmly and slowly kills each chicken far away from the rest and their death is over in a few seconds”. Calmly and slowly - ahem, what?
And now for the seal cull - firstly YES many are skinned while still alive, I have seen countless horrific video’s proving it as recent as last year. Many of those clubbed (yes, they try to beat the baby seals to death) are writhing in pain as they are skinned while still conscious in front of their mothers. And as for supporting aboriginal communities, there are groups who have offered to pay them to not kill the seals which has been ignored by the canadian government.
So in short this guy is spreading misinformation to try and assuage his own guilt.
Aragon Eloff
Is that you’re real name
You must be kidding us.
Maybe it is Running Elk or Raging River.
Where do you live in a hippy commune in Knysna
Cliches of the world unite.
I should have said animals fed on pastures and ranchland produce less methane than factory farmed animals. But yes one can ranch organically or using all the bad artificail growth hormone and medications.
organics supporter on November 10th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Mr Francis
Why don’t you also don a mink coat, go fox hunting, savour some shark fin soup Japanese style and dispose of the rest of the shark, enjoy the livers of force fed geese, lobby for whaling, promote greyhound racing, cock fighting and bull fighting?
You appreciate your farm animals and I am sure treat them well until its financially prudent to slit their throats.
Which is worse, being the executioner in an abatior, killing numerous animals you don’t know, or slitting the throat of that young bullock you have had a personal relationship with?
You always shift the blame to us harmless defenceless creatures that have an almost zero carbon footprint and don’t cause rampant pollution.
What about those fat cat carnivores in the lions enclosure whose meat eating habits are an incredible waste of resources, or those two legged apes that park their gas gussling 4X4s in the parking lot, make a noise and leave tons of litter around the grounds.
Stop shifting the blame of others excesses onto us who live on less than one or two rand a day by shouting ‘overpopulation’.
I must be a very beautiful human-being because I
could never hurt an animal of any description. God
created them as God created humans. We both have
the same rights to life and happiness. Vegetation
is what humans and some animals eat. There is a
sound reason why some animals eat animals or
insects. Humans were gifted with a higher intell-
igence; therefore, we are here to look out for the
well-being of animals if they need - simple as that. To prove a point: if the humans race becomes
any more larger, and farms animals are getting
sicker with all the growth hormones and other
chemicals being put into them, then humans will get
sicker and sicker - we already are, because we are
eating sick meat, sick milk..I am a vegetarian and
I am healthy and strong. My conscience if free. I
look at animals and their eyes have more common
sence, compassion, empathy, reasoning and wisdom
that do the human-being. God Love Them, and the
humble humans who do care.
It is dishonest to use “evidence” from one situation (ethical small-scale farming, meat as food, reasonableness) to prove that another situation (agribusiness, environmental devastation) is kosher. Sprinkling a well-written article with anecdotes of truth and reason does NOT exempt you from coming clean on the whole meat industry. Nor does it allow you to “bless” seal clubbing. Not good. ETHICALLY you should write a follow-up article apologising for your excesses, and setting the context straight. Or are you just another corporate apologist?
Hear me out: Its not good to have so little CO2 in the atmosphere.
You like your history, please tell me about the ice age and what that would mean for humankind. We’re only 10 000 years out of one and in an unusually stable climatic period.
I find it ironic that fossil fuel burning may well extend life on this planet by boosting CO2 levels for another 20 million years.
The warmest years on record were 1934 and 1998. The earth has gradually cooled whilst emmissions have increased over the past 10 years, especially since China decided to catch up.
Speaking of China, their maps show Greenland as circumnavigable in the 1420’s. So its melted before…
There is, actaully, doubt in the science but personally I don’t care as long as people are more environmentally aware. The ends justifies the means in this case.
I would rather the greenies focussed more on mining run-offs and the health of river systems than global warming. We’re spending a pound to save a penny - the biggest problems are being overlooked.
@Knapsacker: Do you also laugh when you feed Jewish people bacon and tell them it’s macon?
@Jo Roach: O_o
@organics supporter: Sorry to disappoint you, but according to the latest findings in agricultural science, grazing / grass-finished beef actually emits between 50% and 250% more GHG than factory farmed beef and uses 3x as much land.
@Michael Francis: If you want to know the best way to grow food in inhospitable climes, look at the successes of Bill Mollison and the permaculture / desert greening movements.
Singer’s statements on bestiality (easy to employ as a straw man, btw) are problematic, I agree. Remember though, even Gandhi made some dodgy claims; should these prevent us from promoting his views on pacifism and non-violent civil disobedience?
Synthetic & natural growth hormones (including TBA, MGA and zeranol) are still widely used in meat production, including in around 80% of US beef. Check your facts.
My comparison of livestock vs. oil industry impacts *was* cradle-grave, as per the relevant UN reports (I trust you’ve read Livestock’s Long Shadow and the new World Watch report on livestock impacts?)
Of course water cycles! What is important though is *usable* water. Your niche farm might not have the same impact on water (including via eutrophication, etc.) but it’s hardly representative.
This is from your ‘Profile.’
‘I am a pacifist, but love a good verbal fight. My pacifism is based on reason and logic and not religious or spiritual beliefs. If I am not to be found in my office look high up in the mountains as I may be there seeking solace from the cruelty of the world.’
You’re a pacifist who seeks solace from the cruelty of the world, and you find it in nature. Is that before or after you club baby seals to death with a baseball bat? Is that before or after you eat a nice roast lamb that was loving slaughtered on your farm?
@Hopeful: It is my real name, yes. Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t live in a hippie commune in Knysna (although Wilderness is a great holiday spot) nor do I own a sword or a horse.
Instead, I live in a standard suburban house in Greenside and develop educational software for a living. I also wear shoes.
Excuse me but we don’t allow the beating to death of small animals and we don’t allow our calves to live in battery systems, nor pigs, nor sheep. Admitidly it does happen with chickens. Yes i do know what i am talking about as i grew up on a farm and have farming friends.
cheryl@MichaelFrancis on November 10th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
@Hopeful: How ironic is it that you call yourself hopeful when there is so little hope for yourself and all those that share your mental capacity.
@ All the rest that have missed the point..the basic fact here is that there is no respect for the living. People in the world today are selfish and do everything for self gain, leaving out compassion for a faster, profit. Humanity has become brutal, selfish, uncaring and ignorant over the years and many of your statements prove it. How is it people can kill another life so lightheartedly? because you cannot relate to it or you just don’t “care”? Humanity has lost its meaning.
LOL @ trying to sound so clever throwing facts around left right and centre to try prove your point! The actual point is that if you eat meat and don’t care where it comes from and don’t care about the suffering you support, then you are a fool.
The lack of respect for another life is beyond my understanding. There are just no other words it.
@ Michael - It seems you are the cleverest person there is alive right? I mean, you know better than everyone here.
Well, if only there was some sort of reality where you could be the cow waiting in a row full of your own kind, wetting yourself as you see the rest in front of you having their throats slit hanging out to dry. Being beat, electrocuted and maimed after living most your life in captivity. Oh wait… that did happen, its called the Holocaust.
That was shocking to the world and why? because it was our own kind. Is that any different to what we do to the MASSES of animals.. and for what? Money? Personal gain? The thrill of the hunt? Just to eat when there are so many alternatives out there?
You don’t care because you don’t look like the animal you and your family murder. You don’t care because their screams don’t sound like that of a humans. You don’t care because they cannot speak for themselves. You don’t care because you feel as if you are untouchable being on top of the food chain. You don’t care because you are selfish.
It is more noble to try change something in world, taking on small inconvenience or discomfort for a good purpose then to look away and just pretend that nothing is wrong in this world.
… there are no words for the way I feel about people like you.
Kevin van Niekerk on November 10th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
@ Dr Snip and Bunnykins
There are too many people on this planet. You can’t separate “overconsumption” from overpopulation. Most over-populated places are in the developing world and not the developed world where living a minimal imprint life is actually possible. In the developing world there are simply too many challenges to staying alive to worry about carbon this or that.
We need less of us, and if you do the maths, by stopping breeding for a year - not sterilizing for goodness sake!! - a sufficient brake should be placed on population growth as natural attrition on human life takes effect.
Methane is a greenhouse gas - blah blah; that is not the question I wish to raise:
So cattle and sheep emit methane, so does nearly every mammal, including the elephant and the whale.
So what now anti-methane brigade? Are you (actually) advocating a mammal population head-count to control methane emissions? Cattle and sheep have replaced other herbivores, including elephants and rhino. If you removed cattle and sheep and returned the land to nature, surely it would be taken over by elephant, buffalo, wildebeest, bison, deer etc, etc.
Where would the methane saving really be? Or must the fields be retained as crops for humans and wild animals kept out?
Or must those animals be culled to an “acceptable” head-count to control methane emissions?
I dunno, none of the anti-meaties have dealt with the flip side of the methane coin.
My “flawed arguments” claiming “’Organic’ and industrial farming BOTH depend upon fossil inputs for viable output.” are just plain ‘wrong’?
I draw your attention to subsequent comment by Mr. Francis, who ACTUALLY FARMS, rather than just lobbies for foisting popularized ‘alternatives’ onto the planet.
“Our farm cannot grow grain crops without massive amounts of chemical fertilizer. We tried but the barley was stunted and nit much per-acre. Our sandy soil is great pasture, but no beans either. We have improved some areas for vegetables using sheep and horse manure, but without that no veggies”
“We hope to be off the electric grid someday as well and go that much greener, but the cost is still too prohibitive.”
Is Mr. Francis one of the intransigent ‘idiots’ I spoke of, who could greatly increase his yields cost effectively if only he would listen to the environmentalist geniuses?
Maybe he needs to be forced by government mandate?
As for the manure;
In a study in Hebei Province, China, from 2003 to 2006 to investigate the effects of phosphate fertilizer and manure on the yield of Chinese cabbage, similar yield increases were realized with P fertilizer (P2O5) applied at a rate of 360 kg ha or manure of 150 t ha as compared to the unfertilized control.
That 150 TONNES per hectare of manure is energy input from additional land area, producing an illusion of similar ‘yield per hectare’ never mind how one will transport and spread it without gasoline use.
Perry Curling-Hope on November 10th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
@Milly - I know there are many people like you who think life in general is a joke and cant post anything of a serious nature. Also, there is nothing that can change the mind of a selfish person because it will always be about, you… so, enjoy your dead flesh on bread and all the health benefits that come along with it.
It is unfortunate that you are so bored with your existence (yawning in your post) that you are wasting your time posting comments with no point what so ever besides the fact that you just DONT CARE.
Enjoy your very ignorant, arrogant and unfulfilled empty life.
@Zoo Keeper: Yes, population is a problem, but it’s not the most pressing one, especially given that population growth rates regulate in the presence of things like education and the removal of things like abject poverty. Population and per-capita consumption are highly interdependent. Clearly if we all lived like rural Indians or Chinese (growing populations), we’d need a lot less than if we lived as middle-class Westerners (relatively stable populations).
Let’s look at methane: it is primarily ruminant animals that expel methane, which they do not through farting, but through belching and exhalation. The methane is produced by something called enteric fermentation, which is how these animals break down their food and is responsible for around 1/3 of all human-related methane emissions, or approximately 130Tg annually.
Remember: the majority of these ruminant animals exist because we breed them for food. Natural ecosystems would never allow for anywhere near the current population of cows, sheep, pigs, etc.
The few wild animals that *do* emit methane (e.g. buffaloes) emit around 1/10th of that amount (15Tg is the estimated upper threshold).
In fact, the only sources of methane, natural or otherwise, that are greater than domesticated ruminants, are the world’s wetlands, which emit about 230Tg.
Thanks Dude, I can always count on you for a rational answer!
The animal populations have suffered a tremendous shift since the last major natural extinction event about 13 000 years ago when we lost the mega-fauna.
Who knows what their outputs may have been:)!
I believe methane will be produced anyway by both animal and wetland so its not really worth worrying about right now.
I’m way more concerned about waste disposal of all forms, in particular the health of river systems. I just wish there was as much energy directed there as there is to global warming. But I suppose it doesn’t make a decent “apocalyptic” movie; no giant waves but rather increases in cancer and mercury poisoning.
But our immediate health is under siege daily from inadequate waste disposal, and its a problem that can be dealt with in a very concrete manner almost immediately - and you’ll find fewer plausible opponents.
@Kevin van Niekerk - I cannot help but quote you on this issue: :Michael - It seems you are the cleverest person there is alive right? I mean, you know better than everyone here…”
I am being factious, but do think that I write from a position of knowledge and do know more than many writing here.
@Confused -I would look silly in a mink, and they are not practical for horseback riding or eating soup in.
Also I have quite clearly stated that I am arguing for ethical farming practices so do not muddy the waters with erroneous comparisons with other industries or other practices.
@Andrew Taynton - You falsely assert that if Americans cut out some of their meat other people would be fed. The worst famine in recent years in Ethiopia had nothing to do with amount food produced. Me not eating meat does nothing to alleviate poverty elsewhere. Me donating part of my salary does as does some of the volunteer work I have done in South Africa and I hope my teaching at a university helps create thoughtful global citizens.
@Aragorn - I have written an entire blog to answer some of the claims made here buy those that disagree with me. I hope that clarifies a few things.
To give you some credit you are more informed than those citing youtube as credible sources, but do not think you are clearly articulating your ideological position. Your beliefs differ from my own when it comes to animals and animal; rights.
What I am wondering is why you appear only on Thought Leader blogs about animal rights? Do you have nothing to contribute to issues of race, crime and violence that is tearing SA apart? You claim (elsewhere) that you stopped being a vegetarian so you could be ethically consistent. Do you not find it ethically problematic or troubling that your ethics start and stop on this one issue? You conflate and integrate all issues into this one over-arching ideology, which then excludes discussion of other (in my view more important) issues.
What amazes me is that most of the vegans I know who (correctly) spreads the gospel that Veggie is healthier, also quite like to indulge in illicit substances, consume copious amounts of alcohol and tobacco, and grow their own organic mary-jane.
Set-off the health benefits of not eating meat by destroying liver and lungs.
Thank you for that excellent link on population, that should be publicised more widely.
“So, what would happen if the population stopped growing; would this really make any difference in the long run?” - That about sums it up.
The “population explosion” is a regular scapegoat for right wing politicians and industry spin doctors and the ruse works well on conservativly minded people.
Hilter’s remark is very pertinant: “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach” - Adolf Hitler
A recent UN study calculates our global population will peak in about 2050, level off, and then start to drop.
Negative population growth is possible, in some countries sub-replacement fertility is already a reality, we just need to raise economic and educational levels in high birth rate countries to achieve sub-replacement fertility everywhere.
Could you please provide a link for “In fact, the only sources of methane, natural or otherwise, that are greater than domesticated ruminants, are the world’s wetlands, which emit about 230Tg.”
I have heard eleswhere that to counter CO2 emissions from agriculture we need to reintroduce wetlands, as they sequester or swab up CO2.
I know you are talking methane and I am talking CO2, both are problematic greenhouse gasses, CO2 more prolific but methane far more dangerous.
Your relying on cultural anthopologist Michael Francis anecdotes on his parents farm substaniates my point that your - “flawed arguments” claiming “’Organic’ and industrial farming BOTH depend upon fossil inputs for viable output.” are just plain ‘wrong’?
Why not read something like the 2,500-page International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development [IAASTD]. It is backed by sixty countries, the World Bank and most UN bodies, and took 400 agricultural experts 4 years to prepare.
Third World Network, Practical Action, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, said in a statement: “This is a sobering account of the failure of industrial farming. Small-scale farmers and ecological methods provide the way forward to avert the current food crisis and meet the needs of communities.”
I have little hope that the above will change your thinking but that still does not make it plain wrong.
clean green jean on November 11th, 2009 at 9:06 am
@Perry : correction
My last sentence on my last post should read - I have little hope that the above will change your thinking but that means YOUR THINKING is plain wrong according to the most recent comprehensive and cutting edge report on world agriculture.
PS. - I reiterate, it would take a book to rebut both your posts on fossil fuels and agriculture.
clean green jean on November 11th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Firstly, nailing my colours to the mast, I am an ovo-lacto vegetarian, wear leather.
The genesis of this article seems to be a response to Jared Cinman’s article on ‘The evil of meat’.
What Michael Francis chose to ignore (because he needed the strawman, I suspect) was that Cinman is the kind of veggie that embarrasses veggies like me. I am not one to proselyse and attack from a moral high horse.
The meat industry is not ‘evil’ - that kind of high-school sniping belongs to a Naomi Klein book. It is, however, environmentally unsustainable, wasteful, and irresponsible. Cinman is actually a useful idiot which Francis needs in order to recast the debate in favour of meat-eaters.
I am grateful for Aragorn’s responses, which have blown the naysayers out of the water: they are calm, rational, and respectful in the face of facile and imbecilic comments.
@”I am not convinced that certified organic is necessarily better. I would prefer to source meat for local farmers whether or not they are organic.”
There is ample evidence that organic is better for human health and the environment. However organic farming is still an elitist, class based agriculture.
Why don’t you do an article on The Science of Sustainable Agroecology. That is the agriculture of the future that will sustain our planet and 9.2 billion people, yet few people even know the term let alone understand it.
Woody Woodpecker on November 11th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Ahem? @Michael Francis
Michael, Michael, Michael!!!!
“All of the claims being made about growth hormones in the meat are rubbish. That went out in the 1960s as it is not cost effective. I do not know a single cattle or any animal farmer that uses these ‘growth hormones’. This is repeated ad nauseum as if it is truthful.”
Michael my good man, nothing could be further from the truth.
Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH or rBST) was never approved in Canada (mid 1990’s), but is permitted and used in both USA and South Africa.
Woody Woodpecker on November 11th, 2009 at 9:51 am
@Zoo Keeper: Methane will be produced anyway, but in far lower quantities if we stop meat consumption (and remember, methane is 20-30 times worse than CO2 for our atmosphere). Sure, historically it might have been higher, but then, as you say, this was concomitant with a mass extinction, which is something we should probably try avoid if we can, right?
I also worry a great deal about water pollution and water loss. In fact, I recently watched some great documentaries on the subject:
If you are concerned about water issues, you cannot ignore livestock and industrial fishing, both of which have tremendous impacts on potable water, aquatic ecosystems, etc.
Mercury poisoning is one very good reason not to eat fish, by the way
Waste disposal is also a very important issue. Are you aware of the impact of waste from the livestock industry in the form of nitrous oxide, ammonia, etc.?
The mining industry is also a frightening player in this regard, especially locally where we have very little accountability and easily corruptable officials. There is a frightening expose due on all this early next year, apparently.
In short, there are probably more than enough serious environmental problems for everyone to engage; I just think we should focus on the truly massive issues first and, regardless of who we ask, from fringe animal rights groups to the United Nations, it seems that livestock is one of the biggest of them all.
I am well aware of his views, you should read what he says about abortion. It’s pointless, however, to quote them without an analysis of his arguments for those positions and I doubt you’d be able to properly refute them anyway.
But that’s besides the point because this debate is about slaughtering animals. Quoting random snippets of his work in other aspects of the animal/human debate in no way discounts his arguments with regards to whether or not slaughtering them is morally justifiable. As an academic you should know this.
I said “What the average meat eater forgets is that if Americans in the USA reduced the amount of meat they consume by 10% those resources would feed 100 million starving people.” Our problem is one of overconsumption and limited resources (not overpopulation as other commentators will have it.)
Granted, Etheopians starving while food was being exported from their country during the famine would not have not have been fed by Americans cutting back on meat, unless those resources were used to donate aid to Etheopia, but the Etheopian example shows how our capitalist free market (free trade) system coming hot on the heels of colonialism has let the poor down.
Maybe at some time, address why 800 million people are starving, lets debate that as well.
I very much doubt that the planet could survive if all its 6.7 billion inhabitants indulged in the amount of meat US Americans do anyway.
In South America thousands of sustainable small scale farmers are being forced off their land and rainforests destroyed as well to make way for plantations of GM soya to feed beef in Europe to supply steak to the European market.
If the Europeans cut back on meat, those indigenous South American people could get their land back, move back from squalid conditions in overcrowded cities and start their lives again.
@Michael: I can assure you that animal rights are just one of many ethical issues that Aragorn Eloff is interested in - his ethics most definitely do not not “start and stop on this one issue”.
Thought Leader blogs are not representative of the whole world you know, so don’t jump to conclusions.
Each of your posts has hidden in it some message from industry, or in one way or another you try to deflect from real issues by using for example the overpopulation myth in another post.
This time it is the favorite oil industry message -there are things that are much worse than global warming you say, yawn, heard it all before.
The reference to Ethiopia is another strawman: just because that particular famine was self-inflicted doesn’t mean that meat farming has no effect on global food prices, distribution and food security. If you are going to expand the argument, it’s easy to comment on the supply elasticities of global farming, and the effects of changes in supply on the global price.
@Michael (@Aragorn)
“What I am wondering is why you appear only on Thought Leader blogs about animal rights? Do you have nothing to contribute to issues of race, crime and violence that is tearing SA apart? ”
The above is another strawman and ad hominem. Aragorn is under no moral obligation to comment on anything and everything. It is also possible for someone to pronounce on Zimbabwe and not Israel (or vice versa, and so on and so forth).
He doesn’t have to dance to your tune when it comes to responding. He’s responded on topic, to the point, clearly and respectfully. In contrast, this latest response of yours is scattergun, patronising, and largely off-topic.
Personally, I’m underwhelmed by your references to “.. an entire blog to answer some of the claims made here buy those that disagree with me”. Maybe some clear, on-topic links would help.
@Michael: Thanks for taking the time to write a separate blog response to the growing discussion your original post has triggered. (Thanks also for subscribing to the SA Vegan Society website - hopefully this indicates a commitment on your part to an informed, objective discussion).
I have a nuanced philosophical position on the ethics of how we regard non-human animals. However, the comments section in a blog post is perhaps not the ideal place for ethical philosophy. If you want a very broad overview of my thinking on veganism / animal rights, here’s an old article of mine: http://www.freespirit.co.za/?q=node/7821
I am saddened by your observation that my engagement with ‘issues’ stops at animal rights. As one of the directors of the SA Vegan Society this is certainly a core focus, but I am also involved with various environmental and social justice groups and related initiatives. I march, I write, I talk, I argue, I organise events, I screen documentaries…I even support MAPS!
Defensive self-adulation aside though, I feel impelled to ask: are all vegans supposed to be multi-issue superhumans? I doubt you would ask someone involved with issues of homophobia in townships why they weren’t also tackling climate change, nor would you expect anti-xenophobia campaigners to supply sophisticated analyses on the impact of the financial crisis, surely?
@Gerry: Whoa there boy! Veganism isn’t some puritanical form of self preservation - it’s most often simply a commitment to live in a way that causes as little suffering to animals as possible.
That said, I don’t actually know that many vegans who *do* consumer ‘copious’ amounts of alcohol (although a glass of red wine or beer a day might be quite good for you, and I’m a sucker for a nice Islay).
Some vegans are interested in personal health, sure, but that’s a personal choice, not an a priori obligation they have as a vegan. For all I care, a vegan can be a chain-smoking, heroin-injecting alcoholic (although I wouldn’t make them our PR person :D); veganism has *nothing* to do with how one treats one’s own body!
PS: I hope you’re not one of those people who thinks that all substances(illicit or not) are equally bad (mmmkay) and form one lumpen homogeneous category. Many people benefit from the prudent use of marijuana and various psychedelics, for instance, and the use of opiates for pain relief by the medical industry should remind you that context is everything when it comes to the use / abuse debate. www.maps.org is illuminating in this regard.
There’s no word in any of these arguments about the relevance of this debate to South Africa. Not that this is necessarily a problem, but I am trying to imagine how well the no-meat message will go down with those citizens who love their shisa nyama and cannot see any moral reason not to enjoy it.
Sorry to dissapoint you but I hold no candle for the oil industry or any other industry for that matter. I genuinely think that population growth is out of control and has an impact. More people means more food production means more energy consumption means more polution means more etc.
Just wait till those poor 800million-odd attain a better lifestyle…
I will check out the links and concede if I am wrong.
A long time ago I asked a wise old man why he told everyone the world was flat. He said it wasn’t about the world being flat, it was about questioning the prevailing wisdom, however over-powering that may be.
I like to ask questions and, hopefully, get some answers.
I do question global warming science because I think there are other influences about but do not support the oil industry. I would love an alternative to oil-based transport.
Global warming is a big issue but there are a myriad of other challenges to be dealt with which would, in my opinion, also deal with global warming.
Burning less petrol and diesel is but one aspect. Getting rid of our dependency on plastics etc would also do us a world of good. If you’ve ever been up close and personal with a petro-chemical plant you’ll know what I mean.
Having read this entire discussion I feel that Aragorn (and Andrew) have sufficiently addressed the ethics of this issue. Both in form and content they have argued their case with clarity and precision, not losing sight of the core issues or ethics or going off on a tangent (rightly identified as a “straw man”).
Either people choose to honestly confront the facts that have been succinctly laid out before them (and confront the inherent ambiguity in their support of what still remains an exploitative and abusive industry), or they can continue to bury their heads and reasoning in the sand whilst trying to convince themselves they lead ‘ethical’ lives.
Questioning is one thing, unfortunately your posts regurgitate almost word for word spin put out by right wing think tanks and industry spin doctors.
The following statement by you is a dead give away: “The warmest years on record were 1934 and 1998. The earth has gradually cooled whilst emmissions have increased over the past 10 years, especially since China decided to catch up.”
Not an iota of mainstream science to substantiate that drivel. But check out every right wing political blog site, you will get crucified if you dispute it.
You have a point but will the masses in any country, even Canada, appreciate this debate?
Keep in mind that traditionally Africans ate very little meat, mostly on ceremonial occasions. Westernisation has brought voracious meat eating to them along with the associated health problems.
But yes, I would like to see the debate focus more on African agriculture, its challenges and the potential solutions.
@Sarah: Climate change doesn’t stop at man-made borders. Nevertheless, those of us advocating environmental responsibility are acutely aware that a specific engagement with issues of ‘tradition’ and cultural identification is required to reach the majority of South Africans.
The recent growth of veganism in the townships is encouraging in this regard, as is the composition of attendance at recent local protests around energy provision, pollution, etc.
@Zoo Keeper: Given the provision of comprehensive data on how diet affects climate (more than population, given the stats on regulatory mechanisms) and also your ostensibly genuine concern around environmental issues, why do you still consistently ignore the diet issue?
I feel that no one is addressing the OTHER part of this blog.. the bit about the seal hunt.
@Michael Francis
Would you care to respond to any of those who have refuted your claims that the “little baby white coats that appear on youtube being clubbed to death are no longer hunted” and “Seals are not skinned alive”.
“…a far worse industry than meat producers in terms of global impact and environmental impact”
I understand what you’re getting at here, but there’s a lot to be said for one living with one’s contradictions. Paul has chosen to look out for animals, already making a big difference for the environment for the better. The fact that his plastic coat is bad for the Earth doesn’t change all the benefits of living cruelty free.
And the seal hunt? I think the Canadian government can find another way of keeping the aboriginal populations going. How about some education and then some real jobs??
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
I am a cultural anthropologist at Athabasca University who writes about ethnicity, identity and social change in a globalised Southern Africa. I am fascinated by the way in which people find and create their 'identity' in this rapidly changing world. Processes of cultural creativity and regeneration of histories was stark in Southern Africa , but I have found that returning to Canada I was shocked to find the familiar strange and when in Africa to see the strange as familiar. I started to see patterns of life that had once been unsee-able and just matter of fact ways of doing things. I enjoy seeing the patterns of life that inform us; the tropes of life that are silently transmitted from our past. And in our increasingly mass-mediated world how these are visualized, transmitted and transformed.
I have worked with Zulu speakers in the Drakensberg Mountains who claim dual identities of San and Zulu as well as different San communities in South Africa and Botswana. I have a deep love and respect for these rural communities who have been kind, welcome places for me since 2002 when I first moved to South Africa. I am sad to have left South Africa, but will return each year for research and to visit my friends.
I am a pacifist, but love a good verbal fight. My pacifism is based on reason and logic and not religious or spiritual beliefs. If I am not to be found in my office look high up in the mountains as I may be there seeking solace from the cruelty of the world.
Actually many Africans do keep dogs and it is not just the white Africans that do so. There are stereotypes that abound, but like many stereotypes the...
The words custom, culture and tradition are often invoked to shut down debate and discussion instead of used as a meaningful way of explaining a pract...
I decided to write another blog on the topic to further clarify my position on a few issues and to adopt a more conciliatory tone. Too many people are...
I decided to write a follow-up piece to my last blog about the meat industry. I wish to clarify a few points and add to the debate some more informati...
The focus of this article is on contemporary slavery with some remarks about the past. I am not an expert on the subject, but one does not need to be ...
Loading ...
A farm in Canada, sounds splendid, definately not evil. Concerning mass meat production though, I should but would rather not like to know,(enjoy my chicken too much) because it probably would be too off puting. Besides the animal cruelty that comes out of the industry, meat production is very, i think the most energy intensive, particularly compared to the production of other foods, requiring huge amounts of resources (grain , water etc). Its not the meat farming thats evil, its possibly the unsustainable production and consumption of it.
(Report abuse)