Dr. Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, reports that a vegetarian diet may be responsible for killing more animals than a diet centered around meat. Here’s the gist, from the ABC News story, “Invisible Victims”:
One of the reasons most commonly cited by vegetarians for giving up meat is the conviction that other animals have a right to life as well as humans. But when Davis began setting up a course on animal ethics for the animal science department at Oregon State University four years ago, he reached a rather surprising conclusion.
Nobody’s hands are free from the blood of other animals, not even vegetarians, he concluded. Millions of animals are killed every year, Davis says, to prepare land for growing crops, ‘like corn, soybean, wheat and barley, the staples of a vegan diet.’
The animals in this case are mice and moles and rabbits and other creatures that are run over by tractors, or lose their habitat to make way for farming, so they are not as ‘visible’ as cattle, he says.
And that, Davis says, gives rise to a fundamental question: ‘What is it that makes it OK to kill animals of the field so that we can eat [vegetables or fruits] but not pigs or chickens or cows?’
…Now, before the hardcore vegan faithful (you know who you are) jump down my throat for selecting this piece to link to (as part of some overarching plan I have to foist my insidious “right-wing” master narrative on the docile minds of my FOXNews-primed readers, flag-waving, warmongering cretins drunk on Jesus, the lot of ’em), consider the interesting ethical questions this story raises.
Now ask yourself this: as genetic engineering technology continues to improve, is it ethical to develop cattle, chickens, pigs, et al. that would be “designed” to feel no pain?
If we’re going to continue to eat meat (and we are) — should we not use breakthroughs in genetic engineering to ease the suffering of livestock?
Or is that taboo…?
[update: Doc Weevil’s posted his thoughts on the matter here]
This is one of those situations I like to call a “big red Buddha”. The gist of it is this: Circumstance, history and potential converge is such a way that it should have the effect os seeing a big red Buddha step into view shaking his wry little head.
Bad ideas abound in the land of ethical landslides–this one’s no exception.
The problem is not the consumption of meat. The problem with modern consumption of meat is that we do it on a mass scale and tamper with the very gentic structure of those animals to speed production and reduce the risks to us.
Regardless of our ability to do so, we do not have the moral authority to irrevocably alter the gene pool of a species in order to ease the burden to our souls because we fear that we’re violating ethics in the first place, with the treatment of those animals as something other than an autonomous species (having value outside of our demand for them).
The fact is, a huge percentage (90% for soybeans) of the grains grown in those fields don’t end up on the plates of vegetarians, but go instead to feeding livestock so that people can eat pot roast; indeed, if America suddenly went meatless, we’d have far more land for rabbits and gophers–especially when you consider the massive amount of land that has been cleared (and continues to be cleared, every day, all over the world) to ranch and graze cattle. As anyone knows, it takes a lot more land to grow a pound of beef than it does to grow a pound of vegetable protein. And so the ABC story seems pretty silly. Must’ve been sponsored by the Council on Beef.
…And if America suddenly went foodless and auto-less, there’d be even MORE land for gophers and field mice. Yawn.
Guess I wasn’t clear enough when I noted in my entry that I was interested in the <b>ethics of genetically altering animals</b>– not in once again fighting over relative grain usage with a freakin’ Vegan.
But now that we’re on the subject,—I’m certain you’re right, Veggie—a bioethicist at Oregon State and the Council of Beef are indeed virtually synonomous. And ABC is just a fake front for The American Flagwavers for Christian Cattle Coalition.
Forget for a moment that the article cites Jack Norris, president of Vegan outreach (likely a sinister front for the Council on Beef, too—as is that so-called “University”), and let me just point out that, if everyone in the world was content to subsist on grain, you’d have a point. Likewise, were it our responsibility to feed the world, you’d have a point. Neither is the case.
More on point: what are your feelings about genetically altered veggies? They <i>could</i> aid in feeding the world.
<i>Lemme just get these gloves laced up.</i>
Hey now, dammit, I stayed on topic…
<i>Well…I guess that’s the extent of my willingness to punk you J.G.</i>
I don’t know why I have no great objection to genetically altering plant life, as opposed to animals and bugs and things–I don’t though.
If a gargantuan beet can sustain twice as many people on the plains of Africa, I’m all for it. If we can find ways to encourage corn in Mexico to grow hearty on less water and poor soil, knock yourselves out.
But tinkering around with the genetics of animals and bugs–that’s an ethical ‘no-no’ in my book. And mass harvesting animals the way you would a crop of wheat–that nonsense gives me gas too.
Tiger Lily–
Sorry if you took that rebuke to heart—it was meant for Veggie (who ignored the questions in favor of a knee-jerk defense of vegetables), not for you.
I do think it’s interesting, though, that you (and you’re not alone on this, clearly) aren’t bothered by genetic alteration of plants (love the giant beet image, by the way; reminded me of the Tom Robbins novel, <i>Jitterbug Perfume</i>
, but you <i>are</i> bothered by the same kind of tinkering with animals.
We don’t like to “play God” with sentient creatures, but at the same time, those sentient creatures (cattle, say) don’t get to go to heaven anyway, by most accounts (and don’t have the mental capacity to believe in a religion)—and so, all things considered, one can speculate that they might be very appreciative of having the pain removed from their existence.
Just a thought.
Ahh… Jitterbug Perfume
Jeff,
I realize that it’s an inconsistensy in my logic. I can only attribute it to the knowledge that people are starving to death all over the globe–owing to poor soil conditions, precious little water, etc. If they can’t afford to sustain themselves on veggies & grains–they sure as hell can’t afford to keep livestock…
I suppose it’s the pragmatist in me that calls it an ethical draw and the ethnocentrist in me that chooses to keep a more familiar species alive, by any means. The genetic controlling of vegetables and grain seems, actually, a pretty elegant answer to the problem.
My dilemma comes from the motivation and end game–not the act.
For instance, the genetic alteration of pigs for the future harvesting of their organs is morally repugnant to me, beyond my capacity to articulate. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Giant Panda was facing immenent extinction if we didn’t find a way to geneticlly alter their fertility cycles; I’d be in favor of that. Why? Because we have encroached upon their territory to the point that their fertility cycle (something crazy, like 72 hours of ovulation in a year) virtually guarantees their extinction.
Truth is, if I had to slaughter the animls I’ve eaten over the years, I’d have gone hungry @ 99.9% of the time. So, it seems, my illogic knows no bounds.
I can’t imagine how famished I’d have to be to butcher an animal–but I’m pretty sure i’d lose my appetite in the process.
This is what’s always seemed bizarre to me about non-vegetarians who oppose hunting (I’m not attributing that view to Tiger Lily, just using the comment as a point of departure). If you’re going to eat it, shouldn’t you be willing to kill it? And even if you’re not (and Tiger Lily is certainly in good company), why would you be morally repulsed by the idea of shooting a deer that probably had a pretty decent life up to that point (by deer standards, at least), but less troubled by eating a steer that got his balls and horns lopped off at an early age, then stood around in shit in a feedlot all day until they hauled him off to a slaughterhouse.
Off topic, maybe, but I’m curious.
My mind went to Woody Allen in Sleeper, chasing around with the giant carrot.
There’s Jules Verne – Mysterious Island – giant chickens, crabs, and honeybees, all for food.
Jitterbug Perfume – Pan, right?
As far as those overpopulated rats with antlers that eat everything even remotely edible in my gardens and landscapes – no worries – venison – yum yum.
I thoroughly enjoy Mako, too.
I try not to think about veal, tho.
Dave,
I can’t speak for others, but I’m not opposed to hunting in principle. I don’t love the idea of it–it’s just seems unneccessarily agressive (in light of the fact that there’s plenty of food available & the killing of animals for sport is done in such a way that it violates the order that ordinary predators choose their prey–which is a ridiculous waste of healthy life). I will say this though; most hunters make good use of their kill and tend to have more reverence for that meal than your average American visiting the grocery store for theirs…
That’s a more than fair response. I’d take a little bit of issue with the idea that hunting is really about aggression, though. I’m not much of a hunter, but speaking for myself and most folks I know reasonably well who hunt, the interesting part has more to do with being outside and trying to figure out how to find the animal and get close enough (prey animals are GOOD at hiding) than it does with killing. Some don’t much care for killing at all. There are slobs out there blasting away, but for most hunters I know, the sport is in the finding, not the killing.
Anyway, thanks again for the thoughtful response.
Churchill, personal hero of mine, said that in the future there would be an end to the nonsense of having to raise a whole chicken for a drumstick, or a whole cow for a side of beef.
Why bother creating animals that feel no pain in this fashion? Far better to grow the flesh in vats without involving animals at all, no need to take any thinking life at all.
I was going to post some comments on this very interesting post-plus-thread, but they got so long I went and posted them on my own site instead. Come on over and check them out.
Growing parts of an animal in vats for future consumption, yum. It sounds useful, efficient, and just like theriputic cloning. Instead of transplanting the liver you eat it. Food for thought.
i think killing animals is wrong justto provide room for more buildings it is stupid and wrong.you people are all crazy.