Singer's paper raises many interesting points in the support for veganism over meat consumption in relation to environmental conservation. One of the facts that Singer uses for this theory is the vast t of grain used to feed steeds. Singer claims that this is not only wasteful (13 pnds of grain per pound of beef & a 3 to 1 grain ratio to chickens), but also places a greater demand on the environment. This is due to the large amount of argricultural land needed to produce the grain for animal feed, despite the protein equivalence in meat and soybeans. Singer also discusses the deforestation of the rainforests for grain production, claiming that we are indirect causes of deforestation wether or not we consume american beed fed on american grain. Due to the "global" market, rainforests are being cut down ar a rate of 6million acres/year due to the influences from meat production. Another point brought up by Singer is the large amount of water needed for cattle consumption and grain production for cattle. According to Singer, the most reliable research has found that 792 000 gallons of watre are needed for a 1 000 pnd steer, which is 12 x the amount for bread, 64 x for potatoes, and 86 x for tomatoes. Additonally, over grazing by cattle produces barren lands due to soil erosion and causes stream pollution.
I found that these facts made me want to agree with Singer that vegans are better for the environment. However, I wonder how the environment would look if cattle were not eaten but soybeans and grains dominated the landscape. I feel that we would still be using water at a rate which is too quick for aquifers to be restored and stream and lakes to be restored. Additionally, if soy consumption were to increase, clearing of the rainforests would not decrease. I imagine that it would stay level, but instead of being shipped off as grain feed, it would be shipped away as vegetarian burger patties. Also, agriculture, no mater what the crop or animal, always creates poor soil and pollution. However, one fact brought up by Singer is the death of thousands of coyotes by ranchers trying to protect tehir livestock. I feel that coyotes would more less likely to be killed or maimed if the ranchers were protecting soybean harvests since I seriously doubt soybean is a favorite food for coyotes.
Therefore, I'm not sure I can agree with Singer. I feel that the agriculture production needed to be a vegan, no animal products whatsoever, would have its toll on the environment. Thre are so many products that come from meat, but I like the idea of over 6 thousand not dead or tortured coyotes. Also, it would be great if I produced 1.5 tons less CO2 than I do now. However, I feel that Singer's ethical argument against animals may work better than the envornmental argument because we do not know what the environmental effects would be if meat consumption was non existent.
While It think that I agree with Singer that meat consumption is worse for the environment, I think if we only did consume non-animal products, the way that farmers mass produce products like soybeans would need to change. Large mono-crops heavily dusted with pesticides and insecticides and fertilizers aren't particularly great for the environment either. There needs to be more emphasis on sustainable agricultural practices rather than economic incentives for large planatations
ReplyDelete