When it comes down to public health, and society protecting itself, different rules apply Frenchie. How would we have reacted if there had been people ignoring Churchill's blackout rules during World War 2 ? Under the impression that the bombing raids were fake news, or that people had a human right to put on their lights ? The safety bubble which we have lived in for the last 50 years has been created by a combination of vaccinations, antibiotics and clean water - without those things our public health would be on a par with the early Victorian period. The problem we face is not a new one - the whole of human history has been accompanied by epidemics, war and famine (often all three together). What has changed is that we have developed an egotistic individualist culture, where people consider such things as the freedom to fly to Majorca at any time as akin to human rights - where people consider themselves as responsible only to themselves, but we are, in fact, more dependent on each other than at any time in history. What we have is a societal problem not a medical one. Certainly vaccination should be made compulsory - did we debate the issue about Polio or Tuberculosis ?
I have the same issue with meat/fish eaters, destroying our planet's ecosystem for their selfish needs. We just have to accept that people are selfish, and with 8bn of them (give or take) it's never going to be possible to get everyone singing the same tune.
But where do you stop on this Toby ? The meat/fish eaters are not alone in destroying out planet's ecosystem - do I have to hate all car drivers and those who fly on holiday for the same reason ? At the end of the day we all have something which others could point the accusing finger at.
But isn’t Toby’s point the very point you were making, cologne? I may make the choice to fly to Majorca or eat meat, neither of which are in the interest of the planet. Certainly, while meat and dairy products specifically account for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions (according to the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation), and air travel accounts for 1.9% of same, I know that my vegetarianism is of greater value to the planet than my not choosing to fly to Majorca. But for some reason meat-eaters do seem to think they get a pass to carry on and not face the impact their choices make. It’s that individualism you referred to, and I agree whole-heartedly with your post about the lack of responsibility people take towards even thinking about their impact on the world. “I am but one person. What difference do I, individually, make?” We have to take a stand individually, even on the things we do! Otherwise we fall foul of the individualists’ argument.
I think the point is not what we actually do but how often we do it Andy. More or less everything we do we are doing too much of - this is built into the system of Capitalism where my 'market value' depends only on my consumptive power and my productivity. The last time that I sat in a plane was from Düsseldorf to London because my father was in the process of dying at the Royal Military Hospital in Chelsea, and time was pressing. Naturally flying such a short distance was bad, but there were reasons for it. The same applies to car driving. The role of agriculture within modern capitalism is to keep the price of food low so as to increase spending power in other areas - the consumer explosion of the later 20th Century would not have been possible if the price of food had remained at about 30-40% of average income as in the past - there would be very little eg. home ownership today. Factory farming has to be seen within this context - a change over to bio food and a full vegetarian diet would mean a rise in food prices, possibly back to the levels of the mid 20th Century. How can you sell this ldea to the poorest 30% of the population ? Not all meat eating is bad for the environment, but eating it cheaply every day is. If i eat a locally caught rabbit, hare, deer or wild boar it has very little impact on the environment. If I think chicken wings grow from trees and I have a right to daily consumption of them then the impact is devastating. So it's a matter of degree. I would say that, on the whole, it's better to consume local products which have not been flown half way around the World to get to your table - and it is good that more people become aware of how their food is produced. But to condemn all meat eaters is too black and white for my taste - better the local rabbit than a bio dynamic Mexican honey than was produced with bees which have been flown around the World for the purpose.
Sorry I've not had a chance to get back to you. Busy weekend... With 8bn people on this planet there is no sustainable meat/fish consumption. That rabbit you mentioned is not sustainable, as if everyone did the same in your area there wouldn't be a rabbit left after a few months. It would then impact the whole food chain and ecosystem. I don't agree with your food pricing concept, a vegetarian/vegan diet is much cheaper to maintain than a meat diet, the air miles you speak of can be solved by technology. There is no techno-fix for eating animals. Lab produced meat is an alternative, but then that's not eating animals as such. I understand your anger towards commercial flying, for humans and food/products, it definitely needs to be restricted, but the damage it causes is minor in comparison.
We need to do less of everything Toby. About a third of the World's land is composed of arid, semi arid or marginal land that can only support animal agriculture. Without livestock, life in certain environments would be impossible. Also the price of organic foods would increase because in a vegetarian World there would be no access to manure (organic compost takes too long to produce). The organic food on your table was, in most cases, grown using animal products. Also there is the problem of pet food - or would you try to turn your dog or cat into a vegetarian ? I can't buy your idea of equating meat eaters with eg. Covid deniers. If you come to my house as a guest then I can adapt - I can eat vegetarian for the day without problems. But if a Covid denier comes to my house without vaccine or mask, or test, then it constitutes a health and safety problem and I will have to distance myself, and my family - is that so hard to understand ? My food pricing concept is based on historical analysis - the percentage of average income needed for food in 1900 was about 60%, by 1950 this had reduced to about 30% and it is now about 8-9% of average income in Western countries, and that is largely down to factory farming. Without this reduction a great deal of the spending power which has been created for cars, computers, holidays, home ownership etc. would not have been there.
I don’t think anyone would say that your journey to see your father, by the fastest means possible, was unacceptable. I think in terms of choice-making, it is a journey. I knew for years that my meat-eating was not justifiable - that it was a problem to be resolved ‘tomorrow’. When Mrs Andy and I became vegetarian, roughly eight (?) years ago, it was sort of accidental! However, the choice to stay on that path is based on ethics. But it’s a journey. A never-ending journey of assessing and making changes. I am a vegetarian, not a vegan. I consume eggs, cheese and milk. The eggs we buy are expensive, local ones, because most of ‘free-range’ eggs are totally unethical IMHO, and their consumers are kept unaware of the choice they are making when buying them. But even our ones are not ideal. I need to address that, and I will. The dairy industry is also unethical. Anyone who does the slightest research into it knows that. Another thing I have to address. Our cars have petrol engines. Our next car will be electric. But even that has impact on the planet. More things to weigh up - which car journeys are avoidable? The point I’m making is that your point re individualism is correct. And we have to be aware that as we drive past a car with its lights on too, in your wartime blackout scenario, we have to ask if our journey was necessary as much as we ask if theirs was. I agree with Toby that sustainable meat ‘production’ is totally inefficient and expensive, economically but more so in its cost to the planet. It is not a question of how much we do it, IMHO - applied to your blackout analogy, if I only have my lights on and curtains open infrequently, then because I do it less often than my neighbours, it’s OK. The last point is that meat-eating is a totally avoidable, easy choice. It’s not like there aren’t alternatives. Even since we became veggies, the market has changed and the choice is better than ever. Personally, I don’t think veganism at the moment would be too easy for me from a nutrition point of view. But I’m probably wrong, and need to look into it. There will be very rare examples, which I totally accept, where people need meat. I don’t understand the science of those (I think it was true of someone on here - was it Mrs Fez?) and I wouldn’t seek to lecture those people, as I don’t know the facts of that. But that is a very rare exception, and most people could easily make this massive contribution to the planet.
Totally agree, Toby. You are clearly a clone account of my own. But the mods haven’t caught us yet! (Oops. Did I say that out loud?)
I fully accept the ethical aspect of vegetarianism Andy. As for the environmental aspect I would suggest that it is not meat eating as such which is the problem but rather the industrialization of the whole process. What is desparately needed is mixed farming and a return to the crop rotation of the past - on smaller fields, with hedges in between - but there we move onto the need to sell massive farm vehicles for harvesting and such like. Monoculture is the biggest problem. It's painfully obvious that if I use the same field for spuds over and over again (or any other crop) that the soil will become exhausted and can only be rejuvinated by the addition of large doses of nitrogen based fertilizer - it's the bringing out of this on a large scale which is the biggest environmental problem. All forms of monoculture are negative for the planet - whatever the produce. At home we practice as much self sufficiency as we can by growing a large part of our own vegetables and fruit, but we will never be able to produce enough of our own compost for this and so the local dairy farmer comes in very usefull by providing us with manure on demand (we use it from horses as well). There is also the problem of protecting our crops - we have a large deer and wild boar population here. Are you in favour of culling the numbers in cases like this ? I have no moral problem with eating the result if a neighbouring hunter has shot a wild boar The alternative would be to encourage the return of the wolf population (already happening here) to effectively control numbers (then they do the work instead of us).
I agree with you regarding crop-rotation and the hedges etc. Over-farming to produce excess as per the CAP was a very bad development of the last quarter of the 20th century and early 21st. As for the segregation of wildlife from land, it’s not something I know lots about. We have monk jacks here, but no large deer or wild boar (there are lots of large deer very close to us, but they don’t stray into our garden). I would have imagined it was possible to use 21st century technology to keep them at bay, but it’s not an area of personal expertise.
In addition to my last post I would also quote the following figures. Agriculture is directly responsible for about 10% of man made greenhouse gases (this is including livestock, the creating of agricultural soils, and rice production). Land use and forestry is responsible for 12%, commercial/residential for 13%, industry fot 23%, electricity for 25% and transportation (private and freight) for 29%. These figures vary a bit from country to country but they don't imply that meat eating is the biggest problem.
If people continue to eat meat/fish, the planet is doomed. If people refuse to get vaccinated, not much will happen. Vaccinations do not prevent people from catching/spreading Covid. The mortality rates are a drop in the ocean compared to the impact climate change will bring on us Source? I'm genuinely interested. You also need to take into account the rest of the damage rearing meat causes: deforestation, water pollution, transportation, wildlife being culled (and probably more, in a rush). Fishing is causing the oceans to die. There is no such thing as sustainable fishing.
You shouldn't overestimate the virtues of 21st century technology Andy We can fly to other planets but we can't understand the subteranean activities of voles - so we try barriers, stinky things, loud things, just about everything, but nature still has the advantage. If deer are interested in getting into your garden then you need a 2 metre fence and then a very stony ground on the other side followed by another 2 metre fence ! All in all your garden will look like the former border to the GDR to be safe against them. 21st century technology is all about making things to only last 6 months until they need to be replaced, or which need a whole host of 'extras' which you didn't know about when buying them
The source (plural because there are two which agree with each other) are from the USA Environmental Protection Agency and from the World Resources Institute. They also indicate that the countries which have the biggest problem with agricultural emissions are Brazil, India and China (the latter 2 because of rice production). Just to quote you 'If people refuse to get vaccinated not much will happen' - I really would like to transport you back in a time machine to a Victorian town for a few months to get to know a World without such things as vaccinations, antibiotics etc. What would happen is that the virus would rage until transforming itself into as yet unknown forms. Would you like to have lived in a World which had no cure, or prevention of, polio or tuberculosis - a World with danger lurking around every corner. But this can't happen because you were born into a safety bubble where such things were only history. In what way is wild life being culled to protect the meat industry ? Is this any higher than the culling which would be necessary to protect vegetable and cereal production ? I very much doubt that.
