Veganism, World Hunger, Least Harm
The following was cross-posted on at least a couple of listservs:
There’s a virtual consensus among “food
economists” that eating
healthfully at the bottom of the food chain (i.e. veganism
or near vegetarianism) is the most sustainable way for the
human population to eat, animal welfare issues aside. Here’s
a column on the subject by George Monbiot that makes the
basic case:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,865087,00.html
Seemingly the lone dissident, an agricultural academic named
Steven Davis, favours a pastured ruminant omnivorous diet
for the planet:
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
Has been rebutted in this paper:
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/papers/leastharm.htm
I don’t buy the basic argument in the second article, any more than I buy the “plants have feelings” argument that is used to justify meat-eating. If it is true that it takes 1/10 the land to feed a vegan that it would take to feed a non-vegetarian, as I’ve read from other sources, then it seems to me that any collateral deaths to field mice and others would also be 1/10th. We grow (or import from poor countries) more grain to feed the animals we slaughter, than we grow to feed humans. So besides the slaughter statistics which is estimated at around 10,000,000,000+ land animals in the U.S., (and almost the same number of deaths due to to the misfortune of being born a male chick, or due to “living” conditions and transport, etc.) animal agriculture should account for 9 times more accidental deaths in the fields, just from growing the food that needs to be fed to the farmed animals they kill. I fail to see what is “sustainable” about that. This argument is just an attempt not to do anything, because there are so many facets to deal with. Let’s start somewhere, and stop being paralyzed by excuses!
Today’s post knocked the survey results from viewers of Peaceable Kingdom from the home page. In light of General Convention 2003 Resolution D016, church leaders should take note of the survey results, and consider looking for resources to educate their congregations without fear of “retribution” from their pledging members, or whatever else causes them to remain silent on the topic about the conditions in which a majority of our captive and domestic animals live, and how we perpetuate that in our society, so people can be moved enough to want to find and choose alternatives that don’t support animal cruelty. And churches whose members are concerned about alleviating world hunger (or even anyone concerned about the environment) should definitely read the first and third article listed above….
Now that we have a national resolution and a Chicago resolution under our belts, churches should become an example for their members by adopting a “least harm” policy for a lot of things, from church politics to outreach, and find alternatives for outreach, fellowship, fundraising, outings, etc., that don’t supporti the exploitation of animals. And they should end their terminal silence on this topic that seems to be so taboo, or that is of too little interest to them because they either never gave it much thought, or they’d rather ignore it for whatever reason. Maybe they’re just too consumed by issues of human sexuality to think much about other issues that surround them in practically every way outside of the Eucharist. I haven’t figured out which it is yet. But I would be very interested to know what is being done to implement Resolution D016 or Resolution I. If anyone is doing anything about it, please post a comment below.
My invitation still stands for the churches in the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago. If your priest hasn’t mentioned anything about it yet, ask them and your wardens why not. I would be willing to do something else to help, if anyone has another idea.
Until the churches start taking issues of animal exploitation seriously as a matter of environmental stewardship, “Stewardship of Creation”, as a matter of peace and justice, or as a matter of how we treat “the least of these”, there are those of us who don’t take what they have to say about those topics very seriously, either. Do I sound frustrated?
Tags: Lent, world hunger