Utmost Respect: Opposition to Vegetarianism

By KnoFear

Greetings all!

This post comes delayed from its original set date mostly due to school work again, and for that I apologize. I’ve also been playing around with the style of this blog and its format, and have been considering some possible changes to make the site more visually appealing and navigable. However, I did intend to write this out before, so it does need to be said. I am not a vegetarian, nor do I think I ever will be. I also oppose vegetarianism on various grounds. For some reason, this seems to be an “oddity,” for a leftist to not be or at least support vegetarianism. But here, I intend to explain why, and likely gain the ire of my fellow leftist colleagues along the way. But I’m willing to take those blows for now.

First, I must qualify my argument. I do not absolutely oppose all vegetarianism. If you are not eating meat strictly for religious reasons (if you are, say, Hindu) then I do accept that and would not argue against such a practice. If vegetarianism is somehow a part of your culture or traditions, I will not keep you from practicing vegetarianism in that case either. In fact, I’d be very much interested in learning about such a culture that I have not heard of before. I also am in favor of bettering our treatment towards animals, specifically those which we eat most like chickens and cows. We should not line chickens up in cages and give them hormones and do all sorts of horrible and immoral things in order to gain profit or create a more “appealing” product. I also believe we should not excessively hunt any animals, and that hunting should be primarily for sustenance rather than for sport. If you kill a deer in the woods, you should eat it, whether you very much want to or not. You should also be using as much of the dead body as you can; waste not want not, and all that jazz. We should not be killing endangered animals as well.

However, if you are simply vegetarian because you don’t want animals dying so you can eat, I don’t condone that. Let’s start with the facts, shall we?

Animals have populations in the wild which are hopefully in a stable size. In order for such a stable size to be maintained, there must be a food source which also must remain stable. There must be a birth rate which combats the rate of death and predation, but does not cause excessive growth of that animal’s population. However, human intervention or the lack thereof in certain animal populations can very drastically help or harm said population, and this cannot be avoided due to the extreme amount of space which humans have occupied at this point in history. Take, for example, the deer population around Maryland. Here, there are so many deer it often seems ridiculous, and they have become monstrously overpopulated. On the surface, it sounds like a good thing for an animal’s population to be high and rising, but the opposite is true. Overpopulation often leads to severe competition among a species for resources, leaving many animals to starve and die in horrid conditions. There are many of these animals starving and suffering because of this overpopulation.

Now let’s say that we stop eating cows and chickens. These populations are already enormous due to our breeding of them, and so removing them from our diets would also end the only source of predation for both of these groups. We would instantly see overpopulation and starvation, making the quick deaths we see on the farm seem gentle compared to the suffering a starving cow will go through for days on end before it dies. This provides us with a good reason for not cutting meat out of our diets quickly; by doing so, we would be doing the animals we are trying to help a huge disservice, and would thereby be treating them even more poorly than we currently do. If we ever had to absolutely cut out meat from our diets, it would likely take a very long time and would not be a very cost effective process, and would also be met with fiery resistance. All in all, the effort put into saving these animals would not be worth our time and would likely endanger their populations in the process. Animal populations follow a graph very similar to an economy; if the population retains a steady process of growth and death, it will remain safe. However, if the population explodes in growth too quickly, it will crash and burn in a very unhealthy fashion.

Now, in the case of hunting animals, some things are quite different. Hunting for deer is not quite as widespread as is the butchering of cows, so I have to treat the situation differently. I’ll be taking deer hunting in Maryland as my example once more. As I stated earlier, the deer population in Maryland is simply enormous for the state’s relatively small size, and as such a set of hunting regulations are in place for hunting these deer. As one can see, there is no limit to exactly how many deer may be taken per day, as long as they are in season and the hunting occurs during permitted hours. The main reason why Maryland has so many deer is because the state used to regulate hunting more strictly, and eventually the deer population exploded years ago. As such, these regulations were dropped in order to better control the population and prevent the rampant spread of disease among the deer. However, there are simply not enough hunters to bring the deer population down to its original levels, and while starvation among the deer has been mostly conquered through hunting, I doubt that it doesn’t happen anymore. I’m sure you can see my point by now, in that hunting can prevent populations of certain animals which are prone to excessive growth from exploding and damaging the species as a whole. While hunting may not be the entire solution to such problems, it is an important part of it. And lastly, to hunt these animals and then not eat them would be entirely wasteful; plus, there would be far more deer corpses for people to deal with.

And now, we come to the secondary portion of my argument, which is more grounded in my political leanings and my treatment of other cultures. Being vegetarian, at least in a first-world country simply because you don’t want to hurt animals, is a very privileged thing to do. Let me explain. In many parts of the world, like the Amazon Basin for example, meat is very much a part of the culture that has not changed for a long part of history. Let’s say you, a vegetarian, decides to visit said region and are offered a meal which contains meat by your Brazilian hosts. If you deny the offering on the basis of “I don’t eat meat,” well that is frankly like slapping your hosts in the face. Not only are you turning down their generosity without a good explanation from their point of view, but you are also essentially telling them that their culture is a barbaric one and you are superior to them.

“But what if I never go to a place where meat is the culture?” I’m sure some of you are asking that. You might not be insulting people straight to their faces, but you are still indirectly making a mockery of how many people choose to live their lives. You are also making a mockery of how many people are forced to live their lives. In many countries, meat in the diet is not just a part of the culture, but it is a necessity. It is often the case that without meat, significant portions of the human population could not survive or prosper at all. I am certain that a starving man will not turn down a burger because it is “cruel” or “immoral.” He will scarf it down hungrily, and thank you with all of his heart. Do you know why? Because that man does not have the privilege of choice in his diet, and therein lies my most direct qualm with vegetarianism. Choosing to cut meat from your diet, choosing to say “I can do this, so I will,” is a very improper thing to do that can be seen as very insulting. Most vegetarians and vegans live in countries where the ability to cut meat out of your diet is easy. America, for example, is a fairly rich country with tons of food options beyond meat that won’t cost much. It is comparatively easy to be a vegetarian here than, say, in Ethiopia. Just because you can be a vegetarian without drastically changing your life, does not mean you should. And just because you provide a righteous justification for your means, those means do not justify your ends. By becoming a vegetarian or vegan, you are shoving your lifestyle into the face of others and declaring it to be the superior way of life. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not be looked upon with severe ire by many of my fellows.

That is all for this two-part post, and I hope I’ve made my explanation concise for all of you. Once again, I encourage comments here to provide feedback for me. I am available through my email at zerospintop@live.com, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and Steam. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Current Events, Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Utmost Respect: Opposition to Vegetarianism

  1. susan1gb says:

    Thanks for your insight. I wonder if you would visit http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/slaughterhouse-rules/309113/ and http://www.themeatrix.com/ as feedback? I understand the desire for humans to eat meat, but … Thanks.
    Be well. 🙂

  2. This is KnoFear, and I have checked out the sources you posted. I do recognize that there are many caveats to my argument; I very much despise factory farming, I wish for significantly improved animal rights, and I desire a world where we wouldn’t be so brutal towards animals during life. At the same time, I also recognize that in evolutionary terms humanity has become an omnivore, and while this is optional I still find it hard to change that. This is especially hard to change when I remind myself many people in the world cannot survive without meat, and would be disgusted to know that others are giving it up because they can. But I will never stop you from being a vegetarian/vegan, especially if it is for health or religious reasons. Thanks for commenting.

  3. Lither says:

    Comrade, this is a well-written piece. I would like to make my own musings on the matter, if you don’t mind. This is a couple of notes on the inevitable suffering in a free-market capitalist society (which, unfortunately, has spread it’s claws far and wide) from vegetarianism.

    For one, and I think this is something you didn’t touch on, is that should everyone stop eating meat there’d still be a widespread killing of various livestock. Cows and pigs can make leather (though it should be noted families will starve as everyone switches to leather and the prices plummet).

    Okay, let’s say that all animal-based products are no longer purchased. There’s no market left for them. What is going to happen to the farmer? Well, farming’s been their life for most of them. Farming’s all they can do, people in the cities aren’t likely to give them any decent jobs, so let’s switch over to these vegetables, see how that goes down. But what about these cows and pigs? They’re just taking up land we could be growing on. But nobody wants to buy them, because nobody buys any of that sort of thing any more. So we could release them into the wild, but that takes much time and energy, time we could be using investing in plants for the future. I hear the dead are exceptional fertilisers, too.

    But let’s just assume they release them, how will that end? Well, let’s just look at this cow over here. For Since the Roman Empire, and possibly before that, this cow over here has been bred for maximum meat quantities and minimum aggressiveness. Now let’s just look at predators for a moment. For as long as they’ve existed, they’ve more or less been bred so only the toughest, strongest and most lethal survive. And when there’s so much prey, just watch the population surge. Hell, cows would be extinct if it wasn’t for humans already.

    So now that we’ve consigned the domesticated animals to various deaths, let’s look back at the farmers. By now they’ve been busy planting their crops using their savings, sweat and toil. Unfortunately for them, land good for pastures is not necessarily land good for crops. Hell, let’s be generous and say they get a good harvest. But unfortunately for them, tens of thousands have also switched to crops. With supply so vastly outpacing demand, market prices fall dramatically. Good idea at the time, didn’t it seem? But no, now the family has to make do with far less money, and not only them but so does every other farmer now. Food’s cheaper, but all other prices remain the same. If they want to keep feeding themselves they have to starve themselves of luxuries, such as vehicles, electricity, water, all sorts of things. So does every other crop farmer.

    By making vegetarianism universal they’ve only harmed the working-class families. The rich, no doubt, will find ways to make even more profit off of it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s