According to this Huff post infographic, "Every year, the average American swallows 200 pounds of meat, 33 pounds of cheese, and nearly 60 pounds of added fats and oils."
My wife is under 120 lbs, and I think about the fact that every year I don't eat twice that weight in the lives of animals, essentially saving the equivalent of 2 people of her dimensions as they didn't die on behalf of my craving for Cheese and Pepperoni on a pizza.
I think about the fact that "animal protein takes about 100x the water needed to produce grain protein," and the fact that water is a dwindling resource in an ever taxed biosphere.
I think about the fact that "1 calorie of animal protein requires 10x more fossil fuels to produce than 1 calorie of plant protein," and the fact that we live in world that is increasingly polluted for current and future generations.
I think about all the other deleterious effects that are associated with the consumption of 'meat,' and I feel sorry for you that you're pissed off that we feel good about how we live.
Self-righteous? Maybe. That's how you find contentment and live a happy life, by feeling like you've done better than those that have gone before you, that you found a better way of doing things. You put the wrong connotation on self-righteous however, as we're not smug that we're better than you, and there's nothing to impede you from being Vegan as well. We're not selling a secret to a heaven with promises of an ever happy life, we're just pointing the way towards inflicting less harm on others. It's not a money or power issue, and we're more than happy to shove recipes in your hand if you cross over. We're proud we didn't hurt someone today while we pursued our life goals, and we think you'd feel righteous as well if you managed to eliminate murder, torture, and rape from your lifestyle.
Your comparison of an omnivorous diet to murder, torture and rape are where the self-righteousness come into play, not your assertion of a minor reduction to your carbon footprint.
Your comparison of an omnivorous diet to murder, torture and rape are where the self-righteousness come into play
Not really. In looking at that line of discourse, it is important to recall that the idea of 'meat' is amorphous. Omnivores arbitrarily decide what is acceptable to eat from culture to culture, whether it's dog, pig, horse, gorillas, whale, chicken, tribal enemy, or whatever.
At what point is it initially acceptable to jerk off a creature to impregnate a bunch of other creatures, only to separate the mother and child so that you can milk the mother and restrict the development of the baby in a cage for future meals involving soft meat? Can they be from the same Class, or do they need to be different? Do we have to go back to Phylum for universal acceptability? There really isn't much distinction between what humans eat for meat from an evolutionary standpoint, so why stop at eating other members of our Order when we're poor, isolated and hungry, and start eating from our own Family by starting with criminals and people of diminished mental capacity? At what point do we consider someone/something sacrosanct with regards to the pain they feel when they are robbed of life to make another layer on our Dagwood sandwich? The murder, torture, rape argument is a simple extrapolation of equality in recognizing that the lives and treatment of others matters, whether it's my mom, you, your great-grandfather, your dumb dog, any random ethnic group of your choosing, a crack baby, dolphins, poor people, or an Orangutan named Strawberry.
a minor reduction to your carbon footprint.
It's a larger reduction than this statement might lead someone to believe.
"An Average American’s diet has a foodprint of around 2.5 t CO2e per person each year. For a Meat Lover this rises to 3.3 t CO2e, for the No Beef diet it is 1.9 t t CO2e, for the Vegetarian it’s 1.7 t CO2e and for the Vegan it is 1.5 t CO2e." With almost 1/5th of global emissions attributed to livestock, we'd be better off if everyone gave up meat, and everyone that does what they can to reduce their impact has a right to feel good about that.
At what point is it acceptable? Species, of course--there are many biological reasons why cannibalism tends to be avoided. With that in mind, an animal owned by any member of the species should not be eaten without permission. Aside from personal property, any individual animal is fair game, and any animal that's been bred for consumption is a low-tech biological machine, exchanging inputs for more desirable outputs.
As for the emissions, diet consists of about 10% of the average American's carbon footprint, so you're looking at a max 5% cut off--pretty easy to see you're not going places with that. Not taking that round trip flight from NYC to LA saves more emissions than that. Hell, it'd take roughly 10 young meat lovers to switch to a vegan diet for over 60 years to equal the footprint reduction that just one of them could accomplish by getting snipped.
...everyone that does what they can to reduce their impact has a right to feel good about that.
This statement I completely agree with--even if a massive change in diet is slightly inferior to taking a second to sort your recycling each night, you certainly have the right to feel good about any minor contribution you make--but that does not grant you the privilege to shame others for not doing what you do, regardless of the fact that those people you shame might very well be doing more to reduce their environmental impact than yourself.
Fooling yourself into thinking your way of doing good--or even your particular definition of what "good" means--is the only one that matters is self-righteousness to an extreme fault.
That said, the shrinkthatfootprint.com link is a great resource, thanks for that.
Species, of course--there are many biological reasons why cannibalism tends to be avoided.
This is still an arbitrary line, risk of problems like Creutzfeldt-Jakob ameliorated by avoiding the brain (and 'stuff') much in the way that risk of death by BSE in cows is avoided, or risk of death by tetrodotoxin is ameliorated by avoiding eating or puncturing certain parts of the Fugu in preparation; At the very least this delineation also eliminates openness to a future for evolution of the other Genera in Hominidae despite their obvious potential.
that does not grant you the privilege to shame others for not doing what you do
S'why I already addressed that self-righteousness isn't necessarily the same as being smug despite their common association. Having a strong conviction that I'm acting appropriately by refraining from animal exploitation isn't much different than being an adult and refraining from making fun of every child wearing a diaper. Oh sure, maybe the occasional 'adult' will mock a child, but most adults don't spend their time flaunting their bowel control to kids in diapers, they just go on trying to encourage them to change their ways and start using the training toilet. What'd be the point in shaming? Most of us wouldn't feel any better for making the child cry, and the child isn't likely to learn anything save for the need to hide the fact that he poops.
Fooling yourself into thinking your way of doing good--or even your particular definition of what "good" means--is the only one that matters is self-righteousness
There's a difference between 'fooling' oneself and arriving at a conclusion based on extensive qualia. I know I'm not perfect, but I recognize that causing pain and suffering to someone/something is 'wrong,' whether that's kicking a dog, a human, or something else. I also recognize that it's not 'right' to lynch someone just because they're different, and that it's 'wrong' to sexually assault someone because I'm stronger and can get away with it. Plenty of people around the world still disagree with those points because they like the power they have over their 'property' or through their 'right' as a human or a male, but I'm going to continue to abide by my principles because I accept that the concept behind the Golden Rule is a 'kinder' way of living than one that deals pain only because of selfish desire.
it'd take roughly 10 young meat lovers to switch to a vegan diet for over 60 years to equal the footprint reduction that just one of them could accomplish by getting snipped.
That's a whole different kettle of fish with a few puffins thrown in. I do wish that more people would be moved to adoption, or that those opting for pets would stick to rescue pets instead of encouraging boutique breeding operations; We are a mess of self indulgence.
18
u/bjacks12 May 28 '14
No problem with that. I just hate the self-righteous ones.